Notices
Results 1 to 51 of 51
Like Tree10Likes
  • 1 Post By JonG
  • 1 Post By dan hunter
  • 2 Post By cosmictraveler
  • 1 Post By CEngelbrecht
  • 1 Post By grmpysmrf
  • 1 Post By exchemist
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 2 Post By grmpysmrf

Thread: Is Marxism on the way back?

  1. #1 Is Marxism on the way back? 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    During the recent financial crisis I have heard a number of suggestions regarding its underlying cause. They are often politically tainted and usually impossible to verify. So, at the moment, I am unsure about the underlying cause. However, something I have noticed has been a resurgence of criticism of capitalism reminiscent of the arguments put forward originally by Karl Marx. See here for example:

    Thomas Piketty

    and I have come across others. What do people here think of this sort of development? Is it of relevance to the present or it just economic verbiage?


    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    I read the article. Picketty does not seem to be advocating Marxism.
    He does seem to be arguing in favour of a more stable and balanced economy.


    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    During the recent financial crisis I have heard a number of suggestions regarding its underlying cause. They are often politically tainted and usually impossible to verify. So, at the moment, I am unsure about the underlying cause. However, something I have noticed has been a resurgence of criticism of capitalism reminiscent of the arguments put forward originally by Karl Marx. See here for example:

    Thomas Piketty

    and I have come across others. What do people here think of this sort of development? Is it of relevance to the present or it just economic verbiage?
    Like Dan Hunter, I think that to talk of a return of Marxism is hyperbolic. There seems little doubt that the growth in inequality between the board level people and the rest has reached unhealthy levels, and there is a lot of discussion on what to do to control this, but it is a very far cry from any call for common ownership of means of production, distribution and exchange or anything like that.

    I've always felt that capitalism, a bit like nuclear energy, works best when controlled and channelled to avoid undesirable side-effects. The whole history of capitalism shows a growth in the sophistication of the controls imposed by society, whether it be HSE regulation, anti-monopoly legislation or the pillorying of big business by the press when it screws up. And now of course we have a raft of new financial controls to stop a repeat of the latest banking crash.

    In Britain at present there is a very regrettable relapse on the Left into the language of class hatred and envy, but personally I am not convinced this really reflects what the country feels. It seems more of a rather depressing political tactic than anything else.

    I do think we need a way to stop company directors all sitting on each others' remuneration committees and agreeing what scarce and vauable commodities they all are, and that therefore the "market" demands they be paid even more to stop them decamping elsewhere. A lot of that is self-serving ballocks. But addressing that is not a return to Marxism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    408
    How hard can it be? In any society you choose not too much, not too little of e.g. socialism vs. capitalism, nor too much, nor too little of e.g. anarchism vs. conservatism.


    Aristotle described that principle 2300 years ago:
    "At all events thus much is plain, that the mean state is in all things praiseworthy, and that practically we must deflect sometimes towards excess sometimes towards defect, because this will be the easiest method of hitting on the mean, that is, on what is right."
    - Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics, book I, chapter 9

    And we still don't get the point. Everyone winds up either thinking one extreme or the other is the eternal one to solve all problems. Probably because that is benefitting their own personal chances in society. Those born into society status become conservative, because that's to their personal benefit. Those born into opportunity become capitalists, because that's to their personal benefit. Those born into no status or opportunity become socialists, because that's then to their personal benefit. And those born into no hope, no dope, no future become anarchists, because ... you get the drift.

    And here's the kicker: In a balanced democracy (where people's votes are actually counted, Karl!), if people vote according to what is to their personal benefit ... then it'll all balance itself out. Then the masses' constantly changing preferences back and forth across the middle, first a bit right, then a bit left, then a bit right, then a bit left, then etc., will be the one dynamic factor to decide which road to take that particular Wedensday.

    So no, you don't go blindly with either socialism, capitalism, conservatism, anarchism or what ever -ism. You chose the one fitting to solve what ever emerging and reemerging problem is at hand. Which can be either socialism, capitalism, conservatism, anarchism or what ever -ism. You seek the middle at all times. The boring, boring middle. The only reason we are still not doing that, is because we are not thinking as a society, but as individuals. Because the gene is selfish.
    Last edited by CEngelbrecht; April 15th, 2014 at 07:52 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    I'm not against capitalism , my gripe is with the greedy people that only look out for their profits which are way out of line in many instances.
    Stargate and grmpysmrf like this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    My question was not so much about what should be done or of taking sides - it was to do with what is happening. Another example of what I mean is here:

    BBC

    Quote: "As a side-effect of the financial crisis, more and more people are starting to think Karl Marx was right. The great 19th Century German philosopher, economist and revolutionary believed that capitalism was radically unstable."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Marx's theory of capitalism and his ideas about communism are different things.
    Marxism is a different kettle of fish again from both of those, and I doubt if Marx would have agreed with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    The fact is that with capitalism people can start their own companies, make a profit, hire and fire people, become a pillar of their community and sell their own or others products. Without those things, which communism doesn't allow, there would be only a few people telling others what they must do for those at the top of the ladder.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    My question was not so much about what should be done or of taking sides - it was to do with what is happening. Another example of what I mean is here:

    BBC

    Quote: "As a side-effect of the financial crisis, more and more people are starting to think Karl Marx was right. The great 19th Century German philosopher, economist and revolutionary believed that capitalism was radically unstable."
    Yeah, but my point is, that Marx' socialism is just as unstable. Which the failure of the Soviet experiment was a perfect illustration of. But I don't blame Marx, he responded to some real dirtbags of his time, maybe Cecil Rhodes or something. His ideas too has its place in a balanced society. Not too much, not too little.

    The benefit of liberalism/capitalism (in the US 'liberal' has a weird connotation for some odd reason) is that it acts as society's locomotive. If those that want to work hard for their own personal advance (financial or otherwise) do so while benefitting the society as a whole (by creating jobs etc.), then that society will be constantly dynamic and able to adapt to future scenarios. Because those with fresh ideas reap the rewards. The downside is that liberal people/capitalists too often wind up stomping on the bottom of society to get there, exploiting the masses, drowning the little people, which was Karl Marx' nightmare. This is sought countered by socialism (or in the US "egalitarianism", to make it sound less 'red'), which seeks to pull up that very bottom. So socialism and liberalism are opposite extremes of each other. The downside of socialism is that it too often winds up rewarding laziness, thus killing the locomotive of society, which would be what collapsed the Soviet Union in the end. Trying to eliminate human social hierarchy altogether is aparently not supported by human nature. But then having too far between top and bottom ... that's what creates those compunds in Florida for old people with armed guards having too itchy trigger fingers.
    Last edited by CEngelbrecht; April 15th, 2014 at 07:53 AM.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    The fact is that with capitalism people can start their own companies, make a profit, hire and fire people, become a pillar of their community and sell their own or others products. Without those things, which communism doesn't allow, there would be only a few people telling others what they must do for those at the top of the ladder.
    That's not communism
    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Marxism would have had to have been somewhere in order for it to come back. Marxism was certainly never in America so it's not coming back here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    Communism has little to do with the matter. It is more to do with a rejection of capitalism. Marx is associated with that latter rather than the former.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Marxism would have had to have been somewhere in order for it to come back. Marxism was certainly never in America so it's not coming back here.
    The Marxist theme has always been in America. New Deal was such a theme. Grapes of Wrath was such a theme. The historical US problem is the red scare, which leaves out the correct ammount of Marxism in US politics. If Americans could let go of their Marxism hysteria, it would benefit the American inner balance. But instead, all that's left is Michael Moore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Marxism would have had to have been somewhere in order for it to come back. Marxism was certainly never in America so it's not coming back here.
    If Thomas Sowell is anything to go by, the universities are full of them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    Just to get away from "isms" for a moment, I will try to give two examples of a change that seems to have become more evident in the last few years. I live in Britain, so I will take two examples from Britain simply because I am more familiar with the place than I am with other countries.

    In Britain, we have several energy companies which supply electricity and gas to consumers. The prices they charge are not very different so there is speculation about whether competition is working. But what has particularly irritated people is what is perceived as unjustifiable price rises and unnecessarily complex and confusing marketing practices which have made switching suppliers difficult. We also have financial companies, of course. Some have been heavily fined for mis-selling payment protection insurance to customers who don't need it and, in some cases, don't even know that they have bought it. In both these cases, the motive behind these questionable (if not fraudulent) practices is to increase profits for the company at the expense of the consumer. Such things have probably always gone on, but I suspect that public confidence in large commercial companies is now at an all-time low. For some time now, there has even been a regular television programme called "Rip off Britain".

    It is this suspicion of commercial companies which appears to have become more prevalent in recent years. It would be interesting to know if something similar is evident in other countries.
    Last edited by JonG; April 15th, 2014 at 02:10 PM. Reason: Forgot to include link
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    Just to get away from "isms" for a moment, I will try to give two examples of a change that seems to have become more evident in the last few years. I live in Britain, so I will take two examples from Britain simply because I am more familiar with the place than I am with other countries.

    In Britain, we have several energy companies which supply electricity and gas to consumers. The prices they charge are not very different so there is speculation about whether competition is working. But what has particularly irritated people is what is perceived as unjustifiable price rises and unnecessarily complex and confusing marketing practices which have made switching suppliers difficult. We also have financial companies, of course. Some have been heavily fined for mis-selling payment protection insurance to customers who don't need it and, in some cases, don't even know that they have bought it. In both these cases, the motive behind these questionable (if not fraudulent) practices is to increase profits for the company at the expense of the consumer. Such things have probably always gone on, but I suspect that public confidence in large commercial companies is now at an all-time low. For some time now, there has even been a regular television programme called "Rip off Britain".

    It is this suspicion of commercial companies which appears to have become more prevalent in recent years. It would be interesting to know if something similar is evident in other countries.
    Yes you are right about this. The joke is that UK gas and electricity prices are among the lowest in Europe, so the competition does in fact seem to be working. The silly thing is that the energy companies have pissed people off with their opaque and in sometimes downright crooked attempts to get customers to switch, via complicated tariffs and introductory deals etc. Very much as some of the financial companies mis-sold financial products such as insurance to retail customers.

    I think what we have had is indeed a kind of moral failure, by importing the traders' culture of treating customers as mere counterparties, to be exploited to the maximum extent possible. In trading, it is every man for himself and you assume the counterparty is man enough and expert enough to look after himself, or if not, he deserved to to be shafted. But when you start treating little old ladies like this with their life savings, you are on the road to perdition.

    This I think has been the real failure of parts of capitalist culture. In the more established parts of retail business, the recognition of the power, but equally the vulnerability, of brand image leads wise companies to avoid shafting their customers, because they know it will come back and bite them in the arse.

    Back to your BBC article, this was written 2 1/2 years ago, when the Occupy movement was at its zenith. It seems to be a lot of the more extreme speculations written around then have proved to be exaggerated.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    Just to get away from "isms" for a moment, I will try to give two examples of a change that seems to have become more evident in the last few years. I live in Britain, so I will take two examples from Britain simply because I am more familiar with the place than I am with other countries.

    In Britain, we have several energy companies which supply electricity and gas to consumers. The prices they charge are not very different so there is speculation about whether competition is working. But what has particularly irritated people is what is perceived as unjustifiable price rises and unnecessarily complex and confusing marketing practices which have made switching suppliers difficult. We also have financial companies, of course. Some have been heavily fined for mis-selling payment protection insurance to customers who don't need it and, in some cases, don't even know that they have bought it. In both these cases, the motive behind these questionable (if not fraudulent) practices is to increase profits for the company at the expense of the consumer. Such things have probably always gone on, but I suspect that public confidence in large commercial companies is now at an all-time low. For some time now, there has even been a regular television programme called "Rip off Britain".

    It is this suspicion of commercial companies which appears to have become more prevalent in recent years. It would be interesting to know if something similar is evident in other countries.
    A lot of the resentment arises from the vacuous promises when these arrangements are set up that there will automatically be benefits to consumers - which mysteriously never materialise.

    Anyone with an interest in this area should read John Ralston Saul. The Unconscious Civilisation is directly relevant to this particular issue and is eminently readable. Voltaire's Bastards is a much bigger book with a slightly different emphasis but a really interesting historical take on how our version of capitalism and concepts like "efficiency" have arisen.
    JonG likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Marxism would have had to have been somewhere in order for it to come back. Marxism was certainly never in America so it's not coming back here.
    The Marxist theme has always been in America. New Deal was such a theme. Grapes of Wrath was such a theme. The historical US problem is the red scare, which leaves out the correct ammount of Marxism in US politics. If Americans could let go of their Marxism hysteria, it would benefit the American inner balance. But instead, all that's left is Michael Moore.
    The grapes of Wrath was not about Marxism. the failure of Capitalism does no automatically = Marxism. The new Deal was barely "marxism" If I had the energy I would argue that it wasn't. The red scare was about communism not marxism. And even still Communism was never a threat or even in place but was used for personal political advantage for McCarthy, Nixon and Reagan at the expense of political opponents.

    Michael Moore is not a lefty, he's middle. he just looks left because the country is hideously right wing.
    GiantEvil and adelady like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Marxism would have had to have been somewhere in order for it to come back. Marxism was certainly never in America so it's not coming back here.
    If Thomas Sowell is anything to go by, the universities are full of them.
    He's not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Thomas Sowell is a pretty good social commentator when the subject is historical. (Black Rednecks and White Liberals is really good work.)

    When it comes to contemporary economics and politics, his inclination is more hysterical.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Marxism would have had to have been somewhere in order for it to come back. Marxism was certainly never in America so it's not coming back here.
    If Thomas Sowell is anything to go by, the universities are full of them.
    He's not.
    You're dismissing the views of someone who attended Columbia and Harvard (i'm under the assumption you haven't been to either). On what basis?

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Thomas Sowell is a pretty good social commentator when the subject is historical. (Black Rednecks and White Liberals is really good work.)

    When it comes to contemporary economics and politics, his inclination is more hysterical.
    Which is odd because he's primarily an economist.... I don't agree with the mans politics either but it's absurd to brush him off as though he were some crank.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    The fact is that with capitalism people can start their own companies, make a profit, hire and fire people, become a pillar of their community and sell their own or others products. Without those things, which communism doesn't allow, there would be only a few people telling others what they must do for those at the top of the ladder.

    Sure they can start a business if they can get the seed money.


    And nowadays, with all the regulations and potential for law suits, they'll need to include a good legal team in that budget.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Which is odd because he's primarily an economist.... I don't agree with the mans politics either but it's absurd to brush him off as though he were some crank.
    The big issue with his commentary is that it's so predictable.

    No matter what, he always always writes exactly what you expect him to write. Which is a real pity.

    I see him very much in the "When he is good he is very very good, when he is bad he is horrid" family. In this case, good is analytical and insightful, horrid is boringly negative and predictable.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Marxism would have had to have been somewhere in order for it to come back. Marxism was certainly never in America so it's not coming back here.
    The Marxist theme has always been in America. New Deal was such a theme. Grapes of Wrath was such a theme. The historical US problem is the red scare, which leaves out the correct ammount of Marxism in US politics. If Americans could let go of their Marxism hysteria, it would benefit the American inner balance. But instead, all that's left is Michael Moore.
    The grapes of Wrath was not about Marxism. the failure of Capitalism does no automatically = Marxism. The new Deal was barely "marxism" If I had the energy I would argue that it wasn't. The red scare was about communism not marxism. And even still Communism was never a threat or even in place but was used for personal political advantage for McCarthy, Nixon and Reagan at the expense of political opponents.
    No, US things like The Grapes of Wrath and New Deal were about the struggle of poor people, which always suffer in a world beyond any of their control. This theme Marxism turns into a state religion, Communism. (Kinda like how environmental concern becomes its own cult too, environmentalism.) And you're right, failure of Capitalism doesn't automatically equate Marxism, but the reverse is also true, the failure of Marxism doesn't automatically equate full blown Capitalism, 'cause that's what gave birth to Marxism. It's all out of balance, no where near a beneficial mean, is my point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Marxism would have had to have been somewhere in order for it to come back. Marxism was certainly never in America so it's not coming back here.
    If Thomas Sowell is anything to go by, the universities are full of them.
    He's not.
    You're dismissing the views of someone who attended Columbia and Harvard (i'm under the assumption you haven't been to either). On what basis?
    Just because they've been to good schools doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. (May I present Ann Coulter and Cornell?) What do I base my views of him on? The crap that he says should be good enough and if that's not enough I've been to several colleges (in that bastion of liberalness, California no less) and in my experience, for the most part, the social sciences discipline tend to be hard left but that is easily countered by the history/poli sci disciplines which are hard right. so they balance themselves out there.




    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Thomas Sowell is a pretty good social commentator when the subject is historical. (Black Rednecks and White Liberals is really good work.)

    When it comes to contemporary economics and politics, his inclination is more hysterical.
    Which is odd because he's primarily an economist.... I don't agree with the mans politics either but it's absurd to brush him off as though he were some crank.
    the schools he attended are not "him." He could have spent his whole life at those prestigious colleges and wouldn't matter much if he learned nothing
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Marxism would have had to have been somewhere in order for it to come back. Marxism was certainly never in America so it's not coming back here.
    If Thomas Sowell is anything to go by, the universities are full of them.
    He's not.
    You're dismissing the views of someone who attended Columbia and Harvard (i'm under the assumption you haven't been to either). On what basis?
    Just because they've been to good schools doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. (May I present Ann Coulter and Cornell?) What do I base my views of him on? The crap that he says should be good enough and if that's not enough I've been to several colleges (in that bastion of liberalness, California no less) and in my experience, for the most part, the social sciences discipline tend to be hard left but that is easily countered by the history/poli sci disciplines which are hard right. so they balance themselves out there.




    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Thomas Sowell is a pretty good social commentator when the subject is historical. (Black Rednecks and White Liberals is really good work.)

    When it comes to contemporary economics and politics, his inclination is more hysterical.
    Which is odd because he's primarily an economist.... I don't agree with the mans politics either but it's absurd to brush him off as though he were some crank.
    the schools he attended are not "him." He could have spent his whole life at those prestigious colleges and wouldn't matter much if he learned nothing
    I am still skeptical of your claims although apparently you do have first hand experience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Marxism would have had to have been somewhere in order for it to come back. Marxism was certainly never in America so it's not coming back here.
    The Marxist theme has always been in America. New Deal was such a theme. Grapes of Wrath was such a theme. The historical US problem is the red scare, which leaves out the correct ammount of Marxism in US politics. If Americans could let go of their Marxism hysteria, it would benefit the American inner balance. But instead, all that's left is Michael Moore.
    The grapes of Wrath was not about Marxism. the failure of Capitalism does no automatically = Marxism. The new Deal was barely "marxism" If I had the energy I would argue that it wasn't. The red scare was about communism not marxism. And even still Communism was never a threat or even in place but was used for personal political advantage for McCarthy, Nixon and Reagan at the expense of political opponents.
    No, US things like The Grapes of Wrath and New Deal were about the struggle of poor people, which always suffer in a world beyond any of their control.
    struggling and suffering is not limited to Marxism and or Communism. Capitlaism is far beyond the control of most people in the US as it is now.

    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    This theme Marxism turns into a state religion, Communism. (Kinda like how environmental concern becomes its own cult too, environmentalism.)
    which is not what either the grapes of wrath or The New Deal were about.


    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    And you're right, failure of Capitalism doesn't automatically equate Marxism, but the reverse is also true, the failure of Marxism doesn't automatically equate full blown Capitalism, 'cause that's what gave birth to Marxism.

    I don't think anybody was suggesting otherwise. Also I dont think the failure of capitalism gave birth to marxism it was just the built in flaws in the system that Marx started to point out.


    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    It's all out of balance, no where near a beneficial mean, is my point.
    You'll get no grief from me there. we need the right balance of both for a better system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    The fact is that with capitalism people can start their own companies, make a profit, hire and fire people, become a pillar of their community and sell their own or others products. Without those things, which communism doesn't allow, there would be only a few people telling others what they must do for those at the top of the ladder.
    That's not communism
    Hey man, this is not a new topic but it seems to always mix communism with socialism and people get the wrong impression that they are the same. As I have stated in many posts can someone explain what kind of system is communism? The word is taken from communal living as in group of people living in communities. If this point could be cleared up, it would give a twist to how people could and would address the discrepancy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Marxism would have had to have been somewhere in order for it to come back. Marxism was certainly never in America so it's not coming back here.
    If Thomas Sowell is anything to go by, the universities are full of them.
    He's not.
    You're dismissing the views of someone who attended Columbia and Harvard (i'm under the assumption you haven't been to either). On what basis?
    Just because they've been to good schools doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. (May I present Ann Coulter and Cornell?) What do I base my views of him on? The crap that he says should be good enough and if that's not enough I've been to several colleges (in that bastion of liberalness, California no less) and in my experience, for the most part, the social sciences discipline tend to be hard left but that is easily countered by the history/poli sci disciplines which are hard right. so they balance themselves out there.




    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Thomas Sowell is a pretty good social commentator when the subject is historical. (Black Rednecks and White Liberals is really good work.)

    When it comes to contemporary economics and politics, his inclination is more hysterical.
    Which is odd because he's primarily an economist.... I don't agree with the mans politics either but it's absurd to brush him off as though he were some crank.
    the schools he attended are not "him." He could have spent his whole life at those prestigious colleges and wouldn't matter much if he learned nothing
    I am still skeptical of your claims although apparently you do have first hand experience.
    What experience does he have besides two schools he's attended? I have my B.A. in Sociology and have attended multiple universities. How does he trump that with having a degree in economics and only been to two schools?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    The fact is that with capitalism people can start their own companies, make a profit, hire and fire people, become a pillar of their community and sell their own or others products. Without those things, which communism doesn't allow, there would be only a few people telling others what they must do for those at the top of the ladder.
    That's not communism
    Hey man, this is not a new topic but it seems to always mix communism with socialism and people get the wrong impression that they are the same. As I have stated in many posts can someone explain what kind of system is communism? The word is taken from communal living as in group of people living in communities. If this point could be cleared up, it would give a twist to how people could and would address the discrepancy.
    Socialism has a panel that is in charge that represents the people and their interests. they are accountable to no one even though they are supposed to represent the people.
    in communism EVERYONE votes and has a voice. it's set up for the good of the many based on popular vote with no representatives. it truly is one person one vote with majority winning. Utopian in that there is no concept of self because the furthering the group helps the self.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    I don't think Marxism will come back because it has been dealt with adequately in political, economic, social and philosophical terms. Economically the labour theory of value has been abandoned (in favour of marginal utility) as has the idea that capitalists exploit their workers (Eugen Böhm von Bawerk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia an early Austrian economist who like Menger is recognised for his views in mainstream thought, the later Austrians are far more dogmatic...), there's also the issue of incentive (even the Bolsheviks saw this just look at the NEP that was introduced after the civil war).

    Politically there is a difficulty with transitioning from capitalism to communism without force (Lenin used what all leaders have used including the Catholic church, terror to spread their ideas), politics will not go away under communist transition as power will still exist and first of all the people who have the wealth would never give it up (why should they be forced to do so?) and the only way to seize it would be barbaric force (not to mention the fact the masses would have to do it themselves), then how would it work? Once the nation state was abolished people would go back to their old ways of conquesting the other states for resources.

    Socially there is the difficulty with the organisation of a classless society (how exactly would it work? wealth is not the only measure of class) and the advantages of capitalism over communism, for example since workers would depend on the collective they would actually have less freedom (I couldn't just get up and travel as i'd have to get permission), people organise into tribes naturally which would mean conflict would still exist and capitalism would likely arise again. Society would likely crumble due to the lack of hierarchy or a tyrant would just seize power.

    Philosophically the idea of that capitalism will inevitably vanish seems ridiculous, people realised before the 19th century (Eduard Bernstein) that conditions for the workers were improving since the industrial revolution (the Anti-Socialist Laws in Germany for example), it is ludicrous to suppose that capitalism which provides for many a high quality of life (even in states that have had an economic crash most people are still well off) will just disappear, not to mention the idea of alienation is different today since less people work in factories and the conditions at the time Marx was writing.

    imo communism is just as freedom hating as Fascism, actually the latter is in some respect better since it retains the right of private property (at least under Italy, German Fascism was utterly disgraceful even for something as disgusting as fascism)

    I don't equate socialism with communism although it also limits individual freedom (for example a minimum wage law means employers are not allowed to negoitate themselves which may actually discriminate against low skilled workers, the point is even if a minimum wage law is beneficial it still limits the freedom of the employer) it is no where near as extreme as the former and the limitations on freedom can result in good consequences (for example even Hayek and Friedman agree redistribution of wealth may be positive in some circumstances).
    Last edited by Trivium; June 7th, 2014 at 07:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 Communism: Sliding Down An Avalanche Of The Slippery Slope 
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    grmpysmrf wrote: [/QUOTE]
    Socialism has a panel that is in charge that represents the people and their interests. they are accountable to no one even though they are supposed to represent the people.
    in communism EVERYONE votes and has a voice. it's set up for the good of the many based on popular vote with no representatives. it truly is one person one vote with majority winning. Utopian in that there is no concept of self because the furthering the group helps the self.[/QUOTE]


    Translated: -------- Socialism has an official or unofficial blue ribbon panel that claims to know what is best for the people [AKA 'the masses'] and their interests B) as said demented panel understands. Hence Death Panels, secret 100,000 person Veteran's Administration waiting on black hole lists for immediate medical operations that never happen in which the bureaucratic originators get great bonuses (only 7% of employees get these?) for the service of killing off the old fogey types who fought in D Day B) but need to make room for the new progressives! Sounds like Logan's Run 'Renew, renew', how cool is awesum kewl in the new generation speak?

    In Communism EVERYONE votes C) for the Communist party out of great love and admiration of their own self preservation. Utopia is having the malingerers quickly sent to the morgue. Kill the chicken to scare the monkey, as one can not have omelets without cracking skulls. One death is a tragedy, a million a mere statistic. Let's see, 40 million dead in the Great Leap Forward, 20 million or so in the Gulag Achipelago, 5 million in the completely intentional starving of Ukraine [Walter Duranty D) got a Pulitzer prize for writing that it never happened at all], and in 1937 the Soviet arresting NKVD interrogators began picking out names randomly from the telephone directory. The Forsaken, pg86-7, in which few survived more than a year of torture and work camps. Pity the poor bureaucrats who have to make those quotas. Of course the head man in charge never knows and simply has bad advisors, eh? Wink, wink. ------------




    FYI this writer, myself, has spent 13 adult years in a country that then still had remnants of a Leninist legal system during part of that time. It showed. However, life travels has some perspectives to offer.

    Communism, extreme nationalism, etc. are very powerful emotional ideas which only through constant awareness of methods will prevent, in my observations of several decades. It is a question of balance, and both groups can infiltrate a crowd, union, or party with a couple of operatives and do great trouble. 'McCarthy is an idiot, but unfortunately that does not make him wrong' (quote from A Beautiful Mind), and it went on so far due to these Communist actions rather than the opposite. History has many colors and shades, as entries in the Encyclopedia Britannica will inform you. No one is blameless or completely horrible, though some come pretty close.


    Thus, E) there is no more time from me for you or your ilk. De Tocqueville wrote circa 1830 how American Democracy will survive until the eventual happens that politicians learn too efficiently how to serve up favors directly to the voter and the system fails as a result. There is a way to openly discuss controversial issues equally, but loaded issues attract characters who refuse to play fairly. Communist and KKK types, which I have unfortunately dealt with both in person inside the USA, sicken me. Their methods tend to be very similar. They always seem to reappear, transformed, this time it is different speak, changing colors like Chameleons, keeping only the smash and grab verbal tactics.


    A) On This Date...: May 30, 1960

    B) Acting VA secretary: 18 vets on Phoenix wait list died

    C) http://www.issues4life.org/images/jimcrow2.jpg

    D) Walter Duranty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    E) xkcd: Duty Calls

    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    grmpysmrf wrote:
    Socialism has a panel that is in charge that represents the people and their interests. they are accountable to no one even though they are supposed to represent the people.
    in communism EVERYONE votes and has a voice. it's set up for the good of the many based on popular vote with no representatives. it truly is one person one vote with majority winning. Utopian in that there is no concept of self because the furthering the group helps the self.[/QUOTE]


    Translated: -------- Socialism has an official or unofficial blue ribbon panel that claims to know what is best for the people [AKA 'the masses'] and their interests B) as said demented panel understands. Hence Death Panels, secret 100,000 person Veteran's Administration waiting on black hole lists for immediate medical operations that never happen in which the bureaucratic originators get great bonuses (only 7% of employees get these?) for the service of killing off the old fogey types who fought in D Day B) but need to make room for the new progressives! Sounds like Logan's Run 'Renew, renew', how cool is awesum kewl in the new generation speak?

    In Communism EVERYONE votes C) for the Communist party out of great love and admiration of their own self preservation. Utopia is having the malingerers quickly sent to the morgue. Kill the chicken to scare the monkey, as one can not have omelets without cracking skulls. One death is a tragedy, a million a mere statistic. Let's see, 40 million dead in the Great Leap Forward, 20 million or so in the Gulag Achipelago, 5 million in the completely intentional starving of Ukraine [Walter Duranty D) got a Pulitzer prize for writing that it never happened at all], and in 1937 the Soviet arresting NKVD interrogators began picking out names randomly from the telephone directory. The Forsaken, pg86-7, in which few survived more than a year of torture and work camps. Pity the poor bureaucrats who have to make those quotas. Of course the head man in charge never knows and simply has bad advisors, eh? Wink, wink. ------------




    FYI this writer, myself, has spent 13 adult years in a country that then still had remnants of a Leninist legal system during part of that time. It showed. However, life travels has some perspectives to offer.

    Communism, extreme nationalism, etc. are very powerful emotional ideas which only through constant awareness of methods will prevent, in my observations of several decades. It is a question of balance, and both groups can infiltrate a crowd, union, or party with a couple of operatives and do great trouble. 'McCarthy is an idiot, but unfortunately that does not make him wrong' (quote from A Beautiful Mind), and it went on so far due to these Communist actions rather than the opposite. History has many colors and shades, as entries in the Encyclopedia Britannica will inform you. No one is blameless or completely horrible, though some come pretty close.


    Thus, E) there is no more time from me for you or your ilk. De Tocqueville wrote circa 1830 how American Democracy will survive until the eventual happens that politicians learn too efficiently how to serve up favors directly to the voter and the system fails as a result. There is a way to openly discuss controversial issues equally, but loaded issues attract characters who refuse to play fairly. Communist and KKK types, which I have unfortunately dealt with both in person inside the USA, sicken me. Their methods tend to be very similar. They always seem to reappear, transformed, this time it is different speak, changing colors like Chameleons, keeping only the smash and grab verbal tactics.


    A) On This Date...: May 30, 1960

    B) Acting VA secretary: 18 vets on Phoenix wait list died

    C) http://www.issues4life.org/images/jimcrow2.jpg

    D) Walter Duranty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    E) xkcd: Duty Calls

    [/QUOTE]
    Moron
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    grmpysmrf wrote:
    Socialism has a panel that is in charge that represents the people and their interests. they are accountable to no one even though they are supposed to represent the people.
    in communism EVERYONE votes and has a voice. it's set up for the good of the many based on popular vote with no representatives. it truly is one person one vote with majority winning. Utopian in that there is no concept of self because the furthering the group helps the self.[/QUOTE]


    Translated: -------- Socialism has an official or unofficial blue ribbon panel that claims to know what is best for the people [AKA 'the masses'] and their interests B) as said demented panel understands. Hence Death Panels, secret 100,000 person Veteran's Administration waiting on black hole lists for immediate medical operations that never happen in which the bureaucratic originators get great bonuses (only 7% of employees get these?) for the service of killing off the old fogey types who fought in D Day B) but need to make room for the new progressives! Sounds like Logan's Run 'Renew, renew', how cool is awesum kewl in the new generation speak?

    In Communism EVERYONE votes C) for the Communist party out of great love and admiration of their own self preservation. Utopia is having the malingerers quickly sent to the morgue. Kill the chicken to scare the monkey, as one can not have omelets without cracking skulls. One death is a tragedy, a million a mere statistic. Let's see, 40 million dead in the Great Leap Forward, 20 million or so in the Gulag Achipelago, 5 million in the completely intentional starving of Ukraine [Walter Duranty D) got a Pulitzer prize for writing that it never happened at all], and in 1937 the Soviet arresting NKVD interrogators began picking out names randomly from the telephone directory. The Forsaken, pg86-7, in which few survived more than a year of torture and work camps. Pity the poor bureaucrats who have to make those quotas. Of course the head man in charge never knows and simply has bad advisors, eh? Wink, wink. ------------




    FYI this writer, myself, has spent 13 adult years in a country that then still had remnants of a Leninist legal system during part of that time. It showed. However, life travels has some perspectives to offer.

    Communism, extreme nationalism, etc. are very powerful emotional ideas which only through constant awareness of methods will prevent, in my observations of several decades. It is a question of balance, and both groups can infiltrate a crowd, union, or party with a couple of operatives and do great trouble. 'McCarthy is an idiot, but unfortunately that does not make him wrong' (quote from A Beautiful Mind), and it went on so far due to these Communist actions rather than the opposite. History has many colors and shades, as entries in the Encyclopedia Britannica will inform you. No one is blameless or completely horrible, though some come pretty close.


    Thus, E) there is no more time from me for you or your ilk. De Tocqueville wrote circa 1830 how American Democracy will survive until the eventual happens that politicians learn too efficiently how to serve up favors directly to the voter and the system fails as a result. There is a way to openly discuss controversial issues equally, but loaded issues attract characters who refuse to play fairly. Communist and KKK types, which I have unfortunately dealt with both in person inside the USA, sicken me. Their methods tend to be very similar. They always seem to reappear, transformed, this time it is different speak, changing colors like Chameleons, keeping only the smash and grab verbal tactics.


    A) On This Date...: May 30, 1960

    B) Acting VA secretary: 18 vets on Phoenix wait list died

    C) http://www.issues4life.org/images/jimcrow2.jpg

    D) Walter Duranty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    E) xkcd: Duty Calls

    [/QUOTE]
    (A) You don't understand socialism.
    (B) You don't understand communism.
    (C) You use a fallacy of composition as it pertains to socialism, which includes a wide variety of branches (anarcho-syndicalism, democratic socialism, free-market socialism, ad infinitum)
    (D) You are incoherent, and arbitrarily bounce from subject to subject without adequate transition.
    (E) I am dumber now, having read your visceral incoherent logorrhea.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post

    Michael Moore is not a lefty, he's middle. he just looks left because the country is hideously right wing.
    You are seriously disconnected from reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post

    Michael Moore is not a lefty, he's middle. he just looks left because the country is hideously right wing.
    You are seriously disconnected from reality.
    Not even close.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    No, but crazy beards are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    No, but crazy beards are.
    I just saw an article saying beards are out now.

    Science Says Beards Aren't Sexy Anymore! on MSN Video
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39 My Thoughts (as asked by the thread maker) 
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    for example:
    Thomas Piketty and I have come across others. What do people here think of this sort of development? Is it of relevance to the present or it just economic verbiage?
    My guess is that it does seem to be increasing but partly only returning to old levels, and so the issue is not important. As Reagan did, to get anywhere in life it is best to ignore them and speak/vote from what you believe. Journalists as a whole seem to always have had a lot of writers like this, leading people around like bulls with rings in their noses for their bookish vision.

    This includes a certain Karl Marx, our same friend of the manifesto fame who worked for the New York Daily Tribune [by then a Republican Newspaper] journalist for 9 years ending in 1861. He constantly complained of the low wages, of hating Russia, and thought his revolution would come first to countries it never took over. He interestingly had a socialist editor as boss. Further, he sponged financially off of his friend for many years, Engels being an accepted upper class British businessman by day who sought its overthrow by night.

    I have researched many of Karl's newspaper posts and plan on more. Look them up. So what you describe seems nothing particularly new to me. Thinking of it, in 1989 most all of state communism had been shown for what it was without a false front, and lots of damage control needed to be done. Now memories have faded and the old revolutionary hot coals might be brought back to life again and imposed by back door cocktails of laws, judicial actions and amendments. That is my take.

    Thomas Piketty, Paul Krugman, etc are at mostly officially on the edge of the discussion of income redistribution and do not seem especially Marxist. That they have elements in common with Karl Marx does not surprise, as socialism and communism and today's liberalism have at least some of the same ideas.

    I guess that JonG means Marxist literature as in part stating:

    From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Thomas Sowell
    Mr. Sowell by his own words was a firm communist until he joined the government circa 1961. Shocked by the shoddy methods, he quickly shifted to the polar opposite in market capitalism. I find many of the most astute and well placed commentators did the much the same after stuck in the middle of communism, like Ayn Rand (saw it first hand in Petrograd/Leningrad), David Horowitz, Whittaker Chambers, and, apparently, John Drew, with an indicating answer to JonG's question of present relevance:

    https://archive.org/details/Dr.JohnD...boutYoungBarak


    My guess is now we are starting to increasingly see openly socialistic contenders on the national scene in part because the issue is not as great a threat. Say, even Romney had recently started up socialized health care in Massachusetts. Just let it happen, and the fool voters will find out soon enough what happens is the same as in other countries. It works even better than imposing a religion on the ugly urchins (Iyer Brahmins & Ptolemaic dynasty). The cold war is long over and such follies correct themselves, a hopeful possibility is inoculated for generations to come as the Germans were with hyperinflation. The rich can tide over whatever comes around, technology is breaking out of its paradigm too, and so let the middle class learn the hard way. Or that is one way to see it the oddity. I really do not know what to make of the situation and don't want to spend a lot of time to do so.

    The reason my previous post mentioned the VA is as a veteran I have personally seen how government health care does not work, often in extremes. Incompetent and/or rude people who would have long since been fired in the private sector tend to persist in the VA. I have never seen this in regular hospitals anywhere remotely close to that degree, but reputation has it the VA has been like this since its beginning. As government health care for a small percentage of rather average US persons, that is a model staring at Americans for the future.

    Regression toward the mean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Again, my main thought is that we are mainly effectively seeing the pendulum swinging back journalistically towards what it has always been of the very popular occupational theme of income redistribution towards the poor. We are urged to do it. And when it fails, they conveniently always seem to have more radical solutions to readily offer. To me, it is a picture that needs no caption. Move along, there is nothing to see here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    The reason my previous post mentioned the VA is as a veteran I have personally seen how government health care does not work, often in extremes. Incompetent and/or rude people who would have long since been fired in the private sector tend to persist in the VA. I have never seen this in regular hospitals anywhere remotely close to that degree, but reputation has it the VA has been like this since its beginning. As government health care for a small percentage of rather average US persons, that is a model staring at Americans for the future.
    I think the universal health care systems of other countries might be fairer comparisons than VA hospitals.

    Medical care and services are fundamentally different than other commodities. I cannot shop around for my appendectomy, or wait until they go on sale. I cannot be certain that the fine print of my private insurance policy covers whatever rare disorder I may unexpectedly get. I have no political recourse if it doesn't. In addition, health care providers face ethical issues with offering bargain basement health care that are not issues when selling cheap furniture, appliances that aren't made as well as top of the line ones, or knock-off designer handbags.

    And I won't even get into the problems of cherry picking and preexisting conditions, people unable to start businesses because of losing health coverage, or the competitive disadvantage small companies have who cannot provide the same medical benefits as corporations.

    I think the reason Marxism died was because most capitalist systems managed to absorb elements of socialism into the model where needed, to provide services that the public sector wasn't interested in providing, or citizens didn't trust private enterprise to do it ethically. Marxism was born of desperation, and died because of better alternatives.
    Last edited by DianeG; June 15th, 2014 at 12:09 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    The reason my previous post mentioned the VA is as a veteran I have personally seen how government health care does not work, often in extremes. Incompetent and/or rude people who would have long since been fired in the private sector tend to persist in the VA.
    I live in England and, throughout my lifetime, we have had a government funded National Health Service (NHS). I have had to use it on several occasions and have always found it to be excellent. I simply haven't encountered "incompetent and/or rude people" in the NHS or anyone remotely resembling that. The problem we have is that the NHS is being seriously undermined by the right wing government which we have at the moment and which is determined to privatise as much as it possibly can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Marxism was born of desperation, and died because of better alternatives.
    I might embroider this on a cushion.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    I live in England and, throughout my lifetime, we have had a government funded National Health Service (NHS). I have had to use it on several occasions and have always found it to be excellent.[/QUOTE]

    My point is getting sort of lost. Health care is another matter to those countries who have it and outside the discussion. The issue I had thought was creeping in through the back door, a bit like the conservatives in your case. Here in the US, rather few want it according to all polls since its inception, AFAIK. Nevertheless, it is being into place and probably very badly. Already we spend more than 10% of GNP on health care, although mitigated somewhat by apparently most advances in medicine or prescription drugs being paid for by the US and/or developed here. Compare that to an average of 3% or less for just about all other countries of whatever stripe. The fear is we will be saddled with a direction of this kind of government 'help' found in Detroit's city council:

    Dan Rather Reports - A National Disgrace - YouTube
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    I think the reason Marxism died was because most capitalist systems managed to absorb elements of socialism into the model where needed, to provide services that the public sector wasn't interested in providing, or citizens didn't trust private enterprise to do it ethically. Marxism was born of desperation, and died because of better alternatives.
    Bingo.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I think the reason Marxism died was because most capitalist systems managed to absorb elements of socialism into the model where needed, to provide services that the public sector wasn't interested in providing, or citizens didn't trust private enterprise to do it ethically. Marxism was born of desperation, and died because of better alternatives.
    Bingo.
    that's why the former communist countries dumped that model too. but now(having a globalized view) and that's the funny part, you see a turbo capitalism, with a declining social market.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    you see a turbo capitalism, with a declining social market.
    At least we don't need Marxism to deal with that.

    A healthy dose of Keynesian style counter-cyclical government spending and/or taxing is really all that's needed to straighten up those graph lines.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    you see a turbo capitalism, with a declining social market.
    At least we don't need Marxism to deal with that.

    A healthy dose of Keynesian style counter-cyclical government spending and/or taxing is really all that's needed to straighten up those graph lines.
    That sounds like code for Marxism. You pinko, commie, tree-huggin, hippie!
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    yeah, it sounds like a compressive market 'it looks good on the outside', but solves nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    How many people have actually spent some serious time in Eastern Europe is a big question.

    Turbo Capitalism, ah ha. Snappy quotes have downfalls. Eastern European countries effectively had full blown capitalism only by communist's children, shady criminal politics, or hobbled variations of the two. Most common was crony capitalism in one of its worst forms.



    By the way Grumpysmurf, your signature has some interesting points I have been silent about since seeing it. Eisenhower was neither a Republican or Democrat officially until 1952, months before being nominated. Like most military men of the time, he stayed entirely away from politics as a matter of part of professionalism in a democratic Armed Force and did not vote and was not registered IIRC. Also, by the time he made the quote you post, and a number of other quotes like the famous one of the 'military industrial complex' [airbrushed out was the reference to a third link: CONGRESS], he had had a moderately serious stroke, one incapacitating human speech for a while. He also briefly made a statement of being upset to learn that '50% of Americans are below average' circa 1960. In 1952 was interestingly surprised to learn he was responsible for picking the VP (Eisenhower then chose Nixon because 'he got [the red spy Hiss] fair'). And frankly, he never was particularly adept at politics as it is practiced in damage control. He would often speak openly and carelessly.

    The irresponsible small number of Republicans he referred to is widely believed by many to have been referenced to oilman H.L. Hunt who was notable about financing fringe radio stations in the 1950's and enthralled by wild conspiracies, as well as long time serial bigamy with multitudes of children, ordering a lobotomy for his perfectly astute favorite son [until terrorized by father], etc. One man personally told me Hunt's other son Nelson, with whom he had business dealings, was in observation 'a true Texas dolt'. I have read a HLH biography and it is not for the squeamish, though apparently fairly documented. I see no harm in saying he was dangerously stupid in everything except power over oil exploration, and that the elder Hunt was also effectively more powerful than Hughes. Is it relevant in today's world?

    Back to Ike. As late as 1950, Democrats had their eye on Eisenhower, but massive pre 1950 cuts to the Department of Defense by President Truman and Secretary Johnson (different one than LBJ) and the subsequent Korean debacle poisoned that prospect to Ike. Despite denying it, Truman in his own diary is reported in actually verbally suggesting the Presidential (not VP) ticket to Eisenhower for the 1948 race, and Truman as VP! Now that is a great honor as a conservative so close to Republican nomination. Ike end up sitting out both tickets that time.

    Truman Wrote of '48 Offer to Eisenhower - NYTimes.com

    So what do these corrected misconceptions have to do with the thread topic? I think plenty.
    Last edited by jjmckane; June 26th, 2014 at 10:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    So what do these corrected misconceptions have to do with the thread topic? I think plenty.
    aside from wondering what you "corrected," it's all beside the point especially the part about Hunt (which I knew about) since the quote speaks directly to the current state of the republican agenda.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    26
    Why should it? It's a theory that cannot be proven.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. I'm Back
    By ellatha in forum Introductions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 16th, 2013, 11:14 PM
  2. I'm back
    By Wise Man in forum Introductions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 13th, 2012, 01:38 PM
  3. Is Marxism a pseudoscience?
    By kowalskil in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 7th, 2010, 07:19 PM
  4. Back...
    By Ashley.C in forum Introductions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 14th, 2009, 01:11 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •