Karl Marx: Why Capitalism Will Fail

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Marx claimed that every economic system except Socialism produces forces that eventually lead to a new economic form.

Here is a list of the five reasons Karl Marx gave as to why everything that isn't Socialism will fail:

1. Inevitability of monopolies, which eliminate competition and gouge consumers and works.

2. Lack of centralized planning, which results in overproduction of some good and underproduction of others, encouraging economic crises such as inflation, slumps, depressions.

3. Demands for labor-saving machinery, which force unemployment and a more hostile proletariat.

4. Employers will tend to maximize profits by reducing labor expenses, thus creating a situation where workers will not have enough income to buy the goods produced, creating the contradiction of causing profits to fall.

5. Control of the state by the wealthy, the effect of which is passage of laws favoring themselves.

Personally, I see it happening. Mega-mergers and interlocking directorates for number one, 'for profit' being the driving cause of number two, for number three...three words. 'Made in China.', number four would be the point of transnational corporations and replacing workers with machines, aaaaand number five can be summed up by 'lobbyists'. Also, the US recently removed the law that corporations can't directly fund presidential candidates. So yeah. Legal bribery.

I was wondering what the denizens of the Escapist thought of this list.

i think we really need new political heavyweight thinkers rather than getting so hung up on the old.

besides that...

1. well that's happened. i mean you only have to look at Microsoft. there are plenty of monopolies around esspcally in the UK after its crappily conducted privatisations and they are screwing the hell out us.

2. not so sure of that. we have enough centralized planning to extend some protection to certain things like food supplies (at least in the EU anyway). i don't think it truly takes into account the consumerist market forces.

3. hmmm on going i guess. although there is a whole side discussion about what kinds of production even have a place in an advanced economy. in other words it is completely viable (for a few reasons) to near hand make high end products like say Aston Martins in an advanced economy but not toy Aston Martins...

4. ye well that is extremely relevant to the economic situation we are facing atm. cost of living is rising and wages are ever decreasing and worse than that they have managed to convince people to argue against their own well being ("why should X get a rise if I don't get one" as opposed to "X got a rise so should i")

5. do i even have to say it ?

he was a clever man.

unfortunately i don't really believe in end game politics.
societal collapse is imo more likely than the inevitability of a political system.

According to Wikipedia the following countries currently declare themselves to be socialist states in the Marxist-Leninist tradition:
People's Republic of China, Cuba, Laos, Nepal, Vietnam, Democratic People's Republic of Korea[1]

I don't know much about Cuba, Laos, Nepal, or Vietnam, but I've seen the rampant free-market forces of the PRC first hand and I hear DPRK is slowly opening up (internally mind. North Korean citizens I hear are allowed to sell extra rice to each other but the country is still closed to outside companies.) I'm not sure that any purely socialist country still exists. Just like I don't think any purely capitalist country exists. The stability comes from finding a balance, not confining a people to an ideological extreme.

[1] Technically the state philosophy of DPRK is Juche, but it borrows enough from Marxism-Leninism to count.

Yeah, because Socialism has worked out great so far. The PRC is becoming more and more capitalist as the days tick by, the Soviet Union is no more, and Cuba, Laos, Nepal, Vietnam, and North Korea aren't exactly world powers.

Socialism isn't supposed to either "fall" or stay immutable over time but rather morph into Communism which in turn has to keep evolving on its own. He speaks about an evolving form of government more in tune with a set of human moral values.

Why do people still quote people like Marx? His work is horribly outdated, much like you don't quote Adam Smith when dealing with the modern globalised economy either.

And much like Marx' extreme socialism inevitably fails, extreme libertarism also fails. Extremes never work well. A moderate mix of ideas if always the best solution.

Blablahb:
Why do people still quote people like Marx? His work is horribly outdated, much like you don't quote Adam Smith when dealing with the modern globalised economy either.

And much like Marx' extreme socialism inevitably fails, extreme libertarism also fails. Extremes never work well. A moderate mix of ideas if always the best solution.

hey you i've quoted Adam Smith in the last month :P

sometimes its worth pointing out exactly what the basic fundamentals of a process are in aid of. there are a great many proponents of Capitalism around who could do with reading some Adam Smith to find out what the institution of this economic system they worship was actually FOR because the vast majority seem completely ignorant of its fundamental aims and indeed ascribe some instead that are in fact near the complete opposite.

I see someone is taking high school history class.

Socialism as Marx and Engels envisioned it is unlikely, especially since the unskilled factory worker that was supposed to rise up has become almost non-existent outside of countries such as Vietnam, India, and China. More likely is what is referred to and practiced as democratic socialism, with strong central governments insuring industry (and more recently finance) does not work against the interests of the society as a whole, all backed by a democratically-elected government and independent judiciary.

Communism does not work. Its a lovely idealism but no, doesn't work.

It does very very well to point out the severe flaws of Pure Capitalism as there are many but it does little to address them.

The most that can be done is to have a capitalistic system, and then counter-act the negatives with Government money to the best extents possible. Generally this is achieved with a centre/centre-right Government who ensure capitalism goes mostly unconstrained but then balance when appropriate.

Pure Capitalism will fail... UNITED STATES OF AMERICA >:|

... I just had a thought about welfare and benefits tying into this but I may create my own thread on it.

Kopikatsu:
Marx claimed that every economic system except Socialism produces forces that eventually lead to a new economic form.

Here is a list of the five reasons Karl Marx gave as to why everything that isn't Socialism will fail:

1. Inevitability of monopolies, which eliminate competition and gouge consumers and works.

Yah, the one I know the most is De Beers, but others are pretty rare at this point.

Kopikatsu:

2. Lack of centralized planning, which results in overproduction of some good and underproduction of others, encouraging economic crises such as inflation, slumps, depressions.

Ahuh. That's why the Soviet Union had such a prosperous economy in the 80's.

Kopikatsu:

3. Demands for labor-saving machinery, which force unemployment and a more hostile proletariat.

It's a simple idea, but in practice it doesn't really play out. ATM's have been around for awhile, yet the number of bank tellers have gone up, computers have been around for awhile and yet paperwork has only increased. I understand in the 19th century that was probably true in some cases, but for the most part the "labor saving" machinery cause the work to be less professional, the best examples would be say the cotton gin which only rapidly increased the demand for cotton labor.

Kopikatsu:

4. Employers will tend to maximize profits by reducing labor expenses, thus creating a situation where workers will not have enough income to buy the goods produced, creating the contradiction of causing profits to fall.

Yah that's a bit true and is only further complicated by the stock market. I'm certain the stock market didn't exist during Marx's time but I maybe wrong (although I know the stock idea was around for a loong time before Marx). But basically, the company keeps growing and growing until uh-oh growth can't go up much more, what is the basic 5 year old instinct for your investors? To sell their stock, when this happens people stop putting more value and trust in your company and the stock value goes down causing the company to collapse. The way companies avoid this is by 1. asking the government for money 2. firing more workers 3. outsourcing the work offshore for a lower price.

In fact Marx predicted the Great Depression, he said that the companies would overproduce and cause a depression, quite remarkable, but that's where his fortune telling ends, he was spectacular at predicting events that may happen in a short time during or after his lifetime, but anything beyond that has been a long course of violence and failure. He predicted during this depression that the Proletariat would rise up and establish a Proletarian dictatorship.

The problem however is that he assumes central planning would be any better at predicting what to produce than a free market. The problem though is that when a company fails and has to close its doors, it effects a small number of people, when a government fails at this they can't close their doors but rather let the people suffer and hope it gets better later on.

Kopikatsu:

5. Control of the state by the wealthy, the effect of which is passage of laws favoring themselves.

Yah it stucks, especially the Monsanto Corporation and their bills they get passed like for example terminator seeds.

Kopikatsu:

Also, the US recently removed the law that corporations can't directly fund presidential candidates. So yeah. Legal bribery.

That's fine. In fact it's bad for the corporations, because unless they use the tax brackets that can't be traced the people know which company is backing up which candidate.

Warforger:
That's fine. In fact it's bad for the corporations, because unless they use the tax brackets that can't be traced the people know which company is backing up which candidate.

Really?

Because Corporations still have personhood status and can therefore, as a "person" are entitled to anonymity if they wish it and can therefore anonymously fund campaigns...

The Gentleman:

Socialism as Marx and Engels envisioned it is unlikely, especially since the unskilled factory worker that was supposed to rise up has become almost non-existent outside of countries such as Vietnam, India, and China.

This is a misconception, Marx and Engels never said the factory workers would rise up, it world be as silly as saying the fishermen or the lumberjacks would govern society. they said that the proletariat would rise , that's far more wide reaching than the factory worker. Hell your probably one of them.

Comando96:
Communism does not work. Its a lovely idealism but no, doesn't work.

That cool, but I think is a bit of a vague statement. you should instead say what you really think happens in communist society's, and then tell us what's wrong with that.

unabomberman:
Socialism isn't supposed to either "fall" or stay immutable over time but rather morph into Communism

Well if we're just talking about Marx here then that's also a misconception. this was one of Lenins ideas, you could justify It I guess with a few references to the dictatorship of the proletariat (one of Marxs notions) but that would beg a major redefinition of what we mean by socialism.

Blablahb:
A moderate mix of ideas if always the best solution.

I think what your doing is called the golden mean fallacy, it doesn't mean your wrong, but it does mean your going to need to back up your statement.

Sleekit:

societal collapse is imo more likely than the inevitability of a political system.

I think that's sort of Marxs point, our current social order is antagonistic and will eventually kill itself. Us communists are here to try to pick humanity up when it falls.

God that sounds arrogant of me.

Blablahb:
Why do people still quote people like Marx? His work is horribly outdated, much like you don't quote Adam Smith when dealing with the modern globalised economy either.

And much like Marx' extreme socialism inevitably fails, extreme libertarism also fails. Extremes never work well. A moderate mix of ideas if always the best solution.

Because people always look to the past for ideas, sometimes it serves us well. The Renaissance and Enlightenment probably wouldn't have happened if everyone considered Aristotle, Plato, and all the other Classical philosophers outdated.

You have to admit if you treat these things like predictions some of them are... uncanny. #5 in particular and #4 to an extent.

joelzimmerjoel:

Comando96:
Communism does not work. Its a lovely idealism but no, doesn't work.

That cool, but I think is a bit of a vague statement. you should instead say what you really think happens in communist society's, and then tell us what's wrong with that.

History.

Pure communism in Russia. Caused mass starvation within the first few years and was then dropped.
Edited Communism... worked longer! Longer... it still collapsed in terms of the Soviet Union. It is still going in Cuba... although there is a very slow progression further to the right, meaning it is not satisfying people...
China's "communism"** is not "communism"* but very very good control. It is the closest you get to working "communism"* in a large country.

The idea behind communism is to have everyone working all of the time and forsaking greater productivity if it forsakes jobs, and in this to eliminate the class system where some people are lower class and others are higher class... it just doesn't fucking work...

Every successful economy today blends free market with government regulations. We have new theories now. End of story.

Comando96:

joelzimmerjoel:

Comando96:
Communism does not work. Its a lovely idealism but no, doesn't work.

That cool, but I think is a bit of a vague statement. you should instead say what you really think happens in communist society's, and then tell us what's wrong with that.

History.

Pure communism in Russia. Caused mass starvation within the first few years and was then dropped.
Edited Communism... worked longer! Longer... it still collapsed in terms of the Soviet Union. It is still going in Cuba... although there is a very slow progression further to the right, meaning it is not satisfying people...
China's "communism"** is not "communism"* but very very good control. It is the closest you get to working "communism"* in a large country.

The idea behind communism is to have everyone working all of the time and forsaking greater productivity if it forsakes jobs, and in this to eliminate the class system where some people are lower class and others are higher class... it just doesn't fucking work...

But what do you mean when you say pure communism, I don't think that a short period of political and economic chaos is what communists intend, you could argue that it is inevitable but I don't think that it is. And you still haven't made a specific criticism yet.

Falconsgyre:
Every successful economy today blends free market with government regulations. We have new theories now. End of story.

But, doesn't every government blend the free market with government regulations? are you arguing for blending to a certain degree? if so, how much? what does this specific blend require economically (as in the overall wealth of the system. I'm sorry to ask so many questions but I can't judge any general statements, whatever they may be.

Falconsgyre:
Every successful economy today blends free market with government regulations. We have new theories now. End of story.

The last I heard, the global economy was pretty shakey and some countries are in deep shit (Greece, US just BS'd out of a potential disaster, etc). Maybe that's just me, though.

joelzimmerjoel:
But what do you mean when you say pure communism, I don't think that a short period of political and economic chaos is what communists intend, you could argue that it is inevitable but I don't think that it is. And you still haven't made a specific criticism yet.

This is a thread... to construct a full argument of why communism doesn't work (as it would only make sense if you made the full argument) would take a while... thats why.

Fine... I'll pull out the graphs.

OK the main problem with communism is that it does not encourage growth... at all... ever. Growth of an economy = progression and when growth stops that signals that we have reached the maxium possible potential ever... which we clearly haven't.

Long Term economic growth.
image
Find that was a real time saver xD

First problem with communism is that the ideology is to have everyone employed. However, therefore to replace people with machines is wrong if there aren't enough jobs... but in the long term this process is key to increasing productivity, increasing wealth and therefore allowing for increased investment and then more jobs following on from that investment.
Base line, there is little wealth to invest.

Second, the class system is that everyone is the same. Therefore there are no entrepreneurs and there are no varying wealth holders. There is only the big state, choosing where and what to invest in. This means a non-fluid economy: A control economy.
Control economies are infamous for royally fucking up market forces as instead of lots of individual companies making decisions based on demand/supply there is one body doing that job and the track record is that fixed decisions are made for a set amount of time. These fixed decisions result in lots of various over and under supplies of different resources. The worst case scenario, as well is that some events cannot be planned for like floods, droughts, fires and earthquakes, which royally fuck up control economies.

Finally more practical aspects. Implementation.
Communism = Control
Control = Controlling of Actions and the Mind
Controlling of Actions and the Mind = Dictatorship
Dictatorships require force to implement, and the more resistance that is given to a dictatorship, the more resources which need to be diverted from other sectors to the enforcement of the regime.
Firstly; Less investment in the economy for the future or even subtraction of investment meaning the economy is worse off.
Secondly you need to incentive the enforcers to side with you, which then creates a 2 tier class system. The people and the regime, which then furthers the divide and increases resistance, as seen in the Soviet Union, leading to the point of collapse.

-
It don't fucking work!

joelzimmerjoel:
But, doesn't every government blend the free market with government regulations? are you arguing for blending to a certain degree? if so, how much? what does this specific blend require economically (as in the overall wealth of the system. I'm sorry to ask so many questions but I can't judge any general statements, whatever they may be.

Market failure, derp.

For example in cases of positive(under supplied, need subsidy) and negative(over supplied, need regulation) externalities.

Marx was right about the crisis of overproduction-- it happened. It was called the Great Depression.
Marx was wrong about the extent to which proletarian class consciousness would develop and turn into violent revolution in capitalist countries. Soviet socialism occurred in what was still a feudal economy. In capitalist countries, concessions were made to workers which caused enough contentment to forestall revolutions: informal syndicalism through unions.
If the structure of the economy becomes significantly obvious in its unfairness and the bourgeoisie overplays its hand, then there could possibly be a violent revolution in the future. It all depends on how far into the corrupt corporate "libertarianism" (in name only) that the shills can take us. They retreated from the brink at the Great Depression. In the second round they may overextend and provoke a backlash that will herald collapse. It wouldn't be the first time the dominant order has fallen. Contra Marx it probably wouldn't be the last, either.

But if you read Marx nothing like that is ever suggested. your criticism assumes that the state owns everything, but communists advocate a society in which their is no state and nothing can be owned. the ideology is not to have everyone employed, as a matter of fact it's the opposite. The goal is to get rid of employment as an idea.

Now I'll be the first to admit I Know very little about capitalist economics, and so that graph makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.So because of that can I ask you to explain in simple terms how communism doesn't encourage growth,and how this is a problem.

*Wanders over and hugs MODERN Marxist discourse* Honestly, some Marxists will tell you he was flatout wrong, misled, or fucking stupid at points. Doesn't make him useless, but honestly, things develop.

joelzimmerjoel:
Now I'll be the first to admit I Know very little about capitalist economics, and so that graph makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. So because of that can I ask you to explain in simple terms how communism doesn't encourage growth,and how this is a problem.

Normally investment goes into stuff that makes wealth over time like machinery. This is then worked, giving more wealth than last year. This new wealth is then added back into more stuff than last year.

Every system of Government that has tried "communism" then just removes almost every channel in existence to re-invest in the economy has been ruined. Normally it's entrepreneurship... Nope. The next is Government but I explained how that fucks investment up.

joelzimmerjoel:
But if you read Marx nothing like that is ever suggested. your criticism assumes that the state owns everything, but communists advocate a society in which their is no state and nothing can be owned. the ideology is not to have everyone employed, as a matter of fact it's the opposite. The goal is to get rid of employment as an idea.

...that's lovely. Wake the fuck up :)

Comando96:

joelzimmerjoel:
Now I'll be the first to admit I Know very little about capitalist economics, and so that graph makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. So because of that can I ask you to explain in simple terms how communism doesn't encourage growth,and how this is a problem.

Normally investment goes into stuff that makes wealth over time like machinery. This is then worked, giving more wealth than last year. This new wealth is then added back into more stuff than last year.

Every system of Government that has tried "communism" then just removes almost every channel in existence to re-invest in the economy has been ruined. Normally it's entrepreneurship... Nope. The next is Government but I explained how that fucks investment up.

joelzimmerjoel:
But if you read Marx nothing like that is ever suggested. your criticism assumes that the state owns everything, but communists advocate a society in which their is no state and nothing can be owned. the ideology is not to have everyone employed, as a matter of fact it's the opposite. The goal is to get rid of employment as an idea.

...that's lovely. Wake the fuck up :)

Evidently you disagree with me, that's fine but you still aren't making any arguments against communism. you made a compelling argument against total government control of the economy, but the point of my statement was that it's irrelevant because no ones asking for that. If you think I'm asleep then please wake me up.

joelzimmerjoel:

But, doesn't every government blend the free market with government regulations? are you arguing for blending to a certain degree? if so, how much? what does this specific blend require economically (as in the overall wealth of the system. I'm sorry to ask so many questions but I can't judge any general statements, whatever they may be.

I'm not an economist. I don't think I could make any statements beyond "we need some kind of government regulation to prevent the rampant dickery inherent in a true free market" and "capitalism works quite well to motivate people to produce things more efficiently." The exact extent of how much freedom markets should have and how much government should regulate seems like an open question even in academic circles, and furthermore is going to depend a lot on the specifics of the culture. The only people qualified to give really useful specific answers are economists, and even they can't give answers that are specific to more than one situation. If your question is "what exact amount of regulation will cause markets not to spiral into oblivion," my answer is going to be "hell if I know." I just wanted to point out that all countries rely on both government regulation to curb the excesses of the free market and the free market to motivate people to actually produce things.

Kopikatsu:

The last I heard, the global economy was pretty shakey and some countries are in deep shit (Greece, US just BS'd out of a potential disaster, etc). Maybe that's just me, though.

Nothing's perfect. The recent economic problems could mean that the approach we have now is fundamentally unstable... or it could just mean some people made mistakes along the way. We might blame the US crisis on the extreme deregulation of financial practices in the US, for example, combined with the recent rise of a political movement that seems to be completely unable to reason logically. But the deregulation wasn't an inevitable consequence of capitalism, it was just some people fucking up.

joelzimmerjoel:
I think what your doing is called the golden mean fallacy, it doesn't mean your wrong, but it does mean your going to need to back up your statement.

Simple: all communist states have collapsed in on themselves due to economic failure and inherent suppression, all extreme socialist states are suffering a fate close to that. All extreme libertarian ideas such as Thatcherism have been slowly gotten rid of for not working, with the notable exception of the US, which pays the price for it. The most recent example being the major flooding in the north-east because the US doesn't invest in flood protection sufficiently.

joelzimmerjoel:
I think that's sort of Marxs point, our current social order is antagonistic and will eventually kill itself. Us communists are here to try to pick humanity up when it falls.

That's an ironic thing to say, considering communism as an ideology is the biggest taker of human lives in the 20th century. Counting all countries together, tens of millions have died under a socialist social order.
That while capitalism with a liberalist government with limited redistribution of wealth and the necessary government services, have proved to be a stable system, in some cases for well over a century now.

Why? Because it's adaptive, unlike blind socialist dogma. In the 70's and the oil crisis, spatial keynesiasm which sought to equalise economic development across regions, part of most European states in those days, showed to not be working. So it was tossed out of the nearest window in favour of governmental deconcentration. That was fourty years ago, and the system still works.

Kopikatsu:
The last I heard, the global economy was pretty shakey and some countries are in deep shit (Greece, US just BS'd out of a potential disaster, etc). Maybe that's just me, though.

Well, there's a reason behind everything. The US has been systematically disinvesting in it's society for decades. The sheer size of the US population, economy and central role in the world economy have held off the consequences of that for a long time, but now that's disinvestment coming to get revenge.

As for Greece, they were long overspending in a socialist-style wellfare state the likes of which most European countries got rid of at the economic crisis in the 80's. Pension at just 60 years old, an inefficient tax system and many things such as ports and railways being controlled by inefficient government initiatives, whereas most countries have privatised such semi-government services to gain the efficiency advantages of private businesses without sacrificing the mission of those services.
On top of that they falsified figures about debth and economy for years to continue overspending, and all of that is coming to haunt them now.


Don't underestimate the impact of the non-privatising. During the holidays two years back I was hired by a Dutch housing corporation that used to function as a government agency, the Woningbedrijf Amsterdam, meaning something like Housing Company Amsterdam, run by the city of Amsterdam.

My mission was to combat the inheritance of that period, and the things I saw... There were gaps of millions of euros in each years budget. And who cares, the city pays the difference anyway. Nobody's accountable. The technical staff that did repairs stole tons worth of materials from the company every year, and used them for private moonlighting repair work. I myself discovered (and later sacked) a single mechanic for stealing over a ton of materials. At the moment of discovery he had over € 40.000 worth of corporation materials stashed in his home.

Imagine the total impact if you run a government corporation that's allowed to be that inefficient... Well, in Greece they did that for years.

I see a lot of people bringing up the true Communist/socialist countries of the world, and they are pretty bad aren't they.

But what about all the Social Democratic countries out there? Some of them are doing pretty well for themselves. My country of Norway being a good example of a country that is a pretty well functioning Social Democratic Country.

And you can't really argue with Marxx's points there, as it is more or less happening, but his points were also written in a time where the world was quite different, where most people worked in a factory and had next to no education. In the modern world more and more people get a higher education and get work within the higher echelons of work. So the world is no longer just Workers and the Rich...

but back to the points, I think they might apply quite a lot to the USA, but not only because of capitalism, but also because of how your government has chose to adopt capitalism and the so called free market. While countries like Norway have mechanisms in place to ensure that no company gain monopoly the USA almost encourage it (in my opinion).

So yeah, Marxx might be right, but you don't need to become a "commie bastard" to avoid hid points :)

PS: Sadly though in the USA even having socialist tendencies make you a bad guy... so good luck guys ;)

Kopikatsu:
Marx claimed that every economic system except Socialism produces forces that eventually lead to a new economic form.

Here is a list of the five reasons Karl Marx gave as to why everything that isn't Socialism will fail:

1. Inevitability of monopolies, which eliminate competition and gouge consumers and works.

2. Lack of centralized planning, which results in overproduction of some good and underproduction of others, encouraging economic crises such as inflation, slumps, depressions.

3. Demands for labor-saving machinery, which force unemployment and a more hostile proletariat.

4. Employers will tend to maximize profits by reducing labor expenses, thus creating a situation where workers will not have enough income to buy the goods produced, creating the contradiction of causing profits to fall.

5. Control of the state by the wealthy, the effect of which is passage of laws favoring themselves.

Personally, I see it happening. Mega-mergers and interlocking directorates for number one, 'for profit' being the driving cause of number two, for number three...three words. 'Made in China.', number four would be the point of transnational corporations and replacing workers with machines, aaaaand number five can be summed up by 'lobbyists'. Also, the US recently removed the law that corporations can't directly fund presidential candidates. So yeah. Legal bribery.

I was wondering what the denizens of the Escapist thought of this list.

So what exactly happened to the great country Karl Marx brought into existence? They did have a revolution in 1985!

Sadly, the anti capitalist agenda driven by idiots like Marx only bring mass suffering and mass poor!

As to Marxism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b3ggHsG7dw

Aurgelmir:
I see a lot of people bringing up the true Communist/socialist countries of the world, and they are pretty bad aren't they.

But what about all the Social Democratic countries out there? Some of them are doing pretty well for themselves. My country of Norway being a good example of a country that is a pretty well functioning Social Democratic Country.

If I may, your country relies an awful lot on oil money and without that money your government couldn't afford to be quite as generous as it is.

I agree with the rest of your points, mind.

xpowderx:
So what exactly happened to the great country Karl Marx brought into existence? They did have a revolution in 1985!

Sadly, the anti capitalist agenda driven by idiots like Marx only bring mass suffering and mass poor!

You seem to have a nasty habit of never admitting when you're wrong and I think you were born into a time when anti-soviet propaganda was at a high, so I'm going to let this slide... but we both know there are sensible points to be made here. Like mass suffering and mass poor happened before communism, like capitalists in the West made it worse, like only a few pockets in the world have ever embraced the socialism Karl Marx envisioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion

Note the demands of the Petrapavlosk resolution. Sounds a bit freedom'y doesn't it? That's socialism.

Odgical:

If I may, your country relies an awful lot on oil money and without that money your government couldn't afford to be quite as generous as it is.

I agree with the rest of your points, mind.

Indeed we do, that is true, though we also pay a hell of a lot of taxes, that actually pay for a lot more than you'd think. The oil money isn't spent as freely as some would like.

But how much money a government spend isn't really the point I wanted to make anyways :)

xpowderx:

Kopikatsu:
Marx claimed that every economic system except Socialism produces forces that eventually lead to a new economic form.

Here is a list of the five reasons Karl Marx gave as to why everything that isn't Socialism will fail:

1. Inevitability of monopolies, which eliminate competition and gouge consumers and works.

2. Lack of centralized planning, which results in overproduction of some good and underproduction of others, encouraging economic crises such as inflation, slumps, depressions.

3. Demands for labor-saving machinery, which force unemployment and a more hostile proletariat.

4. Employers will tend to maximize profits by reducing labor expenses, thus creating a situation where workers will not have enough income to buy the goods produced, creating the contradiction of causing profits to fall.

5. Control of the state by the wealthy, the effect of which is passage of laws favoring themselves.

Personally, I see it happening. Mega-mergers and interlocking directorates for number one, 'for profit' being the driving cause of number two, for number three...three words. 'Made in China.', number four would be the point of transnational corporations and replacing workers with machines, aaaaand number five can be summed up by 'lobbyists'. Also, the US recently removed the law that corporations can't directly fund presidential candidates. So yeah. Legal bribery.

I was wondering what the denizens of the Escapist thought of this list.

Sadly, the anti capitalist agenda driven by idiots like Marx

Idiots? Your joking right? He was an economic scholar, he went to some of the most prestigious schools in the world. If you want to call anything idiotic you should probably look at the free market philosophy. Its so simple in its economic theory that it doesn't look at its down side just that in theory everything will work.

dmase:

xpowderx:

Kopikatsu:
Marx claimed that every economic system except Socialism produces forces that eventually lead to a new economic form.

Here is a list of the five reasons Karl Marx gave as to why everything that isn't Socialism will fail:

1. Inevitability of monopolies, which eliminate competition and gouge consumers and works.

2. Lack of centralized planning, which results in overproduction of some good and underproduction of others, encouraging economic crises such as inflation, slumps, depressions.

3. Demands for labor-saving machinery, which force unemployment and a more hostile proletariat.

4. Employers will tend to maximize profits by reducing labor expenses, thus creating a situation where workers will not have enough income to buy the goods produced, creating the contradiction of causing profits to fall.

5. Control of the state by the wealthy, the effect of which is passage of laws favoring themselves.

Personally, I see it happening. Mega-mergers and interlocking directorates for number one, 'for profit' being the driving cause of number two, for number three...three words. 'Made in China.', number four would be the point of transnational corporations and replacing workers with machines, aaaaand number five can be summed up by 'lobbyists'. Also, the US recently removed the law that corporations can't directly fund presidential candidates. So yeah. Legal bribery.

I was wondering what the denizens of the Escapist thought of this list.

Sadly, the anti capitalist agenda driven by idiots like Marx

Idiots? Your joking right? He was an economic scholar, he went to some of the most prestigious schools in the world. If you want to call anything idiotic you should probably look at the free market philosophy. Its so simple in its economic theory that it doesn't look at its down side just that in theory everything will work.

Ok Dmase, Marx is not a idiot. He was a super intellectual who was wrong :-D. I would rather be a average intellect who is always right than a superior intellect who is always wrong. The Soviet Union failed. As our current history provides! Capitalism has lasted much much longer than Communism. As shown through history as well.

Blablahb:
Simple: all communist states have collapsed in on themselves due to economic failure and inherent suppression,

Which countries were these, a communist mode of production has only really been tried once to the best of my knowledge, and very fleetingly at that.

Blablahb:
That's an ironic thing to say, considering communism as an ideology is the biggest taker of human lives in the 20th century. Counting all countries together, tens of millions have died under a socialist social order.
That while capitalism with a liberalist government with limited redistribution of wealth and the necessary government services, have proved to be a stable system, in some cases for well over a century now.

Why? Because it's adaptive, unlike blind socialist dogma. In the 70's and the oil crisis, spatial keynesiasm which sought to equalise economic development across regions, part of most European states in those days, showed to not be working. So it was tossed out of the nearest window in favour of governmental deconcentration. That was fourty years ago, and the system still works.

Well of course the common Marxist critique of this is that it isn't by itself a stable system. disparity causes war, famine, theft, and violence. It take massive amount of collective force to keep the system working. any social freedom you enjoy, the limited redistribution of wealth you call for, that is the result of a hundred years of fighting against capitalism. call it what you like but it's by no means adaptive. the system works because we're told it works, how can a system that put's profit before people, that can have Indian billionaires living within view of vast slums, that has created millions of revolutionary's, guerilla warriors and freedom fighters, all ready to give their live in the hope of something better, ever be said to work? as communists have been saying for years the system is killing itself, it turn person against person and in a community made entirely of persons, that can't be a good thing.

First of all.. Communisim is not true marxist socialism. It perverts many of his values.

Just like how pure capitalism fails, pure socialism fails. Even fairly radical socialists like myself don't believe in pure socialism. Instead, the debate is at what level the mix should be.

I would argue that there needs to be socialism to the point where everyone has an equal starting position. Also needs to be there to ensure the rich and disabled are not living an extremely stressful life. Quality of live comes first.

joelzimmerjoel:
It take massive amount of collective force to keep the system working.

Actually it does not. Everybody is perfectly happy if they can individually pursue their self-interest, gain wealth, and do whatever it is people like to do.

The only problems ever arose if there wasn't anything to fuel that system with. What you're claiming is like trying to drive a car with an empty gas tank, noticing it doesn't work, and then claim that all cars ever built are broken.

Socialism on the other hands needs suppression, as people never willingly give up all their possessions in exchange for the promise of some day, some how, getting something in return.

joelzimmerjoel:
any social freedom you enjoy, the limited redistribution of wealth you call for, that is the result of a hundred years of fighting against capitalism

No, actually, it was the result of ignoring those who 'fight against capitalism'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieter_Jelles_Troelstra#Proclamation_of_the_socialist_revolution

As you can see, people pretty much went 'cool story bro', and went on with their daily business. Call me capitalist pig, but I think that's better than tens of thousands dying in a war, getting a totalitarian dictatorship if the socialists win, and then again tens of thousands dying in the oppression that's needed to make a socialist system work.

joelzimmerjoel:
Call it what you like but it's by no means adaptive. the system works because we're told it works

The wealth and wellfare that's been gathered using capitalism is very real. Don't bother to claim any different, when you go to the supermarket, the shelves are full. Why? Because capitalism works.

joelzimmerjoel:
How can a system that put's profit before people, that can have Indian billionaires living within view of vast slums, that has created millions of revolutionary's, guerilla warriors and freedom fighters, all ready to give their live in the hope of something better, ever be said to work?

Maybe because, you know, it works?

Ironic though, you claim money comes before lives, while your alternative would be built on a pile of skulls of it's victims. How's that for putting people first?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked