Political Crossfire Forums

[Darth Tiberius]

I think this is the right thread to post this topic bout. I'd like to argue the pros and cons about Marxism. I believe Marxism is a valid and great political theory and should be recognised. I believe America can use Marxist ideas whilst still remaining the nation that our forefathers created. Marx was a great man that held all ideas equal and wasn't typically communist pushing forced equality. He was for the right of pay according to work of the general population. His ideas were original an no government has yet implemented them correctly. Lenin and all the other communist leaders in history have warped and misused Marx's ideas to push their own agenda. It's seen as idealism only since he idn't live long enough to implement his ideas through his scholars. If you look at the ideas he put ofrward they all work economically and they are very realistic. But since most systems are so helplessly hooked on capitalism they will not let go of the calss struggle and want to remain capitalist.

Firstly, examining religion in society under Marx's daying "Religion is the opiate of the masses". That saying is not just Chrsitianity but any religion. And it works as a opiate to the masses more than just "to keep me quiet and happy about the fact I have eternal life" since it works differently to different people. To some this belief can act as a suppresant to things going wrong in the world that there is a greater plan in the future. That way there is no revolution or constant questions and griping. Another is the fear of the loss of society's presnt or past values. Religion imposes restrictions on everyday life so that the people will all become conserved in the regular way of acting in society. There are many reasons why to suit every person but these beliefs all just feed the system in which we live in. This opiate can also work in a way to keep the people from doing anything "sinful" to escape hell. It all works as a tool for the capitalist system rather than for the good of the people and the fellow countrymen.
this can be used to attack people such as Martin Luther or the Pope.
Martin Luther was a very arrogant man who believed rightly that the Pope isn't the mouthpiece of Christ but then used the Jews to express his bigotry so the people can feel better in what is happening in society. His views were to keep the poeple in line and to be totally dependant on faith and so calld "grace of god" regardless of happenings and funcions of the outside world.
Martin Luther King though I find no fault with. He reached out to the secular and the religious to bring about change for civil rights.
The rest were manipulatiors of a faith in order to please the amsses within the governmnet structures whilst retaining a level of faith so that the people to not revolt or go against the class structure. and the class struggle.
The Pope on the other hand is not a tool of the sytem. The Vatican is a autonomous system that is allmost self-ruling. Their policies on Africa are hurting thatnation. To impose western capitalist and religious ideals. Instead of common sense approaches. The Pope's messages are often promoting strict conservative viewpoints that would keep the people in line but don't often have much good effect for society.

When debating the Labor Theory of Value (LTV) there are points to consider. It's more than the LTV. It is from how much the hierarchy is integral to the work being done. Which is why some may earn more than others. But a limit to avoid gross over wages being given is what's being done. That way execs can't earn millions and give themselves pay rises for nothing.

Supply and demand are still essential since the supply and demand of a product would determine how much value that has to society. Unless it is a negative externality to society. Then that product is not worthwhile. An example would be cigarettes.

It is more than value when it comes to the bare structure of politics and tge economy. He attacked the class struggles and the need for profit over what is good for the people. Under his system a high level of growth can still be maintained whilst not feeding into the self-destructing capitalist system. There is a massive level of explotation and also of class struggle in our system which is why America is what it is. The big mean capitalist machine stepping on the hands of the workers.

Marxism does not say anything about redistributing. It is not typical communism by being all for equality since total equality cannot exist. And shouldn't exist since it is long term damaging. His new welath being created is by growth and allowing foreign trading to be done which is unlike any other communist system.

We measure current wealth by our growth and the real variables within the economy. Easy.

The peoples' revolution never happened in many countries. The people were hooked on the capitalist system. Organised militias or groups led to a revolt such as in Rusia were the Tzars were overthrown. Max was said to the focal point but Lenin twisted those beliefs and made them to push his own agenda since takeover and control of the masses to the point it is in communist countries isn't Marxist by any shadow of a doubt. There needs to be a certain aspect of central planning to a degree but that is not slavery. That is just not capitalist and doesn't allow for markets to be totally free. Since a free market measn there is no limit for unfair wages and for the markets to screw over the workers. The Marxist system is not funded by the short term solution of borrowing and running a deficit which capitalism is. That is our advantage. If Marx's system was to be implemented then we'd see a direct change. But there must be an authority by the people to decide what is to be changed if anything of Marx's ideas. But not one central planning authority. That is way too much into control.

When people say that our economy is good as it is then thre are these points to consider.

If America is the all powerful nation of living standard how come it has strict limits on immigration, a massive poverty rate for a developed nation. Falling down in the rankings of most liveable countries. If you want to know more about what i mean, thre is the basic poverty level set by theinternational standard. They say over 20% are living under the absolute poverty level. Even though this is they can still use the PPP purchasing power parity to buy things but their income is severely limited even though workers do back breaking labor for nothing. The economy thrives of the very rich few getting so much and big business being dominant while average workers get screwed? Growth is done by a constant budget deficit funded by borrowing. the staple of the capitalist system in raw definition of a capitalist economy. Economics 101.

I know why there is never been a revolution in terms of Marx's ideas in America. Since the people are so addicted to the capitalist machine and the administration throughout American history will not give up capitalism since it suits them the best. And suits their fucntion for how they see the nation. Where you must work hard and compete as a worker for a chance of success rather than a fair value system being implemented. Also the people have heard so many false reports on Marxism that they think it's just another communist tyranny.

Unions are twindling in america since the government instead of making the unions and business work together, they crush unions especially ever since Reagan. Workers cannot easily requsest higher wages or protest again job cuts. This destruction of unions has led to the monster acts done by the likes of Ford and GM.

That is the raw truth.

[Wolverine]

Or the government could mind its own business and allow people to live their own lives.

[mojo]

Darth Tiberius wrote:
Firstly, examining religion in society under Marx's daying "Religion is the opiate of the masses". That saying is not just Chrsitianity but any religion. And it works as a opiate to the masses more than just "to keep me quiet and happy about the fact I have eternal life" since it works differently to different people. To some this belief can act as a suppresant to things going wrong in the world that there is a greater plan in the future. That way there is no revolution or constant questions and griping. Another is the fear of the loss of society's presnt or past values. Religion imposes restrictions on everyday life so that the people will all become conserved in the regular way of acting in society. There are many reasons why to suit every person but these beliefs all just feed the system in which we live in. This opiate can also work in a way to keep the people from doing anything "sinful" to escape hell. It all works as a tool for the capitalist system rather than for the good of the people and the fellow countrymen.
this can be used to attack people such as Martin Luther or the Pope.
Martin Luther was a very arrogant man who believed rightly that the Pope isn't the mouthpiece of Christ but then used the Jews to express his bigotry so the people can feel better in what is happening in society. His views were to keep the poeple in line and to be totally dependant on faith and so calld "grace of god" regardless of happenings and funcions of the outside world.
Martin Luther King though I find no fault with. He reached out to the secular and the religious to bring about change for civil rights.
The rest were manipulatiors of a faith in order to please the amsses within the governmnet structures whilst retaining a level of faith so that the people to not revolt or go against the class structure. and the class struggle.
The Pope on the other hand is not a tool of the sytem. The Vatican is a autonomous system that is allmost self-ruling. Their policies on Africa are hurting thatnation. To impose western capitalist and religious ideals. Instead of common sense approaches. The Pope's messages are often promoting strict conservative viewpoints that would keep the people in line but don't often have much good effect for society.

Freedom is the choice to worship whatever thing you would wish. How can you be a proponent of freedom if dont allow that to take place. A lot of statements of vast generalizations that are simply untrue at present. The current system of christianity throughout the world is uncorrupt and compatible with todays standards of progress in science.

Quote: When debating the Labor Theory of Value (LTV) there are points to consider. It's more than the LTV. It is from how much the hierarchy is integral to the work being done. Which is why some may earn more than others. But a limit to avoid gross over wages being given is what's being done. That way execs can't earn millions and give themselves pay rises for nothing.

The execs giving themselves pay raises is an issue for the shareholders and investors not the government. The shareholders will quickly take their money out of stocks that are not performing and are getting pay raises. The owners of the companies should get a sizable amount. People strive for that tremendous amounts of wealth.

If you were on a basketball team and the best player scored all the points and won you lots of games. The best thing would be to practice hard and become wealthy yourself not just cut off the legs of the best player.

Quote: Supply and demand are still essential since the supply and demand of a product would determine how much value that has to society. Unless it is a negative externality to society. Then that product is not worthwhile. An example would be cigarettes.

It is more than value when it comes to the bare structure of politics and tge economy. He attacked the class struggles and the need for profit over what is good for the people. Under his system a high level of growth can still be maintained whilst not feeding into the self-destructing capitalist system. There is a massive level of explotation and also of class struggle in our system which is why America is what it is. The big mean capitalist machine stepping on the hands of the workers.

What marx fails to take into account is incentive. By taking away incentive innovation and progression is destroyed. He believes that the worker is a static being and will always work the same under all conditions barring no problems. But when incentive for progress is taken away production is destroyed. You can't make a worker work. The worker must choose to work. The more incentive that is in place the more likely that the worker will produce more in order to provide for himself.

Quote: Marxism does not say anything about redistributing. It is not typical communism by being all for equality since total equality cannot exist. And shouldn't exist since it is long term damaging. His new welath being created is by growth and allowing foreign trading to be done which is unlike any other communist system.

We measure current wealth by our growth and the real variables within the economy. Easy.

The peoples' revolution never happened in many countries. The people were hooked on the capitalist system. Organised militias or groups led to a revolt such as in Rusia were the Tzars were overthrown. Max was said to the focal point but Lenin twisted those beliefs and made them to push his own agenda since takeover and control of the masses to the point it is in communist countries isn't Marxist by any shadow of a doubt. There needs to be a certain aspect of central planning to a degree but that is not slavery. That is just not capitalist and doesn't allow for markets to be totally free. Since a free market measn there is no limit for unfair wages and for the markets to screw over the workers. The Marxist system is not funded by the short term solution of borrowing and running a deficit which capitalism is. That is our advantage. If Marx's system was to be implemented then we'd see a direct change. But there must be an authority by the people to decide what is to be changed if anything of Marx's ideas. But not one central planning authority. That is way too much into control.


What kind of authority exactly. I can see no other authority suitable for marxism other than the government. IT has always been that way. Capitalism is the one true natural system. It is an expression of nature and mathematics within government. It states a human beings right to property.

Quote: When people say that our economy is good as it is then thre are these points to consider.

If America is the all powerful nation of living standard how come it has strict limits on immigration, a massive poverty rate for a developed nation. Falling down in the rankings of most liveable countries. If you want to know more about what i mean, thre is the basic poverty level set by theinternational standard. They say over 20% are living under the absolute poverty level. Even though this is they can still use the PPP purchasing power parity to buy things but their income is severely limited even though workers do back breaking labor for nothing. The economy thrives of the very rich few getting so much and big business being dominant while average workers get screwed? Growth is done by a constant budget deficit funded by borrowing. the staple of the capitalist system in raw definition of a capitalist economy. Economics 101.

Capitalism has no limits. Anyone can prosper or fall victim to it. That is what makes it the fairest system. If an idea is good enough and not interfered by government it will sell and that person will make a tremendous amount of money.

What is Poverty in America? In America air conditioning, heating, running water, bath tubs, cars, sturdy shelter, nice clothes, make up and excellent food are taken for granted by the populace. In any other country in the world these things are looked on with amazement. With these so called ineffective conservative policies America acheived more growth in 50 years than all of modern europe in 500. Can't you see what you are asking. There is no real poverty in America. Poverty only happens in the governments attempt to eliminate it. By restricting business; jobs, innovation, and oppurtunity go down with it.

Quote: I know why there is never been a revolution in terms of Marx's ideas in America. Since the people are so addicted to the capitalist machine and the administration throughout American history will not give up capitalism since it suits them the best. And suits their fucntion for how they see the nation. Where you must work hard and compete as a worker for a chance of success rather than a fair value system being implemented. Also the people have heard so many false reports on Marxism that they think it's just another communist tyranny.

Working hard is a pre-requisite to success. It will not and should not be given away. Americans are addicted to capitalism because they like the idea that they are responsible for their own well-being. They understand that progression of thought and science are things that are applauded most by capitalism.

But I do fear the day. I think FDR does nto the know the monster he created when he created the need{/i] for government programs. Every year more and more programs are set into place that dig deeper into the pockets of the well to do in order to feed the cry of the looters. A day will come when socialism will rise. But I will stand there at my post with shotgun in hand waiting for it.

Quote: Unions are twindling in america since the government instead of making the unions and business work together, they crush unions especially ever since Reagan. Workers cannot easily requsest higher wages or protest again job cuts. This destruction of unions has led to the monster acts done by the likes of Ford and GM.

That is the raw truth.

Ford and GM's troubles are because of unions. Have you ever looked at GM financial sheets. They give free healthcare to over 1 million people. They supply health insurance for people the state of Rhode Island. It is costing them almost 2000 dollars per car. The unions demand more pay and benefits. They are winning but guess what, they are destroying these "big greedy corporations" in the process. GM and Ford are just the first in line with these kinds of losses.

GM is a healthcare company that happens to sell cars

[eynon]

Quote: Martin Luther was a very arrogant man who believed rightly that the Pope isn't the mouthpiece of Christ but then used the Jews to express his bigotry so the people can feel better in what is happening in society. His views were to keep the poeple in line and to be totally dependant on faith and so calld "grace of god" regardless of happenings and funcions of the outside world.

that's nice, but most modern Protestant and Evangelical sects(at least in my country) are considered the spiritual(and in a few cases litteral) decendents of these guys:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01445b.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptist

Remember that the Dutch War of Independence, English Civil War, and American Revolution were all carried out by deeply religious men....these wars were the revolutions that cemented the base of modern Liberalism.

Marx and Engles were both verses on the history and beliefs on the anabaptists......Engles even wrote a history and political analysis of the movement, and formed many of his ideas based on theirs, as well has Thomas Moore and Hegel, all influnenced big time by religion.


Anabaptists aside religion has not been a tool of surpression as much as a motivator for greater freedom. Catholic Monks formed the core of the Latin American wars of Independence from the 1720's thru today.

Buddhist and Daoist Monks led a number of populist revolts throughout Chinese history, such as the Red-eyebrows, Yellow Turbans, and White Lotus revolt.

India's faith was a constant source of insipration from which they drew strength to resist forigen occupation and internal tyranny, from the Buddhist monks condeming Asoka for his Warmongering to perhaps the greatest revolutionary in history, Mahatma Gandhi..........

In his view of religion Marx is simply wrong, it's not the only thing he's wrong about, but it's a biggie.

[Darth Tiberius]

politicalmojo wrote: Freedom is the choice to worship whatever thing you would wish. How can you be a proponent of freedom if don't allow that to take place. A lot of statements of vast generalizations that are simply untrue at present. The current system of Christianity throughout the world is uncorrupt and compatible with todays standards of progress in science.

Yes, freedom is to believe what you will. And Marx doesn't contend that. Marx however doesn't like it when religion controls influences in the governmnet and society or when the church is exempt from paying tax. Under that the church must be put as a charity with restrictions of political dealings or must be taxed as a business. He still allows everyone to believe what they will and have faith. Marxism provides freedom. and responsibility for the people and leadership.

It is rather naive that the Christian church is uncorrupt when many denominations have ties and have denoted to many political parties in order to persuade politicians to pres forward legislation. Then you have the sex scandals of the Catholic and Anglican churches where priests have been abusing minors allegedly. You have the greatest corrupt thing, the Pope and the Roman Catholic church pushing forward their own damage into Africa. Instead of pushing for safe sex and for common sense solutions you have them pushing abstinence. Basically churches have been more of a hindrance than a help for peace. You have religion against religion. You have the Christians trying to assimilate everyone in their faith and making wars against other faiths like the Muslims. And vice versa.

Quote: The execs giving themselves pay raises is an issue for the shareholders and investors not the government. The shareholders will quickly take their money out of stocks that are not performing and are getting pay raises. The owners of the companies should get a sizable amount. People strive for that tremendous amounts of wealth.

If you were on a basketball team and the best player scored all the points and won you lots of games. The best thing would be to practice hard and become wealthy yourself not just cut off the legs of the best player.

No, it is an issue for the government since it is a unfair increase in a disproportionate way. You have workers suffering pay cuts. You have then execs getting richer. When the government needs to put a stop to this. The stockholders wont do anything since this doesn't affect their shares or profit. And Marxism isn't about solely profit. It is about the rights of the people. It is the responsibility of the government to put a stop to it. Big CEOs are guilty of many things. People will not earn all the same under a Marxist system. this is not typical communism but based on the value of your work you will be paid accordingly and big bosses will earn more but not to a gross point. Only a bit more. Thus the capitalist system is defeated and the people get what they deserve. No-one is talking about cutting off the legs of anyone. Just making sure they do not screw the workers.

[quote]What Marx fails to take into account is incentive. By taking away incentive innovation and progression is destroyed. He believes that the worker is a static being and will always work the same under all conditions barring no problems. But when incentive for progress is taken away production is destroyed. You can't make a worker work. The worker must choose to work. The more incentive that is in place the more likely that the worker will produce more in order to provide for himself. [quote]

If you work hard you're paid well, if you don't work hard for the money you are now rightly getting then you're fired. The incentive is that the business can pay more once there is a added profit into the company once money for r&D, supply changes and admin has been taken care of. Innovation can still be possible since there is no reason why not. If the worker chooses not to work then he'll not eat. Simple as that. But if he chooses to work he'll get fair pay, good hours and good sick leave. That is one incentive. Incentive also comes in other forms. But when greed is the focal point you'll have only the massive problems we have in our capitalist system.

Quote: What kind of authority exactly. I can see no other authority suitable for marxism other than the government. IT has always been that way. Capitalism is the one true natural system. It is an expression of nature and mathematics within government. It states a human beings right to property.

The true authority is the people. Not the leaders put in charge. And not the free market capitalist screwing workers and fixing prices. I wouldn't call capitalism, the system that allows mass borrowing and the system that will one day lead to self-destruction as every capitalist system has being the natural system. Marxism also bears nature but not a sub-product of the superstructure. Nature is a thing we can borrow from as a resource. Not as our property. Mathematics is also in the Marxist system. Under Marxism humans also have the right to property. Don't confuse normal modern communism with Marxism.

Quote: Capitalism has no limits. Anyone can prosper or fall victim to it. That is what makes it the fairest system. If an idea is good enough and not interfered by government it will sell and that person will make a tremendous amount of money.

What is Poverty in America? In America air conditioning, heating, running water, bath tubs, cars, sturdy shelter, nice clothes, make up and excellent food are taken for granted by the populace. In any other country in the world these things are looked on with amazement. With these so called ineffective conservative policies America achieved more growth in 50 years than all of modern Europe in 500. Can't you see what you are asking. There is no real poverty in America. Poverty only happens in the governments attempt to eliminate it. By restricting business; jobs, innovation, and oppurtunity go down with it.

The fairest system? OK lets take a black kid that can't get the best education and go to college. He ends up with a high school diploma nd spends his adult life as a packer in a factory. Working hard and breaking his back for very little. Then lets take a rich white kid from Connecticut. His family pays for the best school and uni. He grows up and becomes a banker or a lawyer or a CEO. He earns millions for taking golf trips and firing people and sorting out paperwork. See he unfair situation here. Frictional unemployment, unfair wages and a unfair system for people isn't what i would call an ideal system. It sound horrible. People are having to fight for a long time and either prosper or fail based on their conditions. Yeah, very fair. :roll: Government needs to keep the system in check according to the views of the people.

Poverty in my books is if you pass the definition in economics of absolute poverty limit. Where families earn less then the amount stated in that international poverty value. America does very VERY badly in terms of inequality. But under the free market capitalist system the nation does nothing about it instead of give the proverbial middle finger to the poor.

Quote: Working hard is a pre-requisite to success. It will not and should not be given away. Americans are addicted to capitalism because they like the idea that they are responsible for their own well-being. They understand that progression of thought and science are things that are applauded most by capitalism.

But I do fear the day. I think FDR does not the know the monster he created when he created the need{/i] for government programs. Every year more and more programs are set into place that dig deeper into the pockets of the well to do in order to feed the cry of the looters. A day will come when socialism will rise. But I will stand there at my post with shotgun in hand waiting for it.

Many work hard. Work a lot harder and longer then all the rich CEOs, sports stars who kick a ball around or race in a fancy car or some pompous movie star who films a role. These are the people that are keeping us alive on our country. without them we would be nothing. And what happens to them? They get paid very little and they don't get the opportunity to get any success or fair treatment. That is what angers me. That is what angered Marx. When we forget the cogs that keep the engine running we realize eventually how useless that shiny chrome plate was that makes our car look fancy. That is an analogy and a very good analogy of our system. We are not responsible 100%. our conditions mostly determine our outcome.

FDR didn't know the first thing about socialism or was afraid of it cause he cannot let go of the capitalist machine even though damage is being inflicted.

Quote: Ford and GM's troubles are because of unions. Have you ever looked at GM financial sheets. They give free healthcare to over 1 million people. They supply health insurance for people the state of Rhode Island. It is costing them almost 2000 dollars per car. The unions demand more pay and benefits. They are winning but guess what, they are destroying these "big greedy corporations" in the process. GM and Ford are just the first in line with these kinds of losses.

so instead of innovation and pay cuts for the rich CEOs they take it out on the unions saying the workers have too much rights? OK. Say they get rid of these rights. We kill the lives of the workers. We make sure they cannot afford healthcare or feed the families. and so what? As long as these songs of b*****s on the CEO board get their paychecks everything is all right. Well talk to one of those workers feeding their families and tell me that the workers have no rights. Or that they deserve little. Tell them that. It is equally bad when unions have too much power but that is not been the occasion ever in America. Instead our nation likes and loves to screw the workers.

[eynon]

so how would you ensure that a Marxist system is neither corrupt nor unfair?

[Darth Tiberius]

Eynon81 wrote: so how would you ensure that a Marxist system is neither corrupt nor unfair?

Regulatory board made up by the people and by a democratic process by the people.

[Demonic Spoon]

Mhmm...and how would the people protect these rights, hmm? What is to stop the government from, say...abolishing this board?

What marxists don't get is that a communist, democratic cannot exist for a long period of time.

People need POWER to stop the government from asserting 100% control. There is a common thread in every instance in history when free people were enslaved. The people did not have power.

Communism gives no economic freedom. Economic freedom=power. A person who decides his own fate and runs his own life is more powerful than a person whos role in society is dictated by the State. No economic freedom means that there is nothing to stop the government from asserting control. And government will ALWAYS try to assert control. Government will always try and get more power.

[Kindred]

Economic freedom=Power?


Tell that to the people who lived under Pinochet's rule.

[mojo]

Darth Tiberius wrote:
Yes, freedom is to believe what you will. And Marx doesn't contend that. Marx however doesn't like it when religion controls influences in the governmnet and society or when the church is exempt from paying tax. Under that the church must be put as a charity with restrictions of political dealings or must be taxed as a business. He still allows everyone to believe what they will and have faith. Marxism provides freedom. and responsibility for the people and leadership.

It is rather naive that the Christian church is uncorrupt when many denominations have ties and have denoted to many political parties in order to persuade politicians to pres forward legislation. Then you have the sex scandals of the Catholic and Anglican churches where priests have been abusing minors allegedly. You have the greatest corrupt thing, the Pope and the Roman Catholic church pushing forward their own damage into Africa. Instead of pushing for safe sex and for common sense solutions you have them pushing abstinence. Basically churches have been more of a hindrance than a help for peace. You have religion against religion. You have the Christians trying to assimilate everyone in their faith and making wars against other faiths like the Muslims. And vice versa.

How can you begin to be a proponent of fairness to little guy if you wish to punish those organizations that specifically help the little guy. The Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world. Why would you want to punish those entities that want social justice without government intrusion. They dont work for profit so why should they be taxed and limit the effectiveness of their charities.

The only thing the those denominations push is peace, equality and justice. It was Pope John Paul the second who freed the polish people from the chains of marxism. Eastern Europe suffered tremendously under those very communist regimes that you propose. Men create wars not their religions. The Catholic church has specifically tried to stop all forms of war.

Quote:
No, it is an issue for the government since it is a unfair increase in a disproportionate way. You have workers suffering pay cuts. You have then execs getting richer. When the government needs to put a stop to this. The stockholders wont do anything since this doesn't affect their shares or profit. And Marxism isn't about solely profit. It is about the rights of the people. It is the responsibility of the government to put a stop to it. Big CEOs are guilty of many things. People will not earn all the same under a Marxist system. this is not typical communism but based on the value of your work you will be paid accordingly and big bosses will earn more but not to a gross point. Only a bit more. Thus the capitalist system is defeated and the people get what they deserve. No-one is talking about cutting off the legs of anyone. Just making sure they do not screw the workers.

The only reason you would like to propose an evil system such as this is because secretly you believe that you will somehow take from someone without your effort. You live under the philosophy of need vs. greed. But the flaw is what is needy. Sooner or later the workers are going to figure out that it will actually pay to not work. They will realize that what is the point in working hard if it will just be stripped away by the collective society. Then in order to profit form that system of need they will make themselves needy. This snowballs into a race to the bottom. It has always worked this way. Always.

Quote:
If you work hard you're paid well, if you don't work hard for the money you are now rightly getting then you're fired. The incentive is that the business can pay more once there is a added profit into the company once money for r&D, supply changes and admin has been taken care of. Innovation can still be possible since there is no reason why not. If the worker chooses not to work then he'll not eat. Simple as that. But if he chooses to work he'll get fair pay, good hours and good sick leave. That is one incentive. Incentive also comes in other forms. But when greed is the focal point you'll have only the massive problems we have in our capitalist system.

See above^^^

What massive problems in capitalism. I bear the fruits of my own labor. Who else should I be accountable to. Surely not the laziness of other workers. What has communism always brought out a equal sharing of poverty not wealth.

Quote: What kind of authority exactly. I can see no other authority suitable for marxism other than the government. IT has always been that way. Capitalism is the one true natural system. It is an expression of nature and mathematics within government. It states a human beings right to property.

But how can you provide the people to redstributte the income. Do you have any idea how long that would take or what kind of corruption their would be. People will always look out for their own interests whether or not the government says they should or not. There will corruption on the highest levels to give the highest pay to the most menial kind of work. Whats the point of progression if you can just elect some leaders that pay you to live a substandard life.

Quote:
The fairest system? OK lets take a black kid that can't get the best education and go to college. He ends up with a high school diploma nd spends his adult life as a packer in a factory. Working hard and breaking his back for very little. Then lets take a rich white kid from Connecticut. His family pays for the best school and uni. He grows up and becomes a banker or a lawyer or a CEO. He earns millions for taking golf trips and firing people and sorting out paperwork. See he unfair situation here. Frictional unemployment, unfair wages and a unfair system for people isn't what i would call an ideal system. It sound horrible. People are having to fight for a long time and either prosper or fail based on their conditions. Yeah, very fair. :roll: Government needs to keep the system in check according to the views of the people.

Poverty in my books is if you pass the definition in economics of absolute poverty limit. Where families earn less then the amount stated in that international poverty value. America does very VERY badly in terms of inequality. But under the free market capitalist system the nation does nothing about it instead of give the proverbial middle finger to the poor.

But we all know there is public education system in which the child can more than profit from if he wished. In America you can graduate first inyour class if you work hard enough and go to a very esteemed university because the colleges want those kind of success stories. This is common sense stuff. A black child in America has just as much oppurtunity than any other person. There are hundreds of very successful black men and women. People who made something out of their situation. People like Colin Powell, Condaleeza Rice and Tiger Woods. They ran their lifes in the pursuit of a purpose. The current state of the black community is in such a deplorable state not because of racial inequality but because of apathy. They know they can skate by if they really want to. Their is such an attitude of entitlement that was created by that marxist attitude. Many expect the world to be given to them but in fact he world needs to be created through hard work.

Quote:
Many work hard. Work a lot harder and longer then all the rich CEOs, sports stars who kick a ball around or race in a fancy car or some pompous movie star who films a role. These are the people that are keeping us alive on our country. without them we would be nothing. And what happens to them? They get paid very little and they don't get the opportunity to get any success or fair treatment. That is what angers me. That is what angered Marx. When we forget the cogs that keep the engine running we realize eventually how useless that shiny chrome plate was that makes our car look fancy. That is an analogy and a very good analogy of our system. We are not responsible 100%. our conditions mostly determine our outcome.

FDR didn't know the first thing about socialism or was afraid of it cause he cannot let go of the capitalist machine even though damage is being inflicted.

Do you know any CEO's. Most of them work damn hard at their jobs. Not for the money of power but because they realize that they are in pursuit of a purpose. I do not envy those figureheads such as Andrew Carnegie, Sam Walton, and Jay Rockefeller. I honor them. I honor them for their courage to step out fearlessly into the unknown in order complete their purpose in life. Our conditions do not determine that outcome but the series of choices that are made in pursuit of a purpose.

Quote:
so instead of innovation and pay cuts for the rich CEOs they take it out on the unions saying the workers have too much rights? OK. Say they get rid of these rights. We kill the lives of the workers. We make sure they cannot afford healthcare or feed the families. and so what? As long as these songs of b*****s on the CEO board get their paychecks everything is all right. Well talk to one of those workers feeding their families and tell me that the workers have no rights. Or that they deserve little. Tell them that. It is equally bad when unions have too much power but that is not been the occasion ever in America. Instead our nation likes and loves to screw the workers.

Those workers are not entitled to healthcare or any of that bullcrap. They sign a contract that states that they wil perform a required task for a pre-determined amount of money. This is almost always a fair salary. With the continued ridiculous demands of unions in this country there will be no jobs left to exploit. Look what happened to Northwest airlines and whats happening the GM. Cant you open you eyes and see what happens when the Unions what is unfair. Collectivism has never worked I pray that you open your eyes to this reality. I expect to live only for myself and my children. Period. [/b]

[Demonic Spoon]

A.D wrote: Economic freedom=Power?


Tell that to the people who lived under Pinochet's rule.


Economic freedom is needed for power, but it is not the only factor. I was saying that a free communist society could not last. A democratic country, to survive, needs economic, social and political freedom.

Also, economic regulation is not the only factor of economic freedom. I have a hard time believing that if the populace was allowed to buy anything they wanted (Guns, etc) that they could be ruled by force for so long.

Also, the man who preceeded Pinochet was a socialist. The people had no economic power...

[yETII90]

Marxism, Communism, Socialism, etc all are cousins in the same family.

They all advocate the same unfair policy of not rewarding the person that satisfy's the consumer.

As for these rich athletes, well it's our fault that they are so rich because we pay money to watch their games, buy their clothing, and play their video games.

These rich guys don't get money from a secret treasure cove they do or make something that the consumer feels is worth giving their money for.

Remember this, the producer's power is given to him by the consumer so if the consumer is not liking something the producer is doing they will suffer and since we live in a time where compassion to life is high if we find out a producer is treating his employees badly we will give our money to his competitors.

This is the same with our central government, they are in power with our permission and if they don't satisfy us than we will put our votes to someone else.

[BobbyO]

Quote: Yes, freedom is to believe what you will. And Marx doesn't contend that. Marx however doesn't like it when religion controls influences in the governmnet and society or when the church is exempt from paying tax. Under that the church must be put as a charity with restrictions of political dealings or must be taxed as a business. He still allows everyone to believe what they will and have faith. Marxism provides freedom. and responsibility for the people and leadership.

And this is what happened in the USSR by Lenin and stalin. How is it therefore a perverion of Marx?

Quote: It is rather naive that the Christian church is uncorrupt when many denominations have ties and have denoted to many political parties in order to persuade politicians to pres forward legislation. Then you have the sex scandals of the Catholic and Anglican churches where priests have been abusing minors allegedly. You have the greatest corrupt thing, the Pope and the Roman Catholic church pushing forward their own damage into Africa. Instead of pushing for safe sex and for common sense solutions you have them pushing abstinence. Basically churches have been more of a hindrance than a help for peace. You have religion against religion. You have the Christians trying to assimilate everyone in their faith and making wars against other faiths like the Muslims. And vice versa.

Sure, and Marx disciples controled and regulated religion so as to rmove its influence, as much as possible, from society. No perversion yet, just faithful application.


Quote: No, it is an issue for the government since it is a unfair increase in a disproportionate way. You have workers suffering pay cuts. You have then execs getting richer. When the government needs to put a stop to this. The stockholders wont do anything since this doesn't affect their shares or profit. And Marxism isn't about solely profit. It is about the rights of the people. It is the responsibility of the government to put a stop to it. Big CEOs are guilty of many things. People will not earn all the same under a Marxist system. this is not typical communism but based on the value of your work you will be paid accordingly and big bosses will earn more but not to a gross point. Only a bit more. Thus the capitalist system is defeated and the people get what they deserve. No-one is talking about cutting off the legs of anyone. Just making sure they do not screw the workers.

Ok. This happened in the USSR. no perversion of Marx yet.


Quote: If you work hard you're paid well, if you don't work hard for the money you are now rightly getting then you're fired. The incentive is that the business can pay more once there is a added profit into the company once money for r&D, supply changes and admin has been taken care of. Innovation can still be possible since there is no reason why not. If the worker chooses not to work then he'll not eat. Simple as that. But if he chooses to work he'll get fair pay, good hours and good sick leave. That is one incentive. Incentive also comes in other forms. But when greed is the focal point you'll have only the massive problems we have in our capitalist system.

OK, this is what the USSR attempted. Still no perversion of Marx.




Quote: The fairest system? OK lets take a black kid that can't get the best education and go to college. He ends up with a high school diploma nd spends his adult life as a packer in a factory. Working hard and breaking his back for very little. Then lets take a rich white kid from Connecticut. His family pays for the best school and uni. He grows up and becomes a banker or a lawyer or a CEO. He earns millions for taking golf trips and firing people and sorting out paperwork. See he unfair situation here. Frictional unemployment, unfair wages and a unfair system for people isn't what i would call an ideal system. It sound horrible. People are having to fight for a long time and either prosper or fail based on their conditions. Yeah, very fair. :roll: Government needs to keep the system in check according to the views of the people.

Ok, again occurred in the USSR. Still no perversion.

[John Galt]

There is one big problemwith MArxism: it is evil. In theory and in practice, it is evil.

In theory, which the original poster seems to think is utopian, Marxism is indeed evil. It is a disturbing view of human life. By placing the individual below ANYTHING, you disregard the individual and in the end, destroy the individual. By stating that men are means and not ends you make slaves of us all.

In practice, communism ends up being socialism, every time. It is extrmely sadistic to say that these things only happen because of certian people and that true communism could ever form as many people before you have said the same thing. And what was left? 110 million dead. 110,000,000 dead. More than all the wars of the 20th century combined. Because of communism in practice. Because it puts the individual below something else. Yes, in practice it is The State, and in theory it is The People but by not placing the individual above all else you leave a trail of death and gulags across the land.

Communism, in theory and in practice, is the most evil, disgusting, horrific thing ever to be on the face of this planet and it must be erradicated.

[Zoot]

Tiberius,

The father of anarchism, JP Proudhon, wrote a letter to Marx that is worth reading:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/letters/46_05_17.htm

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Communism, in theory and in practice, is the most evil, disgusting, horrific thing ever to be on the face of this planet and it must be erradicated.

well said.....Communism, the nationalisation of everything or better put: the communal onwership of everything, logically includes people. It is the most horrific idea ever conceived and the meme that it is good in theory is mentioned b y people who have never thought about it.

How can the idea that everybody has an equal right to you, an equal right as you do, ever be good? Next time you walk on the street see all the people and see that under communism they have as much right to you, and your body as you do. Next time you kiss your spouse or girl-boyfriend realise that the logically conclusion of communism would subject thm to the kisses of everybody (and more) whether she wanted it or not.

It is in effect the gang rape of the human spirit.

[eynon]

Darth Tiberius wrote: Eynon81 wrote: so how would you ensure that a Marxist system is neither corrupt nor unfair?

Regulatory board made up by the people and by a democratic process by the people.

Marxism by it's nature is absolutist, Democracy must be Pluralistic, they are not compatable.........a democratic system may have Marxist Parties(look at India), but a Marxist system can not allow alternative social-political views, therefore it can not be democratic.

[eynon]

Demonic Spoon wrote: A.D wrote: Economic freedom=Power?


Tell that to the people who lived under Pinochet's rule.


Economic freedom is needed for power, but it is not the only factor. I was saying that a free communist society could not last. A democratic country, to survive, needs economic, social and political freedom.

Also, economic regulation is not the only factor of economic freedom. I have a hard time believing that if the populace was allowed to buy anything they wanted (Guns, etc) that they could be ruled by force for so long.

Also, the man who preceeded Pinochet was a socialist. The people had no economic power...

indeed, economic freedom alone does not=liberty, but it is an important factor.

[BobbyO]

Quote: Marxism by it's nature is absolutist, Democracy must be Pluralistic, they are not compatable.........a democratic system may have Marxist Parties(look at India), but a Marxist system can not allow alternative social-political views, therefore it can not be democratic. [/quote]

The reason why marx (and all socialists) constantly affirm their devotion to democracy, is because there are inherent, totalitarian tendencies within democracy. Democracy as a system is not pluralistic. Indeed, it REQUIRES an environment where people more or less already agree with each other. An environment where people cannot agree, then democracy breaks down. It can be pluralistic if concepts of freedom and liberty are present, but there is no institution reason why people would have to agree about that.