• 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
mildsteel said:
all legal actions are not criminal.
Click to expand...

illegal?

did not say it was, but slavery is criminal

you have to make a law, if you going to be able to make something illegal, and build a case against a citizen

federal law does that, constitutional law does not.
 
USViking said:
There is nothing amazing about accurate reading comprehension and accurate critical thinking. Try them sometime.
Click to expand...
Physician, heal thyself.

If you are not mistaken then you are a liar. It is clear that you are not claiming error.
 
ernst barkmann said:
illegal?

did not say it was, but slavery is criminal

you have to make a law, if you going to be able to make something illegal, and build a case against a citizen

federal law does that, constitutional law does not.
Click to expand...

This issue has been beat in the ground now. I will again note what the Supreme Court has said about the matter and leave it at that.

This amendment, as well as the Fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing, without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances. By its own unaided force and effect, it abolished slavery and established universal freedom.
..............
the amendment is not a mere prohibition of State laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court hit the nail squarely on the head, and I totally agree with what they have said. That issue is closed as far as I am concerned.
 
There is nothing wrong with capitalism. There is plenty wrong with the way government interferes with the mechanisms that keep it functioning properly.
 
sawdust said:
There is nothing wrong with capitalism. There is plenty wrong with the way government interferes with the mechanisms that keep it functioning properly.
Click to expand...

Like many right-libertarians you are confusing capitalism and freed market.

Capitalism and Free market economy are somewhat entwined as one is an integral part of the other. However, in their true definitions they differ .While capitalism refers more to the production of wealth, the term free market dwells more on the exchange of wealth in various methods. Capital is an essential basic element for both capitalism and free market economies. However, free competition is not an essential element of capitalism but of ‘free markets’. This is because in capitalism, capital owners have a lot of dominance over the means of production and as such may yield unfair influence.
 
Not an expert on Marx, but from what I know, he was right that the 19th century laisser-faire capitalism in Europe would not be able to survive.

However, he was dead wrong on his political predictions. Obviously, consciousness was a bit stronger than Marx gave it credit, so nationalism and fascism rose instead of a commie world revolution. Many workers didn't want to be free, but die for their nations instead. And he totally underestimated the capacity of liberal republics to adopt and change, to become more inclusive and to tame capitalism.

Liberal republics, with their regulation of generally free markets, have solved the problems Marx found, much better than socialism ever has anywhere.
 
Geoist said:
Like many right-libertarians you are confusing capitalism and freed market.

Capitalism and Free market economy are somewhat entwined as one is an integral part of the other. However, in their true definitions they differ .While capitalism refers more to the production of wealth, the term free market dwells more on the exchange of wealth in various methods. Capital is an essential basic element for both capitalism and free market economies. However, free competition is not an essential element of capitalism but of ‘free markets’. This is because in capitalism, capital owners have a lot of dominance over the means of production and as such may yield unfair influence.
Click to expand...

Your definition picks nits. Capitalism only works as designed in free markets. I have no idea what a freed market is. When government gets involved in price fixing or subsidy capitalism suffers. When crony capitalism is the norm capitalism vanishes. Capitalism encourages the creation of wealth as does free trade because when traders trade, they do it with a sense of improving the situations of each side. Buy a tank of gas, the consumer remains mobile and improves his life and the gas station owner makes a profit enabling him to pay his bills and improve his life. You are trying to draw a distinction where there is none.
 
mildsteel said:
this issue has been beat in the ground now. I will again note what the supreme court has said about the matter and leave it at that.



The supreme court hit the nail squarely on the head, and i totally agree with what they have said. That issue is closed as far as i am concerned.
Click to expand...

well you proved my point already when you stated, prosecuted on federal statute, not constitutional law.

So that proves constitutional law does not apply to people, federal does.
 
German guy said:
Not an expert on Marx, but from what I know, he was right that the 19th century laisser-faire capitalism in Europe would not be able to survive.

However, he was dead wrong on his political predictions. Obviously, consciousness was a bit stronger than Marx gave it credit, so nationalism and fascism rose instead of a commie world revolution. Many workers didn't want to be free, but die for their nations instead. And he totally underestimated the capacity of liberal republics to adopt and change, to become more inclusive and to tame capitalism.

Liberal republics, with their regulation of generally free markets, have solved the problems Marx found, much better than socialism ever has anywhere.
Click to expand...

They have not solved the problems. And what is happening in Europe in places like Spain, Greece, and Italy is a testament to this. What has kept the system alive is credit, and that is reaching it's limits. What will happen eventually is that the majority of people will lead a wretched existence while a very few brutally exploit them. It is a matter of time.
 
sawdust said:
Your definition picks nits. Capitalism only works as designed in free markets.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is simply an economic system where the means of production, trade, and industry are controlled by private owners. In of itself, it has little to do with a free and open market. The modern term 'capitalism' is associated with Marx who described the current system. When pressed, any libertarian will acknowledge the fact our economy is not open and free.

Kevin Carson goes on: A wide range of thinkers, from the free market anarchist Lysander Spooner to the Marxist Immanuel Wallerstein, have pointed out historic capitalism’s continuities with feudalism. Capitalism, as a historic system of political economy, was really just an outgrowth of feudalism with markets grafted in and allowed to operate in the interstices to a limited extent.
Center for a Stateless Society » “Free Market Capitalism” is an Oxymoron


I have no idea what a freed market is.
Click to expand...

I like to add the 'd' to distinguish between a truly open market system compared to what we have now (which some like to erroneously call a 'free market.')

You are trying to draw a distinction where there is none.
Click to expand...

When vulgar libertarians continuously defend the current system as if we live in a free(d) market then it is far from a nonissue.
 
Last edited:
Although, at this point, I don't know that this observation is necessarily true for all cases, I think it is certainly true with regards to capitalism. Specifically, the idea is that the manner in which surplus value is extracted from the ruled by the rulers, effects the nature of the state.

The specific economic form in which unpaid surplus labor is pumped out of the direct producers determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and in turn reacts upon it as a determinant. But on it is based the entire formation of the economic community growing out of the productive relations themselves, and therewith its specific political form likewise.

It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers – a relationship whose actual form always naturally corresponds to a definite stage of development in the ways and means of labor and hence its social productive power – which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden foundation of the entire social structure and hence also of the political form of the sovereignty-dependency relationship – in short, of the specific form of the state in each case.
Click to expand...

To see this idea in practical terms consider this

4d74b366315c748cc192683eb9044dbf.jpg


The money and reach of this organization are completely unique in American politics. Filings show that the network backed by the Kochs and their donors outspent all other independent conservative groups in 2012, and it even matched the spending of the national coalition of labor unions. The difference between the Kochs' network and the labor unions, however, is that labor unions aren't nearly this sneaky with the source of their political donations.

According to an analysis of tax returns by the Post and the Center for Responsive Politics, the 17 conservative groups you see above have pretty deep pockets. In 2012, they raised at least $407 million and funneled it to conservative campaigns across the nation. This surpasses even Karl Rove's super PAC, American Crossroads, which raised a comparatively paltry $325 million.

Because the donors are unknown, it's unclear how much money comes directly from the pockets of the Koch brothers and how much comes from outside sources. But we do know where it is going.

Most of the money flows through two non-profits that essentially function as banks that feed the money to other conservative organizations. The biggest of these faux banks is the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, which brought in nearly $256 million in its first year alone according to WaPo. Because Freedom Partners is structured as a business league, the majority of that money came from "dues" paid by its 200-ish members, and these members only have to disclose their affiliation if they feel like it.

Freedom Partners and TC4 Trust — a similar organization that is now defunct — funneled most of their funds to national conservative organizations. They left some funds to run through yet another intermediary, the Center to Protect Patient Rights, which then spread the money around to even more organizations on the right.

Essentially, this is an (evil?) genius scheme that allows anyone to make massive anonymous political donations as long as they are OK with not picking the specific conservative organization that receives their money — and it's completely legal.
Click to expand...

Show This Chart to Anyone Who Thinks the Koch Brothers' Political Influence is Overstated - PolicyMic
 
Marx was surely correct in this observation

Contradiction in the capitalist mode of production. The workers are important for the market as buyers of commodities. But as sellers of their commodity - labor-power - capitalist society has the tendency to restrict them to their minimum price. Further contradiction: the periods in which capitalist production exerts all its forces regularly show themselves to be periods of over-production; because the limit to the application of the productive powers is not simply the production of value, but also its realization. However, the sale of commodities, the realization of commodity capital, and thus of surplus-value as well, is restricted not by the consumer needs of society in general, but by the consumer needs of a society in which the great majority are always poor and must always remain poor.
Click to expand...
 
MildSteel said:
Marx was surely correct in this observation
Click to expand...

No. He wasn't.

Free market capitalism means that you get to decide for you and I get to decide for me. When I choose the things that are in my best interest and you do the same we have the best possible self-organized outcomes. When the collectivists get involved we end up with a mess.

Marx was a prolific, very smart, idiot.
 
Misterveritis said:
No. He wasn't.

Free market capitalism means that you get to decide for you and I get to decide for me. When I choose the things that are in my best interest and you do the same we have the best possible self-organized outcomes. When the collectivists get involved we end up with a mess.

Marx was a prolific, very smart, idiot.
Click to expand...

Decisions that are made under coercive conditions are not free. For example, Alan Greenspan testified before Congress once that wages were not rising because of increased worker insecurity. So although the workers may have felt that higher wages were in their best interests, out of fear of losing their jobs, i.e. coercion due to fear of job loss, they accepted lower wages. That is not a free decision.

Another example. I remember one person who used to work at a plant that sold and serviced Caterpillar machines, told me a story of how the workers there decided to go on strike for higher wages. The owners of the plant were brothers who were millionaires many times over. One of the brothers came to the picket line and told the workers that he and his brother did not need money because they were rich. He said that the workers had a choice, they could either get back to work for their current wages, or he and his brother would close the plant and they would be without jobs. The workers went back to work and that was the end of the matter.

The point is, these are choices that are made under the threat of coercion, and cannot be said to be choices at all.

The problem with this position is that it assumes that there is a parity of bargaining strength between workers and the possessors of capital, and that is simply not the case.
 
MildSteel said:
Decisions that are made under coercive conditions are not free. For example, Alan Greenspan testified before Congress once that wages were not rising because of increased worker insecurity. So although the workers may have felt that higher wages were in their best interests, out of fear of losing their jobs, i.e. coercion due to fear of job loss, they accepted lower wages. That is not a free decision.

Another example. I remember one person who used to work at a plant that sold and serviced Caterpillar machines, told me a story of how the workers there decided to go on strike for higher wages. The owners of the plant were brothers who were millionaires many times over. One of the brothers came to the picket line and told the workers that he and his brother did not need money because they were rich. He said that the workers had a choice, they could either get back to work for their current wages, or he and his brother would close the plant and they would be without jobs. The workers went back to work and that was the end of the matter.

The point is, these are choices that are made under the threat of coercion, and cannot be said to be choices at all.

The problem with this position is that it assumes that there is a parity of bargaining strength between workers and the possessors of capital, and that is simply not the case.
Click to expand...
All collectivists believe as you do.
 
Misterveritis said:
No. He wasn't.

Free market capitalism means that you get to decide for you and I get to decide for me. When I choose the things that are in my best interest and you do the same we have the best possible self-organized outcomes. When the collectivists get involved we end up with a mess.

Marx was a prolific, very smart, idiot.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the actual quote from Marx did you ...

READ BEFORE YOU POST!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom