View Poll Results: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

Voters
94. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    38 40.43%
  • No

    56 59.57%
Page 17 of 56 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 555

Thread: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

  1. #161
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    Thanks for the thoughtful, informative post. Having said that, I would note a few things.

    First of all I would point out that the language



    does not necessarily support the notion that the powers of the states are vast relative to the powers of the federal government. This is because that although the powers of the federal government may be few in the numeric sense, they are actually qualitatively superior. For example a person that has 20 one dollar bills may have more notes than a person having five hundred dollars bills. But in fact the person that has five hundred dollar bills has a quite a bit more money than the person with twenty one dollar bills.

    Secondly, framers original intent, while a guide, cannot be taken as an absolute. For one thing, as you have slightly alluded to, various people had different points of view. Not only that, but if they had indeed wanted such language in the constitution itself, why did they not insert it? One reason may have been political, in that it may not have passed, which erodes the notion of looking to original intent in the first place

    Lastly, although you have quoted Jefferson, he himself realized that the constitution was a product of the time and circumstances. For instance the framers ideas of suffrage were quite different from our notions of today, and when viewed in the modern context, appear to be inconsistent with the notions of how a free democratic people should view the right to vote. Therefore Jefferson said the following:



    Of course Jefferson favored change by amendment rather than judicial activism. But still, the quote demonstrates that the framers also recognized that times change and that the needs of the people of the US would change. Therefore a constitutional interpretation that limits the sovereignty of states relative to the federal government is not inconsistent with the constitution itself.
    the word "vast" comes from some reading i did concerning the foundering fathers were one of them states that.

    the federal government has delegated powers only......and it states that.....right in the constitution they are delegated...amendment 10

    the constitution is a limiting document, which creates federalism...it does not give or grant rights/freedoms.....it grants powers to the federal government only.....and those granted /delegated powers are the only ones government can act on .

    the powers of the states are NOT LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION....its not granting the states anything, as is granting to the federal government.......the Constitution just limits the states to the things listed in it and they are only a few things.....

    the federal government powers are listed, meaning those are the only ones they have.

    the state powers being not listed, meaning there a vast,/ numerous and infinite....because they are not limited by the constitution.

    the delegated powers that are granted to the federal government though are .....NOT BROKEN DOWN, into laws which can be enacted by the government, that is why we have article 1 section 8 clause 18 .

    EXAMPLE:
    congress has the power to punish counterfeiting, and piracy.......however the two clauses of article 1 section 8, dealing with those two issues....does not spell out how to punish..... so clause 18 grants the federal government power to create a federal law, which determines the procedures and actual punishment of those crimes....this is what is know as "implied powers"

    the Constitution ....again does not grant or give rights/freedoms..voting , speech, bear a firearm....it gives you nothing

    the bill of rights are not rights granted to the people........it is a document which places restrictions on the federal government, that it shall "create no laws", violating the rights ...which are recognized only by the constitution.

    I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, THEY TALK ABOUT NO RIGHT TO VOTE FOR WOMEN, OR BLACKS, AMONG OTHER THINGS.............THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE ISSUES.

    the constitution setups, /creates the structure of the federal government, its branches and what powers each has,....it limits those powers, and a few to the states, and creates a separation of branches, and it also creates a separation of state and federal government powers, ...know has federalism.

    so the Constitutions main goal is creating a......... separations of powers........known as a "MIXED GOVERNMENT"

  2. #162
    Sage
    gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    uk
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,365

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    [QUOTE=Gardener;1063276170]
    Just as long as people realize that taking away the incentive to work hard is no answer, either.
    I fully agree. The thesis of how an agent is 'incentivized' is hot topic in philosophy. There are those who suggest to disincentive people by invoking some policy for wage parity, will make people less inclined to innovate, progress and invent. That thesis is very much based on a materialistic world, IMO. I'm not convinced that would happen.

    The choice should not be between capitalism in it's most virulent form or Marxism in its, but how to devise a system that rewards people for hard work and limits the potential for exploitation while simultaneously retaining enough incentives that people will,indeed, work hard if they wish to get ahead.
    It was Rawls (1999) who wrote "inequality is justified only if it works in favour of those in society who are worse off". As you know, Rawls was one of the eminent liberal philosophers of the 20th century. As such, I would argue made the most coherent case for protection of 'personal liberty' with responsibility to some societal framework.

    By the way, I answered yes to the question

    Paul
    RIP THE EUROPEAN FORUM 2016

  3. #163
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,453
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by HogWash View Post
    Of course unionization in the U.S. was absolutely behind outsourcing. The union people cooked their own goose. The right to work states enjoyed some of the windfall of what industry remained.
    When one can get 32 semi skilled workers for 12-14hrs/day for what one first day burger flipper gets for eight, all the "it was the unions!" or "it was taxes!" or "it was regulations!" rhetoric is exposed for what it is. Rhetoric.

    Businesses move to take advantage of that dirt cheap labor the moment it became feasible. They would have done so had there been no regs, taxes or unions. Unless you can prove those elements offset a 32+:1 employee ratio for the same money. A ten man McDonalds crew for eight hours compared to a factory of 320 semi skilled workers for fourteen hours. Not a difficult choice to make for a CEO.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  4. #164
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Tume for an overhaul due to the simple fact that the computer and container ship technology made modern globalization possible, and that THAT "changed the game" so fundamentally that the rising tide is only lifting the boats of some.

    Its not your granddads capitalism anymore.

    And since its made up anyway, it's subject to revision if it isn't working for everybody anymore.
    I am not so sure I agree. It starting to seem to me like capitalism does really well so long as there is a new frontier to conquer, which Asia is one and Africa may be next. It starts contributing to societal problems in more mature scenarios.

  5. #165
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,133

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    I have never seen any evidence that there was ever any intention of actually enacting a "workers paradiseb in the USSR. More like a bunch if clever bastards using the science of persuasion to put themselves in power in a country whose rulers were wholly incompetent. Where they fully intended to stay forever. Bait and switch. Never an "honest" attempt a communism.

    Communism is impossible outside small groups of like minded individuals.

    But the USSR was a scam from the get go.
    This is the No True Scotsman fallacy as applied to every (failed) attempt at socialist government.

    I believe the results show the inherent flaw to the socialistic/communistic system and purported "unlimited democracy": when the government does not have any limits placed on it from the get go (because it belongs to "the people" and "the people" should have no rules against what they can do), someone invariably gets into position to limit the available choices. Human nature always seeks to subvert the resources and masses into the survival of the fittest, the fittest in this case being the most ambitious and ruthless. The people voted for Mao and Stalin and Castro, over and over again... because no one else survived being put on the ballot. Was democracy subverted, when people were allowed to vote? Absolutely. Every bit as much as when venture capitalists and industrial kingpins subvert American democracy by virtue of having "more speech".

    At least in this system, however, the "poor" have food. Hell, they even have iPods.

    When it comes to which system you prefer to serve, I will always choose the one where a strong and clever idea can upjump someone into the royal class, over the system that punishes ideas and seeks to oppress those on the outside that may have an idea not thought of first by the other nobles.
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  6. #166
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    the word "vast" comes from some reading i did concerning the foundering fathers were one of them states that.

    the federal government has delegated powers only......and it states that.....right in the constitution they are delegated...amendment 10

    the constitution is a limiting document, which creates federalism...it does not give or grant rights/freedoms.....it grants powers to the federal government only.....and those granted /delegated powers are the only ones government can act on .

    the powers of the states are NOT LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION....its not granting the states anything, as is granting to the federal government.......the Constitution just limits the states to the things listed in it and they are only a few things.....

    the federal government powers are listed, meaning those are the only ones they have.

    the state powers being not listed, meaning there a vast,/ numerous and infinite....because they are not limited by the constitution.

    the delegated powers that are granted to the federal government though are .....NOT BROKEN DOWN, into laws which can be enacted by the government, that is why we have article 1 section 8 clause 18 .

    EXAMPLE:
    congress has the power to punish counterfeiting, and piracy.......however the two clauses of article 1 section 8, dealing with those two issues....does not spell out how to punish..... so clause 18 grants the federal government power to create a federal law, which determines the procedures and actual punishment of those crimes....this is what is know as "implied powers"

    the Constitution ....again does not grant or give rights/freedoms..voting , speech, bear a firearm....it gives you nothing

    the bill of rights are not rights granted to the people........it is a document which places restrictions on the federal government, that it shall "create no laws", violating the rights ...which are recognized only by the constitution.

    I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, THEY TALK ABOUT NO RIGHT TO VOTE FOR WOMEN, OR BLACKS, AMONG OTHER THINGS.............THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE ISSUES.

    the constitution setups, /creates the structure of the federal government, its branches and what powers each has,....it limits those powers, and a few to the states, and creates a separation of branches, and it also creates a separation of state and federal government powers, ...know has federalism.

    so the Constitutions main goal is creating a......... separations of powers........known as a "MIXED GOVERNMENT"
    Perhaps I will have more to say on this later. But for right not I have a problem with your statements that

    the constitution is a limiting document, which creates federalism...it does not give or grant rights/freedoms.....it grants powers to the federal government only
    AND

    the bill of rights are not rights granted to the people........it is a document which places restrictions on the federal government
    AND

    the state powers being not listed, meaning there a vast,/ numerous and infinite....because they are not limited by the constitution.
    You seem to imply that the Bill of Rights only places restrictions on the federal government. So for instance the first amendment states

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    If we take your assertions that the constitution only grants powers to the federal government and restricts the federal government but does not limit the powers of the states, we would be led to believe that the states have the right to pass laws that abridge freedom of the press. And that's not the case. Therefore the powers granted to the states are not infinite and are indeed limited by the constitution.

  7. #167
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,184

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    I have never seen any evidence that there was ever any intention of actually enacting a "workers paradiseb in the USSR. More like a bunch if clever bastards using the science of persuasion to put themselves in power in a country whose rulers were wholly incompetent. Where they fully intended to stay forever. Bait and switch. Never an "honest" attempt a communism.

    Communism is impossible outside small groups of like minded individuals.

    But the USSR was a scam from the get go.

    It is true that REAL communism has never been tried on a national scale before, but I think there is a reason for that... human nature. The intermediate steps between whatever and full communism are so fraught with opportunity for ambitious persons to seize and retain power that they never let it get to that point.

    Now IF we ever actually achieve (through advanced technology and easy cheap energy) an 'economy of abundance'... then something sort of like theoretical communism might be feasible... but I'm not yet convinced that 'an economy of abundance' is more than just a speculative hypothesis.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  8. #168
    economically ☭ socially ☭

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,148

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    I've read Das Kapital (not the manifesto though) and have a degree in economics. However, I would really love to hear what a teenager has to say.

    You have the floor. Dazzle me.
    I'm not a teenager
    "...it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists,"

  9. #169
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    Speculators pay some tax on their activities through property tax, but it does not discourage the act itself. They are still profiting off the common wealth rather than personal productive wealth.
    They are profiting. That is a good thing. They also risk losing and do lose.
    Nor should the act be discouraged.


    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    I never said it should.
    WTF?
    I just quoted you saying it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    When you spend more on defense than the next ten nations COMBINED then something needs to change.
    No. Nothing needs to change.


    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    It simply puts into perspective how outrageous our military spending really is.

    Nothing about it is outrageous.


    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    How much is enough to you?
    As much as we need to project our power and support our interests and continue research and development so we can keep it that way for a good long time.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  10. #170
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    One alternative, geoism, has been practiced with much success. Alas, the powers-that-be do not like it (guess where they receive a large chunk of their wealth?). So, they compromise with the People with a progressive income tax and social safety nets. Of course, nothing could be perfect, but it could be better.
    Where has geoism been practiced with much success?
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

Page 17 of 56 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •