Karl Marx (1818-1883)

[Wyman]

LOL! Let me try say this as delicate as I can ..you are a fucking retard

Hah! I'd like to make a T-shirt with that printed on the back. I'll give you a 10 percent royalty.

But I have a question for CL and uwot. CL claims above that workers are being exploited. That seems to be a basic assumption in his, or in Marx's, belief system. That is, there is 'surplus' value in their work that unjustly goes to capitalists - if not unjustly, then you wouldn't characterize it as 'exploitation.'

Can you defend this assumption? If there is surplus value, shouldn't it go to the most efficient user of that value - efficient in the sense of maximizing the benefits of the value for the good of the whole society? Why would a peasant be more efficient than a businessman?

[mickthinks]

You are so helplessly stupid, I've known you for a long time here, and you have never said anything intelligent, nor understood when I made an intelligent post.

LOL On the contrary, uwot is one of the sharpest brains around these parts, and I find their posts are consistently thoughtful, cogent, and generally insightful. Which is more than I can say for you and yours, Hex.

[HexHammer]

LOL! Let me try say this as delicate as I can ..you are a fucking retard

Hah! I'd like to make a T-shirt with that printed on the back. I'll give you a 10 percent royalty.

DEAL!

[Conde Lucanor]

Problem is that you make a very poor interpetation.

If that statement came from someone with an in-depth knowledge on the subject, I guess that I should have been concerned. But I'm pretty sure you have not passed yet the level of reading first some basic material, therefore your judgements about interpretations of Marxist theories are completely pointless.

It is totally without any real life scenarios.

There is surely plenty of real life scenarios in what is called the philosophy of praxis and the materialist conception of history.

Problem is also that it HAS been interpeted and the results were horrorfying, but you live in a fairytale world where you totally disregard communism and all it's horrorfying things.

See? It seems like I have the power of prediction, I told you that you would run and hide in that corner of stereotyped, simpleminded arguments, automatically repeated like a scratched vinyl record. It's doubtful, but let's see if you have something challenging to offer.

[Conde Lucanor]

CL claims above that workers are being exploited. That seems to be a basic assumption in his, or in Marx's, belief system. That is, there is 'surplus' value in their work that unjustly goes to capitalists - if not unjustly, then you wouldn't characterize it as 'exploitation.'

Can you defend this assumption? If there is surplus value, shouldn't it go to the most efficient user of that value - efficient in the sense of maximizing the benefits of the value for the good of the whole society? Why would a peasant be more efficient than a businessman?

Since value is produced by labour, one could expect that the surplus value will be retained by the producer of that value (the worker itself) or, according to a principle of solidarity, be deducted by society and redistributed collectively. Therefore, in principle, the surplus value of a peasant belongs to the peasant and the one from the businessman belongs to him.

[HexHammer]

Problem is that you make a very poor interpetation.

If that statement came from someone with an in-depth knowledge on the subject, I guess that I should have been concerned. But I'm pretty sure you have not passed yet the level of reading first some basic material, therefore your judgements about interpretations of Marxist theories are completely pointless.

It is totally without any real life scenarios.

There is surely plenty of real life scenarios in what is called the philosophy of praxis and the materialist conception of history.

Problem is also that it HAS been interpeted and the results were horrorfying, but you live in a fairytale world where you totally disregard communism and all it's horrorfying things.

See? It seems like I have the power of prediction, I told you that you would run and hide in that corner of stereotyped, simpleminded arguments, automatically repeated like a scratched vinyl record. It's doubtful, but let's see if you have something challenging to offer.

Having full knowledge of Marx is irrelevant, that's for "Rain Men", what matters is rationallity to make sense of the learned knowledge, which you totally lacks.

Real life scenarios isn't just some of your usual fancy rethorics, that try to divert attention away from how disasterous and tragic communism played out, which shows you live in a delusion and are mentally challenged.

I don't run and hide, I make sound argumentation, I bring facts to the table, contrary you who only dweel in a fairytale land and make up your own reality of how well Marx did, when he did disasterously.

[spike]

Worth repeating:

Once we did away with the false notion that Marxism had to do with utopias, we might also get rid of some other false notions, such as the idea that Marx had devised closed, rigid systems.

Good point Conde L. Nevertheless, the movement he sparked became a rigid system. Those who implemented his ideas of communism had to design the system from the ground up since it wasn't something that would evolve naturally, like capitalism. In doing so the designers had to resort to force to implement Marx's Communist Manifesto. That could only be done by deliberately creating a closed and rigid system. A rigid and closed system is what occurs when a governance is engineered and controlled from the top down as Marxism/Communism was.

The rigidity of communism was noticed by the Frankfurt School. One of its disciples, Horkheimer, wondered who would replace the proletariat as the agent of the revolution once they grew complacent and old. His colleague Marcuse answered that a coalition of student, blacks feminists homosexuals and other socially marginal elements would. But for that coalition to act as Marcus envisioned you have to have an open system, hence Marxism/Communist's inevitable collapse.

[Arising_uk]

Good point Conde L. Nevertheless, the movement he sparked became a rigid system. Those who implemented his ideas of communism had to design the system from the ground up since it wasn't something that would evolve naturally, like capitalism. ...

Hmmm, depends what you mean by 'naturally' as naturally the feudal system appears the natural one. You could say bourgeois capitalism arose from mishap in that the Black Death started the process.

In doing so the designers had to resort to force to implement Marx's Communist Manifesto. That could only be done by deliberately creating a closed and rigid system. A rigid and closed system is what occurs when a governance is engineered and controlled from the top down as Marxism/Communism was.

CL's whole point I thought was that those who tried to implement Marx's thoughts about the conditions of Capital at the time clearly misunderstood his Historical Materialism as Marx's thought was that Communism would arise naturally from Capitalism once the problems of scarcity were essentially solved and the forces of production were such that the worker could produce their own goods. To try and implement it was and is a gross misunderstanding of his ideas about History and social relations.

The rigidity of communism was noticed by the Frankfurt School. One of its disciples, Horkheimer, wondered who would replace the proletariat as the agent of the revolution once they grew complacent and old. His colleague Marcuse answered that a coalition of student, blacks feminists homosexuals and other socially marginal elements would. But for that coalition to act as Marcus envisioned you have to have an open system, hence Marxism/Communist's inevitable collapse.

China appears to be going strong so Maoist/Marxist-Leninism appears to work at present. Or do you see China as inevitably collapsing?

Everyone appears to forget that Marx himself said he wasn't sure what a 'Marxist' was but that he wasn't one.

[spike]

China appears to be going strong so Maoist/Marxist-Leninism appears to work at present. Or do you see China as inevitably collapsing?

China is very different. It's a mix of communist rule and capital markets. It is more a mix of Maoist/Adam Smith. And thus I don't see it collapsing as the Soviet Union type of Marxist/Communism because there is much more flexibility in its economics. And there is the profit motive that propels it, which wasn't permitted under the old style communism (that grew out of Marx's ideas). Without profit there is no incentive to expand, produce or improve the system.

Hmmm, depends what you mean by 'naturally' as naturally the feudal system appears the natural one. You could say bourgeois capitalism arose from mishap in that the Black Death started the process.

I am thinking that the Black Death was a pretty natural occurrence. It came as a result of humanity's flux and growth. Capitalism has also grown out of humanity's flux and growth.

[HexHammer]

China appears to be going strong so Maoist/Marxist-Leninism appears to work at present. Or do you see China as inevitably collapsing?

Lies, China changed to capitalism, specially seeing how Hong Kong prosperd under the brittish rule.

[Arising_uk]

Hello! Earth to Hexhammer. The Communist Party is still in charge and the markets, banks and currency aren't free.

China looked at Singapore not Hong Kong for prosperity.

[Conde Lucanor]

Worth repeating:

Once we did away with the false notion that Marxism had to do with utopias, we might also get rid of some other false notions, such as the idea that Marx had devised closed, rigid systems.

Good point Conde L. Nevertheless, the movement he sparked became a rigid system. Those who implemented his ideas of communism had to design the system from the ground up since it wasn't something that would evolve naturally, like capitalism. In doing so the designers had to resort to force to implement Marx's Communist Manifesto. That could only be done by deliberately creating a closed and rigid system. A rigid and closed system is what occurs when a governance is engineered and controlled from the top down as Marxism/Communism was.

The rigidity of communism was noticed by the Frankfurt School. One of its disciples, Horkheimer, wondered who would replace the proletariat as the agent of the revolution once they grew complacent and old. His colleague Marcuse answered that a coalition of student, blacks feminists homosexuals and other socially marginal elements would. But for that coalition to act as Marcus envisioned you have to have an open system, hence Marxism/Communist's inevitable collapse.

It would have been more interesting to see a response to my reply, but if you choose not to and stick to your original post, that's OK.

[Conde Lucanor]

Having full knowledge of Marx is irrelevant...

I think a good overall knowledge will do. The problem is that you have no knowledge at all.

what matters is rationallity to make sense of the learned knowledge, which you totally lacks.

Just another of your unsupported claims.

Real life scenarios isn't just some of your usual fancy rethorics, that try to divert attention away from how disasterous and tragic communism played out, which shows you live in a delusion and are mentally challenged.

There you have it, a scratched record. I made a prediction again.

I don't run and hide

But that's exactly what you did. You didn't have something to respond with, so you ran and hid on the old stereotyped argument of "USSR proves my point". It doesn't, I told you why, but you won't deal with it, because you just can't, it would take that you started learning something different than what you see in TV.

I make sound argumentation,

Yeah right, I don't doubt it, but you should bring it to this forum, where it counts. So far, a couple of simpleminded cliché arguments, no counterarguments, no citations, no relevant sources, no nothing. It's like a man on the street yelling its pamphletary beliefs.

[HexHammer]

Hello! Earth to Hexhammer. The Communist Party is still in charge and the markets, banks and currency aren't free.

China looked at Singapore not Hong Kong for prosperity.

Economy is 1 part of what a party does, economy = capitalism. Capitalism isn't a govening form in itself.

What you think of that I think of, is the govening form which is still communistic, and democrasy is just 1 govening form.


@ Conde Lucanor

This is getting nowhere, I'll just put your silly fairytale world on ignore.

[spike]

CL

It would have been more interesting to see a response to my reply, but if you choose not to and stick to your original post, that's OK.

In the maze of adulterated discussion I couldn't find any meaningful reply from you. Could you please repeat it.