• 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
You quoted someone talking about what Karl Marx said, and totally ignored the actual Karl Marx quote, InFact you ignored the entire argument of what Karl Marx was right about and threw a Red Herring, i.e. arguing about something totally unrelated.
K. Marx was a dangerous kook.

Reading Marx is like taking an ink-blot test. One sees much that is not there. People who believe Marx was right, well, they are just as wrong as he was.
 
Marx's observation that the worker under capitalism is a mere commodity was on mark. The object of labor do not exist for the sake of the worker, but the worker exists for the sake of the objects of labor. Thus the worker's labor becomes an alien object which confronts him and over which he has little or no control. Thus, the worker wanders from place to place, like a pitiful puppy looking for a home, seeking employment. Frequently, he must take whatever is offered to him, regardless of whether it is something he likes or not. If he does not like what he is given, he must endure regardless, as there is no sympathy. If he complains, he is labeled a cry baby. And even if he may take some satisfaction in his work, he is confronted constantly with the fear of unemployment, because the capitalist cares little about him as a person, but rather how much surplus value can be extracted from his labor.
If one does not want to be a commodity then rise above. Get a skill people are willing to pay for. Marx was an idiot. Fortunately he is a dead idiot. Unfortunately society's losers continue to see something there that really is not there.
 
K. Marx was a dangerous kook.

Reading Marx is like taking an ink-blot test. One sees much that is not there. People who believe Marx was right, well, they are just as wrong as he was.

He was right about some things, wrong about others. His critique of capitalism, for the most part is sound.
 
That's right you have no idea, and that's the point.

Hey, I've worked as many jobs as the next guy. I think everyone here has worked a job. And you're the only one to witness such horrible atrocities at the workplace.

Maybe you're just making things up?
 
If one does not want to be a commodity then rise above. Get a skill people are willing to pay for. Marx was an idiot. Fortunately he is a dead idiot. Unfortunately society's losers continue to see something there that really is not there.

Even if one has a skill people are willing to pay for, he is still no better than a commodity, who is valued not so much as a person, but more for the surplus value that can be extracted for his labor. The evidence for this can be seen in the outsourcing of software jobs to places like India.
 
Even if one has a skill people are willing to pay for, he is still no better than a commodity, who is valued not so much as a person, but more for the surplus value that can be extracted for his labor. The evidence for this can be seen in the outsourcing of software jobs to places like India.
Society's losers turn to Marx. It is easier than accepting responsibility for themselves.
 
Society's losers turn to Marx. It is easier than accepting responsibility for themselves.

That is the position of a weak mind. The truth is the truth, no matter what the source.
 
He was right about some things, wrong about others. His critique of capitalism, for the most part is sound.

No it wasn't. Have you read it? I have. It is a difficult read for one who is not a failure looking for an excuse.
 
That is the position of a weak mind. The truth is the truth, no matter what the source.

Your argument (or should I say Marx worship) has devolved to "the truth"? That's sad.
 
That is the position of a weak mind. The truth is the truth, no matter what the source.
The truth is the truth. Just don't expect to read it in an article or a book by Karl Marx.
Society's losers turn to those who push Marx as an apologist for their failures.
 
No it wasn't. Have you read it? I have. It is a difficult read for one who is not a failure looking for an excuse.

I have spent some time reading Marx's works. I am not an expert on Marx by any stretch. They are somewhat difficult, and I certainly don't agree with everything that I have read. Some of it is way off mark. However, his critique of capitalism is basically sound.
 
I have spent some time reading Marx's works. I am not an expert on Marx by any stretch. They are somewhat difficult, and I certainly don't agree with everything that I have read. Some of it is way off mark. However, his critique of capitalism is basically sound.
LOL. No it isn't. His critique of Capital was Marxist.
 
The truth is the truth. Just don't expect to read it in an article or a book by Karl Marx.
Society's losers turn to those who push Marx as an apologist for their failures.

You keep repeating this mantra about losers and Marx. I'm really not interested in some weak minded propaganda. If you have something specific that you want to discuss about something that Marx has said, please do so. Otherwise, you can play games with someone else.
 
He was right about some things, wrong about others. His critique of capitalism, for the most part is sound.

The hell it is.

By is definition Capitalism should have reached its critcal velocity decades ago.

As profit increased and produced monopolies and a Oligarchy of the rich and few.

He guessed Capitalism would fissile out when more and more Capitalist lost their jobs and joined the oppressed class of the unemployed workers.

He was a idiot.

His attributed the value of a shoe, shirt ,book, etc by the amount of Labor that it took to make the object.

He was wrong about Capitalism driving down wages to a level that barely sustained the workers.

How about you spend a whole 3 minutes on Marx before coming in here and making dump statements.

All I can say is bad economies in general really bring out the crazy people and the radicals in a society.

Always have always will.

Think Germany a few years after the Versailles treaty.
 
The hell it is.

By is definition Capitalism should have reached its critcal velocity decades ago.

As profit increased and produced monopolies and a Oligarchy of the rich and few.

He guessed Capitalism would fissile out when more and more Capitalist lost their jobs and joined the oppressed class of the unemployed workers.

He was a idiot.

His attributed the value of a shoe, shirt ,book, etc by the amount of Labor that it took to make the object.

He was wrong about Capitalism driving down wages to a level that barely sustained the workers.

How about you spend a whole 3 minutes on Marx before coming in here and making dump statements.

All I can say is bad economies in general really bring out the crazy people and the radicals in a society.

Always have always will.

Think Germany a few years after the Versailles treaty.

I say the hell he was right. I said he was wrong about some things. His critique of capitalism is basically sound, not necessarily his predictions. He was right about wages. Capitalism has been keep alive by the enormous expansion of credit. The debt of the US public and private is 50 trillion dollars. If at this moment you demanded that everyone pay all the debt that they owe and took everything that they had to collect the money that they owed, most people would be destitute.

Perhaps you may impress some with the picture of a devil, but I spent time reading and thinking about it. If you want to discuss, do so in a respectful tone.
 
I say the hell he was right. I said he was wrong about some things. His critique of capitalism is basically sound, not necessarily his predictions. He was right about wages. Capitalism has been keep alive by the enormous expansion of credit. The debt of the US public and private is 50 trillion dollars. If at this moment you demanded that everyone pay all the debt that they owe and took everything that they had to collect the money that they owed, most people would be destitute.

Perhaps you may impress some with the picture of a devil, but I spent time reading and thinking about it. If you want to discuss, do so in a respectful tone.

No he was NOT right about wages.

Marx didn't think in specific terms, he spoke in generalites.

His comments on wages bottoming out were in reference to Capitalisms demise.

ALL wages exept for the few Oligarchs would plummet down to levels that barely sustained the working class.

Thats not the case and will never be the case.

And why exactly would every creditor instantly call on their outstanding accounts to be payed off ?
 
2008 Proves he was right..................enough said.
 
No he was NOT right about wages.

Marx didn't think in specific terms, he spoke in generalites.

His comments on wages bottoming out were in reference to Capitalisms demise.

ALL wages exept for the few Oligarchs would plummet down to levels that barely sustained the working class.

Thats not the case and will never be the case.

If we are going to have a meaningful discussion, we are going to have to understand exactly what it is we are referring to. I'm going refer to exactly what Marx said that I feel is correct about wages. In an earlier post, I provided the following quote from Marx:

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.

That observation is correct. In that regard, Marx said in "Wage-Labor and Capital"

The share of (profit) increases in the same proportion in which the share of labor (wages) falls, and vice versa. Profit rises in the same degree in which wages fall; it falls in the same degree in which wages rise.

Furthermore with regards to wages Marx said the following:

Furthermore, to the same degree in which the division of labor increases, is the labor simplified. The special skill of the laborer becomes worthless. He becomes transformed into a simple monotonous force of production, with neither physical nor mental elasticity. His work becomes accessible to all; therefore competitors press upon him from all sides. Moreover, it must be remembered that the more simple, the more easily learned the work is, so much the less is its cost to production, the expense of its acquisition, nd so much the lower must the wages sink -- for, like the price of any other commodity, they are determined by the cost of production.
.................
The laborer seeks to maintain the total of his wages for a given time by performing more labor, either by working a great number of hours, or by accomplishing more in the same number of hours. Thus, urged on by want, he himself multiplies the disastrous effects of division of labor. The result is: the more he works, the less wages he receives. And for this simple reason: the more he works, the more he competes against his fellow workmen, the more he compels them to compete against him, and to offer themselves on the same wretched conditions as he does; so that, in the last analysis, he competes against himself as a member of the working class.

To see this, consider the following. Previously, creating contour lines from maps of terrain elevation was a skill that was done manually by hand. Now it is something that is done by computer, and anyone that can use a computer can, with little guidance, do it. Now let's suppose that when it was a specialized skill that was done by hand a person was paid $50,000 a year. Now, that it is done by computer, someone could be paid $25,000 a year to do the job. In order to compensate, the person who was paid $50,000 a year must either work double the time or become twice as efficient as the $25,000 a year person. Thus for the same money, he is essentially working twice as hard, which means he is making less. Not only that, but he is creating conditions that will make his competition work harder, which puts more pressure on himself.

And why exactly would every creditor instantly call on their outstanding accounts to be payed off ?

You are missing the point. The point was that the current capitalist system is being sustained through the enormous extension of credit.
 
You are missing the point. The point was that the current capitalist system is being sustained through the enormous extension of credit.
No. That is crony capitalism which is not capitalism.

I am a bit tired of Marxists. You guys are so tedious.
 
Back
Top Bottom