• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

  • Yes

    Votes: 30 41.1%

  • No

    Votes: 43 58.9%
  • Total voters
    73
ernst barkmann said:
thanks for the personal comment.....it shows me you cannot put aside personal feelings, and thus govern with your passion, which makes for a very bad debate.
Click to expand...
What I cannot put aside are feelings of revulsion against all things Nazi, including especially all members of the SS, who were the worst of the Nazi fanatics- Hitler's bloody dogs of execution and massacre.
 
tacomancer said:
While the US economy isn't doing so well, many third world economies are doing great, so capitalism as a concept is still validated from what I can tell.
Click to expand...

I think the report card in out on that. From what I can tell, third world economies do well when they are able to take advantage of differentials in costs of living and wages in the developed world. Over time however, wages will come into equilibrium, and then in will be interesting to see what happens. Already China is starting to suffer from the effects of inflation and rising wages.
 
USViking said:
What I cannot put aside are feelings of revulsion against all things Nazi, including especially all members of the SS, who were the worst of the Nazi fanatics- Hitler's bloody dogs of .
Click to expand...

that's right some did execution and massacre ..some did not...but i don't know any Nazi's here.
.
 
lizzie said:
Well, you do have a certain point, but I think that the complexity of our lifestyles in this day and age tends to skew that opinion somewhat. At one time, one could live by the "sweat of the brow", if he/she was willing to put in the labor, but we are so interdependent on each other nowadays, to provide and obtain the more technological things in life, and ordinary modern conveniences, that the guarantee of being able to live if you were willing to do the labor, has become pretty much meaningless.
Click to expand...

Right, and that inability to make a living off of hard work alone has favored the more privileged (used the term somewhat loosely) as they (the "privileged") have more resources at their disposal to further their education, specialize their skills, influence politics, etc, etc.
 
Tralfamadore said:
Meaning majority rule. James Madison warned about the tyranny of majority and majority rule which would manifest itself in an absolute democracy. However, the U.S. is a representative democracy with constitutional limits.

The U.S. is a republic, which is a vague term for any form of government that is not ruled by a monarch or divine rule. All democracies are republics, but not all republics are democracies.
Click to expand...

sorry that is wrong..the u.s. is a republic based on the roman republic....

to the founders a democratic republic is an oxymoron...it does not exist.

the us., is a republic which is a "mixed government" ..federalist 40...in which power is divided up between the states and the people...........in democracy power is concentrated only in the people....

the idea of the founders was never to give all power to 1 single entity...not even the people.

Mixed government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
ernst barkmann said:
wrong...here is Madison's own words... on democracy in the federalist #10...
Click to expand...

You did not read my post and citation, or you read but did not understand them, or you are playing dumb. I'll assume the worst, and that you know you are beat, but pretend not to realize it, and plan to take recourse in endless repetition of a discredited position.
 
USViking said:
You did not read my post and citation, or you read but did not understand them, or you are playing dumb. I'll assume the worst, and that you know you are beat, but pretend not to realize it, and plan to take recourse in endless repetition of a discredited position.
Click to expand...

well its you who cannot understand madsion...the constitution calls for republican form of government..not a democratic form....

a democratic form only puts all power directly in the peoples hands.......in republican form, direct power is also in the hands of the states....pre 17th


"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote"
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry that is wrong..the u.s. is a republic based on the roman republic....

to the founders a democratic republic is an oxymoron...it does not exist.

the us., is a republic which is a "mixed government" ..federalist 40...in which power is divided up between the states and the people...........in democracy power is concentrated only in the people....

the idea of the founders was never to give all power to 1 single entity...not even the people.

Mixed government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

You're under the assumption that there does not exist any variations in democracy or any variations in a republic.

The term "republic" quite simply means any form of government in which power is given to the people. A democracy is a type of republic. Montesquieu, Locke, and various other political philosophers before the days of the Revolution agreed with this definition.
 
Tralfamadore said:
You're under the assumption that there does not exist any variations in democracy or any variations in a republic.

The term "republic" quite simply means any form of government in which power is given to the people. A democracy is a type of republic. Montesquieu, Locke, and various other political philosophers before the days of the Revolution agreed with this definition.
Click to expand...

i will give you the details.......the founders created a republic of mixed government dividing power into two halfs.....the house is a democracy, and the senate is an aristocracy.

this way...no one has all the power...the people hold power and the states legislatures hold power......so power is divided, so no single entity can be tyrannical.

the word republic to the founders means the roman republic of mixed government, ..but during the french revolution of 1789...which was a democratic movement to remove the king and the aristocracy, the new government formed by the people called themselves a republic...which was false.

however the term stuck, and in the modern interpretation it means....any government other than a monarchy.

communism is not a republic.......socialism is not a republic.....direct power only in the people is not a republic
 
ernst barkmann said:
communism is not a republic.......socialism is not a republic.....direct power only in the people is not a republic
Click to expand...

Yes, socialism and communism are forms of a republic. A republic is any form of government where power is given to the people. Whether or not you accept that definition, or think that it means something entirely different, well, I guess I can't help you.

All you've really said about the term "republic" was that it started with the Romans and the French used the term inaccurately and the term stuck.
 
Tralfamadore said:
Yes, socialism and communism are forms of a republic. A republic is any form of government where power is given to the people. Whether or not you accept that definition, or think that it means something entirely different, well, I guess I can't help you.

All you've really said about the term "republic" was that it started with the Romans and the French used the term inaccurately and the term stuck.
Click to expand...

only in the modern day interpretation....not the founders interpretation.


even the founders in their personal letters say America is not a democracy.
 
Polybius and the Founding Fathers: the separation of powers

america is a mixed government...



The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:

THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional] convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.
 
Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

Well if we can judge anything by the history of Russia's economic performance...the answer would be a resounding NO. And since our last two socialists presidents sandwiching GW Bush were total flops...yes Slick Willie Clinton...I believe that verifies the opinion.

And before you start with Clinton's dot com economy...don't even bother.
 
ernst barkmann said:
only in the modern day interpretation....not the founders interpretation.


even the founders in their personal letters say America is not a democracy.
Click to expand...

Well, history after the Founding Fathers was much democratic than it was during the first few years. So, I'm not disagreeing with that. It was only around 100 years ago where 50% of the population gained the right to vote. However, I still do not think that negates what the Founders understood as democracy (majority rule by the white, landowning class) and what we understand as democracy. One is an extension of the other.

Saying the U.S. is not a democracy but a republic is like saying Catholics are not monotheists but are Christians.
 
How bad was capitalism? well the nation of america with 300 million people had I repeat HAD the the greatest economy in the world.

In a true capitalistic world there would not be a minimum wage, the free market would dictate labor costs, america cannot compete with china's slave wages.

So Karl Marx can suck the big fat homosexual man until the big fat homosexual man is happy.
 
He was wrong in the aggregate... obviously (see Soviet Union)... but he did have some relevant points.
 
HogWash said:
Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

Well if we can judge anything by the history of Russia's economic performance...the answer would be a resounding NO. And since our last two socialists presidents sandwiching GW Bush were total flops...yes Slick Willie Clinton...I believe that verifies the opinion.

And before you start with Clinton's dot com economy...don't even bother.
Click to expand...


The question wasn't about whether Marx was right about communism or socialism. Was Marx right about capitalism?
 
tralfamadore said:
well, history after the founding fathers was much democratic than it was during the first few years. So, i'm not disagreeing with that. It was only around 100 years ago where 50% of the population gained the right to vote. However, i still do not think that negates what the founders understood as democracy (majority rule by the white, landowning class) and what we understand as democracy. One is an extension of the other.

Saying the u.s. Is not a democracy but a republic is like saying catholics are not monotheists but are christians.
Click to expand...

i can only urge you to read up on republican forms of government

polybuis

the roman republic and its structure

federalist 62 and 63 on why the senate was created -- pre 17th .....ie. To prevent democracy from taking over
 
MildSteel said:
Here's an interesting article by George Magnus, former Chief Economist at UBS, the biggest bank in Switzerland



SO

Was Karl Marx right about capitalism?
Click to expand...
Nope. Capitalism reigns supreme. It isnt perfect but its better than anything we have come up with so far. The reason for the mass unemployment in Europe is governments spending too much money on entitlements- they are spending money they dont have. Governments with balanced budgets and surpluses (like Australia, Brazil, Norway) are doing pretty well.
 
ernst barkmann said:
has nothing to do with the south.
Click to expand...

And arguing about democracy/republican form of government has nothing to do with some nut claiming that capitalism has or is going to fail. I mean here is an excellent opportunity to showcase Karl Marx's nutty writings. Like this: "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution." Then all I need to do to discredit Marx is to point out that Reasoned that capitalism would never actually fail otherwise he wouldnt have devised the communist revolution to make it fail. Marx never established a sustainable social or economical system. All that Marx did was devised a way to topple the society that he lived in. ANd to follow that up he devised a way keep the society that he despised from coming back at the expense of basic human nature.

But no you are more into promoting your doctrine and forcing us to accept your revisions of American history. As if no one notices that your entire doctrine was identical to that of the Confederates. If you think no one noticed then well... you were mistaken.
 
Awesome

A thread of people who have never read Marx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom