Is pure Marxism wonderful?

[GerrardCapashen]

I laugh at the group of right-wing hard liners that constantly repeat "Left is bad. Capitalism is the best. Only capitalism. Capitalism", and then right afterwards go and download music illegally!c You undermine your own arguments.

I laugh at the group of left-wing hard liners that constantly repeat "Right is bad. Communism is the best. Only communism. Communism", and then right afterwards go and enjoy life and your material possessions in a capitalistic country You undermine your own arguments.




I am not right-wing nor do I download music illegally (I actually pay for it on iTunes) but I am a staunch defender of capitalism. You should think before you make such sweeping generalizations.

 

[GerrardCapashen]

Sorry, but having an advantage you did nothing to deserve, IS unjust.
(that's precisely the same than when you talked about "natural unjustice", like being stronger, BTW)

Natural injustice exists and can never be eliminated. Is it fair that some people are smarter than others, or that some people have medical problems while others are healthy?

A major incentive for people to earn money is to provide for their children. If you take away this responsibility and privilege, then you will reduce the total output of the economy by more than your redistributive efforts will aid the poor.

20% of 1000 is greater than 50% of 100.

 

[FredLC]

Natural injustice exists and can never be eliminated. Is it fair that some people are smarter than others, or that some people have medical problems while others are healthy?

Than again, our acknowledgement of gravity didn't prevent us from creating the parachute. Nature is ammoral, but men isn't. What's wrong with the desire to easy the natural inequities of existence?

Who has sentenced that "natural injustices can never be eliminated"... and that we can't even try?

Regards .

 

[Xeven the God]

That's what capitalism is opposed to - coercion.

No. It's not. Capitalism is opposed to anything that doesn't turn a profit. Why do you think slave owners in the Southern USA were so adamant about their 'right' to own slaves? Because it was ****ing free labor, and a free work force is a lot cheapper than one you have to pay!

And are you serious on your "corruption" remark? Capitalism countries are by FAR the leasr corrupt one. China, Cuba and Northe Korea all rank in thye top of the corruption scale, while Japan, the US and Western Europe are at the bottom.

Are you serious about this remark?

Do you know what 'out sourcing' is? It when a company that is based in one country does their manufacturing in another country. For example: An American company manufacturing product in North Korea. They do this because they don't have to pay the sweatshop workers as much as an American worker. It's corrupt capitalism at work there, not communism.

And another thing:

Why are you guys missing the point that communsim ISN'T a damned form of government. The USSR was a dictatorship!

Communism can work under a democracy too!

 

[GerrardCapashen]

Than again, our acknowledgement of gravity didn't prevent us from creating the parachute. Nature is ammoral, but men isn't. What's wrong with the desire to easy the natural inequities of existence?

Who has sentenced that "natural injustices can never be eliminated"... and that we can't even try?

Regards .

You can certainly try, but it is advisable to be reasonably sure that the cure is not worse than the disease. Nobody (Newfangle excepted) argues for a pure capitalistic system, and most people agree that the government has a duty to help those who need it. However care must be taken to ensure that the harmful effects of intervention in the market does not outweigh the good done by the government's actions. Government has a role in helping people, but people also have a responsibility to help themselves.

 

[GerrardCapashen]

Do you know what 'out sourcing' is? It when a company that is based in one country does their manufacturing in another country. For example: An American company manufacturing product in North Korea. They do this because they don't have to pay the sweatshop workers as much as an American worker. It's corrupt capitalism at work there, not communism.

Actually, this is not a case of corrupt capitalism but of efficient use of the world's productive resources. Effiency can be equated with output/input. If a company can achieve the same output with a lower input, then it has become more efficient and can sell the product at a lower price and make a larger profit for the investors at the same time. Everybody in this situation wins.

For one who replied to me "They're Marx's theories not mine" when I debunked your post about the principles of communism, you seem awfully attached to these theories.


And as to your comments about separating government and economic system, I will say that a true market economy requires freedom of thought, movement, speech, etc. or else potential productive capacity is sacrificed. Personally I believe China will never be able to reach the heights of a capitalistic economy without changing to a democratic form of government.

On the other hand, the total control by government involved in communism essentially requires an authoritarian regime.

 

[luiz]

Are you serious about this remark?

Do you know what 'out sourcing' is? It when a company that is based in one country does their manufacturing in another country. For example: An American company manufacturing product in North Korea. They do this because they don't have to pay the sweatshop workers as much as an American worker. It's corrupt capitalism at work there, not communism.

And another thing:

Why are you guys missing the point that communsim ISN'T a damned form of government. The USSR was a dictatorship!

Communism can work under a democracy too!

What the hell are you talking about?
Did you even read the text that YOU quoted? It was about corruption, not outsorcing
Furthermore I doubt that there are many american companies manufacturing products in North Korea.

 

[luiz]

Communism can work under a democracy too!

False.

Communism necessarily requires coercion of many forms, and ultimately requires coercion of thought. There can be no free elections under communism, because the system is incapable of handling a fast change in the course of the economy(ie under communism peope would never be able to vote for a Liberal party).

 

[insurgent]

What you have described isn't really capitalism, it's a certain flavour of capitalism, laissez-faire capitalism. The features you have described are not a result of a purely free market economy, but rather pure liberty. Capitalism isn't by definition opposed to coercion, indeed, the cheapest labour is forced labour, hence profit is maximised by coercion.

I am not pointing this out to be pedantic about the use of the word "Capitalism". I am pointing it out to show that "liberalism" and "capitalism" often conflict.

It is an undeniable fact that doing what you want with money is not neccessarily good for capitalism. What if I sold all my worldly possessions and burned all the money I got from the sale? It is my money, I can do what I want with it, but it would not be good for capitalism. What if I didn't invest my money, nor did I spend it; what if I just buried it in a field somewhere? It does no good sitting there under 6ft of dirt, it is bad for capitalism, but I am free to do it.

I may not be making things clear here, but that's because all I have is a gut feeling -- I can't put my finger on it, but there's something wrong with the way economics would work in a purely laissez-faire capitalism!

Perhaps I should have made myself more clear. You are right when you say that capitalism and liberalism (call it liberalism, laissez-faire capitalism, libertarianism, whatever) are not the same thing - at least not by most people's definitions. Most people would say that the US is a capitalist country (I would say it is a comparably capitalist country, but that is irrelevant), but it is not a liberal (again, call it libertarianism or whatever you want) country (as it would then definitely be capitalist in my book).
If that didn't make any sense to you, then let me say this:
Capitalism as an economic system is based on the free will and choice of individuals. To talk about coercive capitalism is in itself a contradiction - I know there are mixed economies and state capitalism, but these are not in fact capitalist. The fact that people would consider investment and production capitalist and not waste is because individuals usually see that it is to their own benefit to invest or consume, and not waste. But a system wouldn't be capitalist if it didn't allow individuals to have this choice.
In that sense, capitalism does not conflict with liberalism. It simply doesn't. Acting in accordance with your own interests and conscience is capitalist and liberalist.
I don't see your point about something being "good for capitalism". The very point of the free market system is that people are free to serve themselves and choose their causes instead of serving some system. It just isn't possible for something to be "good for capitalism", and if it were, it'd certainly be good for capitalism to take advantage of the freedoms it provides.

 

[Stratofortress]

Do you know what 'out sourcing' is? It when a company that is based in one country does their manufacturing in another country. For example: An American company manufacturing product in North Korea. They do this because they don't have to pay the sweatshop workers as much as an American worker. It's corrupt capitalism at work there, not communism.

And another thing:

Why are you guys missing the point that communsim ISN'T a damned form of government. The USSR was a dictatorship!

Communism can work under a democracy too!

Outsourcing isn't bad, it gives work to the poor in other countries and it is lowering costs for everyone and actually creating jobs, thanks to a more efficient economy. This transfers technology and know-how to their host economies and it provides access to foreign markets that local firms could never have penetrated.

The theory of collectivism (in all its variants) holds that man is not an end to himself, but is only a tool to serve the ends of others. Collectivism, unlike individualism, holds the group as the primary, and the standard of moral value. Whether that group is a dictator's gang, the nation, society, the race, (the) god(s), the majority, the community, the tribe, etc., is irrelevant -- the point is that man in principle is a sacrificial victim, whose only value is his ability to sacrifice his happiness for the will of the "group", that was the slave owners way.

Freedom, under capitalism, has only one meaning: freedom from the initiation of force by others.

 

[Xeven the God]

Outsourcing (source has a 'u' in it, btw.) is corrupt if you don't look into who you're paying before you do it. I don't think it's wrong to find someone who will work for you for less money than another person, but it is wrong when you are paying a child who was forced to work a couple pennies.

Furthermore... That was just an example. Don't read too much into it.

Next thing. Can someone please explain to me why communism requires the government to be in complete control?

In a true Marxist communism the working class controls the means of manufacturing, not the government... So again, why would it need to be a dictatorship?

 

[insurgent]

In a true Marxist communism the working class controls the means of manufacturing, not the government... So again, why would it need to be a dictatorship?

There's certainly only one way to distribute the means of production as the government sees fit. And that's government coercion. Marxism acknowledges that - it's called the dictatorship of the proletariat. It's followed by a Utopian idea that everyone would accept this distribution of wealth.
The problem is that the dictatorship never ends.

 

[insurgent]

BTW, I can recommend Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom" to all who are in doubt about this subject. It might just tell you why collectivism is not the way to go.

 

[GerrardCapashen]

Outsourcing (source has a 'u' in it, btw.) is corrupt if you don't look into who you're paying before you do it. I don't think it's wrong to find someone who will work for you for less money than another person, but it is wrong when you are paying a child who was forced to work a couple pennies.

This is a problem with the government not enforcing child labor laws or a minimum wage, not the fault of the company.

Next thing. Can someone please explain to me why communism requires the government to be in complete control?

In a true Marxist communism the working class controls the means of manufacturing, not the government... So again, why would it need to be a dictatorship?

If there is no government then it is anarchy, not communism. Without government nobody could be coerced into forfeiting what they produced to the rest of society, and so the system would quickly collapse into true anarchy.


Basically, what you call "true Marxism" requires the total denial of human nature, and so it can never succeed. Regulated capitalism, because it is not just the survival of the economically fittest, contains some of the same problems, but to a much reduced degree. Human nature clashes completely with communism but is largely compatible with capitalism (not totally, that's why some government is required to do things not profitable for private entities).

 

[luiz]

In a true Marxist communism the working class controls the means of manufacturing, not the government... So again, why would it need to be a dictatorship?

"The working class will controll the means of production"
Indeed, that's a basic feature of a "true" marxist society.

And it's a LAUGHABLE feature. Anyone can see that CLASS and GOVERNMENT are two different things, excpet Marx, the arrogant fool. It's IMPOSSIBLE for a CLASS to rule over ANYTHING. Government requires planning, bureaucracy, an Executive, a Legislative and a Judicial powers. If the class, as a whole, is unable to rule over anything by definition, then there are only two solutions.
1-Free elections, like we have in the capitalist democratic countries, where the will of the majority will be respected. Not only a class, but all.
2-A small group of people claim to speak for the whole Working Class, and THEY become the rulers. They choose a fancy name like "Comissaires of the People", the one Lenin used to call himself and his thugs. Since they supposedely speak for the whole working class, there's no need for general elections and they're free to do whatever they will.

The only possible form of democracy is the "bourgeois democracy" of the Western Countries. Note that the name "bourgeois democracy" is a joke, since everyone can vote.


To say that a certain class will rule is stupid. Thanks for pointing out another fundamental flaw of marxism, the confusion between class and government.

 

[Mise]

Capitalism as an economic system is based on the free will and choice of individuals.

This is capitalism as an ideology, not an economic system, or to put it another way, this is a particular flavour of capitalism. As an economic system, capitalism is based on the idea of capital being used to develop a product, sell it, and make a profit, which is now capital for your next idea/investment. This does not imply free will or choice of individuals neccessarily.

To talk about coercive capitalism is in itself a contradiction - I know there are mixed economies and state capitalism, but these are not in fact capitalist. The fact that people would consider investment and production capitalist and not waste is because individuals usually see that it is to their own benefit to invest or consume, and not waste. But a system wouldn't be capitalist if it didn't allow individuals to have this choice.
In that sense, capitalism does not conflict with liberalism. It simply doesn't. Acting in accordance with your own interests and conscience is capitalist and liberalist.

A capitalist isn't neccessarily a liberal, as you say. Someone mentioned the slave trade. This is a perfect example of capitalism grossly undermining liberty. But it worked. There is no doubt that the slave trade generated vast amounts of wealth for a few individuals, and helped the economy grow. The industrial revolution may have looked quite different if there was no slave trade. Another example would be the exploitation in third world countries by multinational corporations. Exploitation is a consequence of putting an emphasis on profit, which capitalism does. Liberalism, on the other hand, puts the emphasis on liberty. Liberals are opposed to exploitation. Do you see? Liberty and Capitalism oppose each other in this respect.

Capitalism takes away some liberty for the benefit of the economy, socialism takes away some liberty for the benefit of the less fortunate.

I don't see your point about something being "good for capitalism". The very point of the free market system is that people are free to serve themselves and choose their causes instead of serving some system. It just isn't possible for something to be "good for capitalism", and if it were, it'd certainly be good for capitalism to take advantage of the freedoms it provides.

What I mean by "good for capitalism" is "good for the economy". Sorry for not making this clear.

 

[newfangle]

Capitalism caused slavery eh?

How can a system where the initiation of force is prohibited cause slavery? I think this falls on deaf ears though. You've obviously made up your mind and will remain impervious to reason.

 

[Mise]

Capitalism caused slavery eh?

How can a system where the initiation of force is prohibited cause slavery? I think this falls on deaf ears though. You've obviously made up your mind and will remain impervious to reason.

Tell me, what caused the slave trade? Who initiated the slave trade? For what purpose was the slave trade established? Who benefitted from the slave trade? I am not talking about "slavery", but the "slave trade".

 

[luiz]

Tell me, what caused the slave trade? Who initiated the slave trade? For what purpose was the slave trade established? Who benefitted from the slave trade? I am not talking about "slavery", but the "slave trade".

Slave trade was the result of Mercantilism, not Capitalism.
Those who initiated slave trade are the ones who profitted from it, namely England, the Netherlands and Portugal.

Capitalism was the factor that set the slaes free.

Under capitalism, you need a big consumer market to ptofit. Slaves are not consumers, and thus having a slave-based economy means having a substantially smaller consumer market. England was not the first nation to abolish slavery because they are good-hearted: they were the first because they were the first capitalist nation!
Of course, there are also the philosical liberal arguments against slavery, but I think the economic argument will convince you better.

Notice that capitalism only started in the XVIIth century. Mercantilism, albeit called "pre-capitalism" by the marxists, has little to do with capitalism.

 

[Mise]

Slave trade was the result of Mercantilism, not Capitalism.
Those who initiated slave trade are the ones who profitted from it, namely England, the Netherlands and Portugal.

Capitalism was the factor that set the slaes free.

Under capitalism, you need a big consumer market to ptofit. Slaves are not consumers, and thus having a slave-based economy means having a substantially smaller consumer market.

If capitalism truely freed the slaves, surely capitalism wouldn't allow corporate colonisation by Nike, McDonalds and Shell.

Notice that capitalism only started in the XVIIth century. Mercantilism, albeit called "pre-capitalism" by the marxists, has little to do with capitalism.

Mercantilism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin. Although they are built quite different economic principles, they exhibit much the same features. In the same way Communist governments in the past are dictatorships, the capitalist nations exhibit many of the traits of mercantilism, and vice versa. However, I'm not very knowledgable about the subtleties of the two ideologies. Please correct me if I am wrong.