Why Marxism will ultimately succeed - as real capitalism

[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 they ate a day" - or did they just take a vitamin? Get real.
Or, read.