The Fraud of Socialism and of Karl Marx

Originally posted by gncnew
reply to post by ANOK

 

I thought he was Prussian... oh well.

Prussia was a state of the German empire.

Karl Heinrich Marx was born into a comfortable middle-class home in Trier on the river Moselle in Germany on May 5, 1818

www.historyguide.org...

Socialism leads to Communism because the economic theory needs the governmental backing. Remember - Communism is a "Democracy"... ROFL.

Socialism does not lead to communism, that was just Marx's idea of how to do it, ONE mans ideas. Socialism is a system all by itself and has nothing to do with communism. Marx just saw socialism as a way to have worker control while creating the money needed to finance a communists system whereby money would be abolished. Not all socialists want communism. Libertarian Socialism is what I want.

Neither need government btw and true communism and socialism are highly democratic. We have NOW what you all keep claiming socialism will bring, a bureaucratic establishment with no real input from the workers other than the token vote on mostly non-issues. Issues that wouldn't even be issues if this was a truly free system. Gay marriage for one, who has the right to say they can't marry in a FREE COUNTRY?
Or is it only freedom as long as it doesn't upset the twisted morality of a few self righteous idiots?

Lastly - the Spanish revolution showed an immediate increase in their production - but where are they now... Everyone works great when they're all happy about their revolutions... but when the honeymoon is over ..

Well, just take a look at their productivity ratios compared to other modernized nations - especially the U.S.

The failure was not due to the workers. Their cities were being bombed daily by Hitlers Luftwaffe. They were successful in increasing production by 20% while fighting a war against the fascists. WWII was why the revolution failed, TPTB sent the working men to war.

Trust me it was no honeymoon. Fighting off the fascist with one hand while making society better for themselves with the other. Quite an amazing feat if you ask me. Proof we can do it.

Essentially socialism is a great system to equalize out the benefits that people receive from their labor efforts...

Problem is that it makes good people work less and rewards unproductive.

Not true. When you work in a collective your labour is directly benefited because you earn from the profits made. The harder you work the more money you will make. Unlike capitalism where you can work as hard as you like, but you make no more money unless the 'boss' give you a pay raise. There is no motivation to produce high quality goods, and no motivation for workers to work to their max.

Workers would be paid equally but only within their work place, if Joe's collective up the road is making more profit then their workers will earn more than Freds collective. Companies will still compete.

Capitalism has many flaws but one thing it does is breed ingenuity and efficiency.

No it doesn't, it breeds a system where profit is more important than people. Products are produced as cheaply as possible, and sold at the most they can get, workers are paid the least they can get away with.
Cheap products that cost more than they should and workers being paid the minimum possible does not make a motivated population.

Labour being wasted producing crap just for you to consume to keep the circus going. We should be producing what we need, food, housing, infrastructure, health care etc...

All this really comes down to the question: why did China start incorporating capitalism into their economic model?

China was NEVER communist and if you are using them as an example of socialism then you are way off base. Communism is NOT socialism and China were/are neither. China is as capitalist as any country, they have a very distinct class system and state system and the means of production are privately owned.

Do you really think I want a system where workers are forced to work for next to nothing to produce crap to sell to western markets? That is not what socialists want, that is what capitalists want and have, cheaply made products they can make max profits from. There is no morality in capitalism.


BTW I know this is off topic but I am just replying to the poster who took the thread off topic to defend my position. I didn't say socialism was better than capitalism in my original post, just pointed out some facts.

[edit on 8/19/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK


I honestly think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree... I feel like your fundemental understanding of capitalistic theory is wrong and misguided.

I also feel that your concept of how humans work together is niave by excluding the outside forces that come in a dynamic and expanding society.

I also think you probably feel the same about me.

Not true. When you work in a collective your labour is directly benefited because you earn from the profits made. The harder you work the more money you will make. Unlike capitalism where you can work as hard as you like, but you make no more money unless the 'boss' give you a pay raise. There is no motivation to produce high quality goods, and no motivation for workers to work to their max.

If Harry and Sally both work the same - this system works, but if Harry works harder than Sally, Sally gets just as much from it as Harry... so why should Harry work harder? If he gets rewarded more for his harder effort, that's capitalism... if he does not get rewarded more, he will simply stop working harder than Sally...

This is basic human nature that has been proven in reality - not text books and theory.

No it doesn't, it breeds a system where profit is more important than people. Products are produced as cheaply as possible, and sold at the most they can get, workers are paid the least they can get away with. Cheap products that cost more than they should and workers being paid the minimum possible does not make a motivated population.

This is NOT true. When I am producing a product - the means of that production are of ultimate importance. A company is made of up of people that have a stake in trying to earn profit - but here is your falicy:

There is no fat-cat sitting at the top with a cigar. There is a group of share holders (like you and me with our 401k plans) that demand a company turn a profit or they will stop investing in that company.

You keep confusing the actions of a failing company with the actions of a company looking to increase profits. Show me a single instance where a company was doing fine but in order to increase profits actually cut pay or staff?

It doesn't happen. When you are running a successful business the ONLY ways to increase that business is to expand the business, increase efficiency in current production models, or bring a better product to market. Everything else is just a temporary fix to a long term problem.

People don't do MORE work for the same money. With leadership comes responsibility (and liability). And any effort of a group requires leadership.

So in a socialistic model you are essentially saying that the chief ditch digger is going to earn as much as the brand new ditch digger - regardless of responsibility level... why on earth does anyone want more responsibility but same pay?

And if you do pay the cheif more... well then you are no longer following a socialistic model.

Again - this theory of an economic model requires two things to ever actually work:

1. A non-expanding closed community with static needs
   
2. Someone to hit the off switch on human nature
   

Originally posted by gncnew
If Harry and Sally both work the same - this system works, but if Harry works harder than Sally, Sally gets just as much from it as Harry... so why should Harry work harder? If he gets rewarded more for his harder effort, that's capitalism... if he does not get rewarded more, he will simply stop working harder than Sally...

This is basic human nature that has been proven in reality - not text books and theory.

No that is NOT capitalism. How many more times? Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.

When Harry and Sally work at Joes factory they'll both get paid the same regardless of who works harder. When both workers are paid according to what the boss wants to pay, or the system allows, then there is no motivation for them to work harder than each other. If Harry works harder he'll just piss off the other workers cause he'll make them look bad. He won't get paid more then Sally for doing the same job.

In a cooperative workplace it would be the opposite. How the workers work directly effects their, and everyone else's pay, if someone is slacking the other workers would motivate that worker.

Your ideas of what motivates workers is rather naive.

This is NOT true. When I am producing a product - the means of that production are of ultimate importance. A company is made of up of people that have a stake in trying to earn profit - but here is your falicy:

There is no fat-cat sitting at the top with a cigar. There is a group of share holders (like you and me with our 401k plans) that demand a company turn a profit or they will stop investing in that company.

Sorry I have no 401k plan. Not all companies have share holders, but regardless the company is still taking the profit made by the workers and puts it in the hands of private individuals who don't do the work that made that profit. The profit should go to the worker, not a private owner, or shareholder. The workers themselves should be the shareholders.

Yes there are fat cats with cigars, do you live under a rock?
Look at Mexico, where the means of production are owned by a few families who pay workers very low wages, and take huge profits for themselves. They have a lower unemployment rate than the US but because the wages are so low Mexican workers are poor. An example of how capitalism effects us all, even when it's not your country.

You keep confusing the actions of a failing company with the actions of a company looking to increase profits. Show me a single instance where a company was doing fine but in order to increase profits actually cut pay or staff?

When a company is doing fine you're right. But what happens to the workers when the company isn't doing fine?

It doesn't happen. When you are running a successful business the ONLY ways to increase that business is to expand the business, increase efficiency in current production models, or bring a better product to market. Everything else is just a temporary fix to a long term problem.

Yes it does happen

'Increase efficiency in current production models'

Like sending jobs overseas because it's cheaper and the company makes more profit?

People don't do MORE work for the same money. With leadership comes responsibility (and liability). And any effort of a group requires leadership.

They don't? What about the workers in China now doing the jobs that were done in your own country? They are doing more work for less money, good for the capitalists, bad for the workers. It won't be long before it's reversed and you are forced to work for next to nothing in a factory line because the economy cannot sustain itself anymore. Nothing wrong with leaders, but what we have is exploiters.

So in a socialistic model you are essentially saying that the chief ditch digger is going to earn as much as the brand new ditch digger - regardless of responsibility level... why on earth does anyone want more responsibility but same pay?

Well for one it will stop people taking jobs of responsibility simply for the money. I would rather natural leaders develop than money hungry people who do not make good natural leaders.

Money is really not that important if all our needs are met, which they could be if we grew food instead of producing crap just to keep an obsolete system going at the expense of people, so a few can live in luxury.

And if you do pay the cheif more... well then you are no longer following a socialistic model.

Again - this theory of an economic model requires two things to ever actually work:

1. A non-expanding closed community with static needs
   
2. Someone to hit the off switch on human nature
   

Hmmm just your opinions, you have nothing to support your claim. I could go on all day about how this system perverts our nature and have posted links in other posts here.

Spain during its revolution didn't become a static community and no one switched off their nature. Ridiculous. The community expanded, improved their infrastructure, increased production, fed and housed everyone. While at the same time fighting off the fascist system that finally won and gave us the world we now live in.

[edit on 8/20/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by gncnew


Hey look! Argument Ad Hominem!

He could have been the CEO of a corporation with 100 kids by 10 different women with a coc aine problem and a tendency to randomly attack the homeless, it wouldn't change the validity or invalidity of his claims. Who Karl Marx was is entirely irrelevant.

Also, I hate how you made it seem that writing isn't a form of work. It's actually quite difficult to write at the level Marx did and get paid for it as there is a lot of competition.

Quick edit: And why does it matter that his father was born Jewish? Why even bother mentioning that?

[edit on 8/23/10 by madnessinmysoul]

Originally posted by zzombie
Marx promised heaven & delivered hell.

Isn't if funny how all the useful idiots defending socialism have never lived in Stalins Russia, or Mao's China, yet the people who escaped those totalitarian regimes denounce them.

Im a Champagne Socialist! Theres nothing wrong with Communism,, its the People who are the dictators that -Snip- it up!

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:37:12 -0500 by MemoryShock]

This topic has come up elsewhere and I'm re-reading this thread. I thought the new people here might like to read it ... so I'm bumping this old thread up. Enjoy reading ...

So are you going to bump every Marx thread with the same generic, pointless waffle?

a reply to: gncnew

This is what we in the "logic business" like to call an "ad-hominem attack" also known as a "logical fallacy" also known as "not an argument"

a reply to: gncnew

Another good post. I think the best system is a hybrid social/capitalistic system. One thing I can not understand in our current system is why the government has never created a business structure using a socialistic model. There is literally no corporate structure to protect a group purpose from coming into dispute of individuals within it. There are a few state which have passed a new type of business structure called a Public Benefit Corporation, which basically puts the objectives of the business before the profits of the individual investors. The creation of this business structure was a step in the right direction.

Now, I would like to see a corporation structure that when a group form together for some purpose that the entity cannot be dismantled by individuals therein (in other words, when one leaves they can't take a portion of the business with them). A structure like this would allow groups to own and operate businesses where the profits are shared equally. A structure such as this, although socialistic, can operate neatly to place in check the capitalistic greed. Unions currently fill this niche, but really Unions are a necessary evil for capitalism to survive. When the workers realize they could do the same thing they currently do, and split all the profits, then capitalism as it exists today will become irrelevant.

Ah. Good old socialism! First thing you get to learn about when collectivism starts to take over is that the collective is supreme and you're nothing if you want to do your own thing. Most likely you will eventually be thrown in some modern variation of a gulag if you dare to argue with the collective over anything. Wait and see.

At least in the current system the rules are pretty clear cut (or have been). You were allowed to complain all you want. If you could find a way to publish your complaints, you could publish mountains of it. There were certain things you didn't do. Rob, steal, murder, drugs. When you elevate people who have a socialist mindset into power, the rules WILL change drastically. I have argued with enough of these people over the years to know how they think and what kinds of things they would do if they ever got a chance.