• 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
True enough. But since Karl Marx was a communist I didn't bother to read his diatribe about capitalism. So compared to communism, capitalism is the way to go.

Everyone thinks there is only a choice between two systems when that is far from the truth.
 
He was right in some of his analysis and predictions: mechanization of work, the squeeze on wages until they could no longer afford the items they create, obsession over arbitrary objects (*cough* IPhone *cough*), globalization, monopoly (or close to monopoly like with Wal-Mart), etc.

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

That's pretty much my take as well. The only difference that I have is that I think his problem was that his solution was to, in essence, get rid of the capitalist class. I think that's where the problem lies. I don't think that is possible. I said to someone else, that such an endeavor was like trying to stop women from trying to look pretty. It's just to fundamental to some people nature to expect natures to act in that way. And in my opinion, at the end of the day, that is what caused the failure of the attempts of people like Lenin. I think the solution lies in having a capitalist class that operates within certain constraints and that has been trained that it's ok to profit from business as long as it is done in a just, fair way, that is not destructive to the environment, that does not conflict with what is good for society as a whole, and that sees to the valid needs of workers.
 
Three hots, a cot, a job...

Blacks act oppressed today. There's another option.

I'll take the forty acres and a mule option, IF it's forty acres of my choosing.
 
Here's an interesting article by George Magnus, former Chief Economist at UBS, the biggest bank in Switzerland

The process he describes is visible throughout the developed world, particularly in the U.S. Companies’ efforts to cut costs and avoid hiring have boosted U.S. corporate profits as a share of total economic output to the highest level in more than six decades, while the unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent and real wages are stagnant.

Whoever had the brilliant idea to move our production output from the U.S. to the rest of the world, ie. Mexico, Korea, China, Bangladesh, most countries in the Middle East (oil) is responsible for the U.S. economy and OUR JOBS disappearing. And that was NO Ones fault but those responsible for the NWO. That was total B.S.

Or maybe we should have done what CHINA did under communism...regulate family size. And execute any violators...particularly the female gender. That would have certainly helped TODAY'S economy by reducing the number of "poor".

Yeah, I guess Marx was right.
 
Whoever had the brilliant idea to move our production output from the U.S. to the rest of the world, ie. Mexico, Korea, China, Bangladesh, most countries in the Middle East (oil) is responsible for the U.S. economy and OUR JOBS disappearing. And that was NO Ones fault but those responsible for the NWO. That was total B.S.

Or maybe we should have done what CHINA did under communism...regulate family size. And execute any violators...particularly the female gender. That would have certainly helped TODAY'S economy by reducing the number of "poor".

Yeah, I guess Marx was right.

That was a stupid idea to outsource the nation's manufacturing capacity like that. Unless, of course, you are one of the greedy bastards that got extremely wealthy from doing so.
 
It's a shame Marx never lived under Stalin.
 
I might compromise and give you the mule.

I'll take that bad boy. But I ain't giving up my job and my business!

Pony up!!!! :lamo
 
Awesome

A thread of people who have never read Marx

I have read the Communist Manifesto. I thought the whole thing read like a prediction of causes and effects. I didn't think it appeared to be Marx's vision for the world as it is often portrayed. He seemed to predict a constant cycle of capitalistic tendencies that would lead to communistic tendencies which would lead to capitalistic tendencies which would lead to communistic tendencies and on and on indefinitely.

Some people equate Marx with creating communism. When I read the Communist Manifesto I thought he was predicting communism rather than advocating it.

Was I using too much imagination?

Although I find it funny that Bill Clinton and Joe Biden both quoted the Communist Manifesto during the 2012 election.
 
I have read the Communist Manifesto. I thought the whole thing read like a prediction of causes and effects. I didn't think it appeared to be Marx's vision for the world as it is often portrayed. He seemed to predict a constant cycle of capitalistic tendencies that would lead to communistic tendencies which would lead to capitalistic tendencies which would lead to communistic tendencies and on and on indefinitely.

Some people equate Marx with creating communism. When I read the Communist Manifesto I thought he was predicting communism rather than advocating it.

Was I using too much imagination?

Although I find it funny that Bill Clinton and Joe Biden both quoted the Communist Manifesto during the 2012 election.

His vision didn't seem cyclical, but it's rather plain as day that he intended the advocation of capitalism to inspire the proletariat to "rise up" against the means-owners. I'm pretty sure that once his socialist utopia was created, it would stay in place through...well, let's face it - indoctrination and scare tactics.
 
Capitalism has put more people in poverty in terms of stealing indigenous lands, ruining the environment, denying people access to natural resources, and making people dependent on industrialized labor that rather than focusing on the production of necessities like food, places a focus on the production of various types of machinery that cannot be consumed for sustenance.
So instead of answering my question you just go on an anti-capitalist rant. Thanks for wasting my time. :roll:
 
Any system where the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3 billion is unstable.
Its been pretty stable since it was introduced. China would still be wasteland if it wasnt for capitalism, now its the #2 economy in the world.
 
His vision didn't seem cyclical, but it's rather plain as day that he intended the advocation of capitalism to inspire the proletariat to "rise up" against the means-owners. I'm pretty sure that once his socialist utopia was created, it would stay in place through...well, let's face it - indoctrination and scare tactics.

My reading skills are not that good. I'll probably need to read it again. I think he was writing it at a time that was ripe for the proletariat to take their turn to rule the bourgeois. Do you really think that he was advocating an Utopia that would last indefinitely? I'd have to read it again.
 
You mean "mule up".

Fair enough. I'll take it! Hell, don't start me! I'll show ya how to do it!! :lamo

Tell em what I'm talking about hommies!!!!

 
Russia has quite a wealth disparity and their economy hasn't been this good since the forties.
 
The million dollar question is whether that efficiency is possible under a purely capitalistic model. I really don't think it's possible. Having said that, I think it is possible under a model that has some capitalist elements. But that would not be capitalism, in the strict sense of the term.

I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure. Strict definitions generally don't apply very well to real life. I'm not aware of any pure Capitalist societies (or pure Communists, for that matter.)


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

That seems like a very Capitalist position, and it makes a lot of (individual) sense as long as you're getting a piece of the profit. For people who get squeezed out, not so much.

What I think we need is a economy that rewards peoples efforts, and protects them from bad luck.
 
I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure. Strict definitions generally don't apply very well to real life. I'm not aware of any pure Capitalist societies (or pure Communists, for that matter.)

No we will not because the model is too flawed to be practically implemented in it's pure ideological form.
 
My reading skills are not that good. I'll probably need to read it again. I think he was writing it at a time that was ripe for the proletariat to take their turn to rule the bourgeois. Do you really think that he was advocating an Utopia that would last indefinitely? I'd have to read it again.

Socialism forces an equilibrium that self-regulates through stagnation. Also, with property removed, the ability to "rise above" is eliminated. That is the source of all disparity, in Marx's belief. Without that, people are generally worker ants that have no differentiation, specialization, or exceptional ability. Entrepreneurialism is essentially squashed.
 
Possible flaws in capitalism doesn't necessarily mean an alternative system is being promoted or looked two. Too many people on this thread are making that faulty assumption,=.
 
So instead of answering my question you just go on an anti-capitalist rant. Thanks for wasting my time. :roll:

I responded to your post in a fitting manner. Having said that, I gave a slight hint back in post #77

Mildsteel said

That's pretty much my take as well. The only difference that I have is that I think his problem was that his solution was to, in essence, get rid of the capitalist class. I think that's where the problem lies. I don't think that is possible. I said to someone else, that such an endeavor was like trying to stop women from trying to look pretty. It's just too fundamental to some people's nature to expect them to act in that way. And in my opinion, at the end of the day, that is what caused the failure of the attempts of people like Lenin. I think the solution lies in having a capitalist class that operates within certain constraints and that has been trained that it's ok to profit from business as long as it is done in a just, fair way, that is not destructive to the environment, that does not conflict with what is good for society as a whole, and that sees to the valid needs of workers.
 
That was a stupid idea to outsource the nation's manufacturing capacity like that. Unless, of course, you are one of the greedy bastards that got extremely wealthy from doing so.

Of course unionization in the U.S. was absolutely behind outsourcing. The union people cooked their own goose. The right to work states enjoyed some of the windfall of what industry remained.
 
Of course unionization in the U.S. was absolutely behind outsourcing. The union people cooked their own goose. The right to work states enjoyed some of the windfall of what industry remained.

What????? I didn't know that. That can't be. If it's true the unions supported outsourcing, that is totally insane. Can you provide some reference to support that? That would be totally amazing.
 
Here's an interesting article by George Magnus, former Chief Economist at UBS, the biggest bank in Switzerland



SO

Was Karl Marx right about capitalism?

In one glance at a microcosm of corrupted capitalism, Marx was correct . The entirety of capitalistic/market theory? No.

What we call capitalism is a shade of actual free market theory, and even so, this corrupted system has still managed to provide the highest standard of living to the highest percentage of population than any other system in history.
 
What we're seeing is the peak of the growth, production and consumption model. Between natural resource limitations, including fresh food/water, clean air, real estate and meeting growing energy demands there isn't a lot more of capacity or room to grow. Society inevitably has become split into an elite oligarchy with those that directly serve them, and an impoverished underclass. The masses will have to be slowly culled in size in order to meet their basic needs. That's actually already started happening with our current situation in the US. Lower full employment, less credit and consumption, housing crisis, bankers becoming speculators, and a growing population dependent on gov't assistance to survive.

Don't see a any near term solutions towards the slow drift downwards.
 
Back
Top Bottom