• 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
Let us not, and tax all fairly by percentage.

There is no fairness when most citizens pay for the infrastructure while a few speculators reap the rewards.
 
No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

140224-us-defense-chart-215p_d40ecad0e93608f7224bcfd4d5df8a2f.nbcnews-ux-640-480.jpg
 
There is no fairness when most citizens pay for the infrastructure while a few speculators reap the rewards.
Wrong.
Taxes at the same percentage for all, is fair.
Speculators are separate from that.


When you spend more on defense than the next ten nations COMBINED then something needs to change.
No it doesn't.
Yes it does.
:naughty

:lamo

Your claim is ridiculous.
As no, it doesn't mean any such thing.
What we spend on our military should not be contingent on, or subject to, what others spend.
 
Last edited:
Let us tax the privatizers of public wealth and untax the working man as much as is reasonable. Anytime we build our infrastructure the landholders and speculators profit through no work of their own.

Sure :) Agreed.

However, I need no justification beyond that redistribution partially cures capitalism of one of its most egregious flaws to make it actually be fairer, more efficient and sustainable. Capitalism is a deeply flawed system that requires such fixes and that is the only justification that is necessary. The only reason I agree to Capitalism at all in the first place is because all other systems that have been attempted are more deeply flawed, but in so doing we need not agree to all of its worst features.
 
Wrong.
Taxes at the same percentage for all, is fair.
Speculators are separate from that.

Speculators pay some tax on their activities through property tax, but it does not discourage the act itself. They are still profiting off the common wealth rather than personal productive wealth.


Your claim is ridiculous.
As no, it doesn't mean any such thing.
What we spend on our military should not be contingent on, or subject to, what others spend.

I never said it should. It simply puts into perspective how outrageous our military spending really is. How much is enough to you?
 
Sure :) Agreed.

However, I need no justification beyond that redistribution partially cures capitalism of one of its most egregious flaws to make it actually be fairer, more efficient and sustainable. Capitalism is a deeply flawed system that requires such fixes and that is the only justification that is necessary. The only reason I agree to Capitalism at all in the first place is because all other systems that have been attempted are more deeply flawed, but in so doing we need not agree to all of its worst features.

One alternative, geoism, has been practiced with much success. Alas, the powers-that-be do not like it (guess where they receive a large chunk of their wealth?). So, they compromise with the People with a progressive income tax and social safety nets. Of course, nothing could be perfect, but it could be better. :)
 
He was wrong in the aggregate... obviously (see Soviet Union)... but he did have some relevant points.

I have never seen any evidence that there was ever any intention of actually enacting a "workers paradiseb in the USSR. More like a bunch if clever bastards using the science of persuasion to put themselves in power in a country whose rulers were wholly incompetent. Where they fully intended to stay forever. Bait and switch. Never an "honest" attempt a communism.

Communism is impossible outside small groups of like minded individuals.

But the USSR was a scam from the get go.
 
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,=.

Tume for an overhaul due to the simple fact that the computer and container ship technology made modern globalization possible, and that THAT "changed the game" so fundamentally that the rising tide is only lifting the boats of some.

Its not your granddads capitalism anymore.

And since its made up anyway, it's subject to revision if it isn't working for everybody anymore.
 
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



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:



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.

the word "vast" comes from some reading i did concerning the foundering fathers were one of them states that.

the federal government has delegated powers only......and it states that.....right in the constitution they are delegated...amendment 10

the constitution is a limiting document, which creates federalism...it does not give or grant rights/freedoms.....it grants powers to the federal government only.....and those granted /delegated powers are the only ones government can act on .

the powers of the states are NOT LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION....its not granting the states anything, as is granting to the federal government.......the Constitution just limits the states to the things listed in it and they are only a few things.....

the federal government powers are listed, meaning those are the only ones they have.

the state powers being not listed, meaning there a vast,/ numerous and infinite....because they are not limited by the constitution.

the delegated powers that are granted to the federal government though are .....NOT BROKEN DOWN, into laws which can be enacted by the government, that is why we have article 1 section 8 clause 18 .

EXAMPLE:
congress has the power to punish counterfeiting, and piracy.......however the two clauses of article 1 section 8, dealing with those two issues....does not spell out how to punish..... so clause 18 grants the federal government power to create a federal law, which determines the procedures and actual punishment of those crimes....this is what is know as "implied powers"

the Constitution ....again does not grant or give rights/freedoms..voting , speech, bear a firearm....it gives you nothing

the bill of rights are not rights granted to the people........it is a document which places restrictions on the federal government, that it shall "create no laws", violating the rights ...which are recognized only by the constitution.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, THEY TALK ABOUT NO RIGHT TO VOTE FOR WOMEN, OR BLACKS, AMONG OTHER THINGS.............THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE ISSUES.

the constitution setups, /creates the structure of the federal government, its branches and what powers each has,....it limits those powers, and a few to the states, and creates a separation of branches, and it also creates a separation of state and federal government powers, ...know has federalism.

so the Constitutions main goal is creating a......... separations of powers........known as a "MIXED GOVERNMENT"
 
Just as long as people realize that taking away the incentive to work hard is no answer, either.

I fully agree. The thesis of how an agent is 'incentivized' is hot topic in philosophy. There are those who suggest to disincentive people by invoking some policy for wage parity, will make people less inclined to innovate, progress and invent. That thesis is very much based on a materialistic world, IMO. I'm not convinced that would happen.

The choice should not be between capitalism in it's most virulent form or Marxism in its, but how to devise a system that rewards people for hard work and limits the potential for exploitation while simultaneously retaining enough incentives that people will,indeed, work hard if they wish to get ahead.

It was Rawls (1999) who wrote "inequality is justified only if it works in favour of those in society who are worse off". As you know, Rawls was one of the eminent liberal philosophers of the 20th century. As such, I would argue made the most coherent case for protection of 'personal liberty' with responsibility to some societal framework.

By the way, I answered yes to the question :)

Paul
 
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.

When one can get 32 semi skilled workers for 12-14hrs/day for what one first day burger flipper gets for eight, all the "it was the unions!" or "it was taxes!" or "it was regulations!" rhetoric is exposed for what it is. Rhetoric.

Businesses move to take advantage of that dirt cheap labor the moment it became feasible. They would have done so had there been no regs, taxes or unions. Unless you can prove those elements offset a 32+:1 employee ratio for the same money. A ten man McDonalds crew for eight hours compared to a factory of 320 semi skilled workers for fourteen hours. Not a difficult choice to make for a CEO.
 
Tume for an overhaul due to the simple fact that the computer and container ship technology made modern globalization possible, and that THAT "changed the game" so fundamentally that the rising tide is only lifting the boats of some.

Its not your granddads capitalism anymore.

And since its made up anyway, it's subject to revision if it isn't working for everybody anymore.

I am not so sure I agree. It starting to seem to me like capitalism does really well so long as there is a new frontier to conquer, which Asia is one and Africa may be next. It starts contributing to societal problems in more mature scenarios.
 
I have never seen any evidence that there was ever any intention of actually enacting a "workers paradiseb in the USSR. More like a bunch if clever bastards using the science of persuasion to put themselves in power in a country whose rulers were wholly incompetent. Where they fully intended to stay forever. Bait and switch. Never an "honest" attempt a communism.

Communism is impossible outside small groups of like minded individuals.

But the USSR was a scam from the get go.

This is the No True Scotsman fallacy as applied to every (failed) attempt at socialist government.

I believe the results show the inherent flaw to the socialistic/communistic system and purported "unlimited democracy": when the government does not have any limits placed on it from the get go (because it belongs to "the people" and "the people" should have no rules against what they can do), someone invariably gets into position to limit the available choices. Human nature always seeks to subvert the resources and masses into the survival of the fittest, the fittest in this case being the most ambitious and ruthless. The people voted for Mao and Stalin and Castro, over and over again... because no one else survived being put on the ballot. Was democracy subverted, when people were allowed to vote? Absolutely. Every bit as much as when venture capitalists and industrial kingpins subvert American democracy by virtue of having "more speech".

At least in this system, however, the "poor" have food. Hell, they even have iPods.

When it comes to which system you prefer to serve, I will always choose the one where a strong and clever idea can upjump someone into the royal class, over the system that punishes ideas and seeks to oppress those on the outside that may have an idea not thought of first by the other nobles.
 
the word "vast" comes from some reading i did concerning the foundering fathers were one of them states that.

the federal government has delegated powers only......and it states that.....right in the constitution they are delegated...amendment 10

the constitution is a limiting document, which creates federalism...it does not give or grant rights/freedoms.....it grants powers to the federal government only.....and those granted /delegated powers are the only ones government can act on .

the powers of the states are NOT LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION....its not granting the states anything, as is granting to the federal government.......the Constitution just limits the states to the things listed in it and they are only a few things.....

the federal government powers are listed, meaning those are the only ones they have.

the state powers being not listed, meaning there a vast,/ numerous and infinite....because they are not limited by the constitution.

the delegated powers that are granted to the federal government though are .....NOT BROKEN DOWN, into laws which can be enacted by the government, that is why we have article 1 section 8 clause 18 .

EXAMPLE:
congress has the power to punish counterfeiting, and piracy.......however the two clauses of article 1 section 8, dealing with those two issues....does not spell out how to punish..... so clause 18 grants the federal government power to create a federal law, which determines the procedures and actual punishment of those crimes....this is what is know as "implied powers"

the Constitution ....again does not grant or give rights/freedoms..voting , speech, bear a firearm....it gives you nothing

the bill of rights are not rights granted to the people........it is a document which places restrictions on the federal government, that it shall "create no laws", violating the rights ...which are recognized only by the constitution.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, THEY TALK ABOUT NO RIGHT TO VOTE FOR WOMEN, OR BLACKS, AMONG OTHER THINGS.............THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE ISSUES.

the constitution setups, /creates the structure of the federal government, its branches and what powers each has,....it limits those powers, and a few to the states, and creates a separation of branches, and it also creates a separation of state and federal government powers, ...know has federalism.

so the Constitutions main goal is creating a......... separations of powers........known as a "MIXED GOVERNMENT"

Perhaps I will have more to say on this later. But for right not I have a problem with your statements that

the constitution is a limiting document, which creates federalism...it does not give or grant rights/freedoms.....it grants powers to the federal government only

AND

the bill of rights are not rights granted to the people........it is a document which places restrictions on the federal government

AND

the state powers being not listed, meaning there a vast,/ numerous and infinite....because they are not limited by the constitution.

You seem to imply that the Bill of Rights only places restrictions on the federal government. So for instance the first amendment states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If we take your assertions that the constitution only grants powers to the federal government and restricts the federal government but does not limit the powers of the states, we would be led to believe that the states have the right to pass laws that abridge freedom of the press. And that's not the case. Therefore the powers granted to the states are not infinite and are indeed limited by the constitution.
 
I have never seen any evidence that there was ever any intention of actually enacting a "workers paradiseb in the USSR. More like a bunch if clever bastards using the science of persuasion to put themselves in power in a country whose rulers were wholly incompetent. Where they fully intended to stay forever. Bait and switch. Never an "honest" attempt a communism.

Communism is impossible outside small groups of like minded individuals.

But the USSR was a scam from the get go.


It is true that REAL communism has never been tried on a national scale before, but I think there is a reason for that... human nature. The intermediate steps between whatever and full communism are so fraught with opportunity for ambitious persons to seize and retain power that they never let it get to that point.

Now IF we ever actually achieve (through advanced technology and easy cheap energy) an 'economy of abundance'... then something sort of like theoretical communism might be feasible... but I'm not yet convinced that 'an economy of abundance' is more than just a speculative hypothesis.
 
I've read Das Kapital (not the manifesto though) and have a degree in economics. However, I would really love to hear what a teenager has to say.

You have the floor. Dazzle me.

I'm not a teenager
 
Speculators pay some tax on their activities through property tax, but it does not discourage the act itself. They are still profiting off the common wealth rather than personal productive wealth.
They are profiting. That is a good thing. They also risk losing and do lose.
Nor should the act be discouraged.


I never said it should.
WTF?
I just quoted you saying it.
When you spend more on defense than the next ten nations COMBINED then something needs to change.

No. Nothing needs to change.


It simply puts into perspective how outrageous our military spending really is.
:doh
Nothing about it is outrageous.


How much is enough to you?
As much as we need to project our power and support our interests and continue research and development so we can keep it that way for a good long time.
 
One alternative, geoism, has been practiced with much success. Alas, the powers-that-be do not like it (guess where they receive a large chunk of their wealth?). So, they compromise with the People with a progressive income tax and social safety nets. Of course, nothing could be perfect, but it could be better. :)

Where has geoism been practiced with much success?
 
When one can get 32 semi skilled workers for 12-14hrs/day for what one first day burger flipper gets for eight, all the "it was the unions!" or "it was taxes!" or "it was regulations!" rhetoric is exposed for what it is. Rhetoric.

Businesses move to take advantage of that dirt cheap labor the moment it became feasible. They would have done so had there been no regs, taxes or unions. Unless you can prove those elements offset a 32+:1 employee ratio for the same money. A ten man McDonalds crew for eight hours compared to a factory of 320 semi skilled workers for fourteen hours. Not a difficult choice to make for a CEO.

Correct...they just couldn't get 'em in this country. Bye bye jobs. Hello Mexico.
 
They are profiting. That is a good thing.

An individual profiting off his/her own labor is a good thing.
An individual profiting off the common wealth is detrimental the community.


They also risk losing and do lose.

There is very little risk involved. Current property taxes are so low that a speculator can sit on an empty site for years before selling.


Nor should the act be discouraged.

It absolutely should be discouraged and many great thinkers from JS Mill, Adam Smith, Albert Einstein, and many others agreed.

Land speculation is the driving force behind our boom/bust cycle.
 
WTF?
I just quoted you saying it.

What I said does not mean we should base our defense spending on how other countries spend. The comparison was to illustrate how out of control our spending is.


Nothing about it is outrageous.

That is your opinion.

As much as we need to project our power and support our interests and continue research and development so we can keep it that way for a good long time.

I have no interest in expanding corporate-state causes.
 
Perhaps I will have more to say on this later. But for right not I have a problem with your statements that

if you believe i am wrong....then PLEASE, show me per the Constitution where i am wrong about what i have said......and i will be most happy to listen to your arugment.




does the constitution grant any rights to the people........no!......the word grant nor give to the people, appears no where in the constitution.

does it grant powers to congress..........yes!......article 1 section 1--All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

do you see anywhere in the constitution, where it creates a relationship, between governments and the people.........no!

do you see where it creates a relationship between the states and the federal government........yes.........it delegates powers to the federal government which are few and defined.......and the Constitution states, that all powers not delegated the the federal by the Constitution shall remain the power of the states....this creates a separation of powers,...know as federalism.



AND...

You seem to imply that the Bill of Rights only places restrictions on the federal government. So for instance the first amendment states

the bill of rights are restrictions placed solely on the federal government ...not state governments.....this can be found by reading the preamble to the bill of rights, and reading Madison words on it, ...as Madison wrote the bill of rights.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [FEDERAL] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Madison---But the evidence is still stronger. The proposition of amendments made by Congress is introduced in the following terms:"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions."Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government. --

WHAT DOES THE BILL OF RIGHTS START OUT BY SAYING?-------"Congress" shall make no law....this applies to every clause of the bill of rights.


If we take your assertions that the constitution only grants powers to the federal government and restricts the federal government but does not limit the powers of the states, we would be led to believe that the states have the right to pass laws that abridge freedom of the press. And that's not the case. Therefore the powers granted to the states are not infinite and are indeed limited by the constitution.


under the Constitution of the founders, the federal government is very limited, it has no authority from congress in the lives, liberty, property of the people that is a state power....you will see no powers of congress in article 1 section 8 having anything to do with the personal life's of the people..this is fact!

the constitution states clearly, what powers the states shall NOT engage in [ powers delegated to the federal government, and powers with are forbidden...... to both states and the federal governments]...are very few.

people under the Constitution are to be governed by their state Constitution, which have a declaration of rights in them, which deal with speech, prayer, protest, and the rights you see in the bill of rights..........which is where the recognized rights in the bill of rights, ........were drafted from.

the constitution which is a limiting document.....limits the federal government to only delegated powers.....GRANTING THEM FEW POWERS.............it does not grant powers to states, because the constitution recognizes the state have numerous powers, which are not limited by the constitution...accept for the few mentioned in the constitution.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
Last edited:
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

McCulloch v. Maryland

"this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof," "shall be the supreme law of the land," and by requiring that the members of the State legislatures and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the States shall take the oath of fidelity to it. The Government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding.

McCulloch v. Maryland - 17 U.S. 316 (1819) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
 
Back
Top Bottom