Jump to content

A Failure of Capitalism?


Recommended Posts

Yeah, a Doors fan.

The result of my "radical?" :lol:

Personal experiences. I've worked many jobs, many hours a week to see a## kissers get ahead while the silent, hard working people are cheated out of raises and/or laid off to maximize profits. I've worked jobs in the industrial atmosphere where people lose limbs for small pay only to be given a few thousand dollars for their trouble and then fired months later due to liability concerns of their possible cost of profits. I've been a Union worker where I saw workers who stood up for themselves in meetings and quit letting cheating private business owners push them around. While this state(GA) is not a right to work state, the advancements inside of a Union are impressive. Yes you have your "dues" but they, more times than not, provide their own schooling. While they negotiate for you and create better wages, they also provide a place for higher learning in your skills. The Union also provides good health coverage. I discovered it to be a better alternative to the "rat race" or "rat contractors" as the Union calls them.

I stayed out of politics and developed my own opinions and after deciding to research many alternatives, I found that most of my conclusions and thoughts leaned towards what I discuss now. The pieces just fell that way I guess. I've never believed in serving another man. I wouldn't think that any kind of higher power would suggest that we are to serve a man who deep down, is just like the rest of us. Not that I am highly religious but in any form of grand scheme, we aren't born to be slaves to a fellow man.

I guess my bottom line conviction is that once you serve another man for your livelihood, you owe your life to that man.

Tyler Durden?

No wonder you're making too much sense. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A vast majority of the "poor" people in the US have shelter, a car, a cellphone and a TV. How are they oppressed again? The "working class" in America is a myth, and the lower class lives better than the middle class of most countries.

Capitalism has done more by far to raise the standard of living of the "working class" than any other system. How could Marxism possibly do more to help the poor?

Link to post
Share on other sites
A vast majority of the "poor" people in the US have shelter, a car, a cellphone and a TV. How are they oppressed again? The "working class" in America is a myth, and the lower class lives better than the middle class of most countries.

Capitalism has done more by far to raise the standard of living of the "working class" than any other system. How could Marxism possibly do more to help the poor?

Can I have a link to the proof that majority of the poor people have a car and a cellphone. Public transportation isn't a thing of the past. Don't forget that cellphones are given out to families on assistance.

Anything can be a "myth" when you don't see it for yourself. Is a Million dollars a "myth?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then how is it so?

Again, if you can't come back with something, why are you even commenting?

"Oh, I don't know what to say so I'll just post a :lol: or Omgz, whats a noobz with his ideas and that will make everything ok.

The complete bunk and pure definition of insanity is to keep thinking this failure of a system won't fail. AGAIN!

Whether or not you want to call a system that is yet to be put into place "bunk" is speculation but the current system we are in is proving to be BUNK. Crime, poverty, even the rich boys are having trouble with their business. But let's keep beating our heads into the wall because a crew of moronic know it alls are too afraid to admit when everything they stand behind if full of ****.

I'll simply address one incorrect assessment you're making about how this really has never been tried, which couldn't be farther from the truth. From Cambodia, to Russia, to Cuba, they all start with a traditional Marxist collectivization of the key commodities, land, food, natural resources, along with the centralization of capital (nationalizing banks). They then move the workforces into planned economy structures with the idea of "to each according his ability, to each according to his means". Where they all go off track, not from a Marxist perspective, because it requires a level of tyranny and subversion of individual liberty, but from Utopian communal models, is that it requires a suppression of free will of the people, and it runs counter to every type of shared organizational model you could ever operate. It requires centralized decision making to manage massive economies, which means power. It means sacrificing personal choice and opportunity in order to sacrifice for the collective. Ultimately, this goes against individual human will and is replaced by loyalty first and foremost to the state. In essence, everyone becomes a slave to the state. In order to enforce this loyalty, the power structure must take aggressive action against those who run counter to it in order to prevent the collective from collapsing (too many resource requirements, too little contributions), so you end up with forced labor camps, oppression of opposing ideas, etc.

Economic liberty is an essential component of individual freedom. It is the ultimate empowerment of an individual to be able to improve, change, and contribute through their circumstances. As soon as you give that up, you're no longer an individual, but a cog in a machine, and what and how you live is ultimately dependent upon who and how the machine is operating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a lot of things to address in this post but I want to address the main thing that stood out to me.

If Capitalism promotes the ability to "rise above and become part of the higher class," then why is that "higher class" such a huge minority? It promotes the success of very few while it has a massive majority playing the lottery everyday in hopes that they don't have to slave away to their ****** job every day. It has a bunch of kids hoping(and believing) that they will someday be a sports star, or a rock star and etc. But they will not grow up to be these things.

It's the same bullsh#t idea that little girls will grow up to be princesses or that we can all become rich by scratching a ticket.

Believing that we could all prosper in a system that is designed to only serve the wealthy minority is like the belief in Santa Clause and Easter Bunny.

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

The number is constantly rising (or declining for the working majority). That "hope" that you will someday rise above and become part of that minority is the same hope people have when they play the lottery. When people look for a reason behind the "lazy class," the proof is in the pudding. Again, people aren't fools. When they know the chances are slim, they lose interest and hope.

So many around here seem to have the argument that our system somehow serves the majority while protecting the the rights of the minority at the same time. More Santa Clause bullsh#t.

What you are describing there is Fascism, not Communism. All of the worth of every commodity would go to the laborer for the time he put into it. The profits are not swallowed by government unless you refer to Fascists. Every commodity sold is sold for face value. Generating no profit but for the worker.

What we are talking about here is a renewed hope for people to get off of their a## and work! People don't have to sit and rely on some "American fantasy(dream)" to have a decent life. They can go to a job with good pay where the work they do is more rewarding. While it may not serve the wealthy, it actually serves the MAJORITY.

Here we are in a Democracy that is supposed to be serving the majority and yet we use an economic system that serves the minority. Just like most everything American, it is pure hypocrisy. Why do other countries think we are full of sh#t? BECAUSE WE ARE!

I'll only address one point, which is judging the wealthiest against the wealthiest is relative. You must judge the wealth of our population in comparison to those of other populations. The standards of living, the opportunities to improve circumstances, the purchasing power, etc., all of that leads to a very simple assessment that we are the wealthiest nation from top to bottom by any standard of comparison.

Also, you need to gain a basic understanding of scarcity and value before you make some of these arguments. Effort (hard work) has no real value to a capitalist or communist economy if it isn't toward something creating additional value. And without the freedom and real incentive for increasing value contribution, economies will suffer accordingly, as did the Soviet state, and dozens others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why when discussing OUR nation and the minorities control of most of the wealth IN THIS COUNTRY do we have to throw in other countries who are not currently as involved in Globalization. This is where the train derails.

Who is currently on the campaign for Globalization? Hmmmm......

The Soviet Union was a perverse Communism instituted by Stalin and nothing like Marxism.

Once again, someone else is using history of perverse Communists to discuss Marxism. There IS a difference, ya know? Is it just too convenient and such a short cut to clump them into the argument?

But if ya want to start comparing other countries, try comparing crime rate to us. Especially violent crimes. Gun related also.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why when discussing OUR nation and the minorities control of most of the wealth IN THIS COUNTRY do we have to throw in other countries who are not currently as involved in Globalization. This is where the train derails.

Who is currently on the campaign for Globalization? Hmmmm......

The Soviet Union was a perverse Communism instituted by Stalin and nothing like Marxism.

Once again, someone else is using history of perverse Communists to discuss Marxism. There IS a difference, ya know? Is it just too convenient and such a short cut to clump them into the argument?

But if ya want to start comparing other countries, try comparing crime rate to us. Especially violent crimes. Gun related also.

Now you're building strawmen to deflect from the reality of an indefensible position. Every country is on the campaign and participating in globalization. Everyone cheers when Japan builds cars in the US, but claims corporate greed when circuit boards are built in Malaysia.

I pointed out to you in a prior post that Marxism evolves as power is consolidated in a central authority, and as the individual is sacrificed for the collective. The Soviet Union didn't start with Stalin, it started with Lenin, and his philosophy (Leninism) was Marxism at it's core.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you're building strawmen to deflect from the reality of an indefensible position. Every country is on the campaign and participating in globalization. Everyone cheers when Japan builds cars in the US, but claims corporate greed when circuit boards are built in Malaysia.

I pointed out to you in a prior post that Marxism evolves as power is consolidated in a central authority, and as the individual is sacrificed for the collective. The Soviet Union didn't start with Stalin, it started with Lenin, and his philosophy (Leninism) was Marxism at it's core.

When referenced, most of the criticism of the Soviet Communism was that of Stalin. And for this debate, note that Lenin desired to achieve the proletariat's leading of the revolution. Stalin wanted to achieve the opposite with bourgeoisie leading things. This was more Capitalist than Marxist. As you should know already, Lenin and Stalin implemented 2 very different ideas of communism. Lenin was Marxist, Stalin was not. He was a student but what he implemented was completely anti-Leninist, therefore, anti-Marxist.

So if your criticism of Communism is solely based on Stalin's methods, it is apples and oranges once again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When referenced, most of the criticism of the Soviet Communism was that of Stalin. And for this debate, note that Lenin desired to achieve the proletariat's leading of the revolution. Stalin wanted to achieve the opposite with bourgeoisie leading things. This was more Capitalist than Marxist. As you should know already, Lenin and Stalin implemented 2 very different ideas of communism. Lenin was Marxist, Stalin was not. He was a student but what he implemented was completely anti-Leninist, therefore, anti-Marxist.

Really? I mean, really? I feel like I've just stepped into some sort of a bizarro universe where history didn't actually happen and was replaced by some folk tale or something... Stretching the truth is one thing, but when you reach the point where you write a paragraph in which there is not a single correct statement you gotta stop and ask yourself what exactly you're trying to do...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? I mean, really? I feel like I've just stepped into some sort of a bizarro universe where history didn't actually happen and was replaced by some folk tale or something... Stretching the truth is one thing, but when you reach the point where you write a paragraph in which there is not a single correct statement you gotta stop and ask yourself what exactly you're trying to do...

Actually it IS documented history. :blink:

What nonsense have YOU read?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? I mean, really? I feel like I've just stepped into some sort of a bizarro universe where history didn't actually happen and was replaced by some folk tale or something... Stretching the truth is one thing, but when you reach the point where you write a paragraph in which there is not a single correct statement you gotta stop and ask yourself what exactly you're trying to do...

Yeah, do you know who Trotsky was? An advocate of Lenin in the later years. An outspoken enemy of Stalin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, do you know who Trotsky was? An advocate of Lenin in the later years. An outspoken enemy of Stalin.

Lolz... I'm glad to see you've fallen for the propoganda hook, line, and sinker. The only ideological difference between Trotsky and Stalin was that, during their battle for succession, Trotsky was actually more interested than Stalin in purging enemies of the state, and that Trotsky was more interested than Stalin in proliferating Soviet influence abroad. Read Richard Pipes or Robert Service please-- or Lenin himself, or Emma Goldman. It's hilarious that you think that Lenin and Trotsky were some sort of nice kids who just wanted everyone to live peacefully-- yet it was Lenin who ordered the Red Terror and the putdown of the Kronstadt Revolt, and it was Trotsky that executed both these actions.

Meanwhile, Stalin wanted the bourgeoisie to lead the revolution? What? Are we talking about the same Stalin that purged almost the entire urban bourgeosie and rural landowning class during the late 20s and 30s? Or maybe you're forgetting that NEP, which actually temporarily restored the Russian bourgeouisie, was Lenin's policy?

The reality is Lenin and Trotsky were at least as brutal as Stalin was, and Stalin's ideology trailed Lenin's footsteps almost perfectly, just like Leninism is a direct descendant of Marxism. Purges and a destruction of liberty are not an accidental consequence of Marxism, but an intended and well-understood necessary condition for its implementation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No response? You might want to check up on something called "Socialism in one country."

Do you know what that basically translates to? National Socialism. NAZI

Stalin was more of a Fascist than a Communist. Also check the Stalin-Nazi pact.

National Socialism is nothing more than a label, and really has nothing to do with socialism. Meanwhile, Trotsky himself supported the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lolz... I'm glad to see you've fallen for the propoganda hook, line, and sinker. The only ideological difference between Trotsky and Stalin was that, during their battle for succession, Trotsky was actually more interested than Stalin in purging enemies of the state, and that Trotsky was more interested than Stalin in proliferating Soviet influence abroad. Read Richard Pipes or Robert Service please-- or Lenin himself, or Emma Goldman. It's hilarious that you think that Lenin and Trotsky were some sort of nice kids who just wanted everyone to live peacefully-- yet it was Lenin who ordered the Red Terror and the putdown of the Kronstadt Revolt, and it was Trotsky that executed both these actions.

Meanwhile, Stalin wanted the bourgeoisie to lead the revolution? What? Are we talking about the same Stalin that purged almost the entire urban bourgeosie and rural landowning class during the late 20s and 30s? Or maybe you're forgetting that NEP, which actually temporarily restored the Russian bourgeouisie, was Lenin's policy?

The reality is Lenin and Trotsky were at least as brutal as Stalin was, and Stalin's ideology trailed Lenin's footsteps almost perfectly, just like Leninism is a direct descendant of Marxism. Purges and a destruction of liberty are not an accidental consequence of Marxism, but an intended and well-understood necessary condition for its implementation.

Funny you should mention the NEP. A completely non-Marxist plan implemented to prevent an economic downfall. Something Lenin later regretted.

Stalin was pretentous and an enemy to the peasants. Both Lenin and Trotsky agreed that there needed to be a world revolution prior to the conversion. Stalin disagreed. He insisted that for the Soviet Union to remain competitive and have the ability to protect itself, it needed a quick conversion.

Socialism in one country. Check it out. That is complete contradiction to Marxism.

Lennin never put Marxism into place as it was believed that it is a slow process and not easy to achieve so quick. Stalin disagreed and dismissed the NEP in hopes to achieve his Socialist state more quickly. He acted in complete defiance of Marxist-Leninist theory.

Marxist theory is not for one man gain total control of the state. Stalin contradicted that theory by assuming total power.

To say that Stalin followed Marxist theory with his actions is pure rhetoric. The simple fact that proves this is that Marxism was not to be attempted so quickly. It is a slow process. Stalin acted differently.

"Stalin followed Lenin perfectly." :lol: He dismissed the NEP! Then he acted in ways in perversion of Marxist theory. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To say the capitialism is a failure based on cyclical patters is ignorant. Marx theories never took hold in any of the areas that he intended it to because when it was published in the wake of the revolutions of 1848, the conditions for the "proletariat" improved because of the use of unions. When Adam Smith published The Weatlh of Nations in 1776 it was a huge revolution in economic thought. Up to that point monarchs decided the fate of all business under the oppresive Mercantilism system. Capitalism is about rolling up your sleeves and getting your hands dirty. Socialism and communism is about sitting around looking for someone else to do it for you, at least in the 21st century it is. You can quote Marx all you want, but his book was outdated when it was published, and it is the mantra for losers the world over. Marx was a failure that could not provide for his family, hence why several of his kids died, and his cohert Engles was no better. Das Capital is a waste of paper and is almost unreadable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To say the capitialism is a failure based on cyclical patters is ignorant. Marx theories never took hold in any of the areas that he intended it to because when it was published in the wake of the revolutions of 1848, the conditions for the "proletariat" improved because of the use of unions. When Adam Smith published The Weatlh of Nations in 1776 it was a huge revolution in economic thought. Up to that point monarchs decided the fate of all business under the oppresive Mercantilism system. Capitalism is about rolling up your sleeves and getting your hands dirty. Socialism and communism is about sitting around looking for someone else to do it for you, at least in the 21st century it is. You can quote Marx all you want, but his book was outdated when it was published, and it is the mantra for losers the world over. Marx was a failure that could not provide for his family, hence why several of his kids died, and his cohert Engles was no better. Das Capital is a waste of paper and is almost unreadable.

If by "waiting for someone to do it for you," you are referring to the need for a world revolution, you are distorting it.

Communism is about equality, Capitalism is not. Communism is about what is best for the whole. Capitalism is not. look around you. You'll find your proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If by "waiting for someone to do it for you," you are referring to the need for a world revolution, you are distorting it.

Communism is about equality, Capitalism is not. Communism is about what is best for the whole. Capitalism is not. look around you. You'll find your proof.

No Utlitarianism is about what is best for the whole. Jeremy Bentham was the one who came up with this idea not Marx.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly.

And Stalin's book Socialism in one country is that of a national socialist label.

Stalin believed that the Soviet Union could not afford to waste resources proliferating socialist revolution in other countries (unless it could simply invade and take them over). In this way his vision conflicted with Trotsky's perpetual revolution, but it really didn't contradict Marx in any real way since Marx never claimed that the leadership of one socialist country had to be involved in spurring revolutions abroad. Leninism (and consequently Trotskyism) was already a significant revision of Marx in terms of how they viewed the revolution. Marx never thought a state like Russia would be fit for a revolution. And Marx never defined how and by whom a revolution (or the subsequent "dictatorship of the proletariat") would be lead.

On to your next post-- Lenin and Trotsky believed things ought to move gradually? Seriously? Lenin abolished all private property after the revolution. He adopted NEP as an emergency measure because his initial plan, based entirely on Marxist doctrine, had failed so miserably. And that was after he butchered millions of people within the span of a year or two. What on earth are you even arguing? You just admitted that Lenin himself realized doctrinal Marxism wouldn't work when he adopted NEP. If anything, Stalin was more doctrinaire than even Lenin himself.

Were you seriously trying to claim that classical Marxism-Leninism is somehow less repressive than Stalinism? The only thing Stalin had on Lenin in brutality was his longevity. Lenin lived for a little more than 5 years after the revolution and yet his repressions during the Red Terror and War Communism were as deadly as anything Stalin ever did. If Lenin had lived longer, or if Trotsky had taken his place, there is little doubt that they would have equaled Stalin's final death toll.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If by "waiting for someone to do it for you," you are referring to the need for a world revolution, you are distorting it.

Communism is about equality, Capitalism is not. Communism is about what is best for the whole. Capitalism is not. look around you. You'll find your proof.

No one in the world will ever be equal, and what is best for the majority isn't always a good thing. Communism is stupid theory, that can't ever be put in place like you would want it. Careful what you wish for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stalin believed that the Soviet Union could not afford to waste resources proliferating socialist revolution in other countries (unless it could simply invade and take them over). In this way his vision conflicted with Trotsky's perpetual revolution, but it really didn't contradict Marx in any real way since Marx never claimed that the leadership of one socialist country had to be involved in spurring revolutions abroad. Leninism (and consequently Trotskyism) was already a significant revision of Marx in terms of how they viewed the revolution. Marx never thought a state like Russia would be fit for a revolution. And Marx never defined how and by whom a revolution (or the subsequent "dictatorship of the proletariat") would be lead.

On to your next post-- Lenin and Trotsky believed things ought to move gradually? Seriously? Lenin abolished all private property after the revolution. He adopted NEP as an emergency measure because his initial plan, based entirely on Marxist doctrine, had failed so miserably. And that was after he butchered millions of people within the span of a year or two. What on earth are you even arguing? You just admitted that Lenin himself realized doctrinal Marxism wouldn't work when he adopted NEP. If anything, Stalin was more doctrinaire than even Lenin himself.

Were you seriously trying to claim that classical Marxism-Leninism is somehow less repressive than Stalinism? The only thing Stalin had on Lenin in brutality was his longevity. Lenin lived for a little more than 5 years after the revolution and yet his repressions during the Red Terror and War Communism were as deadly as anything Stalin ever did. If Lenin had lived longer, or if Trotsky had taken his place, there is little doubt that they would have equaled Stalin's final death toll.

Marxist doctrine requires a world revolution. It was never attempted. Now you are simply speculating.

If Lenin had lived longer, or if Trotsky had taken his place, there is little doubt that they would have equaled Stalin's final death toll.

What are you arguing here. You are pulling out predictions as a factual basis? :huh:

In response to the Cheka:

"Their servants accuse us of resorting to terror. . . . The British bourgeoisie have forgotten their 1649, the French bourgeoisie have forgotten their 1793. Terror was just and legitimate when the bourgeoisie resorted to it for their own benefit against feudalism. Terror became monstrous and criminal when the workers and poor peasants dared to use it against the bourgeoisie! Terror was just and legitimate when used for the purpose of substituting one exploiting minority for another exploiting minority. Terror became monstrous and criminal when it began to be used for the purpose of overthrowing every exploiting minority, to be used in the interests of the vast actual majority, in the interests of the proletariat and semi-proletariat, the working class and the poor peasants!" Lenin
Link to post
Share on other sites
No one in the world will ever be equal, and what is best for the majority isn't always a good thing. Communism is stupid theory, that can't ever be put in place like you would want it. Careful what you wish for.

So, are you suggesting that Democracy(true Democracy) isn't a good thing? Isn't it also supposed to serve the majority? :mellow:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...