It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Marxism, specifically?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by bittersocialist
 



You haven't actually addressed even one of my points in your reply so I'm not going to repeat myself.


Yes, I have. Every single one has been addressed.

You're simply not capable of realizing it.

Ideally, the free market and your oddball version of socialism work the same way. Functionally - socialism falls short and requires knowledge of the market that simply cannot be had.

However, I can simply tell you that there was never any point in us discussing the issue, anyway. No one needs to look any further than your screen name (bittersocialist) and your signature ("TROLOLOLOL....") to get an idea of why. Pretty much, you're a socialist and you're going to play your fiddle while Rome burns.




posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I prefer the Aztec-ian spectacle of public heart gougings myself, but the kill count is just not high enough. The aztecs might be cooler in the public gross out factor, but nothing fills the mass graves like good oool marxism.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 



Fine



Socialism would hold that what is vital to society should be democratically decided, for example a doctor's work would doubtlessly be voted as of more worth than a cleaner's, and their wage would be decided accordingly. The key difference is that the cleaner would not have to work outrageously long hours for outrageously low pay - as he does under capitalism.


Translation: Everyone gets paid the same.


No, in no way is that the translation. Like I've said you've just ignorantly waded through my argument and reasserted your point.




In Capitalism - the unemployed are free to pursue what their abilities and influence allow them to produce. All economies are need and want-driven. People need food - unemployed or not. Someone is eventually going to get the bright idea to make some food for them - in exchange for some good or service (because they spent a lot of time producing that food).


I actually laughed reading this. You seem to have some idealistic view of capitalism. It does not work like that in the real world. The unemployed are not 'free' to pursue anything. They are forced to pursue whatever employment opportunity is available. Unless of course they have a significant amount of capital and the know how to ivnest it - most do not.


There wouldn't be any game programmers. There wouldn't be any computers. The state never hired anyone to invent something that isn't necessary. They would, perhaps, hire stage performers.


A very common misconception is that under socialism the state would plan the economy, the economy would be democratically planned, learn to read my posts. I bet you think soviet Russia was socialist as well don't you? Please, learn about something before you criticize it.


Anyway my point was that you hadn't actually addressed any of my points, look at this;

you said this


Socialism and many of its forms all predicate their solutions on the basis that wealth is somehow a fixed or limited resource that must be evenly distributed.


to which I responded


No it doesn't, at all. Do some research, you're making yourself look like a fool.


to which YOU responded


Sure it does. Socialism doesn't account for the invention and establishment of new devices. This is one of the reasons behind the collapse of the USSR (among many things). They were simply not able to keep up with the pace of development in the rest of the world -and- take care of other necessities. There are simply so many factors - many of which are unknowable - to adequately plan an economy.


You start going on about innovation and the planned economy when I was simply saying that socialism doesn't hold wealth as a fixed resource...This is indicative of all your so called counter arguments, they are not actually countering anything. You repeatedly sweep my points aside and reassert your position. Juts like religious apologists. I guess there's really no point in arguing with you, as you are obviously incapable of seeing reason. I just wish I could cure your ignorance. But that's something you will have to do yourself.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
I prefer the Aztec-ian spectacle of public heart gougings myself, but the kill count is just not high enough. The aztecs might be cooler in the public gross out factor, but nothing fills the mass graves like good oool marxism.


Marxism has never been put into practice, you're talking about Leninism and Stalinism.They are as far removed from true Marxism as the national socialist party of Germany.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bittersocialist
 



No, in no way is that the translation. Like I've said you've just ignorantly waded through my argument and reasserted your point.


We will spend more time in the voting booth trying to figure out how much someone should be paid than we will actually working. Do we just write in what we think the job is worth? Are we going on an hourly wage or a salary? If we are going salary - do we vote on the amount of hours they work, too?

This is impractical. What will happen is we will vote to pay everyone roughly the same (as in most cases), adopt some arbitrary pay grading system (the way it is for most government employees at both the state and federal level), or anything other than your rose-tinted view of things.


I actually laughed reading this. You seem to have some idealistic view of capitalism. It does not work like that in the real world. The unemployed are not 'free' to pursue anything. They are forced to pursue whatever employment opportunity is available. Unless of course they have a significant amount of capital and the know how to ivnest it - most do not.


This is, frankly, ignorant. I'm something of a legend among my peers for being able to simply touch a computer and make it work again. I, typically, do not charge for the service (I used to turn down payment offers, but I can't afford to do that, anymore - so I accept them when offered). Is that not a form of employment?

"But if they are unemployed - they won't have money to pay you."

Perhaps they will invite me to eat with them. This is one of the most archaic forms of bartering for service out there - a family receives a service and pays the person who provided it with a meal.

You are too caught up on the "big industry" and fail to realize that the way we live as of now is about to come to an end. Society is going to collapse back into much smaller and more regional markets with localized bartering for service. There is, already, a massive "underground" economy (called "underground" because it isn't tracked by the IRS) - the family of my ex girlfriend own a truck and trailer and regularly help people move. They don't have any kind of fixed fees - but are often paid in the way of "We have what we needed - anything that is left you all can have, and here's some cash on the side."

Cash and hard financial assets will be used mostly as an external interface. Self-organized communities will purchase food stocks in bulk and the home-makers will prepare food for the whole of that community as the laborers/workers go to their jobs (which may be for a company, where they are paid in a hard financial asset the community will value for its universal bartering power; or it may be as simple as chopping wood, driving posts, or keeping up on maintenance of the community assets).

"But, Aim, that sounds like socialism... talk of community and all."

Like I said - socialism and the free market are very similar in more ideal settings. However, at larger scales, socialism collapses, entirely. It does not function as a broad, universal economic policy. It works on the small scales where payment comes in the form of reliable food and shelter within a small community (that interfaces with other communities via the free market). It doesn't work on larger scales.


A very common misconception is that under socialism the state would plan the economy, the economy would be democratically planned, learn to read my posts.


And, as respectfully as I can put this... this is why I said you are lacking in intelligence.

In 1920, the transistor didn't exist. In 1950, the personal computer didn't exist. The Transistor came about because Bell laboratories was looking for a way to reduce noise in their telecommunications switching networks and reducing power overhead (which reduces operating costs and generally means less down-time due to component failure).

The Transistor radio came about because we realized that the transistor was not just an electronically controlled switch - but an amplifier with more ideal performance than many vacuum tubes.

All of this was invented as something new because someone could then turn around and sell it to someone who would want/need it and improve their life by using it. In return - they would provide something in exchange that would also improve the life of the person who built and/or invented it.

How do you plan for that? How do you say: "Alright... let's plan to build a personal computer."

"What's that?"

"We, actually have no idea. No one has invented or produced one. But here's what it's worth, and here's how much people should be paid to build one."

Which directly applies to your wealth argument. The above is what wealth is - producing something valuable. The amount of wealth in the world today has increased because of -new- productivity.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Right, I accept that at certain stages of development capitalism is absolutely the best system for human development. Marx himself said that. The problem comes when we move away from the simple bartering system you're talking about, when food and essentials are traded in small communities. You say yourself that society is on the verge of collapse, this is one of the problems with a capitalist system - they become bloated and fall in on themselves. This continual cycle of boom and bust is inevitable under capitalism. For a sustainable and fair society socialism is necessary.

As far as your argument about us 'spending more time in the voting booth than doing actual work' goes, I can see the theory behind it. In practice however we can see that direct democracy is actually more efficient than the pseudo democracies of America, Britain etc. Sweden has a direct democracy. I can't be bothered to point out all the benefits of Sweden compared to my nation or yours. I think wikipedia will show you how their system works.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Also, your argument about innovation and invention (the transistor etc). Look at the history of Russia, there was as much if not more innovation under Leninism and Stalinism than when they were capitalist, Cuba also. That argument does not stand up to historical scrutiny mate.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by bittersocialist
 



Right, I accept that at certain stages of development capitalism is absolutely the best system for human development. Marx himself said that. The problem comes when we move away from the simple bartering system you're talking about, when food and essentials are traded in small communities. You say yourself that society is on the verge of collapse, this is one of the problems with a capitalist system - they become bloated and fall in on themselves. This continual cycle of boom and bust is inevitable under capitalism. For a sustainable and fair society socialism is necessary.


This, is, actually, incorrect. The market burst was caused by socialism. First - banks are not privately owned and operated. They are all 'authorized' fronts for the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve guarantees the value of your accounts in the bank up to $50,000 per account, if I recall. This means that the Federal Reserve will cover the stated value of that account regardless.

This was done to "make your money safe."

However - it also means that banks have very little in terms of liability (it's not -their- responsibility to pay you). So, if they ever come up short of funds - the Federal Reserve will release funds to cover their poor business practices (not all of which are capable of being regulated).

This came to a head in the lending and mortgage environment. Not only are banks required to keep -only- a 10% cash reserve (they only have to keep 10% of the money claimed to be deposited in the bank - the other 90% can be floating about in loaned values) - but you have the Federal Housing Administration and other implements that have encouraged and insured mortgage loans to the sub-prime market.

This lead to many people being eligible for mortgage loans - people who would have been living in communal housing or on rental property - but are, now, looking for their own little castle. This drove up the price of houses (limited supply - excruciating demand). We'll not even get into the crazy math involved in figuring out how this impacts the value of liened assets (a mortgage loan is granted based on the appraised value of the house - which will be largely impacted by this inflation of prices... this comes into play, later, in the inevitable burst - where houses begin to drop in value and are worth a fraction of the value liened against them).

Bear in mind - the Bush Administration was very proud of its involvement in increasing the number of loans to sub-prime demographics (and Obama was more than happy to follow along).

There are two solutions to this. The popular one, today, for some odd reason - is to increase regulation. The problem with that, however, is that it requires something close to omnipotence and omniscience to regulate such a vast market effectively - and in the detail that is required to prevent such from happening in the future.

The other one is to simply get rid of the Federal Reserve and allow banks to be held liable to their customers' account balance. When banks are expected to have the cash on hand to cover the value of a customer's bank account, they will be less inclined to give risky loans and naturally behave in a more responsible and ethical manner.

Sure - some will be problematic, but you have third-party organizations that serve to give ratings (such as ISO business standards). If you wish to carry out contracts with the U.S. Federal government - you do not comply to a set of regulations they set forth for business practices - you comply with ISO 9000/9001 standards (They are over Nine Thousand! That is how awesome they are).


As far as your argument about us 'spending more time in the voting booth than doing actual work' goes, I can see the theory behind it. In practice however we can see that direct democracy is actually more efficient than the pseudo democracies of America, Britain etc. Sweden has a direct democracy. I can't be bothered to point out all the benefits of Sweden compared to my nation or yours. I think wikipedia will show you how their system works.


But you are talking about voting on the salary for each worker. Theoretically, in each business. I work at a higher-end restaurant in town both washing dishes and on cold food prep. I also used to work in assembly at a factory (as well as all over the place - but my 'home' was in assembly provided they didn't need a cavalry to come pull an order through on time). I had to clock in/out on each job number and each task that was done...

For the volume we were doing - many of us were doing multiple jobs. However - that place plans on growing, and will eventually have far more specialized employees in the future - people who only work in shipping (as opposed to us in assembly packing and jacking our own constructs).... you can't put all of that too a community vote.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bittersocialist
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Also, your argument about innovation and invention (the transistor etc). Look at the history of Russia, there was as much if not more innovation under Leninism and Stalinism than when they were capitalist, Cuba also. That argument does not stand up to historical scrutiny mate.


There is a reason Russia gained a reputation for making [American designation]-ski designs. The Tu-85 was a direct copy of the Boeing B-29 SuperFortress. There are only a few changes made to the dimensions to be more compatible with the metric system. The MiG-25 was based heavily off of the Avro Arrow (a Canadian design). They also made pin-for-pin clones of the 8080 and 8086 (though, again, made to metric system standards, so - while electronically identical, they were physically incompatible).

The only way something got developed in Russia was if someone got commissioned to do it (for the most part). You had some Rambo assholes go out and develop their own gadgets and gizmos - but those either died with the individual or got picked up by an administrator and used to strengthen their own political position. Most of the development came only from government approved grants and projects - which are well known for being slow and cumbersome.

Compare that to the American economy at the time - small businesses popping up with a new and useful product - profiting from the design and scaling up to mass-produce (and reduce the per-unit costs - increasing the potential market).

There is a reason the Soviet Union collapsed. Largely, it was because they could not keep up with the rate and breadth of innovation in the rest of the world. There, simply, are far too many ideas (good and bad ones) to sift through and appropriate funding for for any central economic entity. In the end - the only way for socialism to keep up is to commission people to look for and identify good ideas worthy of funding - which ends up relying on capitalism as the pay of that person is going to be dependent upon their accomplishments (greater innovation is more likely to get them higher salaries from the voting population - particularly if their name is on it).

That is little different from venture capitalists looking for ideas with the potential to make a profit. You're just redressing the syntax.

Further - the Free Market is the natural default of any economy. By your own admission - Socialism requires massive amounts of planning and oversight to make it work in a way that is merely different from the free market (much less can be said about its effectiveness).

At the end of the day - the free market cannot be rid of. It is there any time two people freely exchange a good, service, or combination thereof.

Now - why most people get 'fed up' with 'Capitalism' is due to the relationship between corporations and government. Corporations, in and of themselves, dissolve the personable relationship between two mutually benefiting parties. Monetary currency shrouds the importance of the mutual exchange and the faceless corporations producing what you pay for are easy to accuse of charging an unreasonable amount.

Further complicating the issue is the relationship between government and large businesses. Businesses will -always- have lobbyists in government. However, this trend has only increased and grown stronger since the government has begun increasing its regulatory policies on business. With the government having the ability to do everything from set minimum wages for a company's employees to requiring them to paint the bathrooms a certain color - it would be a fairly wise idea to have some kind of legal representative in government to do two things... keep the government from raping you with regulations that don't make sense or will lead to the failure of your business... and to use government regulation to 'force' open other markets.

For example - in Missouri, now, our genius representatives put forth legislation to require that at least 10% of our power come from "renewable" resources within the next ten years (if I remember correctly).... and our highly intelligent voter base in the cities decided this was a good idea. Lobbyists for the producers of solar panels and other forms of "renewable" energy were backing such legislation like crazy - and those companies funneling huge amounts of money into paying those lobbyists and impressing the representatives.

If government would simply stay out of it... it would drastically reduce the potential gains/losses to businesses from government legislation and reduce the power of lobbyists and the power of businesses within governments.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bittersocialist

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
I prefer the Aztec-ian spectacle of public heart gougings myself, but the kill count is just not high enough. The aztecs might be cooler in the public gross out factor, but nothing fills the mass graves like good oool marxism.


Marxism has never been put into practice, you're talking about Leninism and Stalinism.They are as far removed from true Marxism as the national socialist party of Germany.


lulz. Leninism and Stalinism and Maoism *is* marxism in practice~



new topics




 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join