Marxism for beginners

Do you have proof of such a thing, or are you just expressing your beliefs?

My belief is that the most wealth will tend to gravitate to those who have created it - but what of it? Shouldn't those most gifted to produce actually do so - and assist those who don't have such a level of gift, but can bring other skills to the table to allow them benefit as well?

What needs fixing is cronyism: when those with wealth exercise unlawful power over others through force of law. That should be suppressed; big Government is the vehicle through which those cronyists thrive.

Everyone has their own level. That level is best found in a society which neither hampers those with true ability/drive/etc, and doesn't also coddle those others under the guise of 'helping'...which isn't help at all, but a form of servitude.

 

Don't get me wrong; I am a civil libertarian, but economic "libertarianism" doesn't actually result in liberty, in the end, for most people except the rich.

I repeat: did you ever read and remember about the "robber baron" days? That is, only probably worse, what you'd get with economic anarchy.

 

Maybe who don't know anything is you. Obama isn't socialist. Also he doesn't support less freedom. When I've seen the most restrictions in freedom has been always in the hands of self called conservative.

But, well you will find that, yet.

Your ignorance is incredible. And remember that you will be poorer, and poorer. Thanks to neoliberalism, in American words, thanks to the conservatism, libertarian and anarchocapitalist all summarized in Chicago School.

Although we, Europeans are following the same path that you, we have something, collective conscience, and we can fight back it. You've lost that.

 

Look at the history. Less regulated market is more unstable market and more poverty. You can watch the results of it in all South America, Indonesia...

Watch when South America went out from the hole. When they started to apply contrary of what the IMF prescribed. If you want that something go right you must do the contrary what the IMF says, in other words, you must go against the prescriptions of the Chicago School, the "libertarians". Remember that this policies only give freedom to rich.

The history is on my side.

 

That depends. The "robber baron" days and Western Europe agree with your conclusion here, but the USSR does not.

 

The USSR made many mistakes, but took wealth to a third world country. The things aren't so clear, and nowadays many Russian people would prefer to live in the communism than in the neoliberal capitalist Russia of today.

Also you must remember that in Russia the Communist Party is very strong, with many people supporting it.

 

You are very correct, Subdermal.

Especially when you say, "My belief is that the most wealth will tend to gravitate to those who have created it - but what of it? Shouldn't those most gifted to produce actually do so - and assist those who don't have such a level of gift, but can bring other skills to the table to allow them benefit as well?"

The liberals always want a "results" dictated outcome and not a "rewards" oriented outcome.

Forget the fact one person has sacrificed, stayed in school and received a good education and another person did not sacrifice, dropped out of school or made bad grades and applied for the same job, the liberals insist both individuals be paid the same.

In their minds, to invoke a "rewards" oriented outcome is to practice and encourage class discrimination! The second person who dropped out of school should not be penalized because the fact he did not finish school is really society’s fault (our fault) and not his fault!

For the life of me, I do not know how they often come to these silly conclusions!

 

That's retarded. Don't (*)(*)(*)(*)ing put words in peoples' mouths, you dip(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

>>>Thatcher was a much an idiot as Reagan. I believe that they were both tools. It is capitalism and corporatism that cannot exist without a powerful central government to cater to the whims of the corporations and lobbies. How much more proof do you need than what we got goin' on here?

 

You can go to them with historical facts, that they will ignore that. You can mention South America, Indonesia, examples of what they defend and how they ended.

Even I am waiting an answer to these facts, they always ignore these posts, because they know that destroys all their argumentation of free market, freedom and rest of things told from the neoliberal point of view.

 

>>>Yeah, you can ask them about food on the table or gas in the tank and all you get is 'individual liberty', individual freedom' or gibberish about 'collectivism'.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Socialism

 

In what way do I advocate exploiting or enslaving people?

 

From my point of view in the defense of corporations and free market.

 

Right, The freedom of individuals to voluntarily transact with one another. In no way is that slavery or exploitation. Sorry.

 

The problem is that you don't support the freedom of individuals to voluntarily transact with one other.

Behind your ideology is hidden the new slavery. Private proverty + free market. Is the new feudalism. It only results in one thing explotaition and poverty. So you're defending explotation, slavery and poverty.

And you will discover it with bad manners. I would like to see it before it is applied in your own country, but I think that it is too late.

 

I'm afraid I don't get what you are saying. How does private property and voluntary markets mean exploitation and slavery?

 

Ok. The history has taught us that when you give more freedom to the market these markets in their autoregulation always has made the next:

- More unemployment
- Lower wages of the workers
- Corporations richer workers poorer
- Higher prices, more costs

That are the consequences of open the market and make it more free. For this I mean that means more exploitation and slavery.

Ah and also the markets are more unstable, so produce more crisis.

For example, in Spain. We left to the free market the householding. Consequence. Construction bubble and extreme high prices, the highest of the Eurozone. Is much cheaper buy a house in Germany(where the minimium wage is the double of Spain) than in Spain.

Imagine if you make the free market in all areas, more disasters. It is a disastrous economic ideology. Much worse than the planned economy of the URSS.

 

History has taught us, although I'm not so sure about you, that socialism, communism or any attempt to become those system always fails no matter what. This is due to human nature and the fundamental issues of the systems themselves. History has taught us that having a more capitalistic and free based society and economy will eventually win. Just as the U.S defeated the USSR in the cold war due to a more powerful economy. Now, regulations are surely required to keep the economy going and fair, however full government control is just to far.

 

But what is impossible to defend is the neoliberalism teology. And here are many people that have faith in this model that is much more unsustainable than even a planning economy like the one of the USSR.

And it is the direction that we've taken, and it is the doom of the economic system. The system will survive as ever has done, but will be the end of the social peace and the freedom as we know now.

Neoliberalism is a tragedy if it is applied. It means the end of the middle class, and the strengthen of the inequality, and stronger differences between rich and poor. It is even worse than the socialism of the URSS.

It is a system absolutely caotic and unstable.

The marxism had many mistakes, and mainly the authoritarian application of it. But it is even worse a strong capitalism, based in free market, is many times worse. For much democratic as it wants to disguiss, it is a model that requires authoritarism in one form or other to work.

You should ask why the free market theories never have been applied if there hasn't exist some shock state. A dictatorship, a crisis, or something similar. It is a model that goes against the majority of the poblation, that ruins it. It only is good for the corporations.

 

I'm not sure about Spain, but in the United States, the direction our economy is heading toward is a command-based economy. You say or imply you are for more freedom, yet support a system that doesn't recognize freedom. The Hypocrisy?

You have the image of the USSR confused...there was no rich or middle class...everyone was poor. Everyone that wasn't a high military or political figure was poor, and when I mean poor I mean starving for the most part. To implement Marxism you must have government control, so not using authoritarian applications for it isn't an option. Capitalism with minor regulations does work...its fact. The private sector has always been and always will be far more effective and efficient in any capacity of application than any government ever was or will be. Therefore when the private sector flourishes...people get jobs, people invest, people buy, people stimulate the economy and the economy grows, a free market economy is self healing and when untouched by a nosy government, truly works.

 

That's an unfair comparison, as tin-horn dictators run the show in those areas.

A market regulated by Constitutional limits is ideal; we've had only a brief foray into such markets - during which the US grew in the Industrial Revolution into the world's powerhouse. Were there labor issues which are natural in a growing and immature market? Sure: it was Katie bar the door in the 1800's. But now, with the internet, and a mature society? Different - and we've not tried quasi-laissezfaire economics.

Not understanding what you're saying here. I don't support cronyism, and it seems as though you're complaining about tin-horn dictatorial support of private enterprise, which isn't a free market at all.

What side is that?

 

People support prosperity, and not dying of starvation. If you have a transitionary period - from communism to Capitalism - and 'the powers that be' corrupt that transition, and instead institute a cronyist version of free market economics, then you'll have 'haves, and have nots'. Of course people will be unhappy with said condition.

But to say that people prefer communism, in any context, isn't a fair statement. That would be like saying that people prefer communism to death.

 

But if left unregulated, it ends up with almost everything being bottled up with the very few, and almost everyone, including most hard working dedicated motivated smart people, being poor (materially).

 

This is an assertion borne of faith, and not experience. Recognize it for what it is.