Why Marxism will ultimately succeed - as real capitalism

[KafirChobee]

This is a rant, but one I challange those that oppose the premices to justify why not.

The working middleclass is under attack - the very retirement system the unionized fathers fought for is under attack by corporate forces they elect to congress - the democrats are willing to betray them to acquire power and the republicans have spent 80 years coming up with reasons to kill unions. The death of unions in America is all but inevitable. Or, not.

Thank Zeus, for those indoctrinated with the concept that having to pay union dues is a bad thing - those that received the benefits unions created (minimum wages, health & life insurance, forcing companies to acknowledge their workers are humanbeings) they always knew it was wrong to give anything to the workers. I mean corporations have always been good to their workers - just name an incident they weren't in the past 100 days.

Besides, consider the adjustments that corporations were always willing to pay health insurance or compensation for injury to those it occurred to without their actually being held resposible for (seems if they ain't guily they are more willing to pat a pitance than if they might actually be held responsible = leave those in control alone.
Or, we gain control of the democracy; we define what democracy is - and we define it as "greed is good" - manipulation by expressing the American (how the world sees us) dream (taking advantage of anyone one knows).

After all, we all know, corporations are and have always looked out for the goodwill of all their employees - be they making a dollar a day or five thouisand a day, pr if they could turn them into slaves.

Oh, wait - we now have CEOs making a $million a day. One must realize though that it can be really hard to get by on a million a day - unless you haven't been there ... don't judge them.

Then again we have 8billion people on a piece of sand in the sky. Most of whom work for barely enough money to survive - imagine if you will (walk in their shoes for a day - or reject the posibilty simply because you are white) that to exist you will accept do just about anything for you and your family to survive.


A world of 8Billion and corporate powers playing the religious cards to turn the ignorant upon themselves - versus facing the fact that the wealthy know how to own them (all of us), twist things back to their advantage.

Nothing new here - it is as it has always been. Except, they now have a buncha a nut cases that want to turn the world into "one" religion (Islam - or Baptist - take your choice) and by continueing their 200 year plan they may not only destroy the unions (and being inclined to paying fair wages), but they can destroy that pesky idea of equality.

You know - like we are all equal in a democracy? Ask Europe what they think about our US style of democracy - hell, ask an Iraqi.
To continue - Democracy will fail because of the few. It will fail because those with wealth are unwilling to share it. It will fail in America when the corporations that shared with employees cease sharing with the sons of the fathers that served them.

Marxism will ultimately succeed because of the greed of the few - and the few's confidence of convincing themselves that they can always create truths that the 8Billion will accept as their new reality, or continue as is - letting the less fortunate

Of couse now that the corporations own the right to do, say, or own anyone - who knows.

But, they do make a case for Marxism. Don't they?

[Lemur]

Hmm, I take issue with the vast majority of what you wrote, but I'm just going to ask a question -- can you show me an example of functioning Marxism? Anywhere? I really suspect that market economics are as good as it's going to get for a while. I'm not religious on the issue -- I don't think free markets are the cure for every ill under the sun -- but nobody's come up with a better solution for harnessing human greed, ingenuity and creativity.

But you know what they say -- in the '90s capitalism defeated communism, and in the '00s capitalism will defeat democracy. I don't really believe that, of course, but it makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.

[AntiochusIII]

A bad day Kafir? :beam:

Anyway, I'm not sure how after a general indictment of capitalism you proceed to conclude that "Marxism will ultimately succeed" out of the blue. I mean, sure, they're usually portrayed as opposite ideologies and all that, but still.

Unless of course you merely bring Marx up as to allude to his (excellent) indictment against capitalism, as I'm not sure how his (wishy-washy utopian) own models is worked into the rant's conclusion.

[Ice]

The Greed goes both ways with unions and corporations. Once again, I'll use my union filled state, one of the last actually, Michigan, as an example.

During the 1990s when everyone was making money, the auto manufacturers in Michigan, for example, the unions demanded better wages and benefits. Sure, good for them, they deserve a little more, but a limit was needed. What they did unfortunately, was get greedy. They demanded more, more, and more. I mean, they were paying people 60 bucks an hour to cut the flipping grass!!! GM/Ford realized that this was not good in the long run and they couldn't afford it in future years, but at the moment, they didn't care enough to say no. They were making loads of cash, and didn't want to make the unions angry. So they caved to most, if not all, of the unions' demands.

Now, what's happening today? These companies cannot pay for what they agreed to anymore due the recession we are having in Michigan. What's happening is mainly the young union members are getting screwed over. While GM and Ford still have to pay the older ones pensions and such, they don't have much for the younger ones.

It was a two way street of moronism (I made that up :yes:). It's easy to blame corporations, but there are usually more people at fault.

I fail to see how Marxism will take over capitalism. Like Lemur stated, show me one successful Marxist economy. I'd be awfully surprised if you did.

Capitalism has it's flaws, there will always be winners and losers, but with Marxism there will only be losers.

[Brenus]

Funny enough, Marxism worked. Not in it so-called application in some countries, but in its basic analyse:
People fight each other for power, to take from the rich to give to poor. However, when some poor become rich, they defend their new class interest: See USSR.
Marx is a thinker of the 19th Century, so because the new values of the Capitalism are basic 19th Century rules (free market will solved every thing), so yeap, Marxism is still valid.
And give me one country where capitalism worked? Where thank to Capitalism all people have a dignity in work, enough to sent family in holidays and kids to school…
If Socialism and Communism did appeared it is because Capitalism failed… But now, we have fundamentalism… Much better…:juggle2:

[Redleg]

What I find interesting about the rant Kafir is that the industry I just started working for is unionized and can shut down the nation if the collective bargaining breaks down. Both the corporations involved in the negotations and the unions themselves have to cooperate and bring about wage, health, and retirement packages that benefit both.

ie check out the Railroad unions.

[Marshal Murat]

"The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needs."
"Communism deprives no man of the ability to appropriate the fruits of his labour. The only thing it deprives him of is the ability to enslave others by means of such appropriations."
"Democracy is the road to socialism."
"Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. Working men of all countries, unite!"
-Marx-

Communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both."
-JFK-

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Reagan-

"For us in Russia communism is a dead dog. For many people in the West, it is still a living lion."
"I have spent all my life under a Communist regime, and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either."
"In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State."
-Solzhenitsyn-

"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."
-Zappa-

Then there is another one about new world order not being a new world order....

Thought I bring in some good quotes.

[Fisherking]

Actually one of the earliest experiments in socialism took place in what would become the United States. It was the Plymouth Colony. It soon failed however as people being people resented doing work for others that they saw no benefit in....

People seem to resent that! Even if the benefit is delayed or not immediately evident.

[AntiochusIII]

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Reagan-[emphasis mine]lol. :juggle2:

Evil Empire ahahaha. Next time find someone less...vested...if you're gonna bring out Quotations Are Always Right 101.

I'm no fan of Marx and his strange ideas, but seriously. Nobody in his right mind (well, except the capitalists) would say that pure laissez-faire capitalism isn't also a dystopia in the making. The USA, bastion of rightist liberalism and all that, is a mixed economy for a reason.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The reason capitalism doesn't work (sometimes) is because the government intervenes in such a way as to break it, for one reason or another.

[Ice]

And give me one country where capitalism worked? Where thank to Capitalism all people have a dignity in work, enough to sent family in holidays and kids to school…


Uh, try most of the Western Democracies in Europe and North America. I said it had its flaws. Every system has winners and losers, there is no perfect system that can make everyone happy, make everyone equal. That is a pipe dream.

Regulated Capitalism is probably the best system we have.

[CountArach]

The reason capitalism doesn't work (sometimes) is because the government intervenes in such a way as to break it, for one reason or another.
You have GOT to be joking! That is pricisely the reason it DOES work!

[Ice]

You have GOT to be joking! That is pricisely the reason it DOES work!

According to some economists. There are many different theories.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Tariffs and the like are governments meddling in capitalism. And it's terrible. We're screwing (for instance) Brazilian farmers and ourselves over ethanol. The US farmers have made the government place a tariff on foreign ethanol that can be made more cheaply from sugar cane instead of corn.

I'd say 9 times out of 10 government intervention is worse than unrestricted capitalism. And I'm not sure about the 10th.

[Zaknafien]

Every man, woman, and child on earth should watch "The Corporation". Its very enlightening.

part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

People seem to resent that! Even if the benefit is delayed or not immediately evident.

Americans seem to resent that. For Europeans it is taken as granted and frankly, I wouldn't change it for the world.

It seems to me that the US is moving in a direction where 1% of the people will own 99% of the wealth. You should do something before it is too late. Whenever in the human history wealth was concentrated to just a few people outside the goverment (the classic example would be the "Dynatoi" of the Byzantine era), the state was fighting for survival immediatly after.


People seem to resent that! Even if the benefit is delayed or not immediately evident.

The dissolution of the corporation is the sine qua non of democracy.

[Marshal Murat]

the state was fighting for survival immediately after.
Or in this case, a severe case of depression.

[CountArach]

Every man, woman, and child on earth should watch "The Corporation". Its very enlightening.

part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y
Hehe, we got to watch that in school :2thumbsup: Public Education FTW!

[Xiahou]

Hehe, we got to watch that in school :2thumbsup: Public Education FTW!
They made you watch socialist propaganda in school? :sweatdrop:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

The dissolution of the corporation is the sine qua non of democracy.

What, all of them? They are useful for some things...

[CountArach]

They made you watch socialist propaganda in school? :sweatdrop:
Yup, and I loved every minute of it.

Ironically it was in my Business Studies class. I mean come on! The second most capitalist subject in the school (First being Economics)!

[Ironside]

As we're running a bit of a economist thread.

What do you predict will happen when there's more people than jobs?
And before you post something about that the market will expand and create more jobs, follow me through.

Agriculture: Employment: goes down. Production: goes up. Cost effective
Industry: Employment: goes down. Production: goes up. Cost effective

So what are the cost effective steps in the Service industry? Less people doing more job. And the new jobs is created in what sector....?

Or if you don't agree with the above, to give a more extreme example, 1 working adriod for every human (and no absurd maintenance need).

So what do you think will happen? A severe distiction between an upperclass (employed), and underclass (unemployed)?
State creation of "unneeded" jobs to preoccupy the population? Severe cut down in working hours? Some other socialistic move? Or something else?

Personally, I get the feeling that capitalism will in the end be it's own largest enemy to exist as an economic system.

[Fragony]

They made you watch socialist propaganda in school? :sweatdrop:

Better don't come here to the Netherlands, the red machine kicks into higher gear the minute the youngsters can read. They-are-so-right :thumbsdown:

[Prince Cobra]

The country where I live suffered one Marxist experiment...

The Marxism is a good theory but it is a failure in practice.

1) Greed of the few? In the capitalism human exploits the human... In the marxism it is just the opposite :evilgrin: . There are always leaders who practically occupy the power.. and the national wealth.

2) The abolishment of the private property... What happens next... Everything is public, consequently (as it happens in practice) it is to nobody... Consequently, everybody steals and lies how progressive the regime is.

3) The abolishment of the private property... (part II )There is lack of interest, the control is impossible ( because the national government rules the whole economy which is definately very very hard if not impossible). And the prices are fictional, they can not control anything. This also ruins the economy.

4) The exceptions: China. These are highly disciplined society and they are such from centuries. However, what happens now in China is not exactly marxism. Practically, the economy is a mixed one (including capitalism and central planning) and the Communist party preserves its power. In addition the Chinese system is changing and I am interested how far it will go. So it is not marxism...

Sorry, but although the capitalism has many drawbacks, its variations are better than the alternative. And the Marxism is definately the way out. And one extra reason is that after it collapses it will lead to worse capitalism. :bow:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

State creation of "unneeded" jobs to preoccupy the population?

This has already happened in my country, and yours.

As to the result of too many people, not enough jobs. The answer is ancient, War.

We will fight a war until there is enough land and enough jobs to go around, i.e. enough people have died.

At this rate it's going to be a long and bloody one.

[Ice]

Better don't come here to the Netherlands, the red machine kicks into higher gear the minute the youngsters can read. They-are-so-right :thumbsdown:

Hey, don't make your country sound so bad! I really liked those bike lanes you guys had all over Amsterdam. Plus, I mean, every 5 feet I walked I ran into a coffee shop. Finally, you guys have the red light district! I mean, you could get high, take your bike, and ride through the red light district!

[Papewaio]

People seem to resent that! Even if the benefit is delayed or not immediately evident.

The ability to wait for a delayed benefit is also what helps people become successful in the corporate culture... particularly for those who own their own business or those who are worker bees with qualifications...

[Brenus]

Yes, it looks capitalism works in Africa, Central and South America (the success of Videla and Pinochet…), most of the Asian Countries…
Brings happyness to every body...:inquisitive:

By the way, Marxism and Communism are not the same things. Marxism is a way to analyse economy, communism is a political movement based on suppression of private property and sources shared thought by people like Baboeuf, more than by Marx…

[Ice]

Yes, it looks capitalism works in Africa, Central and South America (the success of Videla and Pinochet…), most of the Asian Countries…
Brings happyness to every body...:inquisitive:


There is more to it than just capitalism. I'd be willing to bet you a large sum of money that Marxism would fare worse or the same than the current market system that are in place.

[Brenus]

:laugh4: “I'd be willing to bet you a large sum of money that Marxism would fare worse or the same than the current market system that are in place.” We won’t know, the only time a Socialist President was elected he was killed during a coup…

But I would agree with you. There is more in these countries. It is call dictatorship… And it what was in the so-called Eastern Democracies… So Marxism is not to blame as such but dictatorships are…:beam:

[Ice]

.” We won’t know, the only time a Socialist President was elected he was killed during a coup…

What, you mean like Chavez, or the guy in Bolivia? How about Castro? He was "elected" in the typical Marxist manner.


But I would agree with you. There is more in these countries. It is call dictatorship… And it what was in the so-called Eastern Democracies… So Marxism is not to blame as such but dictatorships are…:beam:

? Define "Eastern Democracies" If you mean Eastern Europe for example, most are healthy republics.

[Brenus]

“What, you mean like Chavez, or the guy in Bolivia? How about Castro? He was "elected" in the typical Marxist manner.” No, my reference was Allende, Chile, killed by Pinochet when he took power against an elected President with US money and logistic. Pinochet was elected in a typical capitalistic way…
And Chavez was elected, and the guy in Peru.
Can I remind you the conditions in which G. W. Bush was elected the first time? Because his brother declared the elections valid and a TV chanel told the US citizens so...:laugh4:
And Castro took power following a Revolution which expelled Batista, who by the way was elected in a the same way than Castro. Without the stupidity of Kennedy, not sure that Cuba would have turn to communism…

Let us admire Haiti and the very capitalist economy which led the first independent state in the Caribbean islands to grow to such wealth and prosperity, where laws and freedom are respected and cherished…:inquisitive:

Your problem is when dictatorships are “Marxist” you blame Marx.
When dictatorships are “capitalist” you deny the fact.

“Eastern Europe for example, most are healthy republics”: Republics, sure. Healthy? Go to visit and see by yourself… Live there few months/years, and perhaps you will stop to be the Tsarina watching Potenkim’s villages.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Can I remind you the conditions in which G. W. Bush was elected the first time? Because his brother declared the elections valid and a TV chanel told the US citizens so...
I don't think you have that correct. :shifty:

[Tristuskhan]

I don't think you have that correct. :shifty:

Tell us the truth, then...

[Marshal Murat]

I didn't think you could be 'elected' to a Communist presidency, since you usually have to bribe, coerce, and threaten everyone else to get to the top...
At least that's how Stalin did it. :2thumbsup:

[Ice]

No, my reference was Allende, Chile, killed by Pinochet when he took power against an elected President with US money and logistic. Pinochet was elected in a typical capitalistic way…

I knew what you meant, and I was proving your point wrong. Stop taking cheap shots.



And Chavez was elected, and the guy in Peru.

Yes....


Can I remind you the conditions in which G. W. Bush was elected the first time? Because his brother declared the elections valid and a TV chanel told the US citizens so...:laugh4:

Has absolutely nothing to do with the discussions at hand. Once again, stop taking cheap shots.


And Castro took power following a Revolution which expelled Batista, who by the way was elected in a the same way than Castro.

Did I ever say pre revolutionary Cuba was a good democracy?



Let us admire Haiti and the very capitalist economy which led the first independent state in the Caribbean islands to grow to such wealth and prosperity, where laws and freedom are respected and cherished…:inquisitive:


Oh, you are making this to easy. Just because a country is capitalistic does not mean they are wealthy.

Your problem is when dictatorships are “Marxist” you blame Marx.
When dictatorships are “capitalist” you deny the fact.

I'm not denying anything. I'm not sure where you are going with this. Both Marxist regimes and Capitalistic Regimes have dictatorships.


”: Republics, sure. Healthy? Go to visit and see by yourself… Live there few months/years, and perhaps you will stop to be the Tsarina watching Potenkim’s villages.

That's a good one. Please, tell us first hand any inside information you have.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

tristuskhan - the SCOTUS ruled in such a way as elected Bush. Not Bush's brother, not the media. It's also unrelated to the topic at hand.

[Brenus]

“I was proving your point wrong”: How? In accepting than a “elected" in the typical Marxist manner” –your words- was valid for a very anti-Marxist coup? I like to be wrong like that…:beam:

“Stop taking cheap shots”: I fear you started this when you linked a system to analyse economy to political Regimes, and summarised to Dictatorship…
And to say that exonerate you to answer…:2thumbsup:

“Has absolutely nothing to do with the discussions at hand.” See first remark. YOU started with your comments, like coup or manipulations were “typical Marxist manner”:beam:

“Oh, you are making this to easy. Just because a country is capitalistic does not mean they are wealthy” ; “Uh, try most of the Western Democracies in Europe and North America. I said it had its flaws. Every system has winners and losers, there is no perfect system that can make everyone happy, make everyone equal. That is a pipe dream.” Well you didn’t just downgrading to flaw favelas and poverty, killings and famines and all the rest…!!!!

“Both Marxist regimes and Capitalistic Regimes have dictatorships.” So we agree that nothing to do with Marxism, finally. You know now where I was going…:2thumbsup:

“That's a good one. Please, tell us first hand any inside information you have.” Too late I have to go to work, I a late. I will come back on this, stay tuned.:yes:

[Ice]

“I was proving your point wrong”: How? In accepting than a “elected" in the typical Marxist manner” –your words- was valid for a very anti-Marxist coup? I like to be wrong like that…:beam:

What? I was saying that there were socialist presidents that were elected that weren't killed.


“Stop taking cheap shots”: I fear you started this when you linked a system to analyse economy to political Regimes, and summarised to Dictatorship…
And to say that exonerate you to answer…:2thumbsup:

Really? I thought it started when you said this, We won’t know, the only time a Socialist President was elected he was killed during a coup…


“Has absolutely nothing to do with the discussions at hand.” See first remark. YOU started with your comments, like coup or manipulations were “typical Marxist manner”:beam:

Not to play the "you started it game", but see previous comment.


“Oh, you are making this to easy. Just because a country is capitalistic does not mean they are wealthy” ; “Uh, try most of the Western Democracies in Europe and North America. I said it had its flaws. Every system has winners and losers, there is no perfect system that can make everyone happy, make everyone equal. That is a pipe dream.” Well you didn’t just downgrading to flaw favelas and poverty, killings and famines and all the rest…!!!!

Huh? It's pretty clear what I said.


“Both Marxist regimes and Capitalistic Regimes have dictatorships.” So we agree that nothing to do with Marxism, finally. You know now where I was going…:2thumbsup:

In glorious theory, I'm sure no it doesn't. In reality? Who has been democratically elected more, a capitalistic government or a Marxist government?



“That's a good one. Please, tell us first hand any inside information you have.” Too late I have to go to work, I a late. I will come back on this, stay tuned.:yes:

Whenever you are ready.

[Zaknafien]

uh, actually if Fox News hadnt wrongly declared the election for bush, (followed by the other outlets minutes thereafter), the outcome of the election of 2000 would have been vastly different. That whole announcenment gave the impression that bush was the winner, when he was in fact not.

And he's right, any democratically elected, progressive leader in central america has usually been stifled or assassinated by the united states in the past 40 years.

[Brenus]

“What? I was saying that there were socialist presidents that were elected that weren't killed.” … You are right. There are some Socialist Presidents who weren’t killed…
But not in the 70-80 in South America… And how many time the USA tried to kill Castro? Who is a dictator by the way…

“It's pretty clear what I said.” Yes it is. Bad things in capitalism are just due to flaws, bad thing in so-call Marxist states (following your definition of Marxism) is due to structural problems…

“Who has been democratically elected more, a capitalistic government or a Marxist government?” I don’t know, but considering the number of Prime Ministers and heads of State you probably consider as Marxist, I am not sure it is a real proof of the failure of Marxism… (Almost all European Countries had a Socialist or Social Democrat government in the past, and some still have…):beam:

Now, eastern Countries: Ultra-nationalism, aggravation of poverty, civil wars, separatism, homeless, degradation of all the health system… That is what happens actually in Eastern Countries. Don’t speak about the human Rights like Turkish Minorities expelled, Gypsies kids expelled from school because they are dirty, administrative ethnic cleansing, etc… They are healthy some of the Eastern Countries
If you are really interested, just go for human Rights, add the name of the countries, and you will find.
And you are right. I worked in these countries during 10 years, so it is an inside view… Not really first hand because it is quite known by people interested in the region but…

[Marshal Murat]

Now, eastern Countries: Ultra-nationalism, aggravation of poverty, civil wars, separatism, homeless, degradation of all the health system… That is what happens actually in Eastern Countries. Don’t speak about the human Rights like Turkish Minorities expelled, Gypsies kids expelled from school because they are dirty, administrative ethnic cleansing, etc
Do have anything to support these claims?

I know that these would only be in the Former Yugoslavia, 1 Marxist nation.
What about Poland? They are 'Eastern Europe' but there hasn't been any civil wars. Neither has East Germany had any civil wars. Nor Czechoslovakia. While every nation has poverty, I haven't heard about the slums of Krakow and Warsaw, Prague and Berlin being especially bad.

[Xiahou]

Uh, actually Fox called Florida for Gore at 8pm.

I can't believe some still cling to the "Bush stole the election" mantra. No recounts later conducted by any uniform standard by newspapers and third parties gave the election to Gore. It'd be much easier to argue that Gore tried to steal the election, but was stopped by the SCOTUS.

[Odin]

Uh, actually Fox called Florida for Gore at 8pm.

I can't believe some still cling to the "Bush stole the election" mantra. No recounts later conducted by any uniform standard by newspapers and third parties gave the election to Gore. It'd be much easier to argue that Gore tried to steal the election, but was stopped by the SCOTUS.

Of course you can believe it, what else do they have to cling too?

Its not like Gore won his own home state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000) had he done that Bush wouldnt have won.

Of course you dont hear liberals screaming about Gore's inability to win his own state.

Often when reality offers us a bitter pill, its easier to lash out in an illogical manner, which is the case here.

After all, Gore only had to win his home state and florida would have been moot.

[drone]

Of course you can believe it, what else do they have to cling too?

Its not like Gore won his own home state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000) had he done that Bush wouldnt have won.

Of course you dont hear liberals screaming about Gore's inability to win his own state.

Often when reality offers us a bitter pill, its easier to lash out in an illogical manner, which is the case here.

After all, Gore only had to win his home state and florida would have been moot.
Hey, Gore won his home state! He took DC with 90% of the vote. But those 2 electoral votes didn't help him at all. ~D

[Don Corleone]

uh, actually if Fox News hadnt wrongly declared the election for bush, (followed by the other outlets minutes thereafter), the outcome of the election of 2000 would have been vastly different. That whole announcenment gave the impression that bush was the winner, when he was in fact not.


Interesting. FoxNews declared Florida for Bush at 10:30PM, 2 1/2 hours after the Eastern timezone polls closed and 1 1/2 hours after the Central Timezone polls closed.

CBS and Dan Rather on the other hand declared Florida for Gore at 8PM Eastern, 1 hour BEFORE the Central time zone (pro-Bush, btw) closed.

And you're going to argue that FoxNews was the ones trying to throw the election?

Nice to see how objective you can be on these things, Zak.


And he's right, any democratically elected, progressive leader in central america has usually been stifled or assassinated by the united states in the past 40 years.

Wow, you never miss a trick when it comes to bad-mouthing the USA. Would you mind explaining to me how Daniel Ortega managed to stay in power if we 'assasinate or stifle' every democratically elected leader in Central America? (and saying he was democratically elected is a stretch)

[Don Corleone]

After 2 weeks, numerous recounts and every political trick the Gore camp could pull, the Supreme Court finally pulled the plug on the endless stream of challenges coming from Gore's campaign manager, Daley.

Among others:

-Gore's people sought to block absentee ballots by the armed services.
-Gore wanted any ballot with multiple names punched counted for him, even if his wasn't one of the multiples that got punched.
-Too many other crazy scenarios to count.

And by the way, USA Today was all over this one. They quite publicly sued for ballots under the FOI act, and performed their own recount. They concluded that there was no way Gore could have won Florida, the rules he sought would have only narrowed the margin.

[Ice]

“What? I was saying that there were socialist presidents that were elected that weren't killed.” … You are right. There are some Socialist Presidents who weren’t killed…
But not in the 70-80 in South America… And how many time the USA tried to kill Castro? Who is a dictator by the way…


We are in agreement here. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue.


“It's pretty clear what I said.” Yes it is. Bad things in capitalism are just due to flaws, bad thing in so-call Marxist states (following your definition of Marxism) is due to structural problems…

I don't know if you'd call them "flaws". Like I said, every system has winners and losers.

Bad things in Marxist states usually have to due with hierarchy oppressing the lower, uneducated classes (ironic isn't, it?)


“Who has been democratically elected more, a capitalistic government or a Marxist government?” I don’t know, but considering the number of Prime Ministers and heads of State you probably consider as Marxist, I am not sure it is a real proof of the failure of Marxism… (Almost all European Countries had a Socialist or Social Democrat government in the past, and some still have…):beam:

I'll answer the question for you since you side stepped it. It is obvious more capitalistic regimes were elected rather than Marxist ones. Believe it or not, most of these socialist people you speak of run a capitalistic government simply with heavy regulation.


Now, eastern Countries: Ultra-nationalism, aggravation of poverty, civil wars, separatism, homeless, degradation of all the health system… That is what happens actually in Eastern Countries. Don’t speak about the human Rights like Turkish Minorities expelled, Gypsies kids expelled from school because they are dirty, administrative ethnic cleansing, etc… They are healthy some of the Eastern Countries
If you are really interested, just go for human Rights, add the name of the countries, and you will find.
And you are right. I worked in these countries during 10 years, so it is an inside view… Not really first hand because it is quite known by people interested in the region but…

Really? Which countries do you speak of?

Edit: Wow, just realized I had broken 2000 posts by 10 :)

[Brenus]

“Bad things in Marxist states usually have to due with hierarchy oppressing the lower, uneducated classes (ironic isn't, it?)” And the differences with capitalistic states are?:inquisitive:

“Really? Which countries do you speak of?” Rumania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia and Kosovo, Bosnia, Monte Negro, Macedonia (FYROM), Hungary few year ago… Moldavia, Ukraine, Bella Russia, Poland to a certain extend, Former East Germany… List not exhautive, but these countries were in my centre of attention few years ago (some of).

I suppose you will tell me it is just flaws…:beam:

[seireikhaan]

I didn't think you could be 'elected' to a Communist presidency, since you usually have to bribe, coerce, and threaten everyone else to get to the top...
At least that's how Stalin did it. :2thumbsup:

Maybe so, but do you think that Capitalists who are elected to office are the best candidates? Now then, lets think of all the things that every one of the serious candidates for President in '08 have in common. MONEY! Also, political analysts and writers who tell them how they can paraphrase everything into oversimplistic terms so they can please a bunch of the mindless public without ever addressing an actual issue. I have so far only seen a couple of candidates who actually offered some semblance of a specific plan to the problems and discussions brought up by debate folks. Care to know who? Not Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Thompson, or McCain. One was Dennis Kucinich. The other was Mike Gravel. Every other candidate I've seen has uttered the same nonsensical political BS. Now, who here thinks that either Kucinich or Gravel actually has a chance when it comes to election time? Yeah, that's what I thought.

[Marshal Murat]

At least I have a choice.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Brenus only poverty really applies to the former East Germany. The homelessness isn't all that bad, and though there are generally more neo-nazis in East Germany there are not very many, and the Links Partei actually has much more power than the NPD (the nazi party). I don't think East Germany really belongs on your list if poverty caused by the transformation to a capitalist system, and some widespread trashing of East German companies by West Germans to earn a quick buck is all that applies to it from a list containing ultra-nationalism, homelessness, degradation of the health care system, administrative ethnic cleansings, seperatism, civil wars, and massive human rights violations. Oh yeah and most of the human rights violations (or at least what I see as such, though the same things happen in the US and worse) in East Germany are signed off on by the largely West German national government and generally fall under the whole protection against terrorist attacks mania that is sweeping the western world.

[Ice]

“Bad things in Marxist states usually have to due with hierarchy oppressing the lower, uneducated classes (ironic isn't, it?)” And the differences with capitalistic states are?:inquisitive:

It's possible to be mobile in society. Unless you are one of the elite few in Marxism, it isn't.


“Really? Which countries do you speak of?” Rumania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia and Kosovo, Bosnia, Monte Negro, Macedonia (FYROM), Hungary few year ago… Moldavia, Ukraine, Bella Russia, Poland to a certain extend, Former East Germany… List not exhautive, but these countries were in my centre of attention few years ago (some of).

I suppose you will tell me it is just flaws…:beam:

Funny, what type of government ran in mostly all those countries you list before oh say, 15-20 years ago?

[Brenus]

“Funny, what type of government ran in mostly all those countries you list before oh say, 15-20 years ago?” Funny indeed… Who is running them now? You mentioned the “Eastern Europe for example, most are healthy republics”. And they are not so healthy. Of course, not all of them combine all what I mentioned, but most the people living there are quite disappointed by the so-called democratisation and the plunder by the former communist elite which became very easily capitalist of all what was valuable… This is the process that Marx describes by the way…

“It's possible to be mobile in society. Unless you are one of the elite few in Marxism, it isn't.” Well, if you born in the wrong part of what ever country you choose, with the wrong colour of skin and religion, wrong family it will be hard…:sweatdrop:
Now, it was possible to be mobile in the elite in Marxism. If you look at the origin of most of the leaders (after the war, not the one who took power by a coup) you will be surprised… Any way, your confusion comes from the fact that promotion will come from how to manoeuvre in politic, not on how to make money… It is a little bit like in religions…:beam:

[KafirChobee]

See where many equate the studies of Marxism with those of Communism - though the Communists proposed some (few) Marxists ideas, they were generally employed to justify their dictatorial rule. Personally, I feel Marx supported democracy, but perceived capitalism as being not only a threat to real democracy - but, subverting it (through corporate greed) to serve the desires of the few to dominate the economic needs of the many.

Suggested for review (or ignoring):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital
overview
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Das_Kapital
definitive study of

At present corporate greed in America has slid us back into the era of the "Robber Barons", it is a matter that less than 0.18% of Americans control a disproportionate percentage of the nation's wealth (60-80%, depending on which figures one accepts or the methods employed determing them, regardless it requires that limitations be restored). That we have a minimum wage that is well below the poverty level, but no "maximum wage" speaks for itself - we now have CEO's making 1,-4,000X (times) the median wage of their employees (median norm is approx. $56,000 per year) - demonstrates the growing inequality and the creation/consolidation of the new imperial class . This unwillingness to share the wealth, congressional compliance in allowing/supporting it, and the idea that money equates to freedom of speach - is creating fissures that will inevitably create a class-war once the middle-class realizes it is under assault by those that want it all (and see no purpose for them to share their wealth and gaining powers).

For a democracy to be maintained, it must assure that the wealth under its control is distributed by equitable means. Controls to limit the ability of a significant minority to create corporated monopolies have been removed - slowly, almost imperceptively, in the name of the common good - when they were in fact displaced so that the few could extend their power and expand their wealth. So far it is working.

Don't believe it? AT&T's monopoly of telecommunications was busted up in the 70's - today all those laws governing the extent of ownership for specific areas of commerce have either been repealed or displaced, and AT&T now owns 70% of what they previously were disallowed.

In the names of free enterprise, cost efficiency, and the "good for all" - we have been led to believe that the less control our government has to influence or control the growth of business - the better off we will all be. When in fact such philosophies are directed only for the benefit of a very few individuals and corporations.

Americans can be a very lax group when it comes to protecting their freedom, but when someone starts messing with their wallets - beware. they will get upset (and they are armed).

A sharing of wealth is a necessity for the continuation of a true democracy. That is a Marxist concept. Marx didn't condemn democracy - he condemned corporate and the wealthy's fundemental philosophy that ignored the needs of the many to acquire all power, and all wealth.
:balloon2:

[AntiochusIII]

See where many equate the studies of Marxism with those of Communism - though the Communists proposed some (few) Marxists ideas, they were generally employed to justify their dictatorial rule. Personally, I feel Marx supported democracy, but perceived capitalism as being not only a threat to real democracy - but, subverting it (through corporate greed) to serve the desires of the few to dominate the economic needs of the many.Err...

You get the order switched, my friend. Marxism is an off-shoot (some argue the main branch) of Communism. The Bolsheviks were a Marxist party. Among the many differences with other branches of communism includes the advocacy -- or at least the claim of the inevitability -- of a violent class struggle and the foundation of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (democracy without minority rights?) that must precede the stateless, classless "true communist" utopia, hence its central position in the red revolutions of the 20th century.

[Ice]

“Funny, what type of government ran in mostly all those countries you list before oh say, 15-20 years ago?” Funny indeed… Who is running them now? You mentioned the “Eastern Europe for example, most are healthy republics”. And they are not so healthy. Of course, not all of them combine all what I mentioned, but most the people living there are quite disappointed by the so-called democratisation and the plunder by the former communist elite which became very easily capitalist of all what was valuable… This is the process that Marx describes by the way…

Healthy in sense that there are now elections and people can make decisions for themselves. Give it time, 40-50 years of a Marxist Dictatorship tends to do that to a country.


“It's possible to be mobile in society. Unless you are one of the elite few in Marxism, it isn't.” Well, if you born in the wrong part of what ever country you choose, with the wrong colour of skin and religion, wrong family it will be hard…:sweatdrop:

Now, it was possible to be mobile in the elite in Marxism. If you look at the origin of most of the leaders (after the war, not the one who took power by a coup) you will be surprised… Any way, your confusion comes from the fact that promotion will come from how to manoeuvre in politic, not on how to make money… It is a little bit like in religions…:beam:

Lol, yes, I guess if you suck up to the right people and are shrewed enough, you can move up. I'm not denying that it is possible to do that here too, but I'm saying there are other ways such as intelligence, handwork, and a little bit of luck.

[KafirChobee]

Err...

You get the order switched, my friend. Marxism is an off-shoot (some argue the main branch) of Communism. The Bolsheviks were a Marxist party. Among the many differences with other branches of communism includes the advocacy -- or at least the claim of the inevitability -- of a violent class struggle and the foundation of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (democracy without minority rights?) that must precede the stateless, classless "true communist" utopia, hence its central position in the red revolutions of the 20th century.

Know what, you are right? I forget that Marx wrote his works (which Engle completed from his drafts after Marx's death) under a dictatorship - the Kaiser, and that prior to WWI only France claimed a democracy in Europe (major nations) while the others still had monarchys. Life for commoners in the 19th century was barely tolerable, closer to slavery than freedom. In America it was barely better until after 1933 - we tend to forget how close America came to its own Communist revolution under Hoover - it's simply one of those things we have swept under the rug (like the growth of unionization, etc.) to preserve the american dream fantasy.

However, it remains that without a sharing of the wealth - a minority will rule and will enslave the remainder. Just on a matter of principle, and that they can.
:balloon2:

[Brenus]

“I'm not denying that it is possible to do that here too, but I'm saying there are other ways such as intelligence, handwork, and a little bit of luck.” You mean like Serguei Kalashnikov, Mikoyan and Gurevich…
Again your ideology blinds you to the reality of human society. In each society you have the possibility to climb the ladder. You have just to find a way…

“Give it time, 40-50 years of a Marxist Dictatorship tends to do that to a country.” Again Ideology: Haiti never experiment the so-called Marxist dictatorship and look what happened… But Portugal was free from Salazar’s dictatorship by Marxists Revolution, and look what happened: Democracy and now this country in E.U. The problem is dictatorships, not the fact they are “Marxist” or “capitalist

[Ronin]

… But Portugal was free from Salazar’s dictatorship by Marxists Revolution, and look what happened: Democracy and now this country in E.U. The problem is dictatorships, not the fact they are “Marxist” or “capitalist

Just a slight correction....

It is true that the revolutionary action that deposed Salazar was of Marxist inspiration...but it did not put Portugal in the path it is on now......not by itself it didn´t...

the period that followed the 25th of April of 74 revolution (that is normally called the PREC - "Processo Revolucionário em Curso" or " Ongoing Revolucionary Process ") was marked by violence, terrorist actions, private property apropriation, forced nationalizations and a rise of Communist influence through the Portuguese Communist Party that almost led this country to the brink of civil war and the possibility of a soviet inspired dictatorship.

This influence of extreme left leaning elements (specially in the armed forces) was only brought to an end with the military coup of 25th of November of 75..that allowed the moderate elements to regain control of the situation and lead the country to the stable situation it is in now, which allowed for free plural elections...the signing of a democratic constitution in 76...joining the EU...etc...etc....

This is not to say that the 25th of Abril revolution was not important....it was hugely important...but without the moderating action of the following year Portugal would just have jumped from one hot pan into another.

[Ice]

“I'm not denying that it is possible to do that here too, but I'm saying there are other ways such as intelligence, handwork, and a little bit of luck.” You mean like Serguei Kalashnikov, Mikoyan and Gurevich…
Again your ideology blinds you to the reality of human society. In each society you have the possibility to climb the ladder. You have just to find a way…

I'm not "blinded" by anything, thank you very much. I just think Marxism is a terrible a idea. I never denied you could climb the ladder. Once again, yes, I'm sure some people have climbed the ladder through the things listed above. Two things though: 1) In Marxism, why is there is a ladder to climb? Isn't the entire idea behind this government to make the system ladder free? 2) A capitalistic, free society, allows people to climb this ladder much easier.


“Give it time, 40-50 years of a Marxist Dictatorship tends to do that to a country.” Again Ideology: Haiti never experiment the so-called Marxist dictatorship and look what happened… But Portugal was free from Salazar’s dictatorship by Marxists Revolution, and look what happened: Democracy and now this country in E.U. The problem is dictatorships, not the fact they are “Marxist” or “capitalist

You over simplifying something very complicated here. Haiti has many many problems other than just its form of government. Capitalistic Democratic or Marxist, I'm willing to wager it would still be in terrible condition.

Years of Colonial Rule, Foreign Occupation, and civil War don't bode well for a country.

[Brenus]

“In Marxism, why is there is a ladder to climb? Isn't the entire idea behind this government to make the system ladder free” Well, to tell the truth, I borrow the idea of ladder to my English friends when they speak of the “property ladder”… Nothing Marxist as such…

“A capitalistic, free society, allows people to climb this ladder much easier”: That is pure ideology. Capitalistic is not a synonym of free society.

“You over simplifying something very complicated here. Haiti has many many problems other than just its form of government. Capitalistic Democratic or Marxist, I'm willing to wager it would still be in terrible condition.
Years of Colonial Rule, Foreign Occupation, and civil War don't bode well for a country.”
Do I? Well I think you do. “Marxist” Regimes are responsible for all misery, even if what you point out for Haiti is true for most of them, colonialism, civil wars, and foreign occupation. I think of Cuba here.
Haiti became independent in 1804, before Italy and most of European Nations. So colonialism is quite long ago time ago. Foreign occupation is US from 1915 to 1934… The dictatorship from the Duvalier brought misery to the island, even if it was not a Marxist one…

“I just think Marxism is a terrible a idea.” Marxism is just a way to analyse political and socio-economical events… It is difficult to explain of Marx intellectual construction because for many people Marxism is Communism as it was exploited by dictatorships, the self proclaimed Popular Democracies…
"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."-Reagan- : This is typical of somebody who never read Marx… You can be a Marxist without being a communist. Marx wrote mostly in the 1848 revolutionary period and in 1867 the first volume of the Capital… He opposed Bakunin (anarchist) and Karl Liebneck who became one of the founders of the German Communist Part (with Rosa Luxemburg).
He tried to have a scientific approach to economy opposed to Adam Smith who speak of law of nature: “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others and render their happiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.” and to the socialism utopia of Prudhom.

Oh, well, I will stop here… I will not convince you that Marxism is NOT communism…

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

A truly capitalist society (one based on the peaceable exchange of goods) would have to be free. There wouldn't be any government to restrict anything.

Marxism is more than just an analysis, it also describes how Marx thought the system should be changed.

[Ice]

“A capitalistic, free society, allows people to climb this ladder much easier”: That is pure ideology. Capitalistic is not a synonym of free society.

Notice, I also said free. I wasn't implying capitalistic automatically meant free. China is a good example of someone who is capitalistic, but not entirely free.


“You over simplifying something very complicated here. Haiti has many many problems other than just its form of government. Capitalistic Democratic or Marxist, I'm willing to wager it would still be in terrible condition.
Years of Colonial Rule, Foreign Occupation, and civil War don't bode well for a country.”
Do I? Well I think you do. “Marxist” Regimes are responsible for all misery, even if what you point out for Haiti is true for most of them, colonialism, civil wars, and foreign occupation. I think of Cuba here.
Haiti became independent in 1804, before Italy and most of European Nations. So colonialism is quite long ago time ago. Foreign occupation is US from 1915 to 1934… The dictatorship from the Duvalier brought misery to the island, even if it was not a Marxist one…


Ok, add dictatorship there. As you see, capitalism alone isn't to blame.


“I just think Marxism is a terrible a idea.” Marxism is just a way to analyse political and socio-economical events… It is difficult to explain of Marx intellectual construction because for many people Marxism is Communism as it was exploited by dictatorships, the self proclaimed Popular Democracies…
"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."-Reagan- : This is typical of somebody who never read Marx… You can be a Marxist without being a communist. Marx wrote mostly in the 1848 revolutionary period and in 1867 the first volume of the Capital… He opposed Bakunin (anarchist) and Karl Liebneck who became one of the founders of the German Communist Part (with Rosa Luxemburg).
He tried to have a scientific approach to economy opposed to Adam Smith who speak of law of nature: “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there others and render their happiness nare evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of ecessary to him though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.” and to the socialism utopia of Prudhom.

Oh, well, I will stop here… I will not convince you that Marxism is NOT communism…

::Shrugs::, ok.

[Brenus]

“As you see, capitalism alone isn't to blame”: I never say that. I insisted on DICTATORSHIPS as responsible, not the political/economical model…

“it also describes how Marx thought the system should be changed.” Based on analyse done on the XVIII - XIX century: 1789, 1830, 1848, 1870, all deep changes forced by Revolutions… Marx didn’t write the Koran or the Bible… There are not words you can’t touch.
Marx described how economy worked in the XIX, what forces were at work and how to change the balance of theses forces. Nobody can deny the French Revolution changed the balance for Nobility to the bourgeoisie. How from being oppressed the bourgeoisie became oppressor, and fight to defend its privileges… That is this kind of processes that Marx described. He didn’t mixed the “nature” of men, but all forces involved in an economical environment which will create movements, confrontations, evolution…
Simple example: I want a better salary but my manager wants it lower because it endanger his benefit. So here we have a conflict.
However, I need my company to produce a benefit so I can have a better salary. Our interests converge. What Marx described is how this 2 “conflictual” interests work. If one go over the other one you’ve got a problem…

Oops, I have to go to work… I am late…

[Banquo's Ghost]

A truly capitalist society (one based on the peaceable exchange of goods) would have to be free. There wouldn't be any government to restrict anything.

That's as impossible a utopia as the Marxist unselfish collective.

Markets have to be regulated otherwise capitalism rapidly becomes gangsterism. Just as with socialism, human greed takes over and human violence constrains the weak. Regulated capitalism has worked so well because it protects the initially weak so that they can, through innovation and flexibility, become the strong - and then in turn, are challenged by new ideas to which they must adapt or perish, rather than simply crush.

Government's role in regulating through law is essential. There's plenty to debate as to how light that regulation needs to be, given prevailing circumstances, but I doubt you'll find many who favour utterly ungoverned capitalism.

[KafirChobee]

BQ's assessment could end the debate - except on how extensive a democratic capitalist government (nation) ought to restrict the practices of corporations; by overseeing the buying and selling practices of their stocks, limiting the ability for monopolization of products or resources or communications or news (telecommunications and such), assuring fair practices, taxes (which they pay only about 15-35% of actual dues), and restricting their political influence.

When any or all of the above are ignored by a capitalist democracy - they cease being a democracy and become a theocratic (worshipping the almighty dollar over all) capitalist laize faire society.

Ignore the needs of the middle-class and below, end of any real democracy. Simple as that, and it is what many of the "democracys" are doing - all in the name of economy. Seems Marx more than a few facts right - the wealthy will always seek more wealth at the price of the less fortunate (today that means everyone worth less than say a $Bil$), and governments will always uphold the few over the many - unless the many get pissed enough to challange those governing them. Which they, may or may not - after all spin politics sways the minds of the weak minded more than reality (i.e. +50% of US troops still believe Iraq was responsable for 9/11).

When we limit the top wages (maximum wage allowed) by associating them with the minimum (and equal benefits), then true democracy maybe possible. Until then, the division between the wealth of the classes will grow, will become a bridge that may lead nowhere but to revolutiion.
Remember, unions were considered revolutionaries (that was the spin - they were Commys) - men asking for fair wages, clean housing conditions, not being paid in "corporate dollars" (paid only to company stores), and compensation for injury or for those killed in accident that their family be compensated.

It took until the "great depression" for many Americans to realize how bad it was for the majority - only because they were now all (except for those benefitting from the depression - as in the wealthy) in the majority - suddenly they could identify. It is like the old joke; how can you tell if it's a recession? = Your neighbors unemployed. How can you tell it's a depression? You're unemployed.

That, as a fact, is the reality of how a american pictures the economy of his world - if it affects him, he might notice it.

Say, Marxist, and it is automatically equated to Communism. For no other reason than those that create Communism used the writings of Marx to justify their misdeeds. Where exactly Marx said that his proletaritiats should be murdered or ensalved if they disagreed to acheive the utopiah (can someone please show where Marx claimed a utopian society? above equality in a civil process, or the ability for anyone to meet economic needs) goal is beyond my reading.
Taking an economic theory and twisting it - gee, guess that's never been done before.
In my first post I gave a number of links to discovering Marx and his theories. read them or continue to ignore them as others have - like Reaganists. For those that believe Reagan or any of his advisors ever read Marx - do you also accept the amount of :daisy: they ate a day" - or did they just take a :daisy: vitamin? Get real.
Or, read.
:balloon2: