• 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
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.

Capitalism reigns supreme in the garbage heap of outdated ideas. It's inherently flawed in that it gives the preponderance of power to the capitalist who is motivated to increase profits and drive wages down. Thus there is an upward flow of capital that results in a distortion of wealth distribution that erodes consumption capability that results in economic crashes. It's totally stupid.
 
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.

i hope you bring this up with other people who have discussed this with me....or is it just me, your talking too?

Confederates?????......my argument has nothing to do with the confederacy......where do you come up with that?
 
Awesome

A thread of people who have never read Marx

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.
 
Capitalism reigns supreme in the garbage heap of outdated ideas. It's inherently flawed in that it gives the preponderance of power to the capitalist who is motivated to increase profits and drive wages down. Thus there is an upward flow of capital that results in a distortion of wealth distribution that erodes consumption capability that results in economic crashes. It's totally stupid.
Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty more than any other economic system devised. However, if you feel you got a better alternative to it, let's hear it then.
 
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.

But wait a minute, Gip. You aren't "the man", are you?


According to the "it's the man that keeps a teenager down" economic theory, it is vitally important to rail against anybody who might be it.


Wouldn't want that to be you.
 
But wait a minute, Gip. You aren't "the man", are you?


According to the "it's the man that keeps a teenager down" economic theory, it is vitally important to rail against anybody who might be it.


Wouldn't want that to be you.

I'll shoulder the white man's burden.
 
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.

Just the 1st? Or the rest also?
 
I'll shoulder the white man's burden.

and a mighty burden it can be!

2004377520.jpg
 
I think if hard work alone is not enough to provide a sufficient living, there is a problem in the system.

I'd say that is the most pertinent line in the thread thus far.

Paul
 
Was Karl Marx right about capitalism?

Marx appears to be saying that from a "greater good" POV, efficiency can become a problem, as it leads to the same work being done by fewer people, and more people out of work.

I'd agree we need to find the right amount of (in)efficiency, because too much is just as damaging as any other form of economic failure.
 
I'd say that is the most pertinent line in the thread thus far.

Paul

Just as long as people realize that taking away the incentive to work hard is no answer, either.

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.
 
Anyhoo, I've felt that Marx was right on many things, but wrong on many things. Dialectical materialism, as referred to today, is well bastardized from Plekhanov's original foundation theory. It's too personal and too subjective, which almost seems contradictory to the original definition. Most of the theories are developed through a desire for bloody revolution and contain buzzwords intent on inciting violence and assigning blame. Keep in mind that they were fighting a war in those days.

Marx's Labor Theory of Value was shoddy and overtly humanistic to the point of being void in principle and fundamentals. Hell, even Smith didn't really nail it properly in Wealth of Nations, but then again I was disrespectful of Adam Smith and many of his views as well. Value of most uncommon things, especially these days, have ignored concepts of it being a "positional good", which can also be linked to scarcity in certain ways. I have never believed that a price tag can be assigned to anything just based on tangential input and measurable material/labor.

And, finally, I believe in property, ownership, intellectual capital, and means of production - all things that Marx fought fiercely.
 
Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty more than any other economic system devised. However, if you feel you got a better alternative to it, let's hear it then.

Capitalism has put more people in poverty in terms of stealing indigenous lands, ruining the environment, denying people access to natural resources, and making people dependent on industrialized labor that rather than focusing on the production of necessities like food, places a focus on the production of various types of machinery that cannot be consumed for sustenance.
 
Capitalism has put more people in poverty in terms of stealing indigenous lands, ruining the environment, denying people access to natural resources, and making people dependent on industrialized labor that rather than focusing on the production of necessities like food, places a focus on the production of various types of machinery that cannot be consumed for sustenance.

Yeah, capitalism sucks for people who want to live in 1820s Alabama.
 
Sorry. I misunderstood what you meant in my response to your previous post. If you feel this way, please elaborate.

He was right in some of his analysis and predictions: mechanization of work, the squeeze on wages until they could no longer afford the items they create, obsession over arbitrary objects (*cough* IPhone *cough*), globalization, monopoly (or close to monopoly like with Wal-Mart), etc.

But, of course, he was wrong on other things, such as his prediction that industrialized nations would witness revolution of the proletariat first. I also believe he focused too much on the shopowners and not enough on the landowners.
 
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.

Any system where the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3 billion is unstable.
 
The question wasn't about whether Marx was right about communism or socialism. Was Marx right about capitalism?

True enough. But since Karl Marx was a communist I didn't bother to read his diatribe about capitalism. So compared to communism, capitalism is the way to go.
 
Marx appears to be saying that from a "greater good" POV, efficiency can become a problem, as it leads to the same work being done by fewer people, and more people out of work.

I'd agree we need to find the right amount of (in)efficiency, because too much is just as damaging as any other form of economic failure.

The million dollar question is whether that efficiency is possible under a purely capitalistic model. I really don't think it's possible. Having said that, I think it is possible under a model that has some capitalist elements. But that would not be capitalism, in the strict sense of the term.
 
Yeah, capitalism sucks for people who want to live in 1820s Alabama.

I don't want to live in 1820 Alabama! We's be's slabes 'den! :lamo
 
Marx appears to be saying that from a "greater good" POV, efficiency can become a problem, as it leads to the same work being done by fewer people, and more people out of work.

I'd agree we need to find the right amount of (in)efficiency, because too much is just as damaging as any other form of economic failure.

Efficiency at one task frees more labor to take on additional tasks. Seeking to keep the masses simply very busy, yet accomplishing no more, is the very definition of economic failure. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom