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 53 of 56 FirstFirst ... 3435152535455 ... LastLast
Results 521 to 530 of 555

Thread: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

  1. #521
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Who hates liberty?
    The American left-with its ideas so good it needs to force everyone to comply.

  2. #522
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Generally, we have quite the bunch of intelligent beings here at DP .. The vote was rather close ..I think that 20 years ago, it would have been 90% in favor of capitalism ...rather than todays 55% ...
    I now believe that we should ( and we have ) embrace some "communist" tenets ... carefully ...
    Surely, a 100% system (left or right) , works NOT.

  3. #523
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    The American left-with its ideas so good it needs to force everyone to comply.
    Just one example of a "lost" liberty ...
    I am against being "forced" to do anything ! I'll NEVER forget being forced to pray in some Florida school at the age of 8 ..66 years ago !

  4. #524
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Just one example of a "lost" liberty ...
    I am against being "forced" to do anything ! I'll NEVER forget being forced to pray in some Florida school at the age of 8 ..66 years ago !
    The horror!!! Stop living 66 years ago. Why don't progressives realize time have changed?

    Tangentially, might I ask what your religion (or your parents) was when you were age 8 in the 1940s? Also, is it fair to hold people accountable from 66 years ago accountable today?

    And, what does that have to do with modern progressives? In the 1940's, weren't they still pro-eugenics, etc?

  5. #525
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,041

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Yes, but you arn't examining Marx's psychological assumptions or claims in Kapital, you're trying to psycho analyze Marx himself, which is the definition of an Ad Hominem attack.
    Fallacy: Ad Hominem

    1. Person A makes claim X.
    2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
    3. Therefore A's claim is false.

    You are person A. Marx is not person A. You are not Karl Marx. I am not in a debate with Karl Marx.

    Example of Ad Hominem

    Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
    Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
    Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
    Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."


    You are Bill.

    Marx talks about many Things in Capital (it's 3 volumes).

    Capital doesn't Call anyone greedy bastards ... and yes labor IS treated as a commodity that is traded, and yes, surplus value is taken and Distributed by the Capitalist, how is that not true?
    I never said that Kapital mentions the words greedy bastards. That was a very weak debate tactic. Please try something new.

    Surplus value is basically synonymously used with profit, do you claim that profit doesn't exist?
    Surplus value isnt the same as profit, but nice try. If surplus value was nothing more than just another way of saying profit then damn why did Marx devote so much time in Kapital writing about such a simplistic word? You make Marx look like a idiot with that argument.

    I mean common, so far you haven't shown ANYTHING in Kapital that you can show is false?
    So you are claiming that everything in Das Kapital has evidence? Or is it just your opinion that there is evidence?

    Lets be completely honest what Das Kapital is: Das kapital | Define Das kapital at Dictionary.com


    Das Kapital
    Das Ka·pi·tal [German dahs kah-pi-tahl]
    noun
    a work (1867) by Karl Marx, dealing with economic, social, and political relations within society and containing the tenets on which modern communism is based.

    Cultural Dictionary
    Das Kapital [(dahs kah-pi- tahl )]

    (3 vol., 1861, 1885, 1894) The greatest work by Karl Marx on economics; the title is German for “capital.” It describes the capitalist system in highly critical terms and predicts its defeat by socialism.

    "Let us put the matter this way: Marx did not set out merely to explain the necessity of the social relations of capital. This would be an entirely one-sided view of Marx’s work, a view which can, under certain circumstances, transform Marxism into its opposite – into an instrument for ‘justifying’ these very social relations. ‘ The social relations of capitalism exist in a state of relative, not absolute, equilibrium, an equilibrium which must be overcome through the struggle of opposed forces which arise on the, basis of these social relations. In this way, Marx grasped always that investigator, if his work was to be truly scientific, must place at the very centre of his endeavours a conscious struggle to understand his own relationship to the forces being analysed; this in turn was, for Marx, inseparable from a study of his own struggle, in theory and in practice, to grasp these facts. Thus in the Communist Manifesto we read:

    Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of the old society, assumes such a violent. glaring character that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as therefore at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie; so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole."

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/pil...pital/ch04.htm

    "Here Marx and Engels were in fact writing of themselves. On the basis of all their practical and theoretical work they alone at that stage ‘comprehended theoretically the historical movement as a whole’. They alone had been able to grasp the historical-revolutionary significance of the appearance of the working class, a class ‘in itself’ which had consciously to be transformed into a class ‘for itself’. The actual struggle to do this – and knowing that every aspect of one’s theoretical work was subordinated to this task as for Marx and Engels the real essence of objectivity. Theory could only be developed as an expression and instrument of a definite social force in history. Marx did not ‘criticize’ capitalist social relations merely by revealing the unresolved contradictions in the work of political economy. He sought to show that the very development of capitalism actually created an instrument – the modern working class – which was obliged in life, in practice, to ‘criticize’ capitalism, to ‘criticize’ political economy, a criticism the high point of which was the overthrow of the existing social relations. Here is the very heart of Marx’s ‘critique’ of political economy. Not only must the whole of Capital be seen from this point of view, but at the same time it provides the key to understanding how Marx develops his investigation over the three volumes."


    Marxists agree with me, that Das Kapital istnt just a lowly science book about social sciences. Which means that Kapital is more than what YOU claim. Why hide it as if no idiot cant see it? Is there something that you are afraid of? Or have you not actually read Das kapital? lol

  6. #526
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,041

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    The horror!!! Stop living 66 years ago. Why don't progressives realize time have changed?

    Tangentially, might I ask what your religion (or your parents) was when you were age 8 in the 1940s? Also, is it fair to hold people accountable from 66 years ago accountable today?

    And, what does that have to do with modern progressives? In the 1940's, weren't they still pro-eugenics, etc?
    Yea just let those Nazi war criminals alone right?

  7. #527
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Fallacy: Ad Hominem

    1. Person A makes claim X.
    2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
    3. Therefore A's claim is false.

    You are person A. Marx is not person A. You are not Karl Marx. I am not in a debate with Karl Marx.

    Example of Ad Hominem

    Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
    Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
    Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
    Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."


    You are Bill.
    1. Marx makes claims in Capital
    2. In arguing that Marx's claims were wrong you simply attack Marx as a person.

    That's an Adhominem, that's what you are doing.

    I never said that Kapital mentions the words greedy bastards. That was a very weak debate tactic. Please try something new.

    Surplus value isnt the same as profit, but nice try. If surplus value was nothing more than just another way of saying profit then damn why did Marx devote so much time in Kapital writing about such a simplistic word? You make Marx look like a idiot with that argument.

    So you are claiming that everything in Das Kapital has evidence? Or is it just your opinion that there is evidence?
    That is EXACTLY what Surplus value is, and Marx devoted a Whole lot of time to it because its an extremely important part of Capitalism ..... JEsus CHrist, how the **** are you arguing With me here and you don't even know what Surplus value is?

    Lets be completely honest what Das Kapital is: Das kapital | Define Das kapital at Dictionary.com


    Das Kapital
    Das Ka·pi·tal [German dahs kah-pi-tahl]
    noun
    a work (1867) by Karl Marx, dealing with economic, social, and political relations within society and containing the tenets on which modern communism is based.

    Cultural Dictionary
    Das Kapital [(dahs kah-pi- tahl )]

    (3 vol., 1861, 1885, 1894) The greatest work by Karl Marx on economics; the title is German for “capital.” It describes the capitalist system in highly critical terms and predicts its defeat by socialism.

    "Let us put the matter this way: Marx did not set out merely to explain the necessity of the social relations of capital. This would be an entirely one-sided view of Marx’s work, a view which can, under certain circumstances, transform Marxism into its opposite – into an instrument for ‘justifying’ these very social relations. ‘ The social relations of capitalism exist in a state of relative, not absolute, equilibrium, an equilibrium which must be overcome through the struggle of opposed forces which arise on the, basis of these social relations. In this way, Marx grasped always that investigator, if his work was to be truly scientific, must place at the very centre of his endeavours a conscious struggle to understand his own relationship to the forces being analysed; this in turn was, for Marx, inseparable from a study of his own struggle, in theory and in practice, to grasp these facts. Thus in the Communist Manifesto we read:

    Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of the old society, assumes such a violent. glaring character that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as therefore at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie; so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole."

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/pil...pital/ch04.htm

    "Here Marx and Engels were in fact writing of themselves. On the basis of all their practical and theoretical work they alone at that stage ‘comprehended theoretically the historical movement as a whole’. They alone had been able to grasp the historical-revolutionary significance of the appearance of the working class, a class ‘in itself’ which had consciously to be transformed into a class ‘for itself’. The actual struggle to do this – and knowing that every aspect of one’s theoretical work was subordinated to this task as for Marx and Engels the real essence of objectivity. Theory could only be developed as an expression and instrument of a definite social force in history. Marx did not ‘criticize’ capitalist social relations merely by revealing the unresolved contradictions in the work of political economy. He sought to show that the very development of capitalism actually created an instrument – the modern working class – which was obliged in life, in practice, to ‘criticize’ capitalism, to ‘criticize’ political economy, a criticism the high point of which was the overthrow of the existing social relations. Here is the very heart of Marx’s ‘critique’ of political economy. Not only must the whole of Capital be seen from this point of view, but at the same time it provides the key to understanding how Marx develops his investigation over the three volumes."


    [SIZE=3]Marxists agree with me, that Das Kapital istnt just a lowly science book about social sciences. Which means that Kapital is more than what YOU claim. Why hide it as if no idiot cant see it? Is there something that you are afraid of? Or have you not actually read Das kapital? lol
    Can you PLEASE, find one thing in Capital, in Marx's analysis that you can ACTUALLY critique .... ¨

    Instead of looking **** up in the Dictionary that does nothing to forward the debate other than making definitions.

    Find me ONE point in Marx's analysis of Capitalism that you dissagree With.

  8. #528
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,041

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    1. Marx makes claims in Capital
    2. In arguing that Marx's claims were wrong you simply attack Marx as a person.

    That's an Adhominem, that's what you are doing.
    For the last time I am not debating Marx the person I am speaking to you a real live person. If I were to call you names that would be a personal attack on you as the living breathing debater. Karl Marx though isnt a even alive muchless speaking with me. And well my remark where I lampooned his idiotic fanatical ass was a opinion and I presented it as that. You dont like my opinion of Marx dont get all but hurt over it.



    That is EXACTLY what Surplus value is, and Marx devoted a Whole lot of time to it because its an extremely important part of Capitalism ..... JEsus CHrist, how the **** are you arguing With me here and you don't even know what Surplus value is?
    Odd..




    Can you PLEASE, find one thing in Capital, in Marx's analysis that you can ACTUALLY critique .... ¨

    Instead of looking **** up in the Dictionary that does nothing to forward the debate other than making definitions.

    Find me ONE point in Marx's analysis of Capitalism that you dissagree With.
    Again you didnt like my critique of Capital, and that isnt my problem. I dont care if you agree , disagree or make funny faces. If you think that you can reject my argument then insist on another just quit now, because, I am not going to jump through your hoops you are not the ring master.

    I find it comical though that you ignored Marxist.com's part where they agree with me. In fact you are the only person that I have every talked to that has tried to divorce Marx from the Communist Manifesto as if it wasnt important to Marx or related entirely to Das Kapital. Its like you live in a alternate universe. its gunny though you call Das Kapital a book on economics while the rest of the world thinks of it a social science. Well except the Marxists they think it is very important part of Marxist doctrine.

  9. #529
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    For the last time I am not debating Marx the person I am speaking to you a real live person. If I were to call you names that would be a personal attack on you as the living breathing debater. Karl Marx though isnt a even alive muchless speaking with me. And well my remark where I lampooned his idiotic fanatical ass was a opinion and I presented it as that. You dont like my opinion of Marx dont get all but hurt over it.


    Odd..

    Again you didnt like my critique of Capital, and that isnt my problem. I dont care if you agree , disagree or make funny faces. If you think that you can reject my argument then insist on another just quit now, because, I am not going to jump through your hoops you are not the ring master.

    I find it comical though that you ignored Marxist.com's part where they agree with me. In fact you are the only person that I have every talked to that has tried to divorce Marx from the Communist Manifesto as if it wasnt important to Marx or related entirely to Das Kapital. Its like you live in a alternate universe. its gunny though you call Das Kapital a book on economics while the rest of the world thinks of it a social science. Well except the Marxists they think it is very important part of Marxist doctrine.
    Where was Your critique, show me, which post? Show me the ACTUAL critique you wrote.

  10. #530
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,041

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Where was Your critique, show me, which post? Show me the ACTUAL critique you wrote.
    It is there for all to see, do you not remember our conversation thus far?

    In order for one to accept Marx's conclusions in Das Kapital one first needs to believe the tenants of the Communist manifesto. The biggest bias that Marx uses is that profiting on labor force is bad. In Marx's critique of the social standard in a capitalist economy he asserts that any profit gained by a business owner is a exploitation of the labor in which he purchased. So in Marx's view of Capitalism we end up with a paradox. Meaning that labor must be paid a natural compensation for their toil, they should gain all of the profit made from their work on the ware. But to assert such a thing would mean that the laborer was profiting off of the employer. Because the employee did not put any inverted worth in the materials or machines used to make the product they do not naturally deserve full credit for their work by gaining full price for their work and the materials and methods of production. Marx assumes that if the worker is getting anything less than the value of the workers labor plus the value of the wares that they produce that they are being exploited. The assumption or the bias rather is that the worker should take the brunt of the investments needed for the wares that are being produced and that the individual(s) owners should be eliminated as being evil exploiters of labor value. But doing so only moves the goal posts and now puts the worker in the position of being their own exploiter considering that a person agrees to do work on things that they do not actually get to keep because the need the resources that it produces for their own individual needs.

    Hopefully you read the above framing paragraph.

    When a person is born normally the family takes care of the childs needs up to a certain point. Usually that point is age related. At that point the young adult enters society and takes care of them self, the parents dont taking care of them. There are some exceptions of course but that is the general gist of life that it is the individuals responsibility to keep them self alive. AT that point the person is at a low in lifes accomplishments. Certain wares are needed by individuals in order to live in modern society. These things change with time. Of course some people prefer less while others prefer more. The act of obtaining those things on the individuals part is a type of profit for the individual. Add to that if the individual gets a partner and children or other dependents like family members ie siblings, elders, friends in need etc. All of these added wares need to come from somewhere. A human in terms of value actually has no value except the labor that they can do. In order to gain the extras that the individual either needs or wants he must accumulate a surplus of wares through working for them. This is called accumulated wealth. Each ware owned has a value that can be sold or traded. This accumulation is a natural law of existence. But in Das Kapital Marx labels it as a exploitation. Ah but you might say that it only applies to the Capitalist who exploits labor for profit.

    Well then lets take the self employed for example. A person who cuts firewood and sells it to their neighbor. This person does all of the labor them self. They also buy the necessary machinery to do the labor, take care of its upkeep and all. There would be zero reason for anyone to do all that work for zero gains. You must exchange wares for a profit in order to pay for the wares that you produced. that is because of the other wares that you need to sustain your own life and your dependents. Marx clearly ignores this basic concept. And he does so because of his massive bias and need to promote Communism.

    That is only one bias or assumption that Marx basis his critique on which was never considered science but just a opinion put forth to build up Communism.

Page 53 of 56 FirstFirst ... 3435152535455 ... 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
  •