Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
bill still

The Marxist-vs-capitalist False Dichotomy

Recommended Posts

A young "monetary reform" advocate here in the US recently lambasted the existing "capitalist" system in America for its greedy, profiteering ways. To me, this otherwise well-intentioned person suffers from an unfortunate trend towards historical confusion here in the States. He is confusing his "isms" and this can have deadly consequences for the monetary reform movement and our ability to think through our economic crisis.



If you want to be politically effective -- at least in America -- the anti-capitalism rhetoric does not cut it. It scares people, and rightly so.



If you want to be effective, differentiate between monopoly capitalism -- which is today in power -- and laissez faire capitalism -- which is NOT in power.



Marx and modern-day Marxists effectively blur the line between these two totally opposing methodologies. In fact, to me, there is little difference between Marxism and monopoly capitalism, which I prefer to call "plutocracy" because all communist revolutions are immediately overtaken by a ruling elite anyway. Marxists desperately need to disguise this fact -- blur this line -- lest the already paper-thin rationale for their very existence is totally destroyed.

The concept of a democratic republic where laissez faire capitalism is fostered and protected by a debt-free monetary system is the most fair system of governance and finance ever devised by humanity. It offers the smoothest transition up the power pyramid from the least powerful, to the most powerful by providing effective class mobility via an incentive-driven financial and political system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A young "monetary reform" advocate here in the US recently lambasted the existing "capitalist" system in America for its greedy, profiteering ways. To me, this otherwise well-intentioned person suffers from an unfortunate trend towards historical confusion here in the States. He is confusing his "isms" and this can have deadly consequences for the monetary reform movement and our ability to think through our economic crisis.



If you want to be politically effective -- at least in America -- the anti-capitalism rhetoric does not cut it. It scares people, and rightly so.



If you want to be effective, differentiate between monopoly capitalism -- which is today in power -- and laissez faire capitalism -- which is NOT in power.



Marx and modern-day Marxists effectively blur the line between these two totally opposing methodologies. In fact, to me, there is little difference between Marxism and monopoly capitalism, which I prefer to call "plutocracy" because all communist revolutions are immediately overtaken by a ruling elite anyway. Marxists desperately need to disguise this fact -- blur this line -- lest the already paper-thin rationale for their very existence is totally destroyed.

The concept of a democratic republic where laissez faire capitalism is fostered and protected by a debt-free monetary system is the most fair system of governance and finance ever devised by humanity. It offers the smoothest transition up the power pyramid from the least powerful, to the most powerful by providing effective class mobility via an incentive-driven financial and political system.

Bill - is not the sheer size of the federal state not a problem though? It dilutes the electoral strength of the single voter, and adds layers of seperation between the voter and those representatives who are (un)able to get things done.

What do you think of the idea of returning more power to the state and county levels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A young "monetary reform" advocate here in the US recently lambasted the existing "capitalist" system in America for its greedy, profiteering ways. To me, this otherwise well-intentioned person suffers from an unfortunate trend towards historical confusion here in the States. He is confusing his "isms" and this can have deadly consequences for the monetary reform movement and our ability to think through our economic crisis.



If you want to be politically effective -- at least in America -- the anti-capitalism rhetoric does not cut it. It scares people, and rightly so.



If you want to be effective, differentiate between monopoly capitalism -- which is today in power -- and laissez faire capitalism -- which is NOT in power.



Marx and modern-day Marxists effectively blur the line between these two totally opposing methodologies. In fact, to me, there is little difference between Marxism and monopoly capitalism, which I prefer to call "plutocracy" because all communist revolutions are immediately overtaken by a ruling elite anyway. Marxists desperately need to disguise this fact -- blur this line -- lest the already paper-thin rationale for their very existence is totally destroyed.

The concept of a democratic republic where laissez faire capitalism is fostered and protected by a debt-free monetary system is the most fair system of governance and finance ever devised by humanity. It offers the smoothest transition up the power pyramid from the least powerful, to the most powerful by providing effective class mobility via an incentive-driven financial and political system.

Its the same old battle between capital and labour thats been going on for hundreds of years.

Dont have a go at Marx. He has been proven correct about capitalism and globalisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguments are polarised by practically all those with vested interests - look at the dominance of Republican and Democrat Parties in the States and Labour and Conservative Parties in the UK.

Limiting the argument along a single dimension is certainly a consequence of the people failing to act and letting others seize the initiative. But its also a consequence of those in power deliberately reducing the argument to one they have a good chance of winning.

By the way I watched National Treasure last night. What I like about the movie is its admiration for the principles underlining the Declaration of Independence. What I dislike is the suggestion that masons are somehow lovely cuddly guardians of antiquities. It was obviously a rehash of the Indiana Jones movies but entertaining enough anyway.

While the US Consitution was founded on very noble principles, it was its failure to ban slavery that ultimately lead to the plutocracy we see today.

Edited by Dave Spart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A young "monetary reform" advocate here in the US recently lambasted the existing "capitalist" system in America for its greedy, profiteering ways. To me, this otherwise well-intentioned person suffers from an unfortunate trend towards historical confusion here in the States. He is confusing his "isms" and this can have deadly consequences for the monetary reform movement and our ability to think through our economic crisis.



If you want to be politically effective -- at least in America -- the anti-capitalism rhetoric does not cut it. It scares people, and rightly so.



If you want to be effective, differentiate between monopoly capitalism -- which is today in power -- and laissez faire capitalism -- which is NOT in power.



Marx and modern-day Marxists effectively blur the line between these two totally opposing methodologies. In fact, to me, there is little difference between Marxism and monopoly capitalism, which I prefer to call "plutocracy" because all communist revolutions are immediately overtaken by a ruling elite anyway. Marxists desperately need to disguise this fact -- blur this line -- lest the already paper-thin rationale for their very existence is totally destroyed.

The concept of a democratic republic where laissez faire capitalism is fostered and protected by a debt-free monetary system is the most fair system of governance and finance ever devised by humanity. It offers the smoothest transition up the power pyramid from the least powerful, to the most powerful by providing effective class mobility via an incentive-driven financial and political system.

Didn't Marx say something about Laissez Faire capitalism always ending up as Monopoly Capitalism - a natural result of laissez faire?

Take Microsoft as a case in point - it takes large government to prevent this monopoly destroying all creativity in this sector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP made me just laugh and laugh and laugh.

When the Soviet union collapsed, the Marxists bleated their denial:

"Ah..." they squirmed, "but that wasn't real revolutionary Socialism/Communism/Marxism, the revolution was betrayed by Stalin/Brezhnev/Whoever. Give us another chance and we promise we'll get it right next time, staying true to the principles of Marx and Engels interpreted by Trotsky, yes Trotsky, he had the right idea..."

Now that the great contraction has shown market capitalism to be prone to failure (surprise surprise), we get more fundamentalist bleating:

"Ah..." they squirm, "but that wasn't real Free Market Capitalism/Laissez Faire Libertarianism/Minarchism, the revolution was betrayed by Reagan's accommodation with the unions/Thatcher's failure to push privatisation to every part of the state/whatever. Give us another chance and we promise we'll get it right next time, staying true to the principles of Adam Smith as interpreted by Hayek, no, von Mises, no, Friedman. Actually yes, Hayek, he had the right idea..."

A plague on all your houses. Marx regarded revolutionary socialist movements as Bonapartist and adventurist. "Je ne suis pas Marxist".

Free-market fundamentalists repeat Fukuyama's mistake of believing that they can halt the inevitable progress of the dialectic of history. They forget that the more free-market fundamentalism is implemented, the more labour is alienated and the greater the propensity for the emergence of Class Consciousness.

Those who do not wish to see revolutions within their lifetimes should realise that a moderate middle way will save capitalism from itself, as it has done in the past.

We should all be Keynsians now.

What is to be done?

Edited by Tob the Blether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are absolutely right!

That's the entire point of a democratic republic -- to decentralize power to the greatest extent "practical" -- not possible. The federal govt needs some control over some things, but there is as strong tendency towards over-centralization of this power. That's what our problem boils down to today.

I say de-centralize power at every level -- international to local -- to the greatest extent practical.

Bill - is not the sheer size of the federal state not a problem though? It dilutes the electoral strength of the single voter, and adds layers of seperation between the voter and those representatives who are (un)able to get things done.

What do you think of the idea of returning more power to the state and county levels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'd pay more attention if you'd lose that green hair.

Its the same old battle between capital and labour thats been going on for hundreds of years.

Dont have a go at Marx. He has been proven correct about capitalism and globalisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The OP made me just laugh and laugh and laugh.

When the Soviet union collapsed, the Marxists bleated their denial:

"Ah..." they squirmed, "but that wasn't real revolutionary Socialism/Communism/Marxism, the revolution was betrayed by Stalin/Brezhnev/Whoever. Give us another chance and we promise we'll get it right next time, staying true to the principles of Marx and Engels interpreted by Trotsky, yes Trotsky, he had the right idea..."

Now that the great contraction has shown market capitalism to be prone to failure (surprise surprise), we get more fundamentalist bleating:

"Ah..." they squirm, "but that wasn't real Free Market Capitalism/Laissez Faire Libertarianism/Minarchism, the revolution was betrayed by Reagan's accommodation with the unions/Thatcher's failure to push privatisation to every part of the state/whatever. Give us another chance and we promise we'll get it right next time, staying true to the principles of Adam Smith as interpreted by Hayek, no, von Mises, no, Friedman. Actually yes, Hayek, he had the right idea..."

A plague on all your houses.

i agree totally with this. capitalist have long laughed at communists for this and are now eating their own guff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one dichotomy, that between state power and freedom. All isms generally come to refer to ways the state flexes its muscle, hence parties like the Republicans and Conservatives get falsley labeled "Capitalist."

A political party can never be for liberty, they can only be for state power and various degrees of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A young "monetary reform" advocate here in the US recently lambasted the existing "capitalist" system in America for its greedy, profiteering ways. To me, this otherwise well-intentioned person suffers from an unfortunate trend towards historical confusion here in the States. He is confusing his "isms" and this can have deadly consequences for the monetary reform movement and our ability to think through our economic crisis.



If you want to be politically effective -- at least in America -- the anti-capitalism rhetoric does not cut it. It scares people, and rightly so.



If you want to be effective, differentiate between monopoly capitalism -- which is today in power -- and laissez faire capitalism -- which is NOT in power.



Marx and modern-day Marxists effectively blur the line between these two totally opposing methodologies. In fact, to me, there is little difference between Marxism and monopoly capitalism, which I prefer to call "plutocracy" because all communist revolutions are immediately overtaken by a ruling elite anyway. Marxists desperately need to disguise this fact -- blur this line -- lest the already paper-thin rationale for their very existence is totally destroyed.

The concept of a democratic republic where laissez faire capitalism is fostered and protected by a debt-free monetary system is the most fair system of governance and finance ever devised by humanity. It offers the smoothest transition up the power pyramid from the least powerful, to the most powerful by providing effective class mobility via an incentive-driven financial and political system.

You seem confused as to the nature and mission of social democracy (which is what you are talking about when you say "socialist" which they aren't). The notion that there is no difference between social democrats and plutocrats is very old news indeed and it was socialists who spotted it first. The irony is by promising "mobility" you are actually hooking your cart to their horse anyway.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve Cook
i agree totally with this. capitalist have long laughed at communists for this and are now eating their own guff

Actually, they are eating our money and the money of our children and grandchildren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? I was with you until that last sentence.

The U.S. Constitution was founded on more than "noble principles." We knew we had a chance to escape BoE serfdom and we took our best shot. And the results, though imperfect, have worked fairly well over the years. I like our chances of preserving some measure of freedom better than those of the UK at this point.

There were two mistakes in the U.S. Constitution -- at least on the monetary front:

1. Allowing the government to borrow "Money" in Article 1, Section 8.

2. Failing to spell out that only Congress can "emit Bills of Credit" in Article 1, Section 10.

Arguments are polarised by practically all those with vested interests - look at the dominance of Republican and Democrat Parties in the States and Labour and Conservative Parties in the UK.

Limiting the argument along a single dimension is certainly a consequence of the people failing to act and letting others seize the initiative. But its also a consequence of those in power deliberately reducing the argument to one they have a good chance of winning.

By the way I watched National Treasure last night. What I like about the movie is its admiration for the principles underlining the Declaration of Independence. What I dislike is the suggestion that masons are somehow lovely cuddly guardians of antiquities. It was obviously a rehash of the Indiana Jones movies but entertaining enough anyway.

While the US Consitution was founded on very noble principles, it was its failure to ban slavery that ultimately lead to the plutocracy we see today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...I like our chances of preserving some measure of freedom better than those of the UK at this point.

...

Hahahahaha!

What is your definition of "freedom"? Are you mistaking "freedom" for "consumer choice"? Are you equating "freedom" with the highest infant mortality rates in the western world?

You're a fan of libertarianism, fine. Is that your yardstick of freedom? Are you aware that the only country in the world at this time persuing a libertarian economic and political agenda is ..... wait for it .... Libya. Why don't you go and live there?

Or are you providing satire, like The Onion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, I forgot.

Which is worse, the anarchists or the communists?

Hahahahaha!

What is your definition of "freedom"? Are you mistaking "freedom" for "consumer choice"? Are you equating "freedom" with the highest infant mortality rates in the western world?

You're a fan of libertarianism, fine. Is that your yardstick of freedom? Are you aware that the only country in the world at this time persuing a libertarian economic and political agenda is ..... wait for it .... Libya. Why don't you go and live there?

Or are you providing satire, like The Onion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hahahahaha!

What is your definition of "freedom"? Are you mistaking "freedom" for "consumer choice"? Are you equating "freedom" with the highest infant mortality rates in the western world?

You're a fan of libertarianism, fine. Is that your yardstick of freedom? Are you aware that the only country in the world at this time persuing a libertarian economic and political agenda is ..... wait for it .... Libya. Why don't you go and live there?

Or are you providing satire, like The Onion?

Freedom from being coerced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh? I was with you until that last sentence.

The U.S. Constitution was founded on more than "noble principles." We knew we had a chance to escape BoE serfdom and we took our best shot. And the results, though imperfect, have worked fairly well over the years. I like our chances of preserving some measure of freedom better than those of the UK at this point.

There were two mistakes in the U.S. Constitution -- at least on the monetary front:

1. Allowing the government to borrow "Money" in Article 1, Section 8.

2. Failing to spell out that only Congress can "emit Bills of Credit" in Article 1, Section 10.

The American Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. As a consequence of the resulting slaughter, millions of ordinary Americans understandably turned to religion for comfort (its why the Bible Belt geographically coincides with the locations of many of the Civil War's battles).

But at the same time the arms manufacturers realised how immensely profitable supplying weapons could be.

The religious right which swept George W Bush and his industrial-military complex buddies to power had its roots in that Civil War religious revival, a revival which itself has since been corrupted for the purposes of right-wing politicians. Put simply God was hijacked for political purposes.

People like Anne Coulter hijacked God for her their purposes, something they have in common with Osama Bin Laden.

Had slavery been banned when the US got its independence, the Civil War would never have happened, America would not have turned to religion and the military-industrial complex would have experienced a very different history.

Sociopaths seek power for their own ends and remain a constant threat to civilisation. Until sociopathic behaviour is finally eradicated from human behaviour systems like pure capitalism and pure communism can never be made to succeed. Pure systems require pure agents within it to work properly.

Ironically it was Dubya himself who consistently remind us that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

Map of American Civil War Battles:

535px-American_Civil_War_Battles_by_Theater,_Year.png

Map of Bible Belt:

v25.jpg

Edited by Dave Spart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I like about the movie is its admiration for the principles underlining the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence taken at face value seems a wonderful document, but take a step back from all the fancy rhetoric and you release that it was basically just an elaborate tax evasion scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd always wanted to be an anarchist when I grew up, but my parents weren't rich enough.

Is that why you are heavily in favour of thieft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its the same old battle between capital and labour thats been going on for hundreds of years.

Dont have a go at Marx. He has been proven correct about capitalism and globalisation.

No that's wrong

You have been following a pretend fight

marx deliberately distorted the word 'capital' to make it look like the lines of a battle should be drawn between employers and employees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is your definition of "freedom"?

Freedom from being coerced.

That's a very good answer. Better than the OP who has avoided answering altogether.

Would you therefore ban TV advertising? And would you institute a universal allowance?

How do you solve 'the problem of initial acquisition'?

Edited by Tob the Blether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is such a mis-mash of non-history I don't know where to begin.

You need to stick to British history.

The American Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. As a consequence of the resulting slaughter, millions of ordinary Americans understandably turned to religion for comfort (its why the Bible Belt geographically coincides with the locations of many of the Civil War's battles).

But at the same time the arms manufacturers realised how immensely profitable supplying weapons could be.

The religious right which swept George W Bush and his industrial-military complex buddies to power had its roots in that Civil War religious revival, a revival which itself has since been corrupted for the purposes of right-wing politicians. Put simply God was hijacked for political purposes.

Had slavery been banned when the US got its independence, the Civil War would never have happened, America would not have turned to religion and the military-industrial complex would have experienced a very different history.

Sociopaths seek power for their own ends and remain a constant threat to civilisation. Until sociopathic behaviour is finally eradicated from human behaviour systems like pure capitalism and pure communism can never be made to succeed. Pure systems require pure agents within it to work properly.

Ironically it was Dubya himself who consistently remind us that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

Map of American Civil War Battles:

535px-American_Civil_War_Battles_by_Theater,_Year.png

Map of Bible Belt:

v25.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.