Marx and Marxism

[Endovelico]

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

The plain truth is that all modern economic schools are sophists who have put the entire world to a fungible bill of sale. That's what makes Marx capitalism's biggest philosophy. And he doesn't matter anyway, because historicism is a christianist concept that will not survive small christian populations. There will be no getting to the end of history when no one believes history ever took place. What happens after that, no one can say, but it won't be a Marxist triumph. Though maybe that's the point...Christianists (secularists and apocalypsists alike) have been hoping for this "end of history" so they don't have to deal with that strange rood and the fact that an innocent man was put to death- it is quite a burden.

[Mr. Perfect]

You are one unusual dude. Walking the line between bright and "look out you're walking off a cliff/you're talking out of your @$$".

Would be interested in finding out your intellectual influences.

[Mr. Perfect]

Endo, thank you very much for providing the article. Probably as good of a summary coming from your ideological persuasion as can be put together, as far as the ideological component of our crisis is concerned.

Part 1

So I think your author starts of with a flawed premise and of course everything fails from there.

The initial flaw is the "failure of capitalism" concept. I feel that I have kicked the entire issues around from all sides and I can't find a failure of capitalism.

What I find, in my most evenhanded analysis is a failure of mixed government. The root problem of this crisis is the subprime mortgage market. The subprime mortgage market was created and underwritten by the government for purely political purposes. It was in essence created by the Democrats in our country, our liberals. Yes a good deal of the activity in question was done under a Republican government, but analysis shows the subprime market in grew in spite of the GOP and not because of it. It grew because of left wing Democrats.

Now that may sound like I'm going political already but that is not the case. What we have to recognize is that the private lumber market did not fail, the car loan market did not fail, the business credit market did not fail, the fruit industry did not explode in a bubble, no tulip bubble, the computer industry did not go bust.

No, the only thing that failed was the subprime mortgage market, a creation entirely of the Democrat party, brought into existence through the utility of gov't.

Check that again. No major asset/debt class that banks deal with failed except the subprime mortgage market. Not a single one. The profundity of this statement cannot be overstated. NOTHING FAILED EXCEPT THE DEMOCRAT RAT BASTARD INBRED LOVE CHILD SWAMP PIT CREATURE. And the immediate industry damaged was our banking system, dealing in a government created, insured and regulated currency. So I'm looking at the two things that actually failed, the subprime and some of our banks, and it is very hard to find capitalism.

And even so we have some major melodrama. We have a bailout of what, 9 banks, and even Warren Buffet has said that only 4 were actually "needed", so the question has to be asked how in the world does the existence of the whole global financial system come down to 4 banks?

So I'm just bringing up our buddies the Democrats for factual background, the point is we have the failure here in the US of a completely government initiated set of activities.

So counterargument one is that this is not a failure of capitalism. I could go further here, and may later, but my QED would be sufficient here I think, but I would like to continue.

Part 2

We have this subprime initiated economic crisis but I think everybody is aware that we have a host of other maladies that the article alludes to in various ways. I would submit here that our obvious problems are 1) government debt and consequently 2) the viability of our various retirement ponzi schemes.

Here there is not really an anti-capitalist argument either, as it is obvious we have a failure of the gov't management of government socialist programs, entities largely funded by capitalism. So maybe there is a failure here but it is in the sense of a mugger getting outraged that their victim is broke.

Part 3

The "Marx was right" aspect doesn't do anything for me, there have been many booms and busts since Marx, nothing unusual going on now. The only new thing we are dealing with is our heavy debts as we head into our population retiree to worker ratio/entitlement problem, and so far I have not seen an argument one way or the other successfully blaming capitalism or collectivism for inadequate workers to retirees.

Part 4

The discussion of who is getting gov't money, rich or poor, is nothing to do with capitalism or socialism as economic models, but purely a political issue.

Part 5

The politics of this are somewhat underwhelming. The author sees this as a trigger to Marxist revolution. He is probably dreaming quite a bit. Conservative capitalists are on the rise in the US. Our fleabagger movement has 20-30% approval and is a perfectly pedestrian left wing ooga booga movement, support or trust in government activism in the economy is down around 15%. I thought that Europe would go left, but Spain just voted in a bunch of conservatives. Go figure. It may just be musical chairs/revolving door but it is hard to get a Marxist revolution doing that. The US is not going to go Marxist. The majority here lives here because we won't go Marxist. We entertained it by a slight margin for a few months around November 2008 but that is all an embarrassing memory now.

Part 6

The author breathlessly recounts the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, but fails to report that this has occurred after unprecedented government activism and left wing governance. Leftism has produced our largest income inequality by far. So back to the drawing board there.

Let's discuss his quotations of the contracting nature of our recession, corporations laying off and boosting profits and nobody spending. I am sorry, gravity exists. When a balance sheet, or net worth, falls in value the entity stops spending and starts saving to recover the lost worth. It just is. Anyone or anything will do that, an individual, a business, a government (of any kind). It just is. It is the consequence to the action. There is no magic dust to avoid this reality. When net worth recovers the entity starts spending again. There is nothing you can do about it. It is the wound. Whack your arm with an ax, it bleeds. That's it. Pass a law against bleeding, see what happens.

Part 7

The author, quoting Roubini, actually gives a pretty good critique of what we would call Keynesianism, the idea of lowering interest rates to spur some kind of growth. If debt itself appears to be too risky for the lender or the borrower the interest rate is irrelevant to anything. It is a superfluity of grand proportion, a kabuki dance in a graveyard. It is cutting off your arm in the hope your grass will turn green, a cost with no hope of gain. It is throwing all your ballast overboard at the first hint of breeze. Emptying your gas tank going over the mountain pass (no service stations) in order to reduce weight. It is simply something for which there is nothing left to do except weep.

But moving along, at this point it may be the least of our worries.

Part 8
For the Michael Moore aspect, the rah rah get rid of the running dogs, well they will run into the problem Marxism, communism, socialism always runs into. The problem the redistributors always run into. The income stream vs capital value paradox.

When redistributing wealth we now search for income and assets. But the inevitable outcome when you confiscate income is the factors of production (land labor and capital) no longer show up to produce the income. When the income dries up the only thing left to redistribute are assets. But herein we run into the paradox.



This as real and inviolable as the mathematics that dictate the shapes of flowers and seashells.

Part 9

Our political future. I believe Europe may indeed go left, cannibalizing itself. I believe the US will swerve to the right. I believe there will be a widening and perhaps unbridgeable rift open up between the US and Europe, if it hasn't already. Already Europe, who 10 years ago I considered political brothers with funny accents, are as foreign to me as a Middle Easterner. I no longer care for their fortunes or their fate. Let them destroy themselves if they wish. It doesn't really matter to me, on a political level. I'm sure you are all nice people though.

But at the end of the day we must let people walk their own path, wherever it may lead, even destruction. I'll gladly let God shoulder those kinds of burdens, his plans are better than mine.

Part 10

So the only issue left is the matter of government debt. Is that from capitalism or socialism? I cannot tell. Plenty of capitalist and socialist countries have created some serous debt. I really don't know the answer to that question.
The only issue left now is the issue of debt. Particularly government debt.

[noddy]

i think australias workplace laws are a great insight into this tension between marx and rand.

many are certain we need very strict laws on wages/hours and conditions and any employer that doesnt provide theses as legislated is an exploitive nasty who needs to be taken down.

i can agree with this in many ways, their certainly are quiet/passive people who do struggle with conflict and anger and they do get pushed around by the bullies.

yet, as someone who has spent most of his life as an employee, my life is severely restricted by these alleged protections... it is no longer legal for me to negotiate with my boss about hours versus wages, because the assumption that SOME people are not capable of having an argument with their employer creates the conditions that NOONE is allowed to, because within this framework that would provide a loophole for "exploitive employers".

until their is a framework which does allow me to argue with my boss as an equal im always going to end up on the alleged side of the nasty capitalist exploiters and thats a very odd thing.

i do tend to see this culturally, if you dont feel equal to your boss then you have the problem, you are equal so its in your interest to start acting like it and that means walking away if they want to rip you off.


its quite obvious i dont relate to people who think they are "owed" a certain wage in a certain part of town for doing a certain type of work, thats just cracksmoke to me... i think we are owed nothing and need to constantly reevaluate what we do and where we do it...

economics is like weather, you are far better off reacting to it and buffering against it than you are trying to control it.

[Tinker]

Except it can be easy for certain people to own a disproportionate amount of the resources and use those resources to disproportionately acquire more resources, until a small number of people are the majority stakeholders and can drive down wages universally for those who are not the stakeholders.

[Mr. Perfect]

Do you actually believe that and if so why?

[Tinker]

[Mr. Perfect]

[Tinker]

[Mr. Perfect]

Err Tinker, the basis of your whole movement is that small money people have to buy things from big money people.

You realize that right?

[noddy]

if their are/where a significant number of westerners who believe in socialistic cooperation then this would be a non issue so why is this all abstract complaints about capitalism and politics when its really just tip toeing around the issue of not liking westerners.

i know church groups and immigrant groups and family groups who are highly cooperative and sharing and nothing government can do will change that.

i also know that if you *persist* and dont get caught up in the moment and all its emotional outbursts but build relationships with the long term in mind you can create this for yourself.

as such im still confused exactly what must change and whos going to change it...especially if you want a say in the outcomes.

this is probably even more so that usual because in my country unemployment is still very low and the biggest issue in regards people being trapped in poor conditions are cultural ones and extremely messy.

be it public or private, when large organisations get involved with troubled communities it seems they can only neglect and ignore them or takeover and dominate them.. the sensitivity and long term strength required to stay involved yet leave them in control and feeling empowered seems beyond our systems.. it does take motivated individuals from my experience.

[Tinker]

[Tinker]

[Ibrahim]

I don't know about this article Endo posted, but getting back to the source material, aren't the looming problems in Europe and the Americans unfolding exactly how Marx and Engles predicted they would in the Communist Manifesto? I mean the question of whether the Maxist solution to the collapse of bourgeois liberal society is desirable is another matter entirely, but clearly the Marxist critique of liberal bourgeois society was valid.

Aside from the now-sputtering liberal bourgeois model we have now, I'm not sure what other models even exist. Various libertarian/Objectivist/anarchist models are entirely theoretical, actual statist socialism has been tried and failed. The differences between Social Democrats and Christian Conservatives within the framework of liberal bourgeois society appears to be mere window dressing, as all developed nations are following the same basic curve.

I'm not a Marxist, but I have much more respect for Marxist theory than I did 10 or 20 years ago.

[AzariLoveIran]

.

Issue with western (so called) capitalism is not Marx was right or wrong

Issue is Western Capitalism no Capitalism .. rather a

Basically the CROOKS have taken over

Things no Capitalism, rather in contrary

Marx was an idiot not understanding that not machines nor capital, but human ingenuity creates wealth (and, wealth creation only leads to prosperity)

Crooks have no interest AND will vehemently prevent real Capitalism .. they live by riding the donkey

.

[noddy]

[AzariLoveIran]

.

Look "noddy"

this rubbish called "left" or "right" just to fool Joe into cliches

In economics, in real life, making money the honest way, creation of wealth, baking the cake, no such thing as Left or Right

There is only one way to bake the cake .. need a "Master of Bakery" .. people with intuition and ingenuity that will risk their neck for what they believe in .. that is the only way .. anything else just follin Joe to get a free ride

wealth is not created by Capital (be it gold, Dollars, diamante, real state, etc) nor machinery .. wealth is created by people

.

[noddy]

[noddy]

in that devious way it does my brain was pondering the first nations thread and this thread and a certain penny dropped in relation to individual/community/society and the laws which make it very difficult to operate on any level but atomised...ill post my drivel here for want of a better place to put it and try and flesh it out later.

in australia we have a problem of short term seasonal work no longer being viable for australians .. long gone are the days you could live in a tin shack somewhere and earn small batches of money from time at your discretion..those people are long since either in prison or on the mines and the fruit growers etc are getting desperate for workers

the pacific region is very poor, 2 to 5 dollars a day is about all they can expect if they do manage to find work so the local growers had the idea of giving them working holidays in australia, at australian wages during the picking season....

neither side of politics will make it happen, ill dig up the arguments later in the week but it doesnt take much imagination to guess the basics... illegal immigration and whatnot from one side, exploitation and lack of usual workers conditions and benefits on the other...reasons, everyone has reasons... think of mexicans for american versions.

all the tax laws and labour laws and workers rights and and and.. all stop us from forming these communities or allowing them to continue on their terms even if they immigrate here.,..

this is the kind of "socialism" im absolutely in favour of and get frustrated at our system about.. its not about anti capitalism its about free markets and personal choices and using capitalism as its meant to be used.. a tool for interacting with the "other"....

rough working draft of a thought

[Tinker]

[noddy]

[Tinker]

[Ibrahim]

[Tinker]