• 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
ernst barkmann said:
i hope you bring this up with other people who have discussed this with me....or is it just me, your talking too?
Click to expand...
I have discussed such things many times here and elsewhere.

Confederates?????......my argument has nothing to do with the confederacy......where do you come up with that?
Click to expand...
Well you are parroting the Confederate argument on State sovereignty.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I have discussed such things many times here and elsewhere.

Well you are parroting the Confederate argument on State sovereignty.
Click to expand...

states are sovereign according to federalist 39.......nothing in constitutional laws states they are not sovereign, because we still have federalism.
 
ernst barkmann said:
states are sovereign according to federalist 39.......nothing in constitutional laws states they are not sovereign, because we still have federalism.
Click to expand...

They are sovereign. However, the constitution limits the nature of that sovereignty and it is clear that such sovereignty is subordinate to the sovereignty of the Federal government.
 
MildSteel said:
They are sovereign. However, the constitution limits the nature of that sovereignty and it is clear that such sovereignty is subordinate to the sovereignty of the Federal government.
Click to expand...

federalism is written in the constitution, a division of powers...states being vast, and federal being few........however they are not few today...because the feds have stepped deep into state powers...violating federalism.
 
ernst barkmann said:
federalism is written in the constitution, a division of powers...states being vast, and federal being few........however they are not few today...because the feds have stepped deep into state powers...violating federalism.
Click to expand...

There is no quantitative description in the constitution on the nature of the sovereignty of states.
 
MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

If anything, they supported it by making absurd demands and forcing employers' hands into taking their business elsewhere.
 
Gipper said:
If anything, they supported it by making absurd demands and forcing employers' hands into taking their business elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Forcing employers hands? Please
 
MildSteel said:
There is no quantitative description in the constitution on the nature of the sovereignty of states.
Click to expand...


the constitution spells out what powers are where...this creates federalism......since states are sovereign they can act on those powers they have.

people can act with their own rights they have.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the constitution spells out what powers are where...this creates federalism......since states are sovereign they can act on those powers they have.

people can act with their own rights they have.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is your assertion that the constitution quantifies the powers of the states as vast and those of the Federal government as few.
 
MildSteel said:
I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is your assertion that the constitution quantifies the powers of the states as vast and those of the Federal government as few.
Click to expand...


ok....federalist 45--The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former[ federal powers] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.



“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.
 
MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unions DIDN'T support outsourcing...they caused it to happen. Industry...why pay the fools $20 to $30 an hour with benefits when we can outsource the required labor needed out of the U.S. at half that amount (or less) with NO benefits. If those union bastards would have lightened up their demands on industry, it never would have happened.
 
HogWash said:
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.
Click to expand...

But this thread is not about whether to choose between Capitalism and Communism. It is about whether Marx was right about Capitalism. If you don't know what he said about Capitalism, then why are you commenting in a thread whose topic by your own admission you know nothing about? You would have nothing to contribute and you should know you have nothing to contribute. You were wrong about whether you should try to contribute, should we now dismiss every one of your posts?
 
MildSteel said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




How can people without money buy what the people with all of the money are trying to sell?

I'll answer that one for you: They can't
 
ernst barkmann said:
ok....federalist 45--The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former[ federal powers] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the thoughtful, informative post. Having said that, I would note a few things.

First of all I would point out that the language

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
Click to expand...

does not necessarily support the notion that the powers of the states are vast relative to the powers of the federal government. This is because that although the powers of the federal government may be few in the numeric sense, they are actually qualitatively superior. For example a person that has 20 one dollar bills may have more notes than a person having five hundred dollars bills. But in fact the person that has five hundred dollar bills has a quite a bit more money than the person with twenty one dollar bills.

Secondly, framers original intent, while a guide, cannot be taken as an absolute. For one thing, as you have slightly alluded to, various people had different points of view. Not only that, but if they had indeed wanted such language in the constitution itself, why did they not insert it? One reason may have been political, in that it may not have passed, which erodes the notion of looking to original intent in the first place

Lastly, although you have quoted Jefferson, he himself realized that the constitution was a product of the time and circumstances. For instance the framers ideas of suffrage were quite different from our notions of today, and when viewed in the modern context, appear to be inconsistent with the notions of how a free democratic people should view the right to vote. Therefore Jefferson said the following:

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestor
Click to expand...

Of course Jefferson favored change by amendment rather than judicial activism. But still, the quote demonstrates that the framers also recognized that times change and that the needs of the people of the US would change. Therefore a constitutional interpretation that limits the sovereignty of states relative to the federal government is not inconsistent with the constitution itself.
 
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 to fundamental to some people nature to expect natures to act in that way.
Click to expand...

I think that analogy is pretty dead-on. For the record, I do not oppose capitalism in the freed market sense, but I do oppose capitalism in the corporate-state sense.
Left libertarians Charles Johnson and Kevin Carson explain it pretty well.


And in my opinion, at the end of the day, that is what caused the failure of the attempts of people like Lenin.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see how Marx would have revised his views if he lived long enough to witness the violent revolutions inspired by his work. Many of his critics, such as PJ Proudhon and other anti-state communists/anarchists warned of the dangers of Marx's "solution" and they were obviously proved correct.


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.
Click to expand...

That is reasonable. I think the best way to go about this is by recognizing the distinction between private property and common property. If we returned the wealth of the community to the citizens then we would get the best of both worlds: a fairer AND freer economy.
The Citizen
 
Last edited:
PoS said:
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.
Click to expand...

It may have capitalism, but it doesn't have a freed market.
 
HogWash said:
Unions DIDN'T support outsourcing...they caused it to happen. Industry...why pay the fools $20 to $30 an hour with benefits when we can outsource the required labor needed out of the U.S. at half that amount (or less) with NO benefits. If those union bastards would have lightened up their demands on industry, it never would have happened.
Click to expand...

I understand what you mean now. That's essentially what someone else was saying. I think paying US workers higher wages is a good thing as long as demand does not make it impossible to do so. What I see is that instead of taking less profits to pay workers more, wealthy shareholders instead preferred to make enormously more money themselves by outsourcing manufacturing jobs overseas and this has had a detrimental effect on the economy. I see the preponderance of the blame as lying with the greed of wealthy shareholders and not with US workers, although having said that, I'm sure that some of the blame lies with US workers as well.
 
shrubnose said:
How can people without money buy what the people with all of the money are trying to sell?

I'll answer that one for you: They can't
Click to expand...

That is correct. And I think that is the essence of that article.
 
MildSteel said:
That is correct. And I think that is the essence of that article.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




For capitalism to survive, we need buyers and sellers. The people at the bottom of the economic ladder must have a reasonable share of the cash in circulation for the system to work.

One good way for the USA to spread a lot of cash around would be to engage in a massive public works program all over the USA.

There is a lot of work that needs to be done and right now would be a good time to do it. Instead of paying people to sit at home and wait for a call that never comes, the USA should put them to work repairing and replacing as necessary our old utilities, highways, bridges and railroad lines.

This would be good for everyone in the USA.
 
shrubnose said:
For capitalism to survive, we need buyers and sellers. The people at the bottom of the economic ladder must have a reasonable share of the cash in circulation for the system to work.

One good way for the USA to spread a lot of cash around would be to engage in a massive public works program all over the USA.

There is a lot of work that needs to be done and right now would be a good time to do it. Instead of paying people to sit at home and wait for a call that never comes, the USA should put them to work repairing and replacing as necessary our old utilities, highways, bridges and railroad lines.

This would be good for everyone in the USA.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I also think that it would be well worth upgrading the energy infrastructure to make more use of green energy like solar.
 
MildSteel said:
Absolutely. I also think that it would be well worth upgrading the energy infrastructure to make more use of green energy like solar.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Right and there's no reason why the USA can't have high speed rail like they have in Asia and Europe.
 
shrubnose said:
For capitalism to survive, we need buyers and sellers. The people at the bottom of the economic ladder must have a reasonable share of the cash in circulation for the system to work.

One good way for the USA to spread a lot of cash around would be to engage in a massive public works program all over the USA.

There is a lot of work that needs to be done and right now would be a good time to do it. Instead of paying people to sit at home and wait for a call that never comes, the USA should put them to work repairing and replacing as necessary our old utilities, highways, bridges and railroad lines.

This would be good for everyone in the USA.
Click to expand...

This only works if you raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for it. Which I would support, but I doubt it would pass.

Going into more public debt hurts the middle class, as would raising taxes on them.
 
shrubnose said:
For capitalism to survive, we need buyers and sellers. The people at the bottom of the economic ladder must have a reasonable share of the cash in circulation for the system to work.

One good way for the USA to spread a lot of cash around would be to engage in a massive public works program all over the USA.

There is a lot of work that needs to be done and right now would be a good time to do it. Instead of paying people to sit at home and wait for a call that never comes, the USA should put them to work repairing and replacing as necessary our old utilities, highways, bridges and railroad lines.

This would be good for everyone in the USA.
Click to expand...


Before we go spending bunches of money on government projects shouldnt we at least attempt to fix the actual problems first? I agree that the infrastructure is in dire need of upgrades and expansion etc, but what good would infrastructure do a people that cant use it because they have no jobs? No private industry means no money for those projects. What we need to do is just not allow jobs to be out sourced. Hit them with tariffs, make it more expensive to out source. America is still a huge market, but instead we seem to be stuck on he said she said politics.
 
Geoist said:
I think that analogy is pretty dead-on. For the record, I do not oppose capitalism in the freed market sense, but I do oppose capitalism in the corporate-state sense.
Left libertarians Charles Johnson and Kevin Carson explain it pretty well.

It would be interesting to see how Marx would have revised his views if he lived long enough to witness the violent revolutions inspired by his work. Many of his critics, such as PJ Proudhon and other anti-state communists/anarchists warned of the dangers of Marx's "solution" and they were obviously proved correct.

That is reasonable. I think the best way to go about this is by recognizing the distinction between private property and common property. If we returned the wealth of the community to the citizens then we would get the best of both worlds: a fairer AND freer economy.
The Citizen
Click to expand...

I appreciate this post. I am learning a few things today. I had never heard of that guy Proudhon before. I really need to read more of his work. Here's something of interest

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.
Click to expand...

Dang!! That was awesome. I was driving to my business this morning and I got a ticket for some BS. The guy was out there just trying to make a quota. Any rate, those words were spot on. It's really amazing that people in that time period had realizations that are so deep and relevant, even today.

Thanks for making me aware of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom