• 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
The very concept of something being "out of control" is inherently an opinion. So I have no idea what you are talking about.
What you stated, was stated as a definitive, not simply as an opinion.
Example: Initial statement.
"When you spend more on defense than the next ten nations COMBINED then something needs to change."
As I stated in reply; No it doesn't.



...And how much do you believe is enough to "project our power?" Is giving a number really that difficult for you to do?
I have already answered your question.
It like you do not realize that the amount is constantly in flux. Duh!
That is the amount we need. 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.



That has nothing to do with that part of the discussion.
Yeah, it most definitely is.

Ranting about your ideology is exactly what you are doing. You have a lot of cajones to criticize someone else for promoting their own ideology (isn't that the point of Debate Politics, anyways?)
:lamo

The way it is is not my ideology.
:doh
 
Let's suppose that slavery was legal in Saudi Arabia. And let's suppose King Abdullah purchased slaves in Saudi Arabia, came to live in the United States, and brought his slaves with him. In the United States, King Abdullah cannot claim those persons to be his property, because the 13th amendment says that slavery does not exist in the United States.


i am going to use your example and show why you are wrong.


the 13th amendment to the constitution has 2 clauses, the 1st making a general statement, stating that slavery shall not exist in the u.s.....this statement has no power to do anything.....its mute.

it is clause 2 that has the power..."Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

if the king were to come to america with slaves, and the congress or a state has NOT enacted a law against slavery, you cannot touch the king and his property......because no law has been created, to make slavery illegal, it takes criminal law to make slavery a crime.

the 13th amendment with its 1st clause has no power to do anything to a person, it takes legislation from the 2nd clause.....to back up the 1st clause....

which is why the 13th amendment does not apply to people.....it is federal law which is authorized by the 2nd clause that applies to people........."federal criminal law".
 
Dishonest argument. Not even comparable.

I'm sorry you cannot see how it destroys your argument that ownership is always a moral good.

Which isn't true , and why your ideology is stupid.

You are debating like a ten year old. :roll:

Yeah, it is.

No, it isn't. I proved it with a link in the other thread.

You haven't proven it isn't. :lamo

I have given a clear example of why it is bad. If you want more examples then here you go.


You haven't proven your claims at all. All you have done is provide bs opinions.

I provide links and studies. You have provided nothing but an overabundance of emoticons




Yes it is counter to ownership. That stands regardless of your beliefs.

It runs counter to PRIVATE ownership. You do at least realize there are different kinds of ownership, right?


It isn't common wealth. That is your fault for identifying it as such.

Common wealth or common property has been identified by economists/political thinkers including Adam Smith, Roderick T Long, JS Mill, etc. It is not something I made up.
 
I'm sorry you cannot see how it destroys your argument that ownership is always a moral good.
Really?
Interesting, as I feel sorry for you not understanding your ideas are crap and for trying to put words into my mouth I did not say.
Just more dishonesty from you.


You are debating like a ten year old.
iLOL
If so, I am clearly giving your juvenile arguments more than they deserve.


No, it isn't. I proved it with a link in the other thread.
No you didn't.


I have given a clear example of why it is bad. If you want more examples then here you go.
:lamo :doh :lamo
That isn't proof. That is opinion.


I provide links and studies. You have provided nothing but an overabundance of emoticons
No, you provided bs opinion.
Nothing more.


It runs counter to PRIVATE ownership.
Nough said.


Common wealth or common property has been identified by economists/political thinkers including Adam Smith, Roderick T Long, JS Mill, etc. It is not something I made up.
I do not care what they made up. They are irrelevant as the ideology is idiotic.
 
Last edited:
Really?
You sectioned it off to reply to it separately when you know damn well is was stated again in with what was said above.
It applies to that.
There is no theft.
Your comparison was :doh

So again, as already stated.
They are profiting. That is a good thing. They also risk losing and do lose.
That should not be discouraged.


Way not to recognize it in context of what was said.

I have responded to the bolded portion. I am not going to repeat myself.
 
What you stated, was stated as a definitive, not simply as an opinion.
Example: Initial statement.
"When you spend more on defense than the next ten nations COMBINED then something needs to change."
As I stated in reply; No it doesn't.

Give me a break. :roll: Anyone could tell you that was a statement of opinion. You do the same exact thing with your, "NO YOUR WRONG! BS! ETC."


I have already answered your question.
It like you do not realize that the amount is constantly in flux. Duh!

Lol, I never said that dollar amount has to be fixed. But I can see you aren't going to give me a ballpark figure so I'm going to move on.




The way it is is not my ideology.

You really have no clue. Anyone can tell you how it is. Defending the status quo IS your ideology.
 
I have responded to the bolded portion. I am not going to repeat myself.
And you were wrong then as you are now.


Give me a break. :roll: Anyone could tell you that was a statement of opinion. You do the same exact thing with your, "NO YOUR WRONG! BS! ETC."
Au contraire. You are wrong because you are wrong.


Lol, I never said that dollar amount has to be fixed. But I can see you aren't going to give me a ballpark figure so I'm going to move on.
Yes do move on. My reply was sufficient.
An exact figure is not needed, nor can it be given as this countries needs are in flux.
As much as we need to project our power and support our interests and continue research and development and so we can keep it that way for a good long time. That is the amount we need.



You really have no clue. Anyone can tell you how it is. Defending the status quo IS your ideology.

No, you have no clue.
I am against property tax which you already know, so no, I am not defending the status quo. So stop telling untruths.
What I am doing is blasting your ridiculous ideology. Which is a little different than supporting the status quo.
 
i am going to use your example and show why you are wrong.


the 13th amendment to the constitution has 2 clauses, the 1st making a general statement, stating that slavery shall not exist in the u.s.....this statement has no power to do anything.....its mute.

it is clause 2 that has the power..."Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

if the king were to come to america with slaves, and the congress or a state has NOT enacted a law against slavery, you cannot touch the king and his property......because no law has been created, to make slavery illegal, it takes criminal law to make slavery a crime.

the 13th amendment with its 1st clause has no power to do anything to a person, it takes legislation from the 2nd clause.....to back up the 1st clause....

which is why the 13th amendment does not apply to people.....it is federal law which is authorized by the 2nd clause that applies to people........."federal criminal law".

The point is that they are not his property in the United States. Property ownership involves demonstrating proof of ownership to the local sovereign. And that's not possible in the United States because the 13th amendment has made an absolute declaration that slavery does not exist. As a result, the King cannot claim that slaves to be his property in the United States and he can be prosecuted for violations of criminal statutes such as forced labor.
 
The point is that they are not his property in the United States. Property ownership involves demonstrating proof of ownership to the local sovereign. And that's not possible in the United States because the 13th amendment has made an absolute declaration that slavery does not exist. As a result, the King cannot claim that slaves to be his property in the United States and he can be prosecuted for violations of criminal statutes such as forced labor.

you just stated prosecuted under criminal statutes......that is what the 2nd clause of the 13th authorizes congress to create on the issue of slavery........federal laws....IE. federal statutes

so a person does not adhere to constitutional law.....they adhere to federal law........prosecuted by federal statutes.

the 13th does not apply to citizens, federal law applies to citizens, you cannot use constitutional law to arrest and try people in court.
 
you just stated prosecuted under criminal statutes......that is what the 2nd clause of the 13th authorizes congress to create on the issue of slavery........federal laws....IE. federal statutes

so a person does not adhere to constitutional law.....they adhere to federal law........prosecuted by federal statutes.

the 13th does not apply to citizens, federal law applies to citizens, you cannot use constitutional law to arrest and try people in court.

You missed the part about not being able to claim slaves as property. That is a direct result of the 13th amendment.
 
without federal law......no one can take action.

The action of the 13th amendment is that as soon as someone sets foot on US territory, they cannot claim that another human being is their property.
 
Marxism is a completely legitimate critique of capitalism. It is not, however, a remedy to the problem. People seem to confuse Marxism, the critique of capitalism, and Communism, a proactive remedy proposed as a solution to the problems noted in Marxist critiques.
 
The action of the 13th amendment is that as soon as someone sets foot on US territory, they cannot claim that another human being is their property.

you cannot do anything to anyone, unless it is by federal law, constitutional law does not give government authority to arrest and try a citizen, it must be federal law.

constitutional law does not apply to citizens.
 
you cannot do anything to anyone, unless it is by federal law, constitutional law does not give government authority to arrest and try a citizen, it must be federal law.

constitutional law does not apply to citizens.

Again, the application of the 13th ammendment to citizens is that it immediately takes away their ability to claim that someone else is their slave on American soil.
 
I think his writings are a product of his time. The exploitation is still there. Today your are labeled a communist for wanting a 3% performance raise. The labor laws are better now in the UK and USA though.
You may want anything you wish. You are a statist if you demand that politicians coerce your company into firing you over your idiotic belief that you are worth 3% more. And statists tend to be Marxists no matter how much they try to hide it.
 
When I was young I was brainwashed to believe that what Marx put forward was the most evil thing on the planet. I was very surprised when I got older and started to learn about it a bit more. I find that the Marxist take on capitalism is for the most part accurate.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with capitalism.
Crony capitalism is not capitalism. It is statism.
Massive regulations that damage our souls is not capitalism. It is statism.
If you are younger than 50 you might not have ever seen capitalism.
 
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with capitalism.
Crony capitalism is not capitalism. It is statism.
Massive regulations that damage our souls is not capitalism. It is statism.
If you are younger than 50 you might not have ever seen capitalism.

No one has seen capitalism. It is only an abstraction.
 
Again, the application of the 13th ammendment to citizens is that it immediately takes away their ability to claim that someone else is their slave on American soil.

without a federal statute created by clause 2, you cannot take action against a citizen using clause 1

the constitution grants congress the power to punish counterfeiting, however if congress creates NO federal statue for counterfeiting the government can do nothing.
 
without a federal statute created by clause 2, you cannot take action against a citizen using clause 1

the constitution grants congress the power to punish counterfeiting, however if congress creates NO federal statue for counterfeiting the government can do nothing.

All legal actions are not criminal.
 
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.

However, I do foresee the next big crisis in capitalism is how to keep the population employed and their minds off revolution. Folks who are out competed don't simply go away and I think we are going to increasingly find that we need to find something for them to do. Our current solution, dubbed as welfare, doesn't really do all that great in preserving the dignity and pride in those who are being helped and because it underminds their spirits, its harm long term viability for short term gain. I think we are going to have to find a new method which doesn't leave people to starve or too desperate yet strikes a balance with the needs of a greater society. If we can't, we will consume ourselves as a country.

I am not exactly sure social democracy is the answer or at least some aspects of need to be rethought given the lessons in human nature we have learned over the last fourty years.
Let the revolution come.

The crisis is in statism. It fails every time it is tried.

You want socialism because you may believe you will be better off. You are living under a tyranny and you believe that capitalism has failed. It is socialism that has failed. But you are blind to it because your liberal politicians have told you that all the federal thuggery is for your benefit.

The middle way is fascist to the core. You and the nation have embraced the twin heresies of Marxism, fascism and socialism.
 
Here a link to the Madison citation:

The Federalist No. 10

These are the sections relevant to this discussion, all numerals and emphasis added:



(1) Here it is obvious that by "democracy" Madison means what in modern parlance is termed "oligarchy".

(2) Here Madison discredits universal suffrage. This and slavery were where he and the rest of the early US leadership fell most short of modern democratic practice and ideals.

(3ABC) Here it is obvious that Madison used the term "republic" to mean what in modern parlance is termed "democracy".

Ergo Madison might be termed hostile to what we term democracy on the basis of his views on suffrage, but not on the basis of his views on the core democratic principle of elective representation. Madison supported democratic government.
That was amazing. Can you also pull a rabbit out of your hat?
Democracy bad. Representative republic good.
 
That was amazing. Can you also pull a rabbit out of your hat?
Democracy bad. Representative republic good.
There is nothing amazing about accurate reading comprehension and accurate critical thinking. Try them sometime.
 
Back
Top Bottom