• 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 horror!!! Stop living 66 years ago. Why don't progressives realize time have changed?

Tangentially, might I ask what your religion (or your parents) was when you were age 8 in the 1940s? Also, is it fair to hold people accountable from 66 years ago accountable today?

And, what does that have to do with modern progressives? In the 1940's, weren't they still pro-eugenics, etc?

Yea just let those Nazi war criminals alone right?
 
Fallacy: Ad Hominem

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

You are person A. Marx is not person A. You are not Karl Marx. I am not in a debate with Karl Marx.

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."


You are Bill.

1. Marx makes claims in Capital
2. In arguing that Marx's claims were wrong you simply attack Marx as a person.

That's an Adhominem, that's what you are doing.

I never said that Kapital mentions the words greedy bastards. That was a very weak debate tactic. Please try something new.

Surplus value isnt the same as profit, but nice try. If surplus value was nothing more than just another way of saying profit then damn why did Marx devote so much time in Kapital writing about such a simplistic word? You make Marx look like a idiot with that argument.

So you are claiming that everything in Das Kapital has evidence? Or is it just your opinion that there is evidence?

That is EXACTLY what Surplus value is, and Marx devoted a Whole lot of time to it because its an extremely important part of Capitalism ..... JEsus CHrist, how the **** are you arguing With me here and you don't even know what Surplus value is?

Lets be completely honest what Das Kapital is: Das kapital | Define Das kapital at Dictionary.com


Das Kapital
Das Ka·pi·tal [German dahs kah-pi-tahl]
noun
a work (1867) by Karl Marx, dealing with economic, social, and political relations within society and containing the tenets on which modern communism is based.

Cultural Dictionary
Das Kapital [(dahs kah-pi- tahl )]

(3 vol., 1861, 1885, 1894) The greatest work by Karl Marx on economics; the title is German for “capital.” It describes the capitalist system in highly critical terms and predicts its defeat by socialism.

"Let us put the matter this way: Marx did not set out merely to explain the necessity of the social relations of capital. This would be an entirely one-sided view of Marx’s work, a view which can, under certain circumstances, transform Marxism into its opposite – into an instrument for ‘justifying’ these very social relations. ‘ The social relations of capitalism exist in a state of relative, not absolute, equilibrium, an equilibrium which must be overcome through the struggle of opposed forces which arise on the, basis of these social relations. In this way, Marx grasped always that investigator, if his work was to be truly scientific, must place at the very centre of his endeavours a conscious struggle to understand his own relationship to the forces being analysed; this in turn was, for Marx, inseparable from a study of his own struggle, in theory and in practice, to grasp these facts. Thus in the Communist Manifesto we read:

Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of the old society, assumes such a violent. glaring character that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as therefore at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie; so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/works/capital/ch04.htm

"Here Marx and Engels were in fact writing of themselves. On the basis of all their practical and theoretical work they alone at that stage ‘comprehended theoretically the historical movement as a whole’. They alone had been able to grasp the historical-revolutionary significance of the appearance of the working class, a class ‘in itself’ which had consciously to be transformed into a class ‘for itself’. The actual struggle to do this – and knowing that every aspect of one’s theoretical work was subordinated to this task as for Marx and Engels the real essence of objectivity. Theory could only be developed as an expression and instrument of a definite social force in history. Marx did not ‘criticize’ capitalist social relations merely by revealing the unresolved contradictions in the work of political economy. He sought to show that the very development of capitalism actually created an instrument – the modern working class – which was obliged in life, in practice, to ‘criticize’ capitalism, to ‘criticize’ political economy, a criticism the high point of which was the overthrow of the existing social relations. Here is the very heart of Marx’s ‘critique’ of political economy. Not only must the whole of Capital be seen from this point of view, but at the same time it provides the key to understanding how Marx develops his investigation over the three volumes."


Marxists agree with me, that Das Kapital istnt just a lowly science book about social sciences. Which means that Kapital is more than what YOU claim. Why hide it as if no idiot cant see it? Is there something that you are afraid of? Or have you not actually read Das kapital? lol


Can you PLEASE, find one thing in Capital, in Marx's analysis that you can ACTUALLY critique .... ¨

Instead of looking **** up in the Dictionary that does nothing to forward the debate other than making definitions.

Find me ONE point in Marx's analysis of Capitalism that you dissagree With.
 
1. Marx makes claims in Capital
2. In arguing that Marx's claims were wrong you simply attack Marx as a person.

That's an Adhominem, that's what you are doing.
For the last time I am not debating Marx the person I am speaking to you a real live person. If I were to call you names that would be a personal attack on you as the living breathing debater. Karl Marx though isnt a even alive muchless speaking with me. And well my remark where I lampooned his idiotic fanatical ass was a opinion and I presented it as that. You dont like my opinion of Marx dont get all but hurt over it.



That is EXACTLY what Surplus value is, and Marx devoted a Whole lot of time to it because its an extremely important part of Capitalism ..... JEsus CHrist, how the **** are you arguing With me here and you don't even know what Surplus value is?

Odd..




Can you PLEASE, find one thing in Capital, in Marx's analysis that you can ACTUALLY critique .... ¨

Instead of looking **** up in the Dictionary that does nothing to forward the debate other than making definitions.

Find me ONE point in Marx's analysis of Capitalism that you dissagree With.
Again you didnt like my critique of Capital, and that isnt my problem. I dont care if you agree , disagree or make funny faces. If you think that you can reject my argument then insist on another just quit now, because, I am not going to jump through your hoops you are not the ring master.

I find it comical though that you ignored Marxist.com's part where they agree with me. In fact you are the only person that I have every talked to that has tried to divorce Marx from the Communist Manifesto as if it wasnt important to Marx or related entirely to Das Kapital. Its like you live in a alternate universe. its gunny though you call Das Kapital a book on economics while the rest of the world thinks of it a social science. Well except the Marxists they think it is very important part of Marxist doctrine.
 
For the last time I am not debating Marx the person I am speaking to you a real live person. If I were to call you names that would be a personal attack on you as the living breathing debater. Karl Marx though isnt a even alive muchless speaking with me. And well my remark where I lampooned his idiotic fanatical ass was a opinion and I presented it as that. You dont like my opinion of Marx dont get all but hurt over it.


Odd..

Again you didnt like my critique of Capital, and that isnt my problem. I dont care if you agree , disagree or make funny faces. If you think that you can reject my argument then insist on another just quit now, because, I am not going to jump through your hoops you are not the ring master.

I find it comical though that you ignored Marxist.com's part where they agree with me. In fact you are the only person that I have every talked to that has tried to divorce Marx from the Communist Manifesto as if it wasnt important to Marx or related entirely to Das Kapital. Its like you live in a alternate universe. its gunny though you call Das Kapital a book on economics while the rest of the world thinks of it a social science. Well except the Marxists they think it is very important part of Marxist doctrine.

Where was Your critique, show me, which post? Show me the ACTUAL critique you wrote.
 
Where was Your critique, show me, which post? Show me the ACTUAL critique you wrote.

It is there for all to see, do you not remember our conversation thus far?

In order for one to accept Marx's conclusions in Das Kapital one first needs to believe the tenants of the Communist manifesto. The biggest bias that Marx uses is that profiting on labor force is bad. In Marx's critique of the social standard in a capitalist economy he asserts that any profit gained by a business owner is a exploitation of the labor in which he purchased. So in Marx's view of Capitalism we end up with a paradox. Meaning that labor must be paid a natural compensation for their toil, they should gain all of the profit made from their work on the ware. But to assert such a thing would mean that the laborer was profiting off of the employer. Because the employee did not put any inverted worth in the materials or machines used to make the product they do not naturally deserve full credit for their work by gaining full price for their work and the materials and methods of production. Marx assumes that if the worker is getting anything less than the value of the workers labor plus the value of the wares that they produce that they are being exploited. The assumption or the bias rather is that the worker should take the brunt of the investments needed for the wares that are being produced and that the individual(s) owners should be eliminated as being evil exploiters of labor value. But doing so only moves the goal posts and now puts the worker in the position of being their own exploiter considering that a person agrees to do work on things that they do not actually get to keep because the need the resources that it produces for their own individual needs.

Hopefully you read the above framing paragraph.

When a person is born normally the family takes care of the childs needs up to a certain point. Usually that point is age related. At that point the young adult enters society and takes care of them self, the parents dont taking care of them. There are some exceptions of course but that is the general gist of life that it is the individuals responsibility to keep them self alive. AT that point the person is at a low in lifes accomplishments. Certain wares are needed by individuals in order to live in modern society. These things change with time. Of course some people prefer less while others prefer more. The act of obtaining those things on the individuals part is a type of profit for the individual. Add to that if the individual gets a partner and children or other dependents like family members ie siblings, elders, friends in need etc. All of these added wares need to come from somewhere. A human in terms of value actually has no value except the labor that they can do. In order to gain the extras that the individual either needs or wants he must accumulate a surplus of wares through working for them. This is called accumulated wealth. Each ware owned has a value that can be sold or traded. This accumulation is a natural law of existence. But in Das Kapital Marx labels it as a exploitation. Ah but you might say that it only applies to the Capitalist who exploits labor for profit.

Well then lets take the self employed for example. A person who cuts firewood and sells it to their neighbor. This person does all of the labor them self. They also buy the necessary machinery to do the labor, take care of its upkeep and all. There would be zero reason for anyone to do all that work for zero gains. You must exchange wares for a profit in order to pay for the wares that you produced. that is because of the other wares that you need to sustain your own life and your dependents. Marx clearly ignores this basic concept. And he does so because of his massive bias and need to promote Communism.

That is only one bias or assumption that Marx basis his critique on which was never considered science but just a opinion put forth to build up Communism.
 
Just one example of a "lost" liberty ...
I am against being "forced" to do anything ! I'll NEVER forget being forced to pray in some Florida school at the age of 8 ..66 years ago !

sure i will give you a liberty under fire.

your a rancher in west Texas, you discover oil on your property, and you wish to open your land to drilling for it, however in doing that the federal government tells you, you would hurt a lizard and sought to keep you from drilling on your own property by passing federal law.

Could a three-inch lizard collapse the West Texas oil industry? - MRT.com: Oil

where in the Constitution, is the government charged with lizard protection.
 
sure i will give you a liberty under fire.

your a rancher in west Texas, you discover oil on your property, and you wish to open your land to drilling for it, however in doing that the federal government tells you, you would hurt a lizard and sought to keep you from drilling on your own property by passing federal law.

Could a three-inch lizard collapse the West Texas oil industry? - MRT.com: Oil

where in the Constitution, is the government charged with lizard protection.

Congress has the power to regulate commerce. It is called the Commerce Clause. All appeals courts to have considered the question had upheld the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act.

Note though that I do not agree with the methods employed through Endangered Species Act. in some case they do good but in others it just makes rational minds ponder if they really thought this through. Perhaps it would be wiser to accept that a species probably isnt going to make it in the wild. And attempt resurrect the species in captivity in hopes of releasing it back in to the wild in the future. So imo a better scientific management of the Endangered Species Act should be addressed. But mismanagement does not equate unconstitutionality. It just calls for tougher regulation laws for such things.
 
It is there for all to see, do you not remember our conversation thus far?

In order for one to accept Marx's conclusions in Das Kapital one first needs to believe the tenants of the Communist manifesto. The biggest bias that Marx uses is that profiting on labor force is bad. In Marx's critique of the social standard in a capitalist economy he asserts that any profit gained by a business owner is a exploitation of the labor in which he purchased. So in Marx's view of Capitalism we end up with a paradox. Meaning that labor must be paid a natural compensation for their toil, they should gain all of the profit made from their work on the ware. But to assert such a thing would mean that the laborer was profiting off of the employer. Because the employee did not put any inverted worth in the materials or machines used to make the product they do not naturally deserve full credit for their work by gaining full price for their work and the materials and methods of production. Marx assumes that if the worker is getting anything less than the value of the workers labor plus the value of the wares that they produce that they are being exploited. The assumption or the bias rather is that the worker should take the brunt of the investments needed for the wares that are being produced and that the individual(s) owners should be eliminated as being evil exploiters of labor value. But doing so only moves the goal posts and now puts the worker in the position of being their own exploiter considering that a person agrees to do work on things that they do not actually get to keep because the need the resources that it produces for their own individual needs.

No ... you don't need to believe the tenants of the communist manifesto ....

Marx's "value judgements" of which there really arn't much in Kapital have nothing to do With his analysis, whether or not profiting on labor is "bad" or "good" doesn't come into it.

This isn't a critique of Capital AT ALL.

whether or not it's "bad" or "good" doesn't say anything about what it leads to, does it lead to self contradiction, does the Logic of capitalism work?

Hopefully you read the above framing paragraph.

When a person is born normally the family takes care of the childs needs up to a certain point. Usually that point is age related. At that point the young adult enters society and takes care of them self, the parents dont taking care of them. There are some exceptions of course but that is the general gist of life that it is the individuals responsibility to keep them self alive. AT that point the person is at a low in lifes accomplishments. Certain wares are needed by individuals in order to live in modern society. These things change with time. Of course some people prefer less while others prefer more. The act of obtaining those things on the individuals part is a type of profit for the individual. Add to that if the individual gets a partner and children or other dependents like family members ie siblings, elders, friends in need etc. All of these added wares need to come from somewhere. A human in terms of value actually has no value except the labor that they can do. In order to gain the extras that the individual either needs or wants he must accumulate a surplus of wares through working for them. This is called accumulated wealth. Each ware owned has a value that can be sold or traded. This accumulation is a natural law of existence. But in Das Kapital Marx labels it as a exploitation. Ah but you might say that it only applies to the Capitalist who exploits labor for profit.

Well then lets take the self employed for example. A person who cuts firewood and sells it to their neighbor. This person does all of the labor them self. They also buy the necessary machinery to do the labor, take care of its upkeep and all. There would be zero reason for anyone to do all that work for zero gains. You must exchange wares for a profit in order to pay for the wares that you produced. that is because of the other wares that you need to sustain your own life and your dependents. Marx clearly ignores this basic concept. And he does so because of his massive bias and need to promote Communism.

That is only one bias or assumption that Marx basis his critique on which was never considered science but just a opinion put forth to build up Communism.

Here' Your just redifining profit, or using it in a different way than Marx is using it.

WHen you work on Your garden are you making a profit? Well, not economically, but Your life is more pleasant ... is that Profit? It doesn't matter. Semantics don't matter.

What about the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall?
What about the tendancy for capitalism to cause major excesses which lead to crisis?

And so on.

I'm talking about analysis here, not morality, not whether profit is "wrong" or not.
 
No ... you don't need to believe the tenants of the communist manifesto ....

Marx's "value judgements" of which there really arn't much in Kapital have nothing to do With his analysis, whether or not profiting on labor is "bad" or "good" doesn't come into it.

This isn't a critique of Capital AT ALL.

whether or not it's "bad" or "good" doesn't say anything about what it leads to, does it lead to self contradiction, does the Logic of capitalism work?



Here' Your just redifining profit, or using it in a different way than Marx is using it.

WHen you work on Your garden are you making a profit? Well, not economically, but Your life is more pleasant ... is that Profit? It doesn't matter. Semantics don't matter.

What about the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall?
What about the tendancy for capitalism to cause major excesses which lead to crisis?

And so on.

I'm talking about analysis here, not morality, not whether profit is "wrong" or not.



Morality is discussed quit a bit in Das Kapital, making it part of Das Kapital whether you accept that fact or not. Dont believe me? Well then read it for yourself.

Surplus-Value is a moral argument. Marx even invents formulas to convince us that kids and adults working to long is immoral. The General Law of Capitalistic Accumulation is also a moral argument. "The consumption of labour power by capital is, besides, so rapid that the labourer, half-way through his life, has already more or less completely lived himself out." "Third, the demoralised and ragged, and those unable to work, chiefly people who succumb to their incapacity for adaptation, due to the division of labour; people who have passed the normal age of the labourer; the victims of industry, whose number increases with the increase of dangerous machinery, of mines, chemical works, &c., the mutilated, the sickly, the widows, &c."

In every chapter Marx makes sure to keep the theme as a attack on Capitalism and how damn immoral it was to him. "Think of the horror!"

So what you are asking of me is to take Das Kapital out of context and analyse just the parts that you want me too. It is very hard for me to guess what parts of Das Kapital is off limits to me to analyse (according to your judgement). Take Volume 3 Ch. 52: Classes am I too completely ignore that last chapter of Capital that Marx wrote?

And you tell me that there isnt any relation between Das Kapital and the Communist manifesto yet we can find much of this talk in it: "Vulgar economy actually does no more than interpret, systematise and defend in doctrinaire fashion the conceptions of the agents of bourgeois production who are entrapped in bourgeois production relations." Marx makes no attempt what so ever to disbarge his promotion and Confirmation bias of Communistic philosophies. No he embraces his Confirmation bias and puts it in the forefront of every Chapter in all three volumes. The entire three volumes can be summed up as propaganda designed to convince the reader to hate Capitalism. If Marx just wrote about the ins and outs of Capitalism then your argument that I must analyse those ins and outs would make sense. But Marx didnt just do that he set out to tear down Capitalism and replace it with his own philosophies on and how social change will destroy the Capitalists.


And well tendencies are subjective. Das kapital only asserts tendencies and what ifs. Marx predicts an outcome and like all good prophets leaves enough vagueness for some people to point fingers and see evidence. The question vexed in this thread is if Marx was right about Capitalism. The answer is yes or no depending if you buy into Marx's philosophies. I dont buy into his beliefs, so no, he was wrong. mind you that I only count what Marx actually gets credit for not what he observed in his own time. He doesnt get credit for being a historian, observations that he makes in Das Kapital were also independently observed by many others of his time. So unregulated Capitalism was known by most people to most likely take a turn for the worse sooner than later. The US Constitution was written in a way that recognized that unregulated Capitalism must be avoided. The denial of allowing nobility is one case of that.
 
Morality is discussed quit a bit in Das Kapital, making it part of Das Kapital whether you accept that fact or not. Dont believe me? Well then read it for yourself.

Surplus-Value is a moral argument. Marx even invents formulas to convince us that kids and adults working to long is immoral. The General Law of Capitalistic Accumulation is also a moral argument. "The consumption of labour power by capital is, besides, so rapid that the labourer, half-way through his life, has already more or less completely lived himself out." "Third, the demoralised and ragged, and those unable to work, chiefly people who succumb to their incapacity for adaptation, due to the division of labour; people who have passed the normal age of the labourer; the victims of industry, whose number increases with the increase of dangerous machinery, of mines, chemical works, &c., the mutilated, the sickly, the widows, &c."

In every chapter Marx makes sure to keep the theme as a attack on Capitalism and how damn immoral it was to him. "Think of the horror!"

So what you are asking of me is to take Das Kapital out of context and analyse just the parts that you want me too. It is very hard for me to guess what parts of Das Kapital is off limits to me to analyse (according to your judgement). Take Volume 3 Ch. 52: Classes am I too completely ignore that last chapter of Capital that Marx wrote?

And you tell me that there isnt any relation between Das Kapital and the Communist manifesto yet we can find much of this talk in it: "Vulgar economy actually does no more than interpret, systematise and defend in doctrinaire fashion the conceptions of the agents of bourgeois production who are entrapped in bourgeois production relations." Marx makes no attempt what so ever to disbarge his promotion and Confirmation bias of Communistic philosophies. No he embraces his Confirmation bias and puts it in the forefront of every Chapter in all three volumes. The entire three volumes can be summed up as propaganda designed to convince the reader to hate Capitalism. If Marx just wrote about the ins and outs of Capitalism then your argument that I must analyse those ins and outs would make sense. But Marx didnt just do that he set out to tear down Capitalism and replace it with his own philosophies on and how social change will destroy the Capitalists.


And well tendencies are subjective. Das kapital only asserts tendencies and what ifs. Marx predicts an outcome and like all good prophets leaves enough vagueness for some people to point fingers and see evidence. The question vexed in this thread is if Marx was right about Capitalism. The answer is yes or no depending if you buy into Marx's philosophies. I dont buy into his beliefs, so no, he was wrong. mind you that I only count what Marx actually gets credit for not what he observed in his own time. He doesnt get credit for being a historian, observations that he makes in Das Kapital were also independently observed by many others of his time. So unregulated Capitalism was known by most people to most likely take a turn for the worse sooner than later. The US Constitution was written in a way that recognized that unregulated Capitalism must be avoided. The denial of allowing nobility is one case of that.

No, surplus value is not a moral argument.

The quote you made isn't a moral argument it's a matter of fact about urban life in the 1800s.

I'm asking you to actually take the analysis and critique that .... Can you do that or not?
 
No, surplus value is not a moral argument.

The quote you made isn't a moral argument it's a matter of fact about urban life in the 1800s.

I'm asking you to actually take the analysis and critique that .... Can you do that or not?

BINGO! give that man a cigar!

Indeed Karl Marx was talking about the 1800's. In context the only predictions that Karl Marx made was that if European Capitalism spread through out the entire planet. And in Das Kapital Marx proclaimed that Capitalism has already ran its course in the US. Marx asserted that freedom and liberty was non existent for the workers in the US and said so in Das Kapital. When people ask if Karl Marx was right about Capitalism the question is directed at just Das Kapital it is directed at the assertions mainly espoused in the Communist Manifesto. That is if Capitalism has ran its course and if its time for Socialism to replace it. Which is why insist that analyzing Karl Marx's predictions about Capitalism cannot be limited to Das Kapital.

"SO

Was Karl Marx right about capitalism?" That is the question posed for us in this thread. It was not limited to just Das Kapital. There isnt any rule in this debate that forbids me from looking at the entire scope of Marx's critique of Capitalism. Your artificial limitations in this debate are self serving and quite frankly will be ignored as being irrelevant manipulations of the topic at hand.

But the question is vexed: What is Marx right about when it comes to his criticisms on Capitalism? Marx's critique covers economical, sociological/psychological and ethical critiques of Capitalism. But he never divorces any of those concepts, in fact he relies on the sociological/psychological and ethical concepts to explain the economical implications. It boils down to Marx asserting that profiting and having people being paid to work for you is unethical. That is what he basis his critique of Capitalism on. Marx does in Das Kapital go to lengths trying to explain the nuts and bolts of Capitalism but not without a mega dose of bias. Capitalism tends to this and that in the 1800's and it does the same now at least where we let it happen.
 
BINGO! give that man a cigar!

Indeed Karl Marx was talking about the 1800's. In context the only predictions that Karl Marx made was that if European Capitalism spread through out the entire planet. And in Das Kapital Marx proclaimed that Capitalism has already ran its course in the US. Marx asserted that freedom and liberty was non existent for the workers in the US and said so in Das Kapital. When people ask if Karl Marx was right about Capitalism the question is directed at just Das Kapital it is directed at the assertions mainly espoused in the Communist Manifesto. That is if Capitalism has ran its course and if its time for Socialism to replace it. Which is why insist that analyzing Karl Marx's predictions about Capitalism cannot be limited to Das Kapital.

"SO

Was Karl Marx right about capitalism?" That is the question posed for us in this thread. It was not limited to just Das Kapital. There isnt any rule in this debate that forbids me from looking at the entire scope of Marx's critique of Capitalism. Your artificial limitations in this debate are self serving and quite frankly will be ignored as being irrelevant manipulations of the topic at hand.

But the question is vexed: What is Marx right about when it comes to his criticisms on Capitalism? Marx's critique covers economical, sociological/psychological and ethical critiques of Capitalism. But he never divorces any of those concepts, in fact he relies on the sociological/psychological and ethical concepts to explain the economical implications. It boils down to Marx asserting that profiting and having people being paid to work for you is unethical. That is what he basis his critique of Capitalism on. Marx does in Das Kapital go to lengths trying to explain the nuts and bolts of Capitalism but not without a mega dose of bias. Capitalism tends to this and that in the 1800's and it does the same now at least where we let it happen.

Oh boy, you're never gonna really get to it are you.

Was Marx right about the internal contradictions of capitalism?

Whether profiting is or is not moral is besides the point, even if it is, Marx says that Capitalism has internal contradictions that make it collapse and lead it into constant crisis.
 
You are assuming that all of the good places in Malls are leased to old companies. Malls are trendy places and property managers want clients that bring in the most people. Hell most malls around today are from the 80's at the oldest ,if they still exist and havent been completely replaced. More probable is that most malls are form the 90's and newer. I am pretty sure that "black folks" were in the game then.

I don't think you understand. The person in charge of leasing was telling me about the spots that they have. That mall has been around for a while. They have some very exclusive stores in there. First of all the lady was telling me how much they rent the space for in the places they have reserved for exclusive clients. It was way more than I could afford, and neither was I trying to get such a space because I knew it was out of my range. But what I didn't know is that they would not rent to you, even if you had that kind of money. You have to be a name like Chanel, Armani, etc. Otherwise they just won't rent to you. Back when Coco Chanel was establishing herself, black people were not in that game.
 
I don't think you understand. The person in charge of leasing was telling me about the spots that they have. That mall has been around for a while. They have some very exclusive stores in there. First of all the lady was telling me how much they rent the space for in the places they have reserved for exclusive clients. It was way more than I could afford, and neither was I trying to get such a space because I knew it was out of my range. But what I didn't know is that they would not rent to you, even if you had that kind of money. You have to be a name like Chanel, Armani, etc. Otherwise they just won't rent to you. Back when Coco Chanel was establishing herself, black people were not in that game.

People go to malls to buy trendy crap. Part of that lease agreement is to fulfill that land managements obligations to provide that trendy crap. The key is the business model of the mall. If that business model is for a thme like 'buy local no name brands' then your money would be welcomed.
 
People go to malls to buy trendy crap. Part of that lease agreement is to fulfill that land managements obligations to provide that trendy crap. The key is the business model of the mall. If that business model is for a thme like 'buy local no name brands' then your money would be welcomed.

You don't know anything about malls. I have done it. I know how they operate. There was space there I could have rented, it's just that the space was no good.
 
Oh boy, you're never gonna really get to it are you.

Was Marx right about the internal contradictions of capitalism?

Whether profiting is or is not moral is besides the point, even if it is, Marx says that Capitalism has internal contradictions that make it collapse and lead it into constant crisis.

You mean did Marx state the obvious?
 
You don't know anything about malls. I have done it. I know how they operate. There was space there I could have rented, it's just that the space was no good.

And the answer was in your answer as to the why.. you could lease that space. It sucked.
 
And the answer was in your answer as to the why.. you could lease that space. It sucked.

The answer is that the mall will deny space to you, depending on who you are.
 
The answer is that the mall will deny space to you, depending on who you are.

No, you did not at all demonstrate that conclusion. You are assuming much more than you have shown. Mall shoppers go to malls that have all the 'good' shops. That 'good' list is always changing. Though some businesses have been able to remain on that short list for extended amounts of time. But if any of them (no matter who owns them) all the become on the 'out' list then no matter their standings they are removed to make room for those on the 'good' list. It is business and nothing more. If you had a shop that virtually ALL mall shoppers want to go to then as long as the mall has space you will be on the 'good' list. It is dictated by market demand. So what was it that you thought was marketable in a mall?
 
You mean did Marx state the obvious?

Oh, so you agree With him there? Capitalism has internal contradictison that lead it into constant crisis and ultimately collapse?

Ok, and Yeah, it is obvious when you actually study it.
 
No, you did not at all demonstrate that conclusion.

Yes I did demonstrate it. Again, I really don't think you understand what is going on at all. The leasing agent told me point blank that the only rent space in that prime area to certain very high fashion names. In terms of fashion, it is one of the very best malls in the country. That area of the mall has exclusive stores like Salvatore Ferragamo, Chanel, Armani, etc. They will only rent those spaces to people like that. Even if you have the money, they will not rent those spaces to you unless you are a brand on that level.

The point is this, liberal economists such as the Manchester Liberals advocated a free market as a way of abolishing unjust discrimination, because they argued that those who are trying to sell a particular item do not care if the person is black, white, European or African, as long as the customer can pay the price of the item. What I am saying is that capitalism does not guarantee that. Merchants will still discriminate, based on who you are.
 
Oh, so you agree With him there? Capitalism has internal contradictison that lead it into constant crisis and ultimately collapse?

Ok, and Yeah, it is obvious when you actually study it.

Yes I agree that unregulated systems lead to chaos. Even Americas founders knew that, and even put it in the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3).
 
Yes I did demonstrate it. Again, I really don't think you understand what is going on at all. The leasing agent told me point blank that the only rent space in that prime area to certain very high fashion names. In terms of fashion, it is one of the very best malls in the country. That area of the mall has exclusive stores like Salvatore Ferragamo, Chanel, Armani, etc. They will only rent those spaces to people like that. Even if you have the money, they will not rent those spaces to you unless you are a brand on that level.

The point is this, liberal economists such as the Manchester Liberals advocated a free market as a way of abolishing unjust discrimination, because they argued that those who are trying to sell a particular item do not care if the person is black, white, European or African, as long as the customer can pay the price of the item. What I am saying is that capitalism does not guarantee that. Merchants will still discriminate, based on who you are.

One moment you are telling me that a land management company is discriminating against you as a merchant, then you change it to merchants discriminating against customers. Either way the mall has the liberty to refuse signing a lease with you based on its own business reasons, as long as those reasons are legal. You said that they wouldnt take your money because you were not on the 'good' or 'A' list of businesses that they want. They didnt discriminate at all they made a business decision. You are free to build your own mall and allow any business in it yourself. and you are free to go to another mall perhaps one that isnt out of your businesses abilities. You stated that said mall was elite and listed the elite types of clients that are in it, your business wasnt one of those types so now you are whining that you were discrimanated aginst because you couldnt get into a mall that wouldnt allow businesses way beyond your means as well.


Capitalism cannot ever govern anything, that takes governments. That is usually the mistake that Socialists make about Capitalism, they assume that capitalism is a type of government like Socialism is a type of government. But Capitalism isnt a type of government so therefor it cannot govern. Governments govern commerce and a point that Marx liked to ignore. Marx liked to say that Capitalism itself will lead to this and that, but he doesnt include that fact that it is itself a government. Its like saying that a school full of kids will lead to the lord of the flies. Why yes it probably would if it wasnt for the school staff.
 
One moment you are telling me that a land management company is discriminating against you as a merchant, then you change it to merchants discriminating against customers. Either way the mall has the liberty to refuse signing a lease with you based on its own business reasons, as long as those reasons are legal. You said that they wouldnt take your money because you were not on the 'good' or 'A' list of businesses that they want.

Unfortunately I cannot give reading comprehension lessons. Sorry about that. When I say merchants I mean anyone selling something that someone else buys, including space in a mall. What I said was you have to be a name on the level of Chanel before they will rent certain space to you. That is discrimination. It is not racial discrimination. It is a type of class discrimination.

Capitalism cannot ever govern anything, that takes governments.

Again, it has been argued by liberal intellectuals that a free market will do away with discrimination because vendors will sell to whomever has money. Capitalism, as I have demonstrated does not guarantee that.
 
Unfortunately I cannot give reading comprehension lessons. Sorry about that. When I say merchants I mean anyone selling something that someone else buys, including space in a mall. What I said was you have to be a name on the level of Chanel before they will rent certain space to you. That is discrimination. It is not racial discrimination. It is a type of class discrimination.
Being fallacious will get you nowhere fast. And there isnt anything discriminatory or wrong with needing to be on the Chanel level. Your method of achieving that status as a business is to promote your product and work your way up to being able to put a store in a mall like that.

Chanel was founded in 1909, and is very known world wide. What makes you think that you deserve the same recognition as such a well established business? If you want that level of product recognition then you need to spend a great deal of money on advertising your product.

I like how you have attacked me personally accusing me of knowing nothing about the retail trade. Yet you seem ignorant of the basics of the retail trade. So much that I doubt that you have actually tried to LEASE space in a mall. You do realize that you lease space in a mall not rent it right? Also some of those leased spaces in the malls were built for that business in the first place. Most of those big names bought their leases when the mall was built. ANd those that were not there at the beginning were vetted for their ability to draw people to the mall. That is called marketing your lease space. There isnt any discrimination in determining that one business would draw more customers than another competing business. If you are oblivious to those entry level business marketing strategies then the mall did you a service by denying your application to lease a space at their mall. Why were you even thinking about competing with those damn capitalist elitists in the first place? Were you going to become one of them?


Again, it has been argued by liberal intellectuals that a free market will do away with discrimination because vendors will sell to whomever has money. Capitalism, as I have demonstrated does not guarantee that.
I dont care what "liberal intellectuals" think about so called free markets. I am not a "liberal intellectual" so therefor feel no need to defend their views. Perhaps you should go talk to those "liberal intellectuals"?

But still capitalism doesnt guarantee anything because it isnt something that can govern. Socialism is a type of government capitalism is not. All governments regulate capitalism with economical rules and regulations. Only extremists want a unfettered free market. Marx was wrong capitalism can be and is regulated. Though I agree that more regulations need to be put in place as things stand today. But not Marxist regulations that are nothing more than a attempt to topple capitalism and replace it (and our government) with Socialism. The reason that Marxists attack the wealthy is because that is what Karl Marx designed as a method to destroy capitalism which stood in the way of his ideological type of government. Karl Marx created a protagonist ideology that has no tolerance for any diversity of thought. Ask any Marxist if capitalism is ok and they will go on about how it should not be tolerated. Ask a Marxist if there could be something better than Marx's designs and they will tell you no. The Marxist school of thought is aimed at discriminating against anything other than what is on the Left. that alone disqualifies Karl Marx as a philosopher of any worth.

Rationally one should keep a open mind for something more advanced than what one knows now. Follower's of Karl Marx do no such thing. Its either follow Marx's ideology or they will bring war into the picture. Meaning that to Karl Marx followers either capitalism will be as he said or they will make it that way.
 
Back
Top Bottom