Marxists Thread

[everywhere116]

very true tonkaed. We are sharing our opinions of this topic, you cant call someone's opinions wrong, just try and see it from their point of view first.

Now, as it happens, I see what you are saying, everywhere116 (please keep in mind I am using my full knowledge of the workings in America, i'm Canadian). There may be more oportunities to advance, yes, however, there are just as many to decline, and they are often much easier to take. Communism strides to eliminate that. Now admitted in preactice it doesnt always work out, like in your obsession to Cuba, however, that doesnt mean that the principle is wrong. I have stated earlier again and again that communism and Marxism are IDEALS, and they might not always work out in real life.

Are you admitting that they are bad ideas? This is hilarious!

[everywhere116]

"Who cares if it doesnt actually work if we believe are ideas are right!"

[got tonkaed]

well other than going back around around about whether or not these places were true communist countries (because frankly no country has ever been a true anything) yes there were leaders in those countries who were exploiting people.

I guess i would at this point ask you if we were moving away from the line of thought that we were on in the discussion. By admitting that communism as it has been implemented exploited some does not in anyway affect whether or not our current system is continuing to exploit, which is essentially the argument of the socialist/communist. The ideological aim of socialism or communism is to give the worker closer to their fair share of the price what their labor power produces, an aim which is opposite of that of capitalism, which by its nature only allows for the minimum in order to get the worker to come back (which it doesnt necesarily do). If we are comparing systems (since i dont think anyone can claim that neither system has failed to corrupt in praxis) then i suppose i would still side with communism as a more humane system. Perhaps it is abstraction, but if we are going to argue that systems corrupt, it is possibly the last place left to turn.

[foolish_yeti]

You do know that those countries get something in return? And voluntarily agreed to sell resources? Tkae Japanese electronics. Some of the biggest companies, arent they? They're not American. Sony, Mitsubishi, huge companies getting rich off of us buying Playstations. How are we "annexing" resources?

Okay you're using another highly capitalist country as an example- the States does not get many of it's resources from Japan (they in fact are living around 500% above their local resources, and thus must do the same thing as the States). So the majority of the resources Japan is using to get rich under their capitalist system also comes from other countries.

[got tonkaed]

to address you quote...capitalism isnt working, its exploting a good portion of a billion people because of global capitalism and is destroying our environment. So id wonder how well that is acutally working.

[everywhere116]

well other than going back around around about whether or not these places were true communist countries (because frankly no country has ever been a true anything) yes there were leaders in those countries who were exploiting people.

I guess i would at this point ask you if we were moving away from the line of thought that we were on in the discussion. By admitting that communism as it has been implemented exploited some does not in anyway affect whether or not our current system is continuing to exploit, which is essentially the argument of the socialist/communist. The ideological aim of socialism or communism is to give the worker closer to their fair share of the price what their labor power produces, an aim which is opposite of that of capitalism, which by its nature only allows for the minimum in order to get the worker to come back (which it doesnt necesarily do). If we are comparing systems (since i dont think anyone can claim that neither system has failed to corrupt in praxis) then i suppose i would still side with communism as a more humane system. Perhaps it is abstraction, but if we are going to argue that systems corrupt, it is possibly the last place left to turn.

I dont believe i a system that lets a small group of people determine these things. And you wonder why they became corrupt.

[everywhere116]

to address you quote...capitalism isnt working, its exploting a good portion of a billion people because of global capitalism and is destroying our environment. So id wonder how well that is acutally working.

Hmm.. So the country that has the highest percentage of upper class people isnt working.... gotcha.

[foolish_yeti]

I dont believe i a system that lets a small group of people determine these things. And you wonder why they became corrupt.

Who ever said this had to be the case? In fact this would be one of the major flaws of "communist" countries- they're really just dictatorships in the guise of being for the people.

[got tonkaed]

well you currently live in a system where a small group of people determines things. as an example, if you own stock, how much do you actually own percentage wise in a company? Is your ownership of stock really giving you much of a voice at all in the company, of course it doesnt. Actual company policy is lead by a very small gropu of people, especially smaller considering interlocking directorates - the notion than many of the people who sit on boards of trustees overlap. So yes it is no wonder that with such a small group of people in control of things that capitalism has in fact corrupted.

Socialism fwiw, would involve a far larger number of people to be involved in teh process than capitalism.

[everywhere116]

I dont believe i a system that lets a small group of people determine these things. And you wonder why they became corrupt.

Who ever said this had to be the case? In fact this would be one of the major flaws of "communist" countries- they're really just dictatorships in the guise of being for the people.

Communism in a nutshell.

[got tonkaed]

well to be fair how much of that highest number of upper class, is the percentage of people as a whole. If 1 percent of a society is of the upper class and it just so happens that 1 percent numbers wise is higher than other countries, does that mean that system is working?

[Neutrino]

Everyone is human, and everyone makes mistakes. Finding a flaw in you doesnt discredit anything, but finding a flaw in how you conduct things related to this arguement does. In the only point in your post other than saying no one is perferct, you say that capitalism exploits people. What about Cuba? USSR? North Korea? Do you have any idea how rich thier leaders were while thier people were dirt poor? Under Communism?

Im not saying that Communism as it is now is perfect. Infact, I have said many times that a mix of Communism and Capitalism, or a third system altogether is preferable to these two main systems of government.

You see, the reasons why both dont work over large timescales are very different.

Capitalism: Natural. So much land = So much reasources. There is no way to get around this.

Communism: Human. The nature of humanity prevents Communism from working properly.

As you can see, it is far, far easier to change human nature, rather than the Laws of Nature (Conservation of Energy, etc). Until nanotechnology is invented, Capitalism has a very limited lifespan.

[foolish_yeti]

Hmm.. So the country that has the highest percentage of upper class people isnt working.... gotcha.

At the expense of the rest of the global population? To use an extreme example- if I'm a bully among a population of a hundred students....and I best up the other 99 students (yeah, I'm that buff) and take most of their lunch money- because I have most of the money my system is the best? I really gotta go back to school, I could make a real profit!

[everywhere116]

well you currently live in a system where a small group of people determines things. as an example, if you own stock, how much do you actually own percentage wise in a company? Is your ownership of stock really giving you much of a voice at all in the company, of course it doesnt. Actual company policy is lead by a very small gropu of people, especially smaller considering interlocking directorates - the notion than many of the people who sit on boards of trustees overlap. So yes it is no wonder that with such a small group of people in control of things that capitalism has in fact corrupted.

Socialism fwiw, would involve a far larger number of people to be involved in teh process than capitalism.

Yeah, because I didnt want to buy more staock means I am hosed. Get real.

In Communism, you have a small group of people running that entire country, but in capitalism you have a large group of people running counless number of corperations in a country. I wonder which one will be more easily coruupted?

[everywhere116]

Hmm.. So the country that has the highest percentage of upper class people isnt working.... gotcha.

At the expense of the rest of the global population? To use an extreme example- if I'm a bully among a population of a hundred students....and I best up the other 99 students (yeah, I'm that buff) and take most of their lunch money- because I have most of the money my system is the best? I really gotta go back to school, I could make a real profit!

no, that would be stealling. America earns thier wealth.

[got tonkaed]

i think im being real, the avenue of advancement in capitalism is by in fact owning capital. Since lets face it not everyone is going to own a whole lot of capital, through the use of investment, stocks, individuals in theory should have a way to participate in the game. But they simply dont, at least thats not how it really works out, the majority of small scale stocks are by comparsion inconsequential.


I think you hvae a pretty flawed understanding of communism. Communism is fairly based into an idea that everyone would in fact be involved in the ownership. No one is arguing that the places which have attempted to implement communism have failed. But in an actual communist state, far more people would be involved in the ownership of things than in a capitalist state.

[everywhere116]

well to be fair how much of that highest number of upper class, is the percentage of people as a whole. If 1 percent of a society is of the upper class and it just so happens that 1 percent numbers wise is higher than other countries, does that mean that system is working?

Its more like 10 percent... I 'll have to go back and check. But I still consider the country to have its poor living better than some nations' rich is doing well.

[got tonkaed]

The notion that america earns there wealth is somewhat problematic. Did the large scale companies which had militiary contracts like haliburton really earn their wealth, well i suppose they did because the US invaded a soverign nation, and military companies made money out the other end.

I suppose american farmers have earned their wealth by being paid gov subsidies whereas infant farming industries of third world companies cant get subsidized because of IMF/WorldBank structural adjustment programs which prohibt such gov. expenditures. American Farmers charge less because of a competitive advantage and pow, they win in the long run...they really out worked those farmers in the other countries.

The global system benefits the US, its pretty simple, im not against any of the people ive listed persay, we all have to try and earn our livelyhood, but if your not willing to admit those policies are inherently unequal, then its probably going to be difficult to carry the discussion very far.

[foolish_yeti]

but in capitalism you have a large group of people running counless number of corperations in a country. I wonder which one will be more easily coruupted?

Wow, what country do you live in? For example all your media is basically owned by five major corporations. And this is media that gets piped all around the world. For example a great deal of Canadian media comes from the States. Also, take a look at the wealth distribution in the States- it's among the worst in the world. Something like the richest 1% of the population having 40% of the wealth.

[Neutrino]

well you currently live in a system where a small group of people determines things. as an example, if you own stock, how much do you actually own percentage wise in a company? Is your ownership of stock really giving you much of a voice at all in the company, of course it doesnt. Actual company policy is lead by a very small gropu of people, especially smaller considering interlocking directorates - the notion than many of the people who sit on boards of trustees overlap. So yes it is no wonder that with such a small group of people in control of things that capitalism has in fact corrupted.

Socialism fwiw, would involve a far larger number of people to be involved in teh process than capitalism.

Yeah, because I didnt want to buy more staock means I am hosed. Get real.

In Communism, you have a small group of people running that entire country, but in capitalism you have a large group of people running counless number of corperations in a country. I wonder which one will be more easily coruupted?

Well, in order to get to the top of a maor corperation, a person must have a lust for money, a lot of ambition and a concern for only themselves.. If they are driven enough to work their way up through innumerable corperate ranks, do you think they are going to stop once they get to the top? No. They'll keep going, making more and more money, at the expence of more and more people. Eventually they will be hugely rich, and everyone around them will be hugely poor.

Sounds pretty corrupt to me.
Just like Cuba, infact.

[everywhere116]

i think im being real, the avenue of advancement in capitalism is by in fact owning capital. Since lets face it not everyone is going to own a whole lot of capital, through the use of investment, stocks, individuals in theory should have a way to participate in the game. But they simply dont, at least thats not how it really works out, the majority of small scale stocks are by comparsion inconsequential.

If someone doesnt want to play the stock market its thier loss.

I think you hvae a pretty flawed understanding of communism. Communism is fairly based into an idea that everyone would in fact be involved in the ownership. No one is arguing that the places which have attempted to implement communism have failed. But in an actual communist state, far more people would be involved in the ownership of things than in a capitalist state.

If you cannot implement it it cannot work. Listen to yourself!

[got tonkaed]

No they are trying to participate in the stock market, but they simply dont have access to the amount of capital necesary to matter within the stock market system, that should be fairly self evident.


and id continue to argue that no capitalism is not working, Such a small percentage owning such a large percentage of the worlds wealth is just not a system that works.

[everywhere116]

well you currently live in a system where a small group of people determines things. as an example, if you own stock, how much do you actually own percentage wise in a company? Is your ownership of stock really giving you much of a voice at all in the company, of course it doesnt. Actual company policy is lead by a very small gropu of people, especially smaller considering interlocking directorates - the notion than many of the people who sit on boards of trustees overlap. So yes it is no wonder that with such a small group of people in control of things that capitalism has in fact corrupted.

Socialism fwiw, would involve a far larger number of people to be involved in teh process than capitalism.

Yeah, because I didnt want to buy more staock means I am hosed. Get real.

In Communism, you have a small group of people running that entire country, but in capitalism you have a large group of people running counless number of corperations in a country. I wonder which one will be more easily coruupted?

Well, in order to get to the top of a maor corperation, a person must have a lust for money, a lot of ambition and a concern for only themselves.. If they are driven enough to work their way up through innumerable corperate ranks, do you think they are going to stop once they get to the top? No. They'll keep going, making more and more money, at the expence of more and more people. Eventually they will be hugely rich, and everyone around them will be hugely poor.

Sounds pretty corrupt to me.
Just like Cuba, infact.

Uh huh. That wont happen. If you have all of the money and own a large company and everyone else is poor, you wont stay in buisiness for long. What Cuba did was basically steal from his people.

[everywhere116]

No they are trying to participate in the stock market, but they simply dont have access to the amount of capital necesary to matter within the stock market system, that should be fairly self evident.


and id continue to argue that no capitalism is not working, Such a small percentage owning such a large percentage of the worlds wealth is just not a system that works.

A nation that finds the latest technological advances for the world and making it a better place. Yeah, not working.

[beezer]

Alright, I am not the most savvy person in the world, but even when I was in high school making minimum wage I was able to save up enough $$$ to invest in a couple of mutual funds. As long as I put a little bit of my wages aside and invested them I was able to do just fine.

That little bit of money has now grown. Almost anybody can do it. It's really not that hard. There are mutual funds that only require $500 to start. An example of this is the Oakmark Equity & Income Fund (OAKBX). You can add $100 per month after that until you reach $1,000.

If people refuse to participate I think it is because of a lack of knowlege or a refusal to admit that investing could work. Of course, since most of you here are Marxists I don't think you would invest because you believe that companies are automatically exploiting the worker force.