Prove Maxrism to be flawed...

[Malachi151]

Okay, we've had all the doubters, let's put this to the test.

Here is a link for reference:

http://www.marxists.org

Prove the basic tennets of Marxism to be flawed concepts.

I doubt I can do this justice, nor am I going to take the time right now, so others will have to help me out here.

To start with Marxism is based on Dialectical Materialism, which stated basically that all things are material and all things in the universe are connected and in motion. Thus every action has an impact and through the study of those actions with the scientific method we can develop and understanding of the truth.

Agree or disagree?

The Marxist view of history:
""This conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real process of production, starting out from the material production of life itself, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this and created by this mode of production (i.e. civil society in its various stages), as the basis of all history; describing it in its action as the state, and to explain all the different theoretical products and forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. etc. arise from it, and trace their origins and growth from that basis. Thus the whole thing can, of course, be depicted in its totality (and therefore, too, the reciprocal action of these various sides on one another).

"It has not, like the idealistic view of history, in every period to look for a category [eg. measuring periods of history in accordance to certain ideas], but remains constantly on the real ground of history; it does not explain practice from the idea but explains the formation of ideas from material practice. Accordingly it comes to the conclusion that all forms and products of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism, by resolution into "self-consciousness" or transformation into "apparitions", "spectres", "whims", etc. but only by the practical overthrow of the actual social relations which gave rise to this idealistic humbug; that not criticism but revolution is the driving force of history, also of religion, of philosophy and all other types of theory.

"It shows that history does not end by being resolved into "self-consciousness as spirit of the spirit", but that in it at each stage there is found a material result: a sum of productive forces, an historically created relation of individuals to nature and to one another, which is handed down to each generation from its predecessor; a mass of productive forces, capital funds and conditions, which, on the one hand, is indeed modified by the new generation, but also on the other prescribes for it its conditions of life and gives it a definite development, a special character. It shows that circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances. " - Karl Marx

Essentially Historical Materialism is the study of action and reaction and the connection of events and conditions that have acted to produce a result, i..e a deterministic worldview.

Agree or disagree?

Marxism is based on critical analysis and holds that progress is the product fo critical analysis andd thus all aspects of existance should be subject to critical scientific analysis, i.e. nothing is to be sacred or taboo.

Agree or disagree?

Marxism holds that the primary condition that effects mankind of economics, that all things are a product of economic conditions, art, concept of self, philosophy, science, social attitude, is all rooted in the economic fundamentals at work in society.

A counter to this concept is "heroism" the idea that people and society do not act purely out of economic interest, but out of passion and untangable will.

Agree or disagree?

On to analysis of capitalism.

Quotes from Das Kapital:

By what is the price of a commodity determined?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm

By the competition between buyers and sellers, by the relation of the demand to the supply, of the call to the offer. The competition by which the price of a commodity is determined is threefold.

The same commodity is offered for sale by various sellers. Whoever sells commodities of the same quality most cheaply, is sure to drive the other sellers from the field and to secure the greatest market for himself. The sellers therefore fight among themselves for the sales, for the market. Each one of them wishes to sell, and to sell as much as possible, and if possible to sell alone, to the exclusion of all other sellers. Each one sells cheaper than the other. Thus there takes place a competition among the sellers which forces down the price of the commodities offered by them.

But there is also a competition among the buyers; this upon its side causes the price of the proffered commodities to rise.

Finally, there is competition between the buyers and the sellers: these wish to purchase as cheaply as possible, those to sell as dearly as possible. The result of this competition between buyers and sellers will depend upon the relations between the two above-mentioned camps of competitors — i.e., upon whether the competition in the army of sellers is stronger. Industry leads two great armies into the field against each other, and each of these again is engaged in a battle among its own troops in its own ranks. The army among whose troops there is less fighting carries of the victory over the opposing host.

...

We thus see that the price of a commodity is indeed determined by its cost of production, but in such a manner that the periods in which the price of these commodities rises above the costs of production are balanced by the periods in which it sinks below the cost of production, and vice versa. Of course this does not hold good for a single given product of an industry, but only for that branch of industry. So also it does not hold good for an individual manufacturer, but only for the whole class of manufacturers.

The determination of price by cost of production is tantamount to the determination of price by the labor-time requisite to the production of a commodity, for the cost of production consists, first of raw materials and wear and tear of tools, etc., i.e., of industrial products whose production has cost a certain number of work-days, which therefore represent a certain amount of labor-time, and, secondly, of direct labor, which is also measured by its duration

Agree or Disagree?

What are Wages?
How are they Determined?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch02.htm

Consequently, it appears that the capitalist buys their labour with money, and that for money they sell him their labour. But this is merely an illusion. What they actually sell to the capitalist for money is their labour-power. This labour-power the capitalist buys for a day, a week, a month, etc. And after he has bought it, he uses it up by letting the worker labour during the stipulated time. With the same amount of money with which the capitalist has bought their labour-power (for example, with two shillings) he could have bought a certain amount of sugar or of any other commodity. The two shillings with which he bought 20 pounds of sugar is the price of the 20 pounds of sugar. The two shillings with which he bought 12 hours' use of labour-power, is the price of 12 hours' labour. Labour-power, then, is a commodity, no more, no less so than is the sugar. The first is measured by the clock, the other by the scales.

...

Wages, as we have seen, are the price of a certain commodity, labour-power. Wages, therefore, are determined by the same laws that determine the price of every other commodity. The question then is, How is the price of a commodity determined?

Agree or Disagree?

By what are wages determined?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch04.htm

Now, the same general laws which regulate the price of commodities in general, naturally regulate wages, or the price of labor-power. Wages will now rise, now fall, according to the relation of supply and demand, according as competition shapes itself between the buyers of labor-power, the capitalists, and the sellers of labor-power, the workers. The fluctuations of wages correspond to the fluctuation in the price of commodities in general. But within the limits of these fluctuations the price of labor-power will be determined by the cost of production, by the labor-time necessary for production of this commodity: labor-power.

...

It is the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer, and for his education and training as a laborer.

...

Thus, the cost of production of simple labor-power amounts to the cost of the existence and propagation of the worker. The price of this cost of existence and propagation constitutes wages. The wages thus determined are called the minimum of wages. This minimum wage, like the determination of the price of commodities in general by cost of production, does not hold good for the single individual, but only for the race. Individual workers, indeed, millions of workers, do not receive enough to be able to exist and to propagate themselves; but the wages of the whole working class adjust themselves, within the limits of their fluctuations, to this minimum.

Agree or disagree?

Nature and Growth of Capital

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch05.htm

Capital consists of raw materials, instruments of labor, and means of subsistence of all kinds, which are employed in producing new raw materials, new instruments, and new means of subsistence. All these components of capital are created by labor, products of labor, accumulated labor. Accumulated labor that serves as a means to new production is capital.

So says the economists.

What is a Negro slave? A man of the black race. The one explanation is worthy of the other.

A Negro is a Negro. Only under certain conditions does he become a slave. A cotton-spinning machine is a machine for spinning cotton. Only under certain conditions does it become capital. Torn away from these conditions, it is as little capital as gold is itself money, or sugar is the price of sugar.

In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature, but also upon one another. They produce only by working together in a specified manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations to one another, and only within these social connections and relations does their influence upon nature operate — i.e., does production take place.

...

Capital also is a social relation of production. It is a bourgeois relation of production, a relation of production of bourgeois society. The means of subsistence, the instruments of labor, the raw materials, of which capital consists — have they not been produced and accumulated under given social conditions, within definite special relations? Are they not employed for new production, under given special conditions, within definite social relations? And does not just the definite social character stamp the products which serve for new production as capital?

Capital consists not only of means of subsistence, instruments of labor, and raw materials, not only as material products; it consists just as much of exchange values. All products of which it consists are commodities. Capital, consequently, is not only a sum of material products, it is a sum of commodities, of exchange values, of social magnitudes. Capital remains the same whether we put cotton in the place of wool, rice in the place of wheat, steamships in the place of railroads, provided only that the cotton, the rice, the steamships — the body of capital — have the same exchange value, the same price, as the wool, the wheat, the railroads, in which it was previously embodied. The bodily form of capital may transform itself continually, while capital does not suffer the least alteration.

But though every capital is a sum of commodities — i.e., of exchange values — it does not follow that every sum of commodities, of exchange values, is capital.

Every sum of exchange values is an exchange value. Each particular exchange value is a sum of exchange values. For example: a house worth 1,000 pounds is an exchange value of 1,000 pounds: a piece of paper worth one penny is a sum of exchange values of 100 1/100ths of a penny. Products which are exchangeable for others are commodities. The definite proportion in which they are exchangeable forms their exchange value, or, expressed in money, their price. The quantity of these products can have no effect on their character as commodities, as representing an exchange value , as having a certain price. Whether a tree be large or small, it remains a tree. Whether we exchange iron in pennyweights or in hundredweights, for other products, does this alter its character: its being a commodity, or exchange value? According to the quantity, it is a commodity of greater or of lesser value, of higher or of lower price.

How then does a sum of commodities, of exchange values, become capital?

Thereby, that as an independent social power — i.e., as the power of a part of society — it preserves itself and multiplies by exchange with direct, living labor-power.

The existence of a class which possess nothing but the ability to work is a necessary presupposition of capital.

It is only the dominion of past, accumulated, materialized labor over immediate living labor that stamps the accumulated labor with the character of capital.

Capital does not consist in the fact that accumulated labor serves living labor as a means for new production. It consists in the fact that living labor serves accumulated labor as the means of preserving and multiplying its exchange value.

Agree or Disagree?

Well, this is getting long so I will cut to the chase and get to some conclusions:

It is evident that the small manufacturer cannot survive in a struggle in which the first condition of success is production upon an ever greater scale. It is evident that the small manufacturers and thereby increasing the number of candidates for the proletariat — all this requires no further elucidation.

Finally, in the same measure in which the capitalists are compelled, by the movement described above, to exploit the already existing gigantic means of production on an ever-increasing scale, and for this purpose to set in motion all the mainsprings of credit, in the same measure do they increase the industrial earthquakes, in the midst of which the commercial world can preserve itself only by sacrificing a portion of its wealth, its products, and even its forces of production, to the gods of the lower world — in short, the crises increase. They become more frequent and more violent, if for no other reason, than for this alone, that in the same measure in which the mass of products grows, and there the needs for extensive markets, in the same measure does the world market shrink ever more, and ever fewer markets remain to be exploited, since every previous crisis has subjected to the commerce of the world a hitherto unconquered or but superficially exploited market.

Agree or Disagree?

Keep in mind that we curently operate in a pseudo fascist economic system, not a true free market system.

Let's get back to some basicis. Labor-value. Marx stated that the value fo an item is particlaly determined by the cost of labor required to produce it, not just supply and demand.

Agree or Disagree?

Okay, that's all for now, don't want to put forth too much at one time.

So far there should be nothing there that si disagreeable to anyone IMO.

[American]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/735000/images/_739488_flag150.jpg

[Gem]

I'm not sure why all these long explanations are necessary. I haven't kept up with "modern" communism.

There are many flaws in the political and economical beliefs. Let me tell you why, in a single sentence, why communism, even if well (or perfectly) implemented, would never have worked:

It assumes people will get along with each other.

This single assumption makes everything else crumble. It doesn't matter if your dictator of the proleatariat (Who can ever spell it right?) is a good person, and that he wants to give up power when the time comes to. It doesn't matter if people want to get along with each other, it's not going to happen on a global scale, as is required in the Communist Manifesto.

That doesn't mean, however, that certain aspects of the philosophy and economics can't/shouldn't be applied.

Gem

[epepke]

Um, why?

Inasmuch as it is ever possible to make sense out of what Marx said, it consists mainly of a bunch of predictions about history. Some of them have turned out to be true, although ironically. The Soviet State did wither away, in true Marxist fashion. He neglected to mention the Russian "Mafia," though. And while religion may be the opium of the people, vodka makes a handy substitute.

[Jessica Blue]

Marxism isn't flawed. We are. [see Animal Farm]

[corplinx]

Its not maxrism, its marxism. Hows that for flawed?

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Marxism isn't flawed. We are. [see Animal Farm]

Which is precisely why Marxism is flawed. It does not account for the reality of human nature. Anyone who is at all a student of history can not seriously espouse the virtues of Marxism. I don't think people are flawed. People are what they are. People are supposed to be the way they are, with all our conciets and stupidity and with all our wonderfulness. Marxism represents a view of the world that does not match reality. It is stupid to cling notions of reality which are not true.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Marxism isn't flawed. We are. [see Animal Farm]

And that's the basic flaw in marxism, just like it's the basic flaw in libertarianism and unbridled capitalism.

All of them assume as FAITH (i.e. as a religious belief) that people will act in a "rational" fashion even when not rewarded for behaving in that fashion.

A tragic flaw, as all the bastions of would-be Marxism have shown.

[Nyarlathotep]

I just have to add one more voice to the chorus saying that Marxism relies on the basic goodness of human anture. And any philosophy that does that is asking for trouble

[Jessica Blue]

Which is precisely why Marxism is flawed. It does not account for the reality of human nature.

That's what I meant.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
And that's the basic flaw in marxism, just like it's the basic flaw in libertarianism and unbridled capitalism.

All of them assume as FAITH (i.e. as a religious belief) that people will act in a "rational" fashion

It has been pointed out to you numerous times that libertarianism does NOT assume that people will behave in a rational fashion...and now, here you are, repeating the lie again.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


It has been pointed out to you numerous times that libertarianism does NOT assume that people will behave in a rational fashion...and now, here you are, repeating the lie again.

And it has been pointed out to you that if libertarianism is to be successful, it MUST assume that people behave rationally when not rewarded for same.

If you wish to discuss unsuccessful libertarianism, well, I think that's a bit odd, but that's not the kind in context, and you knew that.

Ergo, your accusation of a "lie" is purely malicious and false.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
And it has been pointed out to you that if libertarianism is to be successful, it MUST assume that people behave rationally when not rewarded for same.

No, it doesn't. That's another lie, and that has been pointed out to you as well.

[Skeptic]

You, Malachi, are a walking, talking, breathing proof that Marxism is flawed.

You talk a lot about its praises... but not you, nor any of your "progressive" and "socialist" friends, will EVER agree to live in a marxist country, the paradise of the workers, but will ONLY ever live in the "corrupt capitalistic plutocracies" of the west. Which shows that you known damn well which system is REALLY better and which is terribly flawed.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


It has been pointed out to you numerous times that libertarianism does NOT assume that people will behave in a rational fashion...and now, here you are, repeating the lie again.

I'm not meaning to reopen this argument, but I'd suggest a review of this thread. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27926&perpage=40&highlight=Spitz&pagenumber=1) to rebut the above assertion.

In short, a hypothetical about an island and power of land ownership. One exchange:

Shanek said:
No, I wouldn't be a slave. As I showed, I would be compensated for my work. If I didn't think it was fair, I would simply refuse to do the work and Suddenly would be put back in a pickle. It's in Suddenly's best interests to work with me.


I said: You are making assumptions about how my motivations. In my hypothetical it is I who own the land. You are saying I will bargain in my best interests. Fact is you have no way of saying what my best interests are. We can even assume you are some sort of nature expert and you can turn the island into paradise. Makes no difference. I want no part of your help. It could be that I'm a loner and hate people, whatever. I just don't want your help. Period. It is not really a novel occurence where one sacrifices weath for bigoted ideals.

It is not unusual to reject help for silly personal bigoted reasons. My character in the hypo does likewise.

Shanek replied: But it's not the usual behavior of people. So you've just made your entire hypothetical completely invalid and revealed it for the bigoted rant you apparently intended it to be all along, instead of a simlified, realistic examination of how property values are used in society. You just made your hypothetical completely, 100% invalid.

... and that about sums it up. Any situation where people acts as a libertarian would consider "unusual" is an invalid example. Plus, you are a bigot for suggesting that people sometimes act on their prejudices rather than their best interests.

We return you to your regularly scheduled thread, where Malachi is challenging us to prove he is not a goat or something...

by comrade Malachi151

Okay, that's all for now, don't want to put forth too much at one time

:eek:

[Clancie]

Posted by Malachi151

Prove the basic tennets of Marxism to be flawed concepts
Okay, I'll play, Malachi151.

Q: So...Malachi, was Marx right about the proletariat being the vanguard of the revolution? Did revolution start in a capitalist country--led by the proletariat as Marx expected--in Russia?

(A: No).

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it doesn't. That's another lie, and that has been pointed out to you as well.

Nobody's pointed this issue out to you? Really?

WRONG!

That, sir, is a crock, and you know it. You don't AGREE with it, but it's been pointed out to you, and you've utterly failed to deal with the FACT.

Now you've said "lie" twice in this thread.

Retract both. You are intentionally stating untruths in an attempt to injure my reputation, and it's time you stop.

[Theodore Kurita]

There is a reason that I believe in Post-Marxist, instead of Marxist Ideologies.

He did get some stuff right, (ie Historical Materialism, Dialectic Materialism)

Yet the basic concept is flawed…

Here is a good visual representation of Marxist and Post-Marxist thought.

Note, both Marxist and Post-Marxist thought rely on materialism only.

Think the Allegory of a cave model simplified and applied to a Marxist and Post-Marxist viewpoint.

If you look at Marxist Ideology believes than when somone realizes their social class, they can go out and change the world and better themselves, so it does have dualistic element to say the least.

Fucco's Post-Marxist views believe that everything that is said and done is the cause of the culture we live in.

Just look at the examples I am posting below.

[Theodore Kurita]

And here is the Fucco Post-Marxist viewpoint.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Marxism isn't flawed. We are. [see Animal Farm]

E.O. Wilson famously said of Marxism, "Wonderful idea. Wrong species."

Nearly all laissez-faire minded, libertarian economists hold dear assumptions on "rationality." Homo economicus, rational expectations (Robert Lucas from the UofChicago), and so on down the line. On the "philosophical" side, Ayn Rand claimed that the interests of rational agents are never in conflict.

The far political Left (past liberalism) claims we are capable of producing a rational society. The extreme right (Libertarian) claims we *are* rational, and often associates "society" with fiction; only individuals exist.

[Gem]

It has been pointed out to you numerous times that libertarianism does NOT assume that people will behave in a rational fashion...and now, here you are, repeating the lie again.

I was going to argue that most economic theories, ergo libertarianism, required people to be rational. That people do decisions based on what they think they will get the most out of.

But I won't have to.

http://www.lp.org/intro/


What Is The Libertarian Party?
The Libertarian Party is your representative in American politics. It is the only political organization which respects you as a unique and competent individual.



(emphasis mine)

Gem

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it doesn't. That's another lie, and that has been pointed out to you as well.

You need to stop, RIGHT NOW, with the accusations of lies. jj is just reiterating the Libertarian party position, if you don't like maybe you should rethink your endorsement of it.

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


You need to stop, RIGHT NOW, with the accusations of lies. jj is just reiterating the Libertarian party position, if you don't like maybe you should rethink your endorsement of it.

Come on,Yeti, why should his own party line, as written and quoted above, matter to him?

Face it, the only way libertarianism (of Shanek's sort at least) works is if you can hide in Montana and use a solar tap for energy.

And the railroads will still s**k.

JJ - Now listening to Halley's 5th.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by jj

JJ - Now listening to Halley's 5th.

What a co-inky-dink, I'm listening to Vedder's 5th!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Gem
I'm not sure why all these long explanations are necessary. I haven't kept up with "modern" communism.

There are many flaws in the political and economical beliefs. Let me tell you why, in a single sentence, why communism, even if well (or perfectly) implemented, would never have worked:

It assumes people will get along with each other.

I dunno if it does. All Marx says in the matter is when he talks about "man's (sic) species-being" (human nature) being essentially social–people want to be around other people. I guess you could argue that human nature is essentially selfish, but I'd argue that this is a matter of culture, not nature.

My main problem with Marxism is that bit when the state, having collected all private property, redistributes it to everyone. It always seems that the state carnt get over its belief in property ownership and give up the goods. My other problem is Marx's historicism; looking at history in terms of cultural production and capital is interesting but kind of flawed, in that it is constraining and contradictory to its revolutionary project, and is inflexible in that it can't account for the contingent nature of history.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
And here is the Fucco Post-Marxist viewpoint.
:confused: Foucault? (http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/foucault.home.html)

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Gem


I was going to argue that most economic theories, ergo libertarianism, required people to be rational. That people do decisions based on what they think they will get the most out of.

But I won't have to.

http://www.lp.org/intro/



(emphasis mine)

Gem

Let's just clarify one thing.


The term rational, as used in economics, means simply that people act in a way that is consistent with the information they have. Another way to think about it is that people will not keep repeating the same mistakes. Note that rational people, a defigned thus, can make mistakes; it is only if they don't learn from them that they become irrational.

For example. Try to pat a strange dog. Dog bites you. A rational person would not try to touch the dog again. An irrational person would.

In a more direct economic context. Allan Greenspan used a phrase "irrational exurberance", referring to the 1990 bull market in stock prices. I take exception to that, because it was completely rational. If stock prices rise rapidly over an extended period (a bull market) people are completely justified in thinking a purchase mightgive them a profit as well. Nothing irrational there. What would be irrational is if you believed the prices were going to fall and then bought.

There is nothing controversial about this.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Drooper


Let's just clarify one thing.


The term rational, as used in economics, means simply that people act in a way that is consistent with the information they have. Another way to think about it is that people will not keep repeating the same mistakes. Note that rational people, a defigned thus, can make mistakes; it is only if they don't learn from them that they become irrational.

For example. Try to pat a strange dog. Dog bites you. A rational person would not try to touch the dog again. An irrational person would.
Ah, but what if I generalise this to never pat any stray dog; would that be rational? Or if the dog is sat in front of my door and I'm going to have to touch it to move it if I want to get in my house? Or I'm the dog warden and I'm here to take it to the strays' home?

Basically, doesn't this model presume that all economic actors act in the same manner?

[Skeptic]

Heh. Reminds me of Lyndon "the nut" LaRouche's claims to be the greatest human who ever lived. Among other things, he claimed to have found A mistake in Marx's theories...

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Nobody's pointed this issue out to you? Really?

WRONG!

That, sir, is a crock, and you know it. You don't AGREE with it, but it's been pointed out to you, and you've utterly failed to deal with the FACT.

This is a lie. I have refuted it every single time it has been brought up. YOU have ignored those refutations, yet seek every oppportunity to repeat the LIE whenever you can.

And it IS A LIE, since you've been pointed out several times why this is wrong.

For the curious, here's an excellent article explaining why (an article which has been referenced to jj several times, which he has never refuted):

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21993

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
You need to stop, RIGHT NOW, with the accusations of lies. jj is just reiterating the Libertarian party position, if you don't like maybe you should rethink your endorsement of it.

No, he isn't, and I have pointed this out to you, too, numerous times. You are compounding jj's lie.

In fact, I think it's clear that Libertarianism is the only political philosophy that truly accounts for human nature, since all of the others think to some degree that the terrible and irrational things people will do will magically go away when they enter the government.

[Chaos]

@shanek, jj, EvilYeti:
Can you please take this "Idiot!"-"Liar!"-"Idiot!"-"Liar!" chorus to a separate thread - preferably in Flame Wars? It is getting in the way of a serious discussion.

Thank you in advance.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek


No, he isn't, and I have pointed this out to you, too, numerous times. You are compounding jj's lie.

In fact, I think it's clear that Libertarianism is the only political philosophy that truly accounts for human nature, since all of the others think to some degree that the terrible and irrational things people will do will magically go away when they enter the government.

Please address the island issue above and I will believe you.

[BillyTK]

<libertarian thread derail ahoy>
Originally posted by shanek


This is a lie. I have refuted it every single time it has been brought up. YOU have ignored those refutations, yet seek every oppportunity to repeat the LIE whenever you can.

And it IS A LIE, since you've been pointed out several times why this is wrong.

For the curious, here's an excellent article explaining why (an article which has been referenced to jj several times, which he has never refuted):

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21993

I've read it—twice—but I'm having trouble with the first three sentences:
On Wednesday WorldNetDaily published a letter from a reader who said, "I can't be a Libertarian because their philosophy is based on people doing the right thing and minding their own business."

This is a common misconception. Actually, we Libertarians believe just the opposite.

That's why we don't want politicians running our lives. They rarely do the right thing, and they never mind their own business.
Libertarians believe that people won't do the right thing and won't mind their own business, so that's why they want to get rid of government interference in our lives (and how do you achieve that without getting rid of government, completely?)? <:rolleyes:>Is the assumption that government is also to blame for people's failings?</:rolleyes:>
And:
Some people may choose to do the wrong thing with their lives, but the government will no longer inflict their problems on you or your children.

[...]But in a Libertarian society, you'll be free to correct your mistakes.
Which mistakes? And how? And will the people with problems that the government is no longer going to inflict on me be able to fix their mistakes? Or is that just for us nice Libertarians?
</libertarian thread derail>

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


This is a lie. I have refuted it every single time it has been brought up. YOU have ignored those refutations, yet seek every oppportunity to repeat the LIE whenever you can.

And it IS A LIE, since you've been pointed out several times why this is wrong.

For the curious, here's an excellent article explaining why (an article which has been referenced to jj several times, which he has never refuted):

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21993

As per Chaos' suggestion I will respond to this in a different thread. If shanek feels the need to rise to Valmorians challenge I would hope he does it there or in his own thread.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek
In fact, I think it's clear that Libertarianism is the only political philosophy that truly accounts for human nature, since all of the others think to some degree that the terrible and irrational things people will do will magically go away when they enter the government.
That's one heckuva generalisation. All the other political philosophies?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
Please address the island issue above and I will believe you.

I addressed it in great detail in at least two other threads.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek


I addressed it in great detail in at least two other threads.

Please point me to those threads, because as far as I could tell, your 'answer' was simply to say that the hypothetical was invalid simply because 'most' people wouldn't act that way.

Well DUH, 'most' people wouldn't commit crimes, either, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore the fact that crimes happen.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
Please point me to those threads, because as far as I could tell, your 'answer' was simply to say that the hypothetical was invalid simply because 'most' people wouldn't act that way.

Well DUH, 'most' people wouldn't commit crimes, either, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore the fact that crimes happen.

But the point of his hypothetical was to boil down Libertarian philosophy to two people on an island. By making one person act atypical of how most people act, he deliberately skewed the hypothetical away from such a proper assessment. It became a fallacy of adverse consequences.

Here's the major thread where we discussed this:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28080

Another one, although it wasn't the focus of the thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27926&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

And this, I believe, is the first episode where the island scenario was proposed (by me, in fact):

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24352&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek


But the point of his hypothetical was to boil down Libertarian philosophy to two people on an island. By making one person act atypical of how most people act, he deliberately skewed the hypothetical away from such a proper assessment. It became a fallacy of adverse consequences.




What is the "Fallacy of adverse consequences"? I cannot seem to find it in Google.

It seems to me he was asking "How would Libertarian thought evaluate the following circumstance". There's nothing wrong with him proposing an atypical behaviour for the first party, since that's the very point he's trying to make. How does Libertarian thought resolve this dilemma?

You can't expect that everyone's going to always act in their own best interests. Sometimes what they consider to be their own best interest isn't what YOU would consider to be.

There's no deliberate 'skewing' here, Shane. All I see is your uncomfortable twisting trying to declare this hypothetical "invalid" simply because it proposes a situation that MOST people wouldn't be in.

Well so what? Like I said before, MOST people don't commit crimes, either.

---

As far as your answer, there's a LOT of posts in those three threads. Could you please point out where you address the problem? I've tried to find it, but all I see is avoidance and declaring it 'INVALID!' on your part.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Ah, but what if I generalise this to never pat any stray dog; would that be rational? Or if the dog is sat in front of my door and I'm going to have to touch it to move it if I want to get in my house? Or I'm the dog warden and I'm here to take it to the strays' home?

Basically, doesn't this model presume that all economic actors act in the same manner?

All those actions appear rational to me. refer back to my definition of rational

To answer you second question. Just becasue we all act in fashion consistent with the information at hand doesn't mean we make the same choices. This is because we all have differing preferences, differing constraints and, in the real world, different information.

[jj]

Originally posted by Chaos
@shanek, jj, EvilYeti:
Can you please take this "Idiot!"-"Liar!"-"Idiot!"-"Liar!" chorus to a separate thread - preferably in Flame Wars? It is getting in the way of a serious discussion.

Thank you in advance.

No, Chaos, I won't. I stated a simple truth, and Shanek, as usual, emerged with his shrill cries of "liar, liar".

Are you suggesting I'm not allowed to defend myself against his appalling accusations?

If you ARE suggesting that, you are FULLY SUPPORTING HIS ACCUSATIONS BY DEFAULT.

Was that your intent?

[Malachi151]

This si why the purpose is to stick to teh REAL points of Marxism, not teh BS anti-Marxist propaganda.

It assumes people will get along with each other.

Wrong, nothing in Marxism makes that assumption.

The Soviet State did wither away, in true Marxist fashion.

Who said anyhting about the Soviet Union? They were as Marxist as the US is.

This is not about Communism, or the faulty implimentation of it, its about Marxist analysis of capitlaism.

Which is precisely why Marxism is flawed. It does not account for the reality of human nature

Yeah like the lfaw that no one can stay on topic. You aren't discussing Marxism, you are discussing BS that your school teacher told you.

So...Malachi, was Marx right about the proletariat being the vanguard of the revolution? Did revolution start in a capitalist country--led by the proletariat as Marx expected--in Russia?

No, but that has little to do with his analysis of capitalism.

The Bolsheviks were wrong to do what they did, and Leon Trotsky realized this after the fact and pointed it out.

E.O. Wilson famously said of Marxism, "Wonderful idea. Wrong species."

Anohter idiot talking about things he doesn't understand, what's new? Anyway that comment can only be applied to Communism, not Marxism.

My main problem with Marxism is that bit when the state, having collected all private property, redistributes it to everyone.

Again, that has nothing to do with Marxism.

Well this thread turned into a bunch of BS.

The point is, not one of you are able to present one flaw in Marxist analysis of capitalism. Marx accurately descibed capitlaism and market economics.

I've never seen anyone disprove of of the fundamental tenets of Marxism, all people do is got about burning down straw men.

So far no one has even touched on a single issue of Marxism.

Can anyone disprove Marxist analysis of market economics?

So far the anwser is a resounding no.

[jj]

Malachi, when are you going to realize that the real-world effects of Marxism are by now utterly obvious?

[Clancie]

Posted by Malachi151

So...Malachi, was Marx right about the proletariat being the vanguard of the revolution? Did revolution start in a capitalist country--led by the proletariat as Marx expected--in Russia?

No, but that has little to do with his analysis of capitalism.
Excuse me, but your challenge was to show an untrue tenet of Marxism. I have pointed one out to you--namely, that, according to Marx's analysis of capitalism, the first successful socialist revolution would be led by the working class vanguard, the industrialized proletariat.

It wasn't.

This is major Marxist premise, Malachi, stemming from his analysis of the class antagonism indemic to capitalism. And yet....it did not happen this way at all.

[Clancie]

Posted by Malachi151

The Bolsheviks were wrong to do what they did
:eek: :eek: :eek:
(Maybe this is why Trotskyites have yet to successfully lead a revolution anywhere in the world....)

Anyway,....its good to know that, for all your posts about the USSR, you actually repudiate Lenin, and think that the Russian Revolution was a mistake (simply because, although successful, it didn't follow Marx's belief that it would come in an industrialized capitalist country).

Marx was not a dogmatist, Malachi. Unfortunately, one can't say the same for many of his followers.....

.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151
This si why the purpose is to stick to teh REAL points of Marxism, not teh BS anti-Marxist propaganda.
[/B]

Corplinx was on the right track, but this is further proof: the problem with "Maxrism" is typing too fast :D


Who said anyhting about the Soviet Union? They were as Marxist as the US is.

This is not about Communism, or the faulty implimentation of it, its about Marxist analysis of capitlaism.


Yup. "Maxrism" certainly is flawed.


Yeah like the lfaw that no one can stay on topic. You aren't discussing Marxism, you are discussing BS that your school teacher told you.


BS like proper spelling? :p


Anohter idiot talking about things he doesn't understand, what's new? Anyway that comment can only be applied to Communism, not Marxism.

...

Marx accurately descibed capitlaism and market economics.

I've never seen anyone disprove of of the fundamental tenets of Marxism, all people do is got about burning down straw men.


I know this post is a little light on actual content on my part, and rather thoroughly beside the point, but I was just very amused by how many spelling mistakes there were, particularly in light of corplinx's earlier post. Forgive me my indulgence. Now back to your regularly scheduled bickering...;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
What is the "Fallacy of adverse consequences"?

Basically, arguing against a belief by showing how terrible things will be if it is allowed to come to fruition. Example: "We must do something about Global Warming because it will make the planet unliveable." Basically, he was using a very limited and atypical example to try and convince people that Libertarianism is horrible and uncaring and unfeeling. The scenario was actually posited by EvilYeti, who was trying to show that Libertarianism promotes slavery.

I cannot seem to find it in Google.

It's in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.

As far as your answer, there's a LOT of posts in those three threads. Could you please point out where you address the problem?

It's throughout all of those threads.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
I stated a simple truth, and Shanek, as usual,

No, you didn't. You stated a falsehood that has been shown to you before to be a falsehood. Hence, you are a liar.

[Ziggurat]

jj and shanek:

Take it to the other thread. This thread is about Maxrism.

[Aoidoi]

Darnit, I was in the mood for some good marxism bashing and here I find an argument on libertarianism!

I've not read much Marx, though I think I have something by him at home from a college course. I was hoping for more things like pointing out that his predictions on how socialism would come about have not come to pass. C'mon, stop bashing one minor political cult and start bashing the one this thread is about! ;)

Removes tongue from cheek

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek

Basically, arguing against a belief by showing how terrible things will be if it is allowed to come to fruition. Example: "We must do something about Global Warming because it will make the planet unliveable." Basically, he was using a very limited and atypical example to try and convince people that Libertarianism is horrible and uncaring and unfeeling. The scenario was actually posited by EvilYeti, who was trying to show that Libertarianism promotes slavery.



Nonsense. It's a decent analogy, because it is showing that Libertarianism simply DOESN'T CARE. This is exactly what he wanted to know. It's simply pointing out that Libertarianism DOES, in fact, rely upon the good nature of others to resolve situations like this. You're trusting that the first person will be reasonable, and won't make the other one leave "HIS" island, and simply declaring any other possibility "Invalid" because the situation would be undesirable.

Are you seriously saying that all atypical hypothetical situations are invalid??

Absolutely hilarious.



It's throughout all of those threads.

If it is, simply point it out to me. Point me at one simple straightforward answer from you regarding the hypothetical situation, because I seriously don't see one from you in there. I see a lot of twisting and weaving from you, and a few "WOULD YOU PEOPLE FSCKING LISTEN!?!?!" scattered here and there, but nothing saying something like:

The owner of the island is not obligated to help the other person, they are legally entitled to have the other person go out to sea and die.


Although, you seemed to have informed me of this particular nugget on the new thread, in point of the house owner and the motorist, albeit mostly by presupposing that the motorist might be a mugger in disguise.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by BillyTK

:confused: Foucault? (http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/foucault.home.html)

Sorry.

I spelled his name wrong... :(

Anyways, he was a skeptic.

His ideology is infallable.

Everything comes from, and is based upon, culture!

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


No, you didn't. You stated a falsehood that has been shown to you before to be a falsehood. Hence, you are a liar.

Retract your false accusation.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
jj and shanek:

Take it to the other thread. This thread is about Maxrism.

Why do you wish, then, to censor my position, which is that both Marxism and Libertarianism have the same basic flaw, they expect something unrealistic of human behavior.

It's not just Marxism and Libertarianism that suffer that, either, of course.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by jj

Why do you wish, then, to censor my position, which is that both Marxism and Libertarianism have the same basic flaw, they expect something unrealistic of human behavior.


I just think if you want to yell at Shanek (and hey, I don't really blame you), the other thread specifically on that subject is a better venue. You made your point, but continuing to bring up libertarianism here just gets Shanek to jump up and down, and while the comparison is fine, whether or not Marxism depends on unrealistic behavior (let alone good spelling ;) ) doesn't depend on whether or not Libertarianism does too.

Note I was (and am) also being somewhat tongue in cheek (note my spelling of Marxism in the above post).

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by BillyTK
My main problem with Marxism is that bit when the state, having collected all private property, redistributes it to everyone

Originally posted by Malachi151
Again, that has nothing to do with Marxism.

Okay, so we've read different versions of Das Kapital then. I admit I couldn't read it in its original language, so there's the possibility of translation errors creeping in.

The point is, not one of you are able to present one flaw in Marxist analysis of capitalism. Marx accurately descibed capitlaism and market economics.
Okay, how about this for a flaw; Marx was writing about 19th century capitalist relations. There's nothing in there which comes anywhere close to understanding the complexity of modern consumerism, and how it pretty much undermines any possibility of a genuine proletarian uprising because basically, people want their consumer goods. Guys like Adorno saw it coming, but not Marx; if anything, we're heading towards a Weberian class-less (or many classes, depending on your point of view) society. Also Marx has a tendency to treat the working class as homogenous, regardless of their culture or traditions, because he only sees them in terms of conflict between them and the bourgeois, which despite Marx's project, is no less patronising than bourgeoise attitudes to the working class. Which reminds me, from reading Marx, you'd think women were invisible. Anything about their unrewarded labour? Nope. Anything about the gendered division of labour and how it came about? Nope.

Can anyone disprove Marxist analysis of market economics?

It's an unfalsifiable theory. As such this question is meaningless.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Basically, arguing against a belief by showing how terrible things will be if it is allowed to come to fruition. Example: "We must do something about Global Warming because it will make the planet unliveable." Basically, he was using a very limited and atypical example to try and convince people that Libertarianism is horrible and uncaring and unfeeling. The scenario was actually posited by EvilYeti, who was trying to show that Libertarianism promotes slavery.



I was going to say something swarmy about shanek believing that any hypothetical negative to his position must be a fallacy, but lo and behold he said it much better himself!

[TillEulenspiegel]

Prove Maxrism to be flawed...

The vast majority of humans are motivated by self-interest ( even if it's enlightened self interest)

When people have to wipe thier ass with pieces of wallpaper the theoritical charm of that failed 19th century oddity goes down the toilet ( that's if the water is running)

Please don't do the "There has never been a true communistic( socialistic) state dodge ....that's equine feces.

[Tony]

Isnt the burden of proof on the marxists?

I'd say the fact that "marxism" has never been successfully implemented is proof enough that it is flawed.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Why do you wish, then, to censor my position,

Well, I think that just about says it all. :rolleyes:

If I have anything further to say on this subject, I'll say it in the other thread. So look for replies there. Until then, I'll lurk in this thread unless I have something to say on the subject of Marxism.

And I do want to apologize for contributing to the derailing of this thread, but I could not let the lie go unrefuted yet again.

[American]

Why the debate? There is a tri-color flag over the Kremlin at this very moment. No ***** hammer and sickle.

End-of-story.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


Sorry.

I spelled his name wrong... :(

No problem. He's one of my favourite guys, so I'm pleased you're familiar with his ideas.


Anyways, he was a skeptic.

His ideology is infallable.

Everything comes from, and is based upon, culture!
Hold on, are you sure you want to claim his ideology is infallible? Remember, he ultimately gave up on his project when he realised the logical conclusion of it was that individuals are no more than intersections of time, geography and culture. Ultimately, there are no people, just society, which, whilst attractive for understanding social action at macro and micro levels, is quite a depressing idea because it destroys any possibility for influencing cuture, means that there is no possibility for any kind of cross-culture understanding and is ultimately contradictory in that culture is a human production.

He's still a great guy though ;) :D

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Prove Maxrism to be flawed...

The vast majority of humans are motivated by self-interest ( even if it's enlightened self interest)

Marxism doesn't deny self interest; what it intends to do is remove the power relations which permit the oppressive exploitation of self-interest.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tony
Isnt the burden of proof on the marxists?

I'd say the fact that "marxism" has never been successfully implemented is proof enough that it is flawed.

For once, I agree with you. (Don´t worry, it won´t become a habit)

Of course, Marxists will probably say "these were just flawed and imperfect examples" etc etc

I say this does not matter. Every attempt to build a marxist society failed so far. This is perhaps not conclusive proof, but at least enough anecdotal evidence to stop trying to implement marxism.

And it does not matter if marxism as a theory is perfect. A theory can never be transferred 100% onto a society. There is always something that will go contrary to theory.

To paraphrase the old military adage:

"No theory will ever survive first contact with reality."

[Ed]

Sorry, I am coming to this riviting discussion late and it is early here.

Who is this Max? Max Bialystock?

Malichi, are you referring to his theory regarding oversubscribing Broadway shows?

The only quote of his that bears directly on economic theory that I can find is this appreciation of Capitalism:

"Max Bialystock: That's it, baby, when you've got it, flaunt it, flaunt it!"

However, his partner, Leo (the bagel) Bloom was perspicatious. To this day we live by his basic economic truism:

"Leo Bloom: Max, there's not more than 100% of anything"

Sound reasoning there.

Malachi, I think that if you want to be fair, you need to combine their names, since both contributed to their ultimate product. Further, Bloom generally went by his nickname, "bagel". Ergo, in the future please cite:



















Max and Bagel

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Marxism doesn't deny self interest; what it intends to do is remove the power relations which permit the oppressive exploitation of self-interest.

By setting up another power structure which permits the oppressive exploitation of self-interest. :p

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Drooper
All those actions appear rational to me. refer back to my definition of rational

Well, the first one is irrational, because it's creating a principle from a limited set of circumstances, black cats notwithstanding.

To answer you second question. Just becasue we all act in fashion consistent with the information at hand doesn't mean we make the same choices. This is because we all have differing preferences, differing constraints and, in the real world, different information.
Thanks! But in acknowledging this, how can economics make any predictions with any certainty, if actors will respond to the same condition in any number of different ways? For instance, in your bull market analogy, this assumes that everyone is acting with the same intent—to maximise their profit on every transaction—which might be a reasonable assumption for the stock market, but is this kind of assumption valid for other areas? Or does it all balance out at a macro level?

Edited to fix ems

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


By setting up another power structure which permits the oppressive exploitation of self-interest. :p
Which would be what, exactly?

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Which would be what, exactly?

An intrusive government, of course.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


An intrusive government, of course.

No more than under Libertarianism. Under Marxism, the state withers away, remember?

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
No more than under Libertarianism. Under Marxism, the state withers away, remember?

Whereupon there's nothing to enforce it and therefore there's nothing to stop totalitarian regimes from rising and oppressing the people by force.

[Malachi151]

I't obviously impossible for you to get on topic or to get you to debate Marxism. Still no one has even touched on Marxism at all.

"Marxism is above all a method of analysis - not analysis of texts, but analysis of social relations." Trotsky

Marxism is ANALYSIS. Talking about RESULTS is not a part of the conversation.

The best way to think of Marxism is like the Scientific Method.

Marxism is essentially a Scientific Method for the study of socieology and economics.

To claim that the scientific method is flawed because someone uses it to create weapons of mass destruction, or because someone failes to use it properly and get's flawed results is not an accurate argument against the scientific method.

Have scientists been wrong? Yes, they have, lots of times, even when employing the scientific method. Have scientists doen bad things? Yes, they have.

In fact especially over the past 200 years, many people have argued against science itself for these reasons, even seeing science as "immoral".

Now, Marxism is no different.

Marxism is JUST a method of analysis, thats it.

What is at issue here is not the effects of attempts by thugs to impliment Communism, which were never realized and always poorly perpetrated, what is at issue is the Marxist method of analysis.

"By social we understand the co-operation of several individuals, no matter under what conditions, in what manner and to what end. It follows from this that a certain mode of production, or industrial stage, is always combined with a certain mode of co-operation, or social stage, and this mode of co-operation is itself a "productive force"." - Marx/Engles

"Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of the relationships and conditions in which these individuals stand to one aother. As if someone were to say: for society, slaves and citizens do not exist: both are men. They are both men, if we consider them outside society. To be a slave and to be a citizen are social determinations, relations between human beings A and B. Human being A as such is not a slave; he is a slave in and through society." - Marx/Engels

"The various stages of development in the division of labour are just so many different forms of ownership, i.e. the existing stage in the division of labour determines also the relations of individuals to one another with reference to the material, instrument, and product of labour." - Marx/engels

"All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice." - Marx

Explanation:

"Here Marx is criticising those who view human history as an unfolding of abstract "ideas". Marx did believe that ideology formed a very important part of social power, but he believed that ideology was used to legitimate real, concrete conditions of power and didn't have a seperate existance - in this sense Marx was very critical of religion. "

I agree with this completely. Social behaviors develop through social evolution. Religions and other such ideas are product of social evolution creating a set of ideas that engender a condition which is productive to society.

"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." - Engels

Which is so sadly proven to be true today, and in fact it is always true.

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past." - Marx

"We only demand that a historic personality, with all its peculiarities, should not be taken as a bare list of psychological traits, but as a living reality grown out of definite social conditions and reacting upon them. As a rose does not lose its fragrance because the natural scientist points out upon what ingredients of soil and atmosphere it is nourished, so an exposure of the social roots of a personality does not remove from it either its aroma or its foul smell." - Trotsky

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." - Marx

"Every useful thing, for example, iron, paper, etc., may be looked at from the two points of view of quality and quantity .. The usefulness of a thing makes it a use-value. But this usefulness does not dangle in mid-air. It is conditioned by the physical properties of the commodity and has no existence apart from the latter .. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. .- Marx

"No scientist to date has yet discovered what natural qualities make definite proportions of snuff tobacco and paintings "equivalents" for one another." - Marx :D

"As values, commodities are social magnitudes, that is to say, something absolutely different from their "properties" as "things". As values, they constitute only relations of men in their productive activity." - Marx

"Capital has not invented surplus-labour. Wherever a part of society possesses a monopoly of the means of production, the labourer, free or not free, must add to the working-time necessary for his own maintenance an extra working-time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owners of the means of production, whether this proprietor be the .. Norman baron, American slave-owner, .. modern landlord or capitalist." - Marx

"Every attempt to skip over real, that is, objectively conditioned stages in the development of the masses, is political adventurism." - Trotsky

Explanation:

"Trotsky believed, like Marx, that attempting to create "utopias" which had no actual roots in the present social order was a mistake, and could only fail. Again we see that these first Marxists were concerned in transforming existing society, and not in trying to create "pipe dreams"."

Unfortunately he later went against his own word with the Bolsheviks. This underlines the mistake of all the "Communist" leaders of the 20th century, they didn't follow the very concepts of Marxism in the first place. That's no more Marx's fault then it is Darwin's fault for what biologists do or don't do today.

"A new machine invented in England deprives millions of Chinese workers of their livelihood within a year's time. In this way, big industry has brought all the people of the earth into contact with each other, has merged all local markets into one world market, has spread civilization and progress everywhere. " - Marx

"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included. " - Marx

"Catch a man a fish, and you can sell it to him. Teach a man to fish, and you ruin a wonderful business opportunity. " - Marx

"Democracy is the road to socialism. " - Marx

"The bureaucracy is a circle from which one cannot escape. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge. The top entrusts the understanding of detail to the lower levels, whilst the lower levels credit the top with understanding of the general, and so all are mutually deceived. " - Marx

"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them." - Marx

"Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains." - Marx

And I'll end on this one:

"Every individual possesses social power in the form of a thing. Take away this social power from the thing, and you must give it to persons [to exercise] over persons." - Marx

Explanation:

"Marx believed that it was the development of Capitalism that produced the possibility of Communism. This is very important, because contrary to popular belief, Marx was not an irreconcilable enemy of capitalism - in fact, Marx believed Capitalism to be both the best thing and the worst thing that humankind had experienced. If you have read the quotes on Capitalism and Political Life then you will have some idea of why Marx felt like this, and the importance and uniqueness of exchange value social relations. The important point in this quote is this - Marx is saying that to destroy "modern" relationships, without transforming them into something more progressive, is to actually fall back into more directly brutal relationships. Marx certainly did think that Capitalism had brutal relations in it, but that Capitalism actually created the possibility, for the first time in history, for the exploited to transform society for their betterment because they existed as waged workers. This is a complex issue and hard to summarise easily. However, we can at least say that Marx saw some progressive aspects to Capitalist social relations which he believed to be essential and worthy of transformation in order to arrive at an unprecedented equitable society."

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


Whereupon there's nothing to enforce it and therefore there's nothing to stop totalitarian regimes from rising and oppressing the people by force.

Again, no more than under Libertarianism (perhaps even less so) because everybody, equally, owns everything, so there's no possibility of any single person or group gaining enough power to do any overthrowing.

C'mon Shane, you're missing the obvious one here!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Malachi151
The best way to think of Marxism is like the Scientific Method.

Marxism is essentially a Scientific Method for the study of socieology and economics.

Flawed analogy. Marxism is one of many competing perspectives within sociology, and as such makes certain ontological and epistemological assumptions about its subject matter. The scientific method doesn't do that; it makes certain epistemological claims, but uses its evidential basis to review the validity of those claims.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Flawed analogy. Marxism is one of many competing perspectives within sociology, and as such makes certain ontological and epistemological assumptions about its subject matter. The scientific method doesn't do that; it makes certain epistemological claims, but uses its evidential basis to review the validity of those claims.

Which is what I'm trying to get at here. Which claims made by the Marxist method of analysis are incorrect if any?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Which is what I'm trying to get at here. Which claims made by the Marxist method of analysis are incorrect if any?
I had a strange feeling of deja vu in writing this... Okay, looking at society and history in terms of economic relations and conflicts is great if that's what you're interested, but even that is limited, because despite the lip service Marx paid to culture he doesn't incorporate its effects into his analysis, and treats these relations as homogenous.

Basically, Marxism is a tool; one tool out of the many that are available and as such it has its uses and drawbacks; you wouldn't use a hammer to screw in a nail, and you wouldn't design and build a house based on the functionality of a chisel.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by BillyTK

I had a strange feeling of deja vu in writing this... Okay, looking at society and history in terms of economic relations and conflicts is great if that's what you're interested, but even that is limited, because despite the lip service Marx paid to culture he doesn't incorporate its effects into his analysis, and treats these relations as homogenous.

Basically, Marxism is a tool; one tool out of the many that are available and as such it has its uses and drawbacks; you wouldn't use a hammer to screw in a nail, and you wouldn't design and build a house based on the functionality of a chisel.

Well I would agree there, however the claim of "most people" in this country is that Marx is now totally irrelevent and 100% flawed, and wrong about everything.

To these people: prove it.

Is Marxism the be all and end all of economic an social analysis? Of course not. Is it irrelevent and flawed? Probably less so than any other major criticism or analysis of society and economics.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Again, no more than under Libertarianism

Not true. Under Libertarianism, you do have a government that is there to protect the rights of the people.

(perhaps even less so) because everybody, equally, owns everything, so there's no possibility of any single person or group gaining enough power to do any overthrowing.

Except through the use of force, and there is no entity prohibiting its use. No matter how you got there, what you've ended up with is anarchy.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


Not true. Under Libertarianism, you do have a government that is there to protect the rights of the people.
And what's to stop government abusing its powers, or even a powerful group coming along and simply overthrowing government?

Except through the use of force, and there is no entity prohibiting its use. No matter how you got there, what you've ended up with is anarchy.
But there is no single person with a monopoly of force anyway, and no possibility of gaining a monopoly. Here's a rather simplistic analogy which might help: everybody has one gun each. Fred wants to take over, so he needs more guns. He carnt use his gun to get more guns because everyone's got a gun to protect themselves. He could organise a like minded group of people to try and achieve his goal, but because there's a larger group of people (ie, everyone else) to stop him, it's doomed.

Anarchy. Heh. That's what we keep accusing your lot of. :D

[TillEulenspiegel]

BillyTK :
"Marxism doesn't deny self interest; what it intends to do is remove the power relations which permit the oppressive exploitation of self-interest"

Ahh that must explain where the "we are all equal, some of us are just more equal then others" came from ..

Malachi151:
"Is Marxism the be all and end all of economic an social analysis? Of course not. Is it irrelevent and flawed? Probably less so than any other major criticism or analysis of society and economics."

I contend the largest sociological experiment ever conducted provides us with a true picture of the realities of such contentions, it's called human society. Look at the principles of capitalism, the ideas of the Republic and democratic representation. Now look at the States that follow such principles ( even a flawed as they are) The US,The UK, hell Europe, most of the world. Point out to me one state that followed the "analysis" of Marxist thought and translated that into a prospering, productive ( not in 1 sector either ) society. Most who observe and critique Marxisim-Lennenism with a professorial detachment and a pipe in lips sort of intellectual exersize never seem to grasp the reality that as an abstract they may function well, but they do not and never will translate into anything functional in human society.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Valmorian

The owner of the island is not obligated to help the other person, they are legally entitled to have the other person go out to sea and die.

Although, you seemed to have informed me of this particular nugget on the new thread, in point of the house owner and the motorist, albeit mostly by presupposing that the motorist might be a mugger in disguise.

That was my point exactly, thank you for picking up on it. I have less of a problem with the Libertarian ideology than I do with it adherents refusing to admit what it actually is. If shanek just came out and admitted I could legally (under Libertarian Law) enslave him by exploiting dire circumstances I could at least respect him for being honest. But as usual, he does nothing of the sort.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
And what's to stop government abusing its powers,

That was the idea of the Constitutional Republic, where checks and balances, particularly between the states and the central government, keep the power of government in check. Unfortunately, very few of those checks and balances are still in place.

But there is no single person with a monopoly of force anyway,

There doesn't need to be. All there needs to be is someone who is stronger than a certain group of people. And that will be inevitable.

I don't much care if a tyrant is a tyrant over the entire country or just my neighborhood; he's still a tyrant.

Anarchy. Heh. That's what we keep accusing your lot of. :D

Anarchy, by definition, means that there is no government, and that's exactly what you're talking about.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Shanak:
"Unfortunately, very few of those checks and balances are still in place."

I will take an uncharacteristically cautiously optimistic view here.

I would rather say that the people who operate under those constraints are more inclined to violate them and the processes are harder to invoke and apply , but ultimately they (we ) will prevail. Then we see that the processes still functions.

I am not an Nixon enthusiast nor a Clinton defender, but as you see the mechanism does function , however ever painful for the country.

[shanek]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
I would rather say that the people who operate under those constraints are more inclined to violate them and the processes are harder to invoke and apply

Unfortunately, in many cases that's not true. The 17th Amendment, for example, took away one big system of checks and balances between the states and the Federal government. The state governments no longer have representation in Congress as a result.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Well sadly you may be correct . The great compromise sets the stage for the continuing struggle between federal and states rights, most times there seems to be a synthysis, if the system seems to wobble in one directionit is eventually corrected.

I worry more about the "Tyranny of the Majority", where every political cause de'Joure is proposed as a constitutional ammendment. The framers tried to account for this, and god help us all if this type of action is sucessful and becomes the de facto standard of political will.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Drooper
The term rational, as used in economics, means simply that people act in a way that is consistent with the information they have. Another way to think about it is that people will not keep repeating the same mistakes. Note that rational people, a defigned thus, can make mistakes; it is only if they don't learn from them that they become irrational.That definition is just nuts. It would mean that the humblest seaslug is a rational thinking being, in fact more so than humans.

Humans often make the same mistakes over and over. One has only to look at that other favorite subject of this forum, Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One side kills people of the other, the other thinks that they should make side one pay for it, so it kills people, which makes it even angrier and it's going to retaliate back... And the cycle repeats itself. Everybody can see that it isn't working, but no one is able to stop it. They are stuck in a cycle of doing the same thing over and over again.

People very often repeat mistakes, out of psychopathology or the limitations to people's ability to change their behaviour, and rarely learn from them.There is nothing controversial about this.Except that it is in direct contradiction with human psychology and completely ignores that there are strict limitations to how much people can change their own behaviour.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
People very often repeat mistakes, out of psychopathology or the limitations to people's ability to change their behaviour, and rarely learn from them.

First of all, that just isn't true; some people don't learn, but most people do. Second, we're not talking about the individual here. One individual acting in a different manner is not enough to affect an economy, not even when that person is Bill Gates. Economics, particularly macroeconomics, consideres what people as a whole do; how the vast majority of them behave. And this is quite predictable.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
First of all, that just isn't true; some people don't learn, but most people do.Most people have at least some behaviours that they cannot change no matter how much they want to. To claim otherwise is to claim that they have a free will that is superhuman and has absolute power over the workings of their own nervous system.And this is quite predictable.Predictable does not equal rational.

And if people constantly learn from their mistakes, how can their behaviour be predicted anyway? It would mean that they constantly change their behaviour, wouldn't it?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Earthborn
That definition is just nuts. It would mean that the humblest seaslug is a rational thinking being, in fact more so than humans.

Humans often make the same mistakes over and over. One has only to look at that other favorite subject of this forum, Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One side kills people of the other, the other thinks that they should make side one pay for it, so it kills people, which makes it even angrier and it's going to retaliate back... And the cycle repeats itself. Everybody can see that it isn't working, but no one is able to stop it. They are stuck in a cycle of doing the same thing over and over again.

You're right, some animals show rational behaviour, as I have defined it. Certainly more intelligent animals do, but I'm not so sure about slugs. I put down slug pellets all the time and they just keep coming back for more.

Maybe, you are getting caught in a laymans' trap here. The definition of rational in economics is precise and serves a specific purpose. It may or may not relate to your own usage of the word. Whe using economic theory to build, say, consumption function, it would be absurd to not to make an assumption of rational behaviour.

Regarding Israel/Palestine. This is the same question (and apparent flaw in economics) that led John Nash on his work that led to the field of game theory and, for him, a Nobel prize. I know you may find this a little hard to believe, but terrorist tit for tat can be modelled and explained using game theory. And in no way do the actions of the agents contradict the economic definition of rational.

Just to try to give you a flavour of an explanation. Each side in such a conflict has an objective (call it a payoff). There comes a point where one side takes violent action, in an attempt to attain this payoff. The other side kills in response to try and deter the other side (call it a punishment). The first side then decides to punish as well in response and so on. This is in fact a predictable response in under game theory from an "open ended game". There have been experiments which mirror this very result - except there is no killing involved.

I read the transcipt of such an experiment where two subject have to divide a sum of money over very many repatitions. Let's say there is $10 up for grabs on each turn. Each player can chose to share, or take the lot. If both players chose to share, they get $5 each. However, if one player chooses to take the lot and the other chooses to share, the "taker" will get $10 and the "sharer" will get nothing. If both say take, each gets nothing. Obviously, they will both and collectively do best if they always say share. But they never do. They will share a couple and then one will try to take the lot, which then sets off a punishment and then tit for tat. The experiment I read contained a transcript of each players thoughts (which the participants recorded), over the course of the experiment. It could easily be a representation of the thought processes of the Palestinians and Israelis. Thoughts ebbed and flowed between a will to cooperate for a common good, to thoughts of trying to get a little bit more, to anger and desire for retribution.

It sounds like you would find Game Theory fascinating. Do a Google on Game Theory, Prisoners Dilemna. John Nash found out why you could split up a pair of criminals and get them to turn each other in - called a "Nash Equillibrium". It is a common technique and always used in Cop shows and movies.


People very often repeat mistakes, out of psychopathology or the limitations to people's ability to change their behaviour, and rarely learn from them.Except that it is in direct contradiction with human psychology and completely ignores that there are strict limitations to how much people can change their own behaviour.

I tend to disagree (surprise?:) ). I think people are overwhlemingly "rational" as I have defined it. We get where we are by trying, making mistakes, trying something different, improving etc. I know from reading about child psychology, it is recommended that you should not be over-protecitive of children, because you affect their learning process and there ability to make good choices for themselves. Of course, there are some people that will make the same mistake over and over, but they are hardly the norm are they?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Most people have at least some behaviours that they cannot change no matter how much they want to. To claim otherwise is to claim that they have a free will that is superhuman and has absolute power over the workings of their own nervous system.Predictable does not equal rational.

Are you saying people will do things in the consciios expectation that they will lose? I'm not talking about an action where there is a chance of loss, put a sue for loss - say, setting your house on fire (without insurance!) for no apparent reason. Only a very very small prportion of the population would act in such a way and they are normally sent to psychiatric institutions.

And if people constantly learn from their mistakes, how can their behaviour be predicted anyway? It would mean that they constantly change their behaviour, wouldn't it?

Actually, it makes it more predictable. Take an example of American tourists to London. there is a lot of trouble with them looking the wrong way when they cross the road. A natural mistake to make, because contained in their "information set" is the knowledge learned over time that as they step from the curb, a car could aproach from the left. In London, however, it will be coming from the right. From the point of view of an observer (say, somebody driving down the road towards them), such tourists behave unpredictably, until they learn - from a near miss with a black cab - that they should be looking right. As they assimilate the new information, their actions become more predictable - towhit, passing drivers find they don't need to slam on the brakes to avoid someone stepping out into the traffic looking the wrong way.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Most people have at least some behaviours that they cannot change no matter how much they want to.

But not the same behaviors in any great portion of the population.

Predictable does not equal rational.

It does in the economic sense of the word.

And if people constantly learn from their mistakes, how can their behaviour be predicted anyway? It would mean that they constantly change their behaviour, wouldn't it?

They change it in predictable ways.

[Drooper]

Earthborn,

Just to confuse you and to prove that I am indeed an economist - you are correct that "rationality" sometimes breaks down badly in economics.

However, it is in one specific area and if you would like a Nobel prize, this would be my tip for an area of research. The place where this is a problem comse in the area of choice under uncertainty. It applies to the area of gambling, with applications to finance (and stock markets suprisingly;) ).

You see, people some time exhibit behaviour that does not conform to rational behaviour (i.e. consistent with the information you have). Lotteries, are a good example. You can tell people until you're blue in the face that buying a Lotto ticket, at odds of 40 million to one, is tantamount to burning money. Tell them that they should bet on a horse or anything else. However, they will still take the worst bet. Nobody has managed to explain why this is so, but the problem occurs in a few instances. For example, when there are tiny weeney chances of acquiring a massive increase in utility (as in the Lotto). Another example is an inability to find a consistent model to explain behaviour across varying levels of wealth - meaning, a really wealthy person seems to act according to a different set of rules to a person of average wealth.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Which would be what, exactly?

You can not possibly be that dim..

[billydkid]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


That was my point exactly, thank you for picking up on it. I have less of a problem with the Libertarian ideology than I do with it adherents refusing to admit what it actually is. If shanek just came out and admitted I could legally (under Libertarian Law) enslave him by exploiting dire circumstances I could at least respect him for being honest. But as usual, he does nothing of the sort.

By your definition of what constitutes slavery - precisely what form of government would prevent that from happening??? - poor people needing jobs and feeling compelled to keep their jobs? Using you definition working for anyone is a form of exploitation. Clearly, if they were not gaining an advantage by hiring you they would not do so. I can't even begin to imagine what would constitute a just society to you. Is it one where the government redistributes the wealth of a nation equally? Where noone is ever anyone else's boss? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

[Clancie]

Posted by Malachi151

Which claims made by the Marxist method of analysis are incorrect if any?
I've told you three times, Malachi. The idea that the opposition of economic classes within capitalist society will inevitably lead to socialism--a revolution that necessarily would be led by the industrialized proletariat, the vanguard of the working class--was wrong.

This was what Marx said, based on his analysis of the necessary opposition of capital and labor within a capitalist society. However, rather than addressing this point, all you did was say the Russian Revolution was wrong to happen, because, although successful, it didn't follow the tenets of Marx!!!!)

And, while you're on the subject of Trotsky and Marx, Malachi...how about the Marxist idea of superstructure as another flawed tenet...the idea that the ideology of literature and art always reflects a class content?

A very over-simplified view of art by Marx...actually an incorrect one...wouldn't you (and Trotsky) agree?

(And, actually, I like Marx's work far better than Trotsky's, but I just can't stand dogmatists--especially those who answer people with long strings of quotes that...don't...address...the...points!)

[shanek]

Originally posted by billydkid
By your definition of what constitutes slavery - precisely what form of government would prevent that from happening???

Simple: a government that, through programs such as the Minimum Wage, force these people into unemployment. After all, they can't be exploited by an employer if they're not employed!

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Drooper
Certainly more intelligent animals do, but I'm not so sure about slugs.But they do learn and change their behaviours according to the information they have. They have very little information, which means they have only limited choices, but they act 'rationally' on them.

On the other hand, humans have much wider senses. But our environment is also much more complex. So complex in fact that we can't possibly react rationally to the information overload we are bombarded with. So according to your definition, we are less rational than seaslugs.The first side then decides to punish as well in response and so on. This is in fact a predictable response in under game theory from an "open ended game".But it is very obvious that doing this isn't going to bring them any closer to their 'objective'. They are still not changing their behaviour. What is rational about that?Thoughts ebbed and flowed between a will to cooperate for a common good, to thoughts of trying to get a little bit more, to anger and desire for retribution.How can anyone call such a thing 'rational' ? Sounds like emotional and irrational behaviour to me.Of course, there are some people that will make the same mistake over and over, but they are hardly the norm are they?I think they are. I can't see how people could possibly have such control over themselves since their behaviour must be physically explainable.Are you saying people will do things in the consciios expectation that they will lose?Yes. It is called 'compulsive behaviour' and most people have at least some of them. And there are many more behaviours people have trouble controlling.Only a very very small prportion of the population would act in such a way and they are normally sent to psychiatric institutions.Most people can actually cope, because they can live the adverse consequences, which may not be bad enough to cause much suffering.Lotteries, are a good example. You can tell people until you're blue in the face that buying a Lotto ticket, at odds of 40 million to one, is tantamount to burning money. Tell them that they should bet on a horse or anything else. However, they will still take the worst bet.Actually, such behaviour doesn't surprise me at all and I even think it is much closer to 'economic rationalism' as other examples.

Once in a while some person rings at my front door and tries to sell me a sort of lottery scheme. Invariably they explain that their plan works by buying many lottery tickets and sharing the winnings among the participants. Suppose there are ten people participating, they then buy ten tickets. If there is a prize on one of them, all participants get a tenth of the prize, but so they argue your chances of winning rose ten fold. And that's their selling point: higher chances.

I'm always unsuccessfull explaining these people that what really matter in a lottery is not the chances of winning, but the percentage of money you can win back from what you paid. If the lottery uses 80% of the ticket sales to give to charities or the state, 10% for the expenses of the lottery itself, then by sharing winnings between players will only get you an average of 10 cents of every Euro back. If all players would share the winnings with all others, everybody would just pay 10 Euro for a ticket and get 1 Euro back and that's that. But the salesperson invariable says when I explained it: "But the chances of winning are so much higher!" Ugh, stupid people! :)

I have heard many people say that lottery prizes are just ridiculously high and it would be fairer to give 10 people 100 000 Euro than 1 person 1 000 000. Funnily enough, when people actually play the lottery, they act much more rationally. They go for the highest prizes (no lottery ever advertised with high chances, expect perhaps the SudDeutsche Klassenlotterie (http://www.skl.de/fwd;jsessionid=aaa-8lPoo1GSlK?to=2_los_cha.jsp), with their ridiculous 95% to 100% chances of winning) and ignore the inconceivably low chances completely. An impossibly low chance of winning 20 million is better than an impossibly low chance of winning 10 million, is it not? The actual chances are so small that it isn't important anymore what they are.

An other way of looking at it is that people don't buy lottery tickets to win money. They buy them for the excitement of the possibility to win money. They are simply consuming like they are consuming other products. I don't buy food in the supermarket in the expectation that I can sell it with a profit to someone else. I buy it to eat. So don't think this behaviour is inconsistent with 'economic rationality'. The fact that they act this way despite the fact that they say they would prefer lower prizes and higher chances actually is.Another example is an inability to find a consistent model to explain behaviour across varying levels of wealth - meaning, a really wealthy person seems to act according to a different set of rules to a person of average wealth.So different people act in different ways, hey? And they don't fit in a consistent economic model, hey? Don't let Shanek hear about that! :p

It doesn't surpise me, though. It's probably for the same reason that taxcuts for the poor have more effect than those for the rich, and why so many people think progressive taxes are such a good idea. Poorer people spend a much higher percentage of their income on their daily expenses. They pay a higher percentage for food, energy, housing, etc... They often need to spend so much on actually consuming that there is little money left to invest and buy things that might increase in value. A rich person can make money with his money, and has the luxury to think about his long term future. A poorer person on the other hand is much more likely to live from paycheck to paycheck and is also much more likely to spend the money of his future by buying on credit.

Do I get my Nobel Prize for Economics now? :)

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
Simple: a government that, through programs such as the Minimum Wage, force these people into unemployment. After all, they can't be exploited by an employer if they're not employed! Carefull! You make it sound like it is a good idea! :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
But they do learn and change their behaviours according to the information they have. They have very little information, which means they have only limited choices, but they act 'rationally' on them.

On the other hand, humans have much wider senses. But our environment is also much more complex. So complex in fact that we can't possibly react rationally to the information overload we are bombarded with. So according to your definition, we are less rational than seaslugs.

Well, I think if seaslugs were to run an economy, it would be much less complex than ours. So this actually may be right.

How can anyone call such a thing 'rational' ?

Because when the effect is multiplied millions and millions of times over, the result is economic growth and an increasing quality of life. This is completely without regard with what the individual participants may want; it just happens.

Yes. It is called 'compulsive behaviour' and most people have at least some of them. And there are many more behaviours people have trouble controlling.

But most of these are things like biting nails, behavior that really doesn't have mcuh of an effect on anyone else, and not really that much of one on the individual. So you really can't rate a compulsion like that in the same reign as, say, the desire to burn things.

So different people act in different ways, hey? And they don't fit in a consistent economic model, hey? Don't let Shanek hear about that! :p

Why not? People can be misled, and people can make descisions that don't end up giving them any kind of a return on their investment. Economic theory allows for this.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, I think that just about says it all. :rolleyes:


And, here, Shanek dishonestly extracts a quote of mine from context, showing once again his complete lack of ethics.

Shanek, you are shown to be a stunningly dishonest person in your misuse of quotes, your accusations of "liar" as well as in some of your defenses of libertarianism.

You reflect horridly on libertarians everywhere, you demonstrate the opposite of honor, and you simply can't abide contrary positions.

Are you Ian's alter ego? (No, I didn't say sock puppet, you're not that, he is MUCH slicker in his unethical misquoting than you are.)

Now, back to the subject.

Marxism, I'd think, has been shown to be a failure, simply because every place that's tried it has devolved into some kind of elitist dictatorship, and the proles have time and again wound up worse off.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek

(about marxism)

By setting up another power structure which permits the oppressive exploitation of self-interest. :p

Yes, you're right. Now for extra credit, this is in what way different than absolute libertarianism?

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
And, here, Shanek dishonestly extracts a quote of mine from context,

There was NOTHING out of context about that quote, as the rest of your very short post had nothing to do with your accusation of censorship. Everyone here can see your comment for what it was.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


There was NOTHING out of context about that quote, as the rest of your very short post had nothing to do with your accusation of censorship. Everyone here can see your comment for what it was.

And more prevarication, via omission.

[subgenius]

Marxism is like marijuana. They were both discredited by a massive ignorant propaganda campaign in the '20's and '30's and you can't discuss either without being labeled un-American.
This country is very Marxist and many people smoke marijuiana.
The American power structure likes its hypocrisy.
I have read none of the posts in this thread and will be unsubscribing immediately.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Do I get my Nobel Prize for Economics now? :)


err.... no.

I don't think you read my post. Most of what you outlined has been easily modelled and understood for many years. The area of economics that still needs a lot of work is not related to this.

If you really want to debate this further, you need to deepen your knowledge a little, ecause you are getting a little mixed up. Patterns of consumption as you describe them, with varying propensities to consume, etc. first year undergraduate fodder.
Go and read about "Theory of the Consumer". In partcular these consepts:

1. Utility (including the axioms of utility)
2. Preferences.
3. Utility Curves.
4. Income Constraints
5. Utility Maximisation

I'm sure you can do this over the internet.

:)

[shuize]

Prove Marxism to be flawed ...

The fact that it takes you no less than 10,000 pages in every other thread to try and explain why it is correct should be a big clue ...

[Skeptic]

Marxism is like marijuana. They were both discredited by a massive ignorant propaganda campaign in the '20's and '30's...

...and the killing of 100,000,000 people or so in its death camps.

That'll ruin your PR any day (if the story gets out before all the witnesses are killed as "counterrevolutionaries", that is).

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Marxism is like marijuana. They were both discredited by a massive ignorant propaganda campaign in the '20's and '30's...

...and the killing of 100,000,000 people or so in its death camps.

That'll ruin your PR any day (if the story gets out before all the witnesses are killed as "counterrevolutionaries", that is).

This strikes me as a poor critique. First of all, even if we ignore the fact that most regimes identified as "marxist" are more accurately describe as "leninist," the 100,000,000 figure of people killed in "death camps" is widely overblown unless you consider the whole of the Ukraine as a death camp. "The Black Book of Communism," hardly a communist-sypathetic count, gives 100,000,000 as the total figure of communist caused deaths, and since deaths in actual "death camps" would be a subset of that, it appears the real count would be much, much less.

Second, I don't recall "death camps" as part of Marx's theories. I must have missed that chapter.

Third, every attempt to put Marx's theories into practice has failed, and these attempts either fizzled out or the proponents lacked the good sense to admit failure, and the whole thing descended into an authoritarian regime where many people died. These deaths are the work of maniacs with large egos, not the theories or the misguided misinterpretations they sought to prove.

Prior to the 20th century every attempt at flight failed, sometimes with distressing results. This doesn't mean flight was wrong, rather that the people seeking to put it into practice didn't know what they were doing. Likewise, Marx never intended his theories to be put into practice the way Pol Pot, to choose a name at random, handled Cambodia. I mean, if someone goes and starts killing millions of Xians because they think religious faith is a bad thing based on the words of James Randi, does this discredit Randi's position?

It's a large scale application of the principle that "A person cannot be held accountable for every maniac that happens to agree with that person."

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek

That was the idea of the Constitutional Republic, where checks and balances, particularly between the states and the central government, keep the power of government in check. Unfortunately, very few of those checks and balances are still in place.
How did they work?

There doesn't need to be. All there needs to be is someone who is stronger than a certain group of people. And that will be inevitable.
That person would therefore have, by definition, a monopoly of force.

I don't much care if a tyrant is a tyrant over the entire country or just my neighborhood; he's still a tyrant.
I agree, that's why I think it's best to make sure potential tyrants never acquire the monopolies they need to become actual tyrants. What worries me about your libertarianism is that if all public goods are administered by private companies, there's nothing to stop the rise of tyrants and personal fiefdoms and the like. Marxism (in theory) prevents that. Look, so far you've been fishing for flaws in Marxism, and as I hinted before, there's a big huge glaring one staring you in the face.

Anarchy, by definition, means that there is no government, and that's exactly what you're talking about.
No, anarchy by definition means without rulers, and though this has become popularised by accepted usage, no government is the implication, not the definition. Government under anarchy could still exist; it wouldn't be government as is currently understood. Rather it would a radical interpretation of government as an object to serve the people, and not the other way round as seems to be the case today. But I'm getting way away from Marxism now.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
BillyTK :
"Marxism doesn't deny self interest; what it intends to do is remove the power relations which permit the oppressive exploitation of self-interest"

Ahh that must explain where the "we are all equal, some of us are just more equal then others" came from ..
Actually the phrase came from George Orwell's Animal Farm, the bit at the end when it's no longer possible to tell the capitalists and the leaders of the glorious revolution apart :p ;)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by billydkid


You can not possibly be that dim..

But you would appear to be. Did you bother to read any further before your knee jerked? Apparently not.

[Skeptic]

This strikes me as a poor critique. First of all, even if we ignore the fact that most regimes identified as "marxist" are more accurately describe as "leninist,"

This is a difference that makes no difference. All marxists regimes, of whatever stripe, were horrible hell holes.

the 100,000,000 figure of people killed in "death camps" is widely overblown unless you consider the whole of the Ukraine as a death camp. "The Black Book of Communism," hardly a communist-sypathetic count, gives 100,000,000 as the total figure of communist caused deaths, and since deaths in actual "death camps" would be a subset of that, it appears the real count would be much, much less.

Oh, I'm SO sorry! Marxism DID cause the death of 100,000,000, but not all of them died in death camps! How awful of me to misrepresent it...

Second, I don't recall "death camps" as part of Marx's theories. I must have missed that chapter.

Not really. It's a logical conclusion of his theories. You see, Marx says that there is going to be a "temporary" dictatorship of the proletariat; that this is needed to force people into the "historically inevitable" coming utopia, the paradise of the workers; and that the object of fighting in such a dictatorship are those "reactionaries" who still believe in things like private property.

The juxposition (sp?) of Marx's "disagreeing with me is a crime" (because it means you are "reactionary" who is trying to stop the workers from reaching utopia), with a dictatorship dedicated to making sure such "crimes" are not committed (it is on an historical missions, after all), with human nature that, of course, DOES disagree with marxism's claims most of the time, means that every marxist government quikcly becomes the murderous enemy of the people it supposedly "freed".

Which is what happened.

These deaths are the work of maniacs with large egos, not the theories or the misguided misinterpretations they sought to prove.

Maniacs with large egoes existed everywhere. What Marx gave them, which Napoleon and others didn't have to such a degree, is an UTOPIAN IDEAL TO PURSUE. God knows that human nature caused lots of harm, but history shows that the worst of them are those who are utopians.

Once your goal is beyound history--a "paradise of the workers", a "thousand-years aryan reich", a society made only of the "Saved" who follow your religion--you would do anything to achieve it, including mass murder; what does it matter if a few million die, if the rest of humanity will then live in paradise forever?

Prior to the 20th century every attempt at flight failed, sometimes with distressing results. This doesn't mean flight was wrong, rather that the people seeking to put it into practice didn't know what they were doing.

This is merely another version of the "they laughed at Galileo..." idea. Yes, they laughed at powered flight... but they also laughed at perpetual motion machines, alhemists, would-be wizards, spiritualists, circle-squarers, and homeopaths.

The point is that 99.99% of seemingly silly theories that look silly and obviously wrong never work in practice because they ARE, in fact, JUST THAT: silly and obviously wrong. For every two Wright brothers, there are probably two million cranks who think their pet theory will eventually be "accepted".

Sorry, but Marxism's terrible, continual failure is not like the airplane's failure, but more like the "free energy" enthusiast's failure. It means PRECISELY what it seems to mean at first sight: that Marxism is a silly, wrong theory that just isn't true.

Likewise, Marx never intended his theories to be put into practice the way Pol Pot, to choose a name at random, handled Cambodia.

I am not blaming Marx for intending that (of course he didn't). I am blaming MARXISTS for not realizing that EVERY attempt to start up marxism, no matter how noble in intention, MUST end up with Pol Pot or the equivalent, for the reasons I showed above. And even if my reasons are inaccurate here, the fact that every single marxist governent DID end up like that is strong evidence that something is very, very wrong with Marxism.

I mean, if someone goes and starts killing millions of Xians because they think religious faith is a bad thing based on the words of James Randi, does this discredit Randi's position?

Well, let's put it this way. Suppose that EVERY SINGLE JREF member had, sooner or later, gone on a homicidal rage against christians and/or skeptics who aren't skeptical "enough", and that all of them claimed that this is, really what "Randiism" tells them to do.

Would THAT not be STRONG evidence that, perhaps, Randi's work is not merely being "misunderstood"? Would that not be STRONG evidence that such events are not just isolated "failed attempts" to create the coming Randi-ruled society where everybody lives in harmony, but that Randi--unintentionally--teaches a system that must end in murder?

What would you recommend, in that case: trying Randiism once more, being sure that THIS time, it'll work (hey, Marxism only killed 100,000,000 people, and not all of them in death camps! Let's give it another chance!)... or to abandon Randiism as an evil, or at least a tragically misguided, view?

I think the answer is clear, and so is the analogy.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
How did they work?

Very well. Then, after the Civil War, the Federal government started taking more and more power. People became citizens of the US instead of citizens of their sovereign state. The state governments lost their representation in Congress. And more and more, as different people and different groups gained more and more power and influence over the Fedeal government, they started ignoring much of what remained in the Constitution because they felt their particular program was justified enough to violate it.

That person would therefore have, by definition, a monopoly of force.

More of an oligopoly. Other people would still be able to use force against each other, but it would be very difficult for them to use force against a power that large.

I agree, that's why I think it's best to make sure potential tyrants never acquire the monopolies they need to become actual tyrants.

Which is why you need a government.

What worries me about your libertarianism is that if all public goods are administered by private companies,

As I've pointed out several times, Libertarianism doesn't say that. Libertarianism wouldn't get rid of the police, the courts, or any of the other structures in place to prevent this from happening.

Marxism (in theory) prevents that.

How? If there's no government, what is going to prevent those people from obtaining an oligopoly of power?

Look, so far you've been fishing for flaws in Marxism, and as I hinted before, there's a big huge glaring one staring you in the face.

I'm mostly being reactive in this thread, just responding to whatever comes up.

No, anarchy by definition means without rulers, and though this has become popularised by accepted usage, no government is the implication, not the definition.

Okay, so the guys who have such an oligopoly of power would, under your definition, constitute a government, and a tyrannical one at that. How again is this an argument for Marxism?

Anyway, here are the definitions from dictionary.com:

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

1 is what I'm talking about. 2 and 3 are frighteningly close to what we have now...

Government under anarchy could still exist;

Under definitions 2 and 3, yes; and that government is much like the one we have now.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You see, Marx says that there is going to be a "temporary" dictatorship of the proletariat;

That alone should be enough to prove that Marxism is flawed. When has any dictator voluntarily given up power, except to another dictator? King John had to be forced to sign Magna Carta. King George had to be forced to recognize the independence of the American colonies. Again, we have the contradiction that people are selfish and greedy by nature, but somehow that nature disappears when they're placed into power, when if anything it's the opposite. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Skeptic
This strikes me as a poor critique. First of all, even if we ignore the fact that most regimes identified as "marxist" are more accurately describe as "leninist,"

This is a difference that makes no difference. All marxists regimes, of whatever stripe, were horrible hell holes.

the 100,000,000 figure of people killed in "death camps" is widely overblown unless you consider the whole of the Ukraine as a death camp. "The Black Book of Communism," hardly a communist-sypathetic count, gives 100,000,000 as the total figure of communist caused deaths, and since deaths in actual "death camps" would be a subset of that, it appears the real count would be much, much less.

Oh, I'm SO sorry! Marxism DID cause the death of 100,000,000, but not all of them died in death camps! How awful of me to misrepresent it...

Second, I don't recall "death camps" as part of Marx's theories. I must have missed that chapter.

Not really. It's a logical conclusion of his theories. You see, Marx says that there is going to be a "temporary" dictatorship of the proletariat; that this is needed to force people into the "historically inevitable" coming utopia, the paradise of the workers; and that the object of fighting in such a dictatorship are those "reactionaries" who still believe in things like private property.

The juxposition (sp?) of Marx's "disagreeing with me is a crime" (because it means you are "reactionary" who is trying to stop the workers from reaching utopia), with a dictatorship dedicated to making sure such "crimes" are not committed (it is on an historical missions, after all), with human nature that, of course, DOES disagree with marxism's claims most of the time, means that every marxist government quikcly becomes the murderous enemy of the people it supposedly "freed".

Which is what happened.

These deaths are the work of maniacs with large egos, not the theories or the misguided misinterpretations they sought to prove.

Maniacs with large egoes existed everywhere. What Marx gave them, which Napoleon and others didn't have to such a degree, is an UTOPIAN IDEAL TO PURSUE. God knows that human nature caused lots of harm, but history shows that the worst of them are those who are utopians.

Once your goal is beyound history--a "paradise of the workers", a "thousand-years aryan reich", a society made only of the "Saved" who follow your religion--you would do anything to achieve it, including mass murder; what does it matter if a few million die, if the rest of humanity will then live in paradise forever?

Prior to the 20th century every attempt at flight failed, sometimes with distressing results. This doesn't mean flight was wrong, rather that the people seeking to put it into practice didn't know what they were doing.

This is merely another version of the "they laughed at Galileo..." idea. Yes, they laughed at powered flight... but they also laughed at perpetual motion machines, alhemists, would-be wizards, spiritualists, circle-squarers, and homeopaths.

The point is that 99.99% of seemingly silly theories that look silly and obviously wrong never work in practice because they ARE, in fact, JUST THAT: silly and obviously wrong. For every two Wright brothers, there are probably two million cranks who think their pet theory will eventually be "accepted".

Sorry, but Marxism's terrible, continual failure is not like the airplane's failure, but more like the "free energy" enthusiast's failure. It means PRECISELY what it seems to mean at first sight: that Marxism is a silly, wrong theory that just isn't true.

Likewise, Marx never intended his theories to be put into practice the way Pol Pot, to choose a name at random, handled Cambodia.

I am not blaming Marx for intending that (of course he didn't). I am blaming MARXISTS for not realizing that EVERY attempt to start up marxism, no matter how noble in intention, MUST end up with Pol Pot or the equivalent, for the reasons I showed above. And even if my reasons are inaccurate here, the fact that every single marxist governent DID end up like that is strong evidence that something is very, very wrong with Marxism.

I mean, if someone goes and starts killing millions of Xians because they think religious faith is a bad thing based on the words of James Randi, does this discredit Randi's position?

Well, let's put it this way. Suppose that EVERY SINGLE JREF member had, sooner or later, gone on a homicidal rage against christians and/or skeptics who aren't skeptical "enough", and that all of them claimed that this is, really what "Randiism" tells them to do.

Would THAT not be STRONG evidence that, perhaps, Randi's work is not merely being "misunderstood"? Would that not be STRONG evidence that such events are not just isolated "failed attempts" to create the coming Randi-ruled society where everybody lives in harmony, but that Randi--unintentionally--teaches a system that must end in murder?

What would you recommend, in that case: trying Randiism once more, being sure that THIS time, it'll work (hey, Marxism only killed 100,000,000 people, and not all of them in death camps! Let's give it another chance!)... or to abandon Randiism as an evil, or at least a tragically misguided, view?

I think the answer is clear, and so is the analogy.

I think I should say something here about hitting the a nail on its head...:)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Oh, I'm SO sorry! Marxism DID cause the death of 100,000,000, but not all of them died in death camps! How awful of me to misrepresent it... You, not me are calling your post "awful" and a "misrepresentation." 100,000,000 dead in death camps is a pretty substantial exageration. These sorts of exagerations do nothing to forward debate, but do allow those who oppose you to point out you are making false claims of fact. Why make them then?

Second, I don't recall "death camps" as part of Marx's theories. I must have missed that chapter.

Not really. It's a logical conclusion of his theories. You see, Marx says that there is going to be a "temporary" dictatorship of the proletariat; that this is needed to force people into the "historically inevitable" coming utopia, the paradise of the workers; and that the object of fighting in such a dictatorship are those "reactionaries" who still believe in things like private property.

The juxposition (sp?) of Marx's "disagreeing with me is a crime" (because it means you are "reactionary" who is trying to stop the workers from reaching utopia), with a dictatorship dedicated to making sure such "crimes" are not committed (it is on an historical missions, after all), with human nature that, of course, DOES disagree with marxism's claims most of the time, means that every marxist government quikcly becomes the murderous enemy of the people it supposedly "freed".

Which is what happened. My only disagreement is that I doubt any communist takeover was from a "proletariat." Marx presupposes widespread support for his theories before takeover, not a bunch of nitwits with grand delusions. Maybe it is a different reading, but I thought Marx presupposes a change in human nature brough about by capitalism over the long term. This goes along with the "nice theory, wrong species" at least to this point of human development. He's likely wrong about all this, but that doesn't mean we know that conditions for this sort of revolution will never come about.

As far as crimes go, if a society decides all private property is theft, then people that insist on private property are criminals. An imposition of that idea on a society that believes in private property is a whole different thing altogether, and the carnage sure to ensue speaks more about law being used to shape public morality rather than laws being a relflection of same. The first is tyranny, the second is govenment.

These deaths are the work of maniacs with large egos, not the theories or the misguided misinterpretations they sought to prove.

Maniacs with large egoes existed everywhere. What Marx gave them, which Napoleon and others didn't have to such a degree, is an UTOPIAN IDEAL TO PURSUE. God knows that human nature caused lots of harm, but history shows that the worst of them are those who are utopians.

Once your goal is beyound history--a "paradise of the workers", a "thousand-years aryan reich", a society made only of the "Saved" who follow your religion--you would do anything to achieve it, including mass murder; what does it matter if a few million die, if the rest of humanity will then live in paradise forever? Sounds like you agree with me. The problem isn't the idea, it's the "damn all costs" mentality of the person seeking to install the idea. However, the difference between "an idea to improve things" and "a miguided utopian ideal" seems to be the vigerousness of those seeking to impliment the idea.

Prior to the 20th century every attempt at flight failed, sometimes with distressing results. This doesn't mean flight was wrong, rather that the people seeking to put it into practice didn't know what they were doing.

This is merely another version of the "they laughed at Galileo..." idea. Yes, they laughed at powered flight... but they also laughed at perpetual motion machines, alhemists, would-be wizards, spiritualists, circle-squarers, and homeopaths.

The point is that 99.99% of seemingly silly theories that look silly and obviously wrong never work in practice because they ARE, in fact, JUST THAT: silly and obviously wrong. For every two Wright brothers, there are probably two million cranks who think their pet theory will eventually be "accepted".

Sorry, but Marxism's terrible, continual failure is not like the airplane's failure, but more like the "free energy" enthusiast's failure. It means PRECISELY what it seems to mean at first sight: that Marxism is a silly, wrong theory that just isn't true. Not really. It just means it is most likely not true as judged by experience. The problem comes up when people use past failure to excuse not considering any evidence of a theory perhaps becoming positive. Identifying past failures as positive conclusive evidence of future failure in different circumstances is fallacious. There is a difference between lack of evidence of success and deductive proof that something is wrong.

Likewise, Marx never intended his theories to be put into practice the way Pol Pot, to choose a name at random, handled Cambodia.

I am not blaming Marx for intending that (of course he didn't). I am blaming MARXISTS for not realizing that EVERY attempt to start up marxism, no matter how noble in intention, MUST end up with Pol Pot or the equivalent, for the reasons I showed above. And even if my reasons are inaccurate here, the fact that every single marxist governent DID end up like that is strong evidence that something is very, very wrong with Marxism. Sure. Strong evidence, but not proof.

I mean, if someone goes and starts killing millions of Xians because they think religious faith is a bad thing based on the words of James Randi, does this discredit Randi's position?

Well, let's put it this way. Suppose that EVERY SINGLE JREF member had, sooner or later, gone on a homicidal rage against christians and/or skeptics who aren't skeptical "enough", and that all of them claimed that this is, really what "Randiism" tells them to do.

Would THAT not be STRONG evidence that, perhaps, Randi's work is not merely being "misunderstood"? Would that not be STRONG evidence that such events are not just isolated "failed attempts" to create the coming Randi-ruled society where everybody lives in harmony, but that Randi--unintentionally--teaches a system that must end in murder?

What would you recommend, in that case: trying Randiism once more, being sure that THIS time, it'll work (hey, Marxism only killed 100,000,000 people, and not all of them in death camps! Let's give it another chance!)... or to abandon Randiism as an evil, or at least a tragically misguided, view?

I think the answer is clear, and so is the analogy.

The problem is that multiple incidents can possibly stem from a single influential misinterpretation. Such as where a follower of Randi, Hal for instance, starts preaching a version of Randi-ism where actual violence is used to "speed up" mankind's progression to a "faith free society." Hal gets some followers and starts to take over the world, starting with Colorado. However, human nature, being what it is believes religious faith to be necessary, so the followers of Randi-ism/Halism wind up killing people. Soon, other people pick up the no faith utopian bug and start doing the same in other countries with similar results.

Soon, people mistake Randiism/Halism for what Randi was first preaching as a path to a faith free world. Once this "Randi-ism is defeated, it is seen not only as a victory over maniacs that try to change human nature with violence, but rather over the core change itself. Any mention of not being pious and having faith is seen as beliving in wanting to kill people.

Leftover Randi-ites plead that "Halism" was the problem, and that Randi really stood for non-violent eventual change of the human need to believe in silly things, and not the Halistic idea that people for their own good need to be forced to abandon faith at gunpoint if necessary. They are rebuffed by referals to the 100,000,000 dead.

That is more along the lines of what I am saying. That many people believe a bad interpretation doesn't mean the original really intended that interpretation, it could be that the many people got the bad idea from the same source.

I'm not arging Marx was 100% or even 5% correct. I'm just against the school of thought that Marx was wrong because Lenin and his prodgeny killed 100,000,000 or so people.

[Malachi151]

*Sigh* this is fruitless, noone is capable of addressing ANY issues of Marxism so insted they go on to attack varoius tyrants.

Here, I will use the exact same tactics to refute Jesus.

Jesus is obviously horrible and had no idea what he was talking about because about 20 Popes had people killed by the thousands in his name. The Spanish Inquistion, need I say more. Obviously the Spanish Inquisition proves that Jesus's plea to "turn the other cheak" is full of crap. I mean, Jesus said to love your enemy right, and the Pope killed his enemy, so that PROVES that Jesus was an idiot right? Right.

See how stupid that is?

For the last time, WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING COMMUNISM or any ACTIONS, we are discussing, at least supposed to be, Marx's analysis of CAPITALISM.

Can anyone here prove that Marx's description of the workings and problem so Capitalism were flawed?

The was a claim that Marx was wrong about the proletarian revolution starting in a major industrial country.

Yes and no. The Russian Revoltuion was NOT a Marxist proletarian revolution, it had nothing to do with Marx's ideas. HOWEVER, Lenin, being an idiot (not rlelly, but..) went to Russia after its Rrevolution and forced the October Revolution to try and impliment Marxist ideas.

In fact though Germany, England, and France were major places where proletarian revolution were forming naturally, and IMO the Bolshevik Revolution screwed it all up.

Even still, thats still not addressing the issue I am concerned with, which is Marxist analysis of capitalism.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Malachi151
*Sigh* this is fruitless, noone is capable of addressing ANY issues of Marxism so insted they go on to attack varoius tyrants.

Here, I will use the exact same tactics to refute Jesus.

Jesus is obviously horrible and had no idea what he was talking about because about 20 Popes had people killed by the thousands in his name. The Spanish Inquistion, need I say more. Obviously the Spanish Inquisition proves that Jesus's plea to "turn the other cheak" is full of crap. I mean, Jesus said to love your enemy right, and the Pope killed his enemy, so that PROVES that Jesus was an idiot right? Right.

See how stupid that is?

For the last time, WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING COMMUNISM or any ACTIONS, we are discussing, at least supposed to be, Marx's analysis of CAPITALISM.

Can anyone here prove that Marx's description of the workings and problem so Capitalism were flawed?

The was a claim that Marx was wrong about the proletarian revolution starting in a major industrial country.

Yes and no. The Russian Revoltuion was NOT a Marxist proletarian revolution, it had nothing to do with Marx's ideas. HOWEVER, Lenin, being an idiot (not rlelly, but..) went to Russia after its Rrevolution and forced the October Revolution to try and impliment Marxist ideas.

In fact though Germany, England, and France were major places where proletarian revolution were forming naturally, and IMO the Bolshevik Revolution screwed it all up.

Even still, thats still not addressing the issue I am concerned with, which is Marxist analysis of capitalism.

Just that your first post seemed to have about 73 main points, and you really can't fault people for trying to cut the knot and come up with a simple response to all of them at once. Perhaps if you tried to address one idea at a time it would be more likely to remain focused.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Malachi151
*Sigh* this is fruitless, noone is capable of addressing ANY issues of Marxism so insted they go on to attack varoius tyrants.

Here, I will use the exact same tactics to refute Jesus.

Jesus is obviously horrible and had no idea what he was talking about because about 20 Popes had people killed by the thousands in his name. The Spanish Inquistion, need I say more. Obviously the Spanish Inquisition proves that Jesus's plea to "turn the other cheak" is full of crap. I mean, Jesus said to love your enemy right, and the Pope killed his enemy, so that PROVES that Jesus was an idiot right? Right.

See how stupid that is?

For the last time, WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING COMMUNISM or any ACTIONS, we are discussing, at least supposed to be, Marx's analysis of CAPITALISM.

Can anyone here prove that Marx's description of the workings and problem so Capitalism were flawed?

The was a claim that Marx was wrong about the proletarian revolution starting in a major industrial country.

Yes and no. The Russian Revoltuion was NOT a Marxist proletarian revolution, it had nothing to do with Marx's ideas. HOWEVER, Lenin, being an idiot (not rlelly, but..) went to Russia after its Rrevolution and forced the October Revolution to try and impliment Marxist ideas.

In fact though Germany, England, and France were major places where proletarian revolution were forming naturally, and IMO the Bolshevik Revolution screwed it all up.

Even still, thats still not addressing the issue I am concerned with, which is Marxist analysis of capitalism.
Yeah, it's not a good idea to create a Christian religious government.

[Yahweh]

I havent read too much of the thread, but Marxist Communism is pragamatically flawed.

In the ideal sense, Marxism is a perfectly sound Philosophy. However, pragamatically (which means "in the real world" or "in practice") just doesnt work for a variety of reasons including human greed and thirst for power.

Another example of taking an idea and applying it pragamatically is the idea of social utility. Social utility sounds good, until a member of society suggests cutting up the less fortunate to use their needed organ in the members of elite needing those body parts. Or, you can look at genetic engineering, it sounds like an astounding idea until someone suggests creating a single supreme race (for the record, I'm not against genetic engineering, I was citing an example).

This is called Pragmaticism, it means not only taking into consideration the ideal, but also the reality of certain judgements and values (i.e. the consequences of real-world applications of idealist political Philosophies).

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by BillyTK

I dunno if it does. All Marx says in the matter is when he talks about "man's (sic) species-being" (human nature) being essentially social–people want to be around other people. I guess you could argue that human nature is essentially selfish, but I'd argue that this is a matter of culture, not nature.



Please explain how something worldwide could be caused by culture, and not human nature.

If you can, please explain the difference between the two.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


Very well.
Very droll.
Then, after the Civil War, the Federal government started taking more and more power. People became citizens of the US instead of citizens of their sovereign state. The state governments lost their representation in Congress. And more and more, as different people and different groups gained more and more power and influence over the Fedeal government, they started ignoring much of what remained in the Constitution because they felt their particular program was justified enough to violate it.
didn't work so well then, did it?

More of an oligopoly. Other people would still be able to use force against each other, but it would be very difficult for them to use force against a power that large.
But that monopoly would never happen.

Which is why you need a government.
Governments in and of themselves cannot prevent monopolies; under your libertarianism it would seem such monpolies are inevitable, if not desirable.

As I've pointed out several times, Libertarianism doesn't say that. Libertarianism wouldn't get rid of the police, the courts, or any of the other structures in place to prevent this from happening.
No taxation, correct? Service delivery based solely on ability to pay, not need. Sounds like a plutocracy to me, and ripe for exploitation.

How? If there's no government, what is going to prevent those people from obtaining an oligopoly of power?
As I explained before, they cannot acquire the required monopoly to achieve those ends. No monpolies, simple as that.

I'm mostly being reactive in this thread, just responding to whatever comes up.
Okay, but you're missing the biggie.

Okay, so the guys who have such an oligopoly of power would, under your definition, constitute a government, and a tyrannical one at that. How again is this an argument for Marxism?
It's not an argument for Marxism; it's a rather weak, and vaguely straw-scented one against. An oligopoly is neither desireable nor possible, and therefore wouldn't constitute a government.

Anyway, here are the definitions from dictionary.com:

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

1 is what I'm talking about. 2 and 3 are frighteningly close to what we have now...
I went with Miriam-Webster because I couldn't get onto OED at the time. But remember, anarchy means without leaders; all other definitions are a matter of usage and implication (see, for instance, Victorian literature [such as Conrad's "The Secret Agent"] and the idea of the chaos-seeking, bomb-throwing anarchist. So under Marxism, there would be political authority, but it would be a bottom-up approach, rather than a top-down approach as now.

By the way, re: (2) political disorder and confusion–within a two-party system which is only differentiated by degree? Which leads to (3) Absence of any cohesive principle–I think there's a bit of a commitment to the democratic process there; it might be unintentional or it might be simply a matter of self-preservation, but I'd say it's there.

Under definitions 2 and 3, yes; and that government is much like the one we have now.
No it wouldn't, and no it's not.

[Clancie]

Posted by Malachi

The was a claim that Marx was wrong about the proletarian revolution starting in a major industrial country.

Yes and no. ...In fact though Germany, England, and France were major places where proletarian revolution were forming naturally, and IMO the Bolshevik Revolution screwed it all up.
And....ever since then, Malachi? Where -has- the industrialized proletariat led a revolution?

Oh, I forgot. You think all socialist revolutions are illegitimate because, though successful, they didn't follow the Marxist doctrine. (And you wonder why Trotsky, insisting on ideas like that, met such an untimely end in Mexico....)

Even still, thats still not addressing the issue I am concerned with, which is Marxist analysis of capitalism.
Actually, the class struggle between capital and labor that leads to socialism is at the heart of Marx's analysis of capitalism. (Historical materialism, Malachi. Dialectical Materialism).

But, okay. What about the whole "superstructure" idea regarding art etc. as embodying the dominant class ideology of the time? Do you really think that concept holds up as stated?

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
didn't work so well then, did it?

No, not after a major act of force that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

But that monopoly would never happen.

Why not?

Governments in and of themselves cannot prevent monopolies; under your libertarianism it would seem such monpolies are inevitable, if not desirable.

That's just bull$#!7. Monopolies can only come about through force, and it is exactly that force that a Libertarian government would prevent.

No taxation, correct? Service delivery based solely on ability to pay, not need. Sounds like a plutocracy to me, and ripe for exploitation.

I've caught EvilYeti on this before, and I'm not going to let you get away with it, either. Just like today, the method of generating revenues has very little to do with who can take advantage of the service.

As I explained before, they cannot acquire the required monopoly to achieve those ends. No monpolies, simple as that.

No, it's not "simple as that"...you have to explain WHY. Why would someone who could wield enough force not establish a monopoly for themselves? The Mafia, for example?

It's not an argument for Marxism; it's a rather weak, and vaguely straw-scented one against. An oligopoly is neither desireable nor possible, and therefore wouldn't constitute a government.

Why would it not happen? What would prevent it?

I went with Miriam-Webster because I couldn't get onto OED at the time. But remember, anarchy means without leaders;

None of the dictionary.com defintions used that. In fact, the definitions I gave you dictionary.com credited as being Miriam-Webster.

By the way, re: (2) political disorder and confusion–within a two-party system which is only differentiated by degree? Which leads to (3) Absence of any cohesive principle–I think there's a bit of a commitment to the democratic process there; it might be unintentional or it might be simply a matter of self-preservation, but I'd say it's there.

The State of North Carolina in the 2000 election refused to count write-in votes for Ralph Nader even though he was a Constitutionally-qualified candidate for President. Look at the ballot access laws around the country. Look at all of the campaign laws that prevent all but the wealthiest challengers from having any real chance against incumbents. Then tell me how dedicated we are to democracy. This is worse than the banana republics we've been acting against.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Please explain how something worldwide
*Oof* that's a bit of a grand claim there. Can you prove this? Everyone, everywhere to a greater or lesser extent is intent on satisfying their own needs and desires and the expense of others?
could be caused by culture, and not human nature.
Human nature is too vague a term, but suggests that human behaviour is, at essence, wholly the product of the person producing that behaviour, and consistent from person to person. Which is... problematic. For instance:
If you can, please explain the difference between the two.
Say you're hungry. It's a basic biological need. But you won't simply run out and grab the nearest bit of fauna or flora that you fancy (well, you might if you're Ted Nugent ;), but I digress). So the way you satisfy that need is based on the resources that are available to you (have you got any groceries in? If not, have you got money to buy stuff? Do you go to the store or to a take-away or to a cafe?) and prescriptions on what items you can or carnt buy (for instance, halal or kosher stuff if you're muslim or Jewish, meat-free products if you're vegetarian, no french products if you're a rabid republican :D). And that's all cultural; human nature doesn't enter into it.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Clancie
And....ever since then, Malachi? Where -has- the industrialized proletariat led a revolution?

South America serveral time, but they keep getting crushed by the US.

Obviously though the Bolshevik Revoltuion screwed up the entire affair though. Because the Boplshevisk essentially ruined Marxism, they destroyed the natural course of events that Marx was predicting during his lifetime. The Russian Revolution was not a proletarian revolution against capitalism, it was a feudal revolution FOR capitlaism. Russia shold have been turned into an America, not what it was.

Had that happened, like it should have, then socialist revolution probaly would have satred in Germany and been carried out by better organized and more sophistocated people with better hope of being fruitful.

Oh, I forgot. You think all socialist revolutions are illegitimate because, though successful, they didn't follow the Marxist doctrine. (And you wonder why Trotsky, insisting on ideas like that, met such an untimely end in Mexico....)

Because Stalin wsa a bastard....

Actually, the class struggle between capital and labor that leads to socialism is at the heart of Marx's analysis of capitalism. (Historical materialism, Malachi. Dialectical Materialism).

Not exactly. Yes, it is at the hear tof Marxism, but it was his analysis of the flaws of capitlaism that led to the concept of the class struggle and the NEED to overturn capitalism in the first place. It all starts with the analysis of capitlaism, can we ever cover that issue in this thread?

But, okay. What about the whole "superstructure" idea regarding art etc. as embodying the dominant class ideology of the time? Do you really think that concept holds up as stated?

Yes, definately. America is the perfect example of this, just look at our film industry. Film is the major form of "art" in America today, and just look at it.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Yes, definately. America is the perfect example of this, just look at our film industry. Film is the major form of "art" in America today, and just look at it.
Oh that's just crap .I have heard this effluvium forever, it's the same old critique about the moral decadence of western society . Look at old Nazi propaganda films ...The Strong Arian women VS rosie the rivitter ( who was a floosie at night ). Der Sturm und Drang of Airen muisch and the attendant critique of the western societies based on an interpretation of it's "art" which was pornographic. Your statement is drivel that someone has digested and regurgitated based on a fictional comparison of totalitarian systems with a functional viberent west and the poor captive souls that had to "live" under the enlightened scriptures of the failed ideas of Marks and Lennen.

I work in the movies , my wife works in the movies, most of the people I know work in the movies, and you know what? Noone I know has any illusions as to what we are producing, its to art as a twinkie is to a good nutrition. We all know that the movies that are produced in Hollywood are crafted ( believe it or not a 120m$ film takes a bit of forethought and planning ) to play to the audience's predilections.for violence , sex and excitement. They are enjoying escapism on a grand scale

You've read texts on political philosophy, so I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of bread and circuses. It ia a tried and true method to control the mob. The Soviet experiment gave to the "proletariat." the fight of socialism VS. Capitalism in terms of a space race , common threat and on Mayday give the poor fools a great parade, tell 'em that all thier problems are based on a non-exsistant enemy or system and the fools ( like all the Fools in history ) will sacrifice thier own well being for the benefit of the state.

Art exists and flourishes in the west in a way that would mean in cold war setting in those enlightnened states embracing the M/L/Communist, the gulag and in NK certain death. Many do not find "art" to be enjoyable so rather the Cistiene chapel they prefer Will Smith and Martin Lawerence in a 3:45Hr, minute chase scene. That is indicitive of humanity in general rather then a condemnation of westrrn socioty.