Marxists Thread

[Neutrino]

Let me tell you the story of the garbage company that had a monopoly.

40 years ago there were many companies all trying to do thier best to satisfy thier customers. The ones that did the best got the most customers. The ones that didnt worked harder. Which made the company in first work harder. Every employee did his best, because if he didn't, he was canned, because if they slack off, they lose business. One day the state gave all of the garbage responsibility to one company. Everyone had to have that company. It didnt have to fear competition, so they became lazy. They didnt fire thier employees for slacking off because the customers were bound to that company. So the workers can slack off wothout losing thier jobs. Now, we have terrible service and we are furious.

This is why you cannot have one entity running all business.

That story is very unlikely. Companies do not try to improve efficiency, as this is very difficult to do, they try to cut costs, because this is very easy to do. The garbage companies would start laying off staff, reducing pay and removing other various benifits, just so they could make maximum profit.
If there was only one company, then it would only take a single intelligent person to realise that if the company lays off slackers and dosent have to scrimp for every penny to make a big profit, then everyone benifits.

[Jenos Ridan]

And what is to stop a wage-whore from saving funds for college or investment? NOTHING! In fact, capitalism allows, no, DEMANDS this! It is how it all works: I get a job, I work it for a while saving my hard earned money to pay for college. I get a two-year degree, so as to get a BETTER job. While working a job, I buy products, this gives another poor sod like I was a chance. And so on and so on....

The sad fact is that humans, by nature are competative. I guess that I take a slightly more Nietzschean worldview than most folks.

And how many years would someone on minimum wage have to save before they could pay for college and afford to take two years off work?
What if they had dependents to support? Were unemployed? Had an accident/disability?

Oh I guess in your competitive world there's gotta be a looser.

Your consumer driven system just seems like another pyramid scheme to me - its okay for those few at the top but the masses propping it up get royally f*cked. It'll all come crashing down one of these days like every other one of those schemes.

Hardly. It is more like the idea posted by your friend luns101. It is still a brutal affair and a small number may well be run-over by the majority. Also, the market is far from the only recourse. Private charities, tax cuts, public works, tax reform, land reform, in fact, many options that while alone have little impact but on the whole and in consert benefit the vast majority, rich and poor. Capitalism tends to be a bad thing only in the developing world, where regime changes happen as often and as fast as Hollywood Celebs can swap out partners .

[Neutrino]

Capitalism tends to be a bad thing only in the developing world, where regime changes happen as often and as fast as Hollywood Celebs can swap out partners .

Exactly. Capitalism for those at the top of the developed world, but absolutly horrible for those at the bottom of the developing world. And there happens to be a hell of a lot more of the second type than the first.

[flashleg8]

Capitalism tends to be a bad thing only in the developing world, where regime changes happen as often and as fast as Hollywood Celebs can swap out partners .

Exactly. Capitalism for those at the top of the developed world, but absolutly horrible for those at the bottom of the developing world. And there happens to be a hell of a lot more of the second type than the first.

[Jenos Ridan]

Capitalism tends to be a bad thing only in the developing world, where regime changes happen as often and as fast as Hollywood Celebs can swap out partners .

Exactly. Capitalism for those at the top of the developed world, but absolutly horrible for those at the bottom of the developing world. And there happens to be a hell of a lot more of the second type than the first.

And yet, it can work for everybody. Private Enterprize is a good thing, partnering it up with democracy is even better. All the developing world needs is some stablity; governments that don't crap out every three days. Aslo, there are just too many petty tin-pot dictatorships around and nobody to replace them with.

[flashleg8]

In a way, it was a whole lot simpler in the Victorian Age, most of what is now hellhole was once part of an orderly coloney system. I'm not advicating a return to that, but rather suggesting that there are some parts of the world with too many nations.

Jebus! I cannot believe you look to affection at the days of out of control industrialisation and colonial exploitation! The outrages of the Victorian era are a massive part of the problem effecting modern day Africa.

Instead of the poor working in sweat shops you want to see them in Dickensian work houses?

Edit: You deleted your post?

[Jenos Ridan]

In a way, it was a whole lot simpler in the Victorian Age, most of what is now hellhole was once part of an orderly coloney system. I'm not advicating a return to that, but rather suggesting that there are some parts of the world with too many nations.

Jebus! I cannot believe you look to affection at the days of out of control industrialisation and colonial exploitation! The outrages of the Victorian era are a massive part of the problem effecting modern day Africa.

Instead of the poor working in sweat shops you want to see them in Dickensian work houses?

Edit: You deleted your post?

No, Edited it. I didn't like how it went. The point was, less ethnic feuding=more stabilty=good for all.

[Jenos Ridan]

I hardly "look back with affection" to those days. Sure, simpler insomuch as fewer nations on the map, but true, it has caused a lot of trouble today, since there is no longer any internal government structure to balance it all out.

That, I think, is the question on everybody's mind: Can Marxism actually succeed where some feel the free market has failed? More importantly, can it do so at a grassroots level with no financal infrastructure, zero coffers, minimal logistics and next to no industrial base?

Not with out an initial "investment", I should think. And where would this come from?

[Anarchy Ninja]

oh yes cause the opression of an entire race is certainly good for all

[Jenos Ridan]

oh yes cause the opression of an entire race is certainly good for all

In case it slipped by you, I'd edited my post. Oppression, especially racial, just isn't right, no matter how you slice it.

[Anarchy Ninja]

No, Edited it. I didn't like how it went. The point was, less ethnic feuding=more stabilty=good for all.

and how did they stop the feuding, wholesale slaughter and slavery and i would say it has led to a considerable less amount of stability

[luns101]

@luns: well argued points as always. If more capitalists were like yourself rather than some of the others on this site, I would have less of a problem with the system!

I can't remember which thread it was, but I seem to recall you saying you were against hedonism, which I also do not like...but for different reasons.

[Jenos Ridan]

No, Edited it. I didn't like how it went. The point was, less ethnic feuding=more stabilty=good for all.

and how did they stop the feuding, wholesale slaughter and slavery and i would say it has led to a considerable less amount of stability

Certainly not the best solution, but then you try and find the perfect solution to all the world's problems. Personally, I'm open to an option that doesn't resort to Victorian Age solutions and doesn't turn us all into bland communal conformists.

[Jenos Ridan]

Well.....?

[Anarchy Ninja]

perfect soloution, as i already stated like on the first page of this thread is communism. if you had researched it at all it you would have seen that it has been considered by many as an example of an utopian societey.

[Jenos Ridan]

perfect soloution, as i already stated like on the first page of this thread is communism. if you had researched it at all it you would have seen that it has been considered by many as an example of an utopian societey.

The Idea was NOT to turn we all into social-conforming collectivists! Besides, the only way it would work (unless your propaganda campaign was un-believably successful) would be to employ Thought Police!

Hmmm, live in a world where I'm forbidden to have any freedom because "Big Brother" says it would infringe on someone elses nonexistant freedom. Or I could choose to live in a trully free world. I take Door #Two.

[beezer]

Just because a nation wins a war does not make their system the fairest.

No, but how do you define "fair"? Also, who is going to define what "fair" and "adequate" is? The capitalists keep asking that question and we're not getting real answers.

Also, in regards to freedom of religious expression, do you agree with Marx's statement:

"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."

[Jenos Ridan]

perfect soloution, as i already stated like on the first page of this thread is communism. if you had researched it at all it you would have seen that it has been considered by many as an example of an utopian societey.

Yeah, one dependant on mass brainwashing, thought police and total and absolute bland, tasteless, unsightly conformity. History has shone repeatedly that such "Utopias" turn into oppressive dictatorships at the flick of a switch. The point I'm making is that there is no perfect solution; all we can do is to make good with what we got, help any many as we can while looking after our own well-being and prepare the next generation.

If you don't like it, then cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it!

[Anarchy Ninja]

perfect soloution, as i already stated like on the first page of this thread is communism. if you had researched it at all it you would have seen that it has been considered by many as an example of an utopian societey.

The Idea was NOT to turn we all into social-conforming collectivists! Besides, the only way it would work (unless your propaganda campaign was un-believably successful) would be to employ Thought Police!

Hmmm, live in a world where I'm forbidden to have any freedom because "Big Brother" says it would infringe on someone elses nonexistant freedom. Or I could choose to live in a trully free world. I take Door #Two.

odd doesnt sound like utopia to me which is what i was talking about and where did i mention a propaganda campaing or anything in your post for that matter? i merely answered your question about a 'perfect society' i.e. UTOPIA

and you cant honestly believe you live in a trully free world today, i think your second section describes what we are currently living in perfectly

[Jenos Ridan]

Just because a nation wins a war does not make their system the fairest.

No, but how do you define "fair"? Also, who is going to define what "fair" and "adequate" is? The capitalists keep asking that question and we're not getting real answers.

Also, in regards to freedom of religious expression, do you agree with Marx's statement:

"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."

Fair means that those who "win" don't have their "points" taken away because some crybaby is throwing a tantrum.

[Jenos Ridan]

perfect soloution, as i already stated like on the first page of this thread is communism. if you had researched it at all it you would have seen that it has been considered by many as an example of an utopian societey.

The Idea was NOT to turn we all into social-conforming collectivists! Besides, the only way it would work (unless your propaganda campaign was un-believably successful) would be to employ Thought Police!

Hmmm, live in a world where I'm forbidden to have any freedom because "Big Brother" says it would infringe on someone elses nonexistant freedom. Or I could choose to live in a trully free world. I take Door #Two.

odd doesnt sound like utopia to me which is what i was talking about and where did i mention a propaganda campaing or anything in your post for that matter? i merely answered your question about a 'perfect society' i.e. UTOPIA

and you cant honestly believe you live in a trully free world today, i think your second section describes what we are currently living in perfectly

My point is, as I posted earlier, is that there never was, nor will there ever be a perfect solution. Best we can do is try to make the most of it.

As for the second part; I guess being politcally active means nothing to you? Ever thought to sent your government a petiton? How 'bout joining a lobby group? Is being a active member of society really that hard?

[Anarchy Ninja]

ohhh yes cause i would be ever so popular in this greed filled world if i was to approuch my local parliment member with my views and opinions

i would prefer no governement what so ever

and you seem to think being an active member of society as pretty dificult, especially when everyone is helping each other

[Jenos Ridan]

i would prefer no governement what so ever

To be honest, everybody would like that. If we were still able to keep the crazies from murdering us all in our sleep! Oh Wait.....

and you seem to think being an active member of society as pretty dificult, especially when everyone is helping each other

Actually, I was trying to state how ease it was. And as for helping eachother, well, loners tend not to get far.

[Jenos Ridan]

The simple fact is, I'm a pessimistic and pragmatic person. Replacing the free market with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat doesn't appeal to me. That, and history has shown us what happens when you try; the USSR and Maoist China (which is only marginally better). You can go live in the nice little town of Conformity. I'll take my chances in the real world.

[Neutrino]

The simple fact is, I'm a pessimistic and pragmatic person. Replacing the free market with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat doesn't appeal to me. That, and history has shown us what happens when you try; the USSR and Maoist China

History has not shown you what happens in a Socialist society. What that particular part of history has shown you is what happens when Communism takes hold in a place where it is a very, very bad idea to do so.

You can go live in the nice little town of Conformity. I'll take my chances in the real world.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe Communism wont result in grey conformaty? Everyone may have equal chances, but everyone will not be the same. Some people are better at some things than other people. Why would people all become the same? Are they just going to drop their traditional cultures because they all want to be exactly identical? (incedently, Capitalism is doing a great job of destroying traditional cultures)

Your arguments so far have been good, but im surprised that you would make such an unfounded generalization.