Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
MrB

Marx Was Right

Recommended Posts

Awesome. The state is what? 50% of GDP and the problem is capitalism!

:lol::lol:

Well, that's what I was thinking. The comments are nauseating to say the least. I've tasted my cornflakes twice this morning (and they didn't taste any better 2nd time around)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

booms and busts are cause by those who control the money supply. Keep interest rates above 4% or so (like they did for all of the Victorian era - a time of relative stability hmmm) and we would eliminate a lot of the problems. and not to mention kill off a lot of deadwood companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your view of the world is that we live in a capitalist society, and that Karl Marx suggested that this society was immoral and unfair, and that things would be better if we all cooperated and helped each other out, then of course you would think Marx was right.

No-one discusses ideology, except to explain how capitalism 'justifies' bonuses, or house prices or some other appalling economic vandalism.

So what happens? Eventually people reject capitalism, and turn to the only other thing they have ever heard about.

If it catches on, then eventually a Marxist justification for bonuses, or house-prices or some other economic vandalism will be found.

Nothing will change though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who paid for this tripe*?

And where's the by-line? (edit: aah, there it is)

(* containing such literary gems as "Hunter-gatherers persisted in their way of life for thousands of years"... individually one must presume given the error in the collective sense is to the tune of at least three orders of magnitude... perhaps it's the modern diet that's done for our average lifespan?... and for those of you sleep walking through your coma, the caption "markets are a volatile business" will really ram some sort of a point home, I'm sure)

Edited by ParticleMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Centralization of credit is the fifth marxist step of communism.

Remind me, how long have we had central banks?

I may agree with some of the theoretical conclusions, but the actual means we've experienced have nothing to do with capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your view of the world is that we live in a capitalist society, and that Karl Marx suggested that this society was immoral and unfair, and that things would be better if we all cooperated and helped each other out, then of course you would think Marx was right.

No-one discusses ideology, except to explain how capitalism 'justifies' bonuses, or house prices or some other appalling economic vandalism.

So what happens? Eventually people reject capitalism, and turn to the only other thing they have ever heard about.

If it catches on, then eventually a Marxist justification for bonuses, or house-prices or some other economic vandalism will be found.

Nothing will change though.

Well of course, we dont want housing benefit to be cut because it will hurt the poor, poor tenants, not us altruistic landlords, who by sheer fluke, receive the benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crux of the article - that modern capitalism is eating itself - seems actually to be quite correct.

In fact, paragraphs like:

"Currencies and governments are likely to go under, along with parts of the financial system we believed had been made safe. The risks that threatened to freeze the world economy only three years ago haven't been dealt with. They've simply been shifted to states.

Whatever politicians may tell us about the need to curb the deficit, debts on the scale that have been run up can't be repaid. Almost certainly they will be inflated away - a process that is bound to painful and impoverishing for many."

Could have come straight from a thread on HPC.

When a system delivers better outcomes for an increasing number of participants, people are prepared to overlook a few shortcomings. When this ceases to be the case, a democracy will start to look for something else.

The search is on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marxists, Leninists, Trotskyist, Moaists, Communists, will all argue about the true form of Socialism. Whilst collectively slagging off the Anarchists, whom consider the State Undesirable, Unneccesary and harmful. Which, generally speaking I agree with. Although I dont think Anarchists can truthfully assert they would be better able to resist the temptations of power, or to wield it more successfully, than anyone else.

I want 'the state' to be so small that it's utterly insignificant. [but I dont want it be replaced by corporations or any other authority.] And the Anarchists seem to be most opposed to the Marxist aim of dictatorship of the proletariat.

One thing is certain, a real revolution is well overdue.

Edited by Milton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't we confusing Marxs critique of Capitalism with Communism?

Some clearly are.

Reading his famous unfinished chapter on Class, I get the feeling that he suddenly realises that there is a lot wrong with his theories. It was no surprise to me that the manuscript broke off at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marxists, Leninists, Trotskyist, Moaists, Communists, will all argue about the true form of Socialism. Whilst collectively slagging off the Anarchists, whom consider the State Undesirable, Unneccesary and harmful. Which, generally speaking I agree with. Although I dont think Anarchists can truthfully assert they would be better able to resist the temptations of power, or to wield it more successfully, than anyone else.

I want 'the state' to be so small that it's utterly insignificant. And the Anarchists seem to be most opposed to the Marxist aim of dictatorship of the proletariat.

One thing is certain, a real revolution is well overdue.

I think the trouble with anarchy is someone will always pop up to fill the void of power, and they probably wont be very nice either. Its just the way humans naturally sort themselves into some sort of hierachy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the trouble with anarchy is someone will always pop up to fill the void of power, and they probably wont be very nice either.

Yet the primary goal of Anarchism is to stop that happening. [How they would do so, i do not know.] For me, the 'not very nice' alternative is Dictatorship, via, Marxism, or its derivatives.

Arguments For and Against Anarchy

Edited by Milton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the real reason that Marx is so popular with the BBC is that mentioning the possibility Marx was right is tuning out to be quite good for generating web site hits. The number of comments is impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome. The state is what? 50% of GDP and the problem is capitalism!

Both the great depression and our current difficulties have been directly caused by politicians trying to micro manage the economy, with the stated aim of avoiding booms and busts (Keynesian economics).

All they have actually done is increase the amplitude of the economic cycle.

This is not capitalism, but it is fundamental to modern centre-left / social democratic theory. It is also a world-view to which the BBC is chief propagandist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want 'the state' to be so small that it's utterly insignificant. And the Anarchists seem to be most opposed to the Marxist aim of dictatorship of the proletariat.

"The state should be like a camp fire in the forest: no bigger than necessary and always under your control." (quote source ?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The state should be like a camp fire in the forest: no bigger than necessary and always under your control." (quote source ?)

Baden Powell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marxists, Leninists, Trotskyist, Moaists, Communists, will all argue about the true form of Socialism. Whilst collectively slagging off the Anarchists, whom consider the State Undesirable, Unneccesary and harmful. Which, generally speaking I agree with. Although I dont think Anarchists can truthfully assert they would be better able to resist the temptations of power, or to wield it more successfully, than anyone else.

I want 'the state' to be so small that it's utterly insignificant. [but I dont want it be replaced by corporations or any other authority.] And the Anarchists seem to be most opposed to the Marxist aim of dictatorship of the proletariat.

One thing is certain, a real revolution is well overdue.

Which type of anarchist though, the anarchist who sounds like a socialist (but doesn't like the state), the anarchist who sounds like a capitalist (but doesn't like the state) or the anarchist who sounds like an environmentalist (but doesn't like the state).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />Yet the primary goal of Anarchism is to stop that happening. [How they would do so, i do not know.] For me, the 'not very nice' alternative is Dictatorship, via, Marxism, or its derivatives.<br /><br /><a href='http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/meltzer/sp001500.html#MARXIST' class='bbc_url' title='' rel='nofollow'>Arguments For and Against Anarchy</a><br />
<br /><br /><br />

Generally, anarchists believe (for one of a number of reasons) that it isn't necessary. I think they can largely be summed up as 'mutually assured destruction'

Consider that the same argument used to justify nation states could be made to justify a single global government. Without global government, nation states will be permanently at war, and large nations will simply invade and destroy smaller nations until we are back to a global government again.

Obviously war happens, and is too common. However, it isn't the norm.

Mostly nation states avoid war, and a multitude of nation states persists as a stable state.

This is because nation states, even the small ones, wield just enough power to defend themselves from all but the most determined attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which type of anarchist though, the anarchist who sounds like a socialist (but doesn't like the state), the anarchist who sounds like a capitalist (but doesn't like the state)

I cannot give you a straight answer to that. *It depends on your definition of Anarcho-Socialism.* But I think life would probably be a lot easier with the acceptance of either than the present system.

But to accept Anarchism, you would have to make massive changes, which I dont think you could get peacefully. Like rolling back Centuries of Parliamentary Acts.

The anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard believed that:

anarchism is not fully developed unless it accepts capitalism and that capitalism was not complete unless it accepted abolition of the state: "In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism
Edited by Milton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well I have others."

— Groucho Marx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />I cannot give you a straight answer to that. It depends on your definition of Anarcho-Socialism. But either would be better than the present system. I think life would probably be a lot easier with the acceptance of either. <br />But to accept Anarchism, you would have to make massive changes, which I dont think you could get peacefully. Like rolling back Centuries of Parliamentary Acts. <br /><br />The anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard believed that:<br /><br /><br />
<br /><br /><br />

Anarchism isn't a system, it's a rejection of systems. It is a campaign for the ability to say '****** off' to democrats, socialists, capitalists, kings or despots.

The differences between 'types' of anarchism are mostly just different predictions about what people would do with this ability.

(Libertarianism is a bit different, it's really an attempt by the American right wing to co-opt the rhetoric of anarchism.)

Regarding injin's point, capitalism requires massive government spending in order to maintain it. This is for two reasons.

First of all, the capitalist model of human society is wrong. It contains a lot of valuable insights, but it isn't the truth.

People don't always cooperate through trade, not everything is a commodity, there is more to life than production and acquisition. Since people don't behave in accordance with the model, they need to be controlled, which is expensive.

Secondly, capitalism is only ever used as a front for feudalism. The ideology itself evolves to match the needs of the feudal system. For example, it can include land-ownership or slavery, democracy or dictatorship, religion or atheism. We even have communist capitalism now, in China.

Feudalism is about taking from the serfs to give to the lords, the modern way of describing this is 'massive government spending' (and high rents of course).

Yes, I am aware that Socialism suffers from all the exact same problems, which is no real surprise because they are the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 338 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.