Was Karl Marx right? :)

[nuprin001]

Your 'rant' appears convincing, superficially, though you are clearly not an academic nor studied in Marxism/economic history.

'Class struggle' is indeed the basis of his analysis but by no accident; it stands as the most all-encompassing means of identifying and explaining social and economic organization over time.

What Marx demonstrated (using that framework), is that, unlike earlier forms of social/economic organization (hunter/gatherer societies, feudalism/manorialism), 'capitalism' was not part of a natural evolution, but a system opportunistically put into place by a dominant class at the demise of feudalism. In no system prior to capitalism, did an unequal exchange of labour for wages exist; nor was social/economic activity predicated solely on profit. Under the previous system of economic organization, both a lord and his serf benefitted from a more equal, mutually-beneficial exchange in which serfs were rewarded for the products of their labour, in kind.

And that is where most people miss the point. There is nothing inherently 'natural' about capitalism; it is merely a system put into place by a ruling class who seized an opportunity to do so, and propped up by system of (non-economic) institutions intended to preserve the position of that ruling class.

For an academic, you seem incredibly incapable of parsing a simple sentence.

At no point did I say that capitalism is "natural". I said that it took advantage/used human nature, which isn't the same thing as natural and as anyone who had the simplest grasp of the English language would have understood.

Capitalism uses human nature. It doesn't sugarcoat reality the way socialism/Marxism do. It doesn't pretend it's your friend, or that it's your buddy, or that it's looking out for you. It doesn't promise you, as socialism/Marxism does, that if you're a stupid, pathetic, lazy loser that you'll be able to get by.

Is capitalism set up to benefit the powerful and the ruling class? Yes. But so is, in the end, socialism/Marxism, because when you add human nature into the game, you always end up with a ruling class in THAT system, too. If anything, capitalism allows for a regular churning of those in power at the top, as if they're not smart enough to keep their positions and their power they'll lose it to the entrepreneurial among us.

Your "yeah, but everything devolves into class warfare" is a very typical myopic response that is woefully narrow and closed-minded in its viewpoint. That's the laughable thing about liberals: you enjoy preaching open-mindedness and a wider worldview, but in the end your point of view is just as narrow as the worst bigots.

 

[legmann]

Your "yeah, but everything devolves into class warfare" is a very typical myopic response that is woefully narrow and closed-minded in its viewpoint. That's the laughable thing about liberals: you enjoy preaching open-mindedness and a wider worldview, but in the end your point of view is just as narrow as the worst bigots.

All the hallmarks of an armchair/wannabee academic; you begin with enough semblance of focus, then devolve into some rant completely divorced from any argument I actually made. Yours, are unsubstantiated and vaque (human nature?). I don't even know what point you are trying to make/defend; I understand your criticisms of Marxism/Communism, but that is not what I was discussing.

 

[GG2]

The rich get richer. Capitalism runs amok. The poor get fed up, become desperate and revolt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

If capitalism runs amok and the poor get fed up and revolt, and topple the elite, they should immediately get back to building another capitalist society. Oh, it's a flawed system, but it's the best there is.

 

[nuprin001]

All the hallmarks of an armchair/wannabee academic; you begin with enough semblance of focus, then devolve into some rant completely divorced from any argument I actually made. Yours, are unsubstantiated and vaque (human nature?). I don't even know what point you are trying to make/defend; I understand your criticisms of Marxism/Communism, but that is not what I was discussing.

Excuse me, but at no point did I identify myself as an academic or a wannabe academic. You're the academic or wannabe who is apparently incapable of reading my posts (which are obviously much more important than yours, since I don't care to spend my life in such worthless pursuits as academia) and basic spelling (really man, "vaque"?).

Just a hint: if you're going to pull that "I'm smarter than you" card, you might want to actually be able to read and spell.
:thumb:

Who says I care about what YOU want to discuss? If you're going to be as self-involved (as, in my experience, almost all "we should pool our resources, maaaaaaaaaaan" types really are, which brings into question just how successful their "share" society would be...) as you obviously are, then why should any of us care about your opinions?

 

[nuprin001]

If capitalism runs amok and the poor get fed up and revolt, and topple the elite, they should immediately get back to building another capitalist society. Oh, it's a flawed system, but it's the best there is.

Pretty much. Capitalism isn't about stability. That's what's amusing about all the "radicals" who decry capitalism: their alternatives to capitalism are really much more static and stagnant than capitalism. In other words, more "conservative" in the classic sense of the word. Capitalism is about dynamism. There is no real safety in capitalism, even for the uber-rich. Wealth can be built and destroyed in the blink of an eye, under the rich circumstances. That's what makes it successful. You can't sit on your ass all day and get by.

 

[Never Compromised]

The study of Marx, with an understanding of what was happening in his lifetime, can give valuable tools in the study of present day politics and economics.

While I disagree with Marx's conclusions, I find that looking at capitalism though the eyes of "class struggle" can provide insights that the evening news simply will not touch.

 

[legmann]

Just a hint: if you're going to pull that "I'm smarter than you" card, you might want to actually be able to read and spell.

And you might want to actually learn to argue.

Who says I care about what YOU want to discuss?

Kind of the definition of an 'argument', no?

If you're going to be as self-involved (as, in my experience, almost all "we should pool our resources, maaaaaaaaaaan" types really are, which brings into question just how successful their "share" society would be...) as you obviously are, then why should any of us care about your opinions?

All I've done is summarize academic consensus on major points. And where did I pass myself off as a hippie??


You're making yourself sound dumber with every post and every point you 'try' to refute. You haven't accomplished a damn thing. I've cited literature; you sound like some goof on a phone-in radio show. I'll catch you on the airwaves tomorrow.

 

[rama putri]

Capitalism = people get rich from the labour of their fellow workers

Communism = state gets rich from the *involuntary* labour of the people they govern

 

[fuji]

The star trek utopia comes next, just as soon as we invent warp drive. Until then it kind of sucks to be poor.