Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
jago

Fixing Marxism

Recommended Posts

The problem with communism is that it just doesn't work.

Often quoted by capitalist pigs. Other than the laziness of the statement there are 2 annoying things about this statement.

1) There is no reasoning as to why

2) There is an underlying unsaid insinuation that unfairness is a fact of life.

Here's the reason why. Let me state it:

Communism is highly inefficient.

Turning your back on the market is like turning your back on speech because speech often results in problems.

For all it's faults the market is an efficient tool, balancing problems, aiding group decisions. You can't turn your back on it. At the very least you risk a country made more powerful by it's benefit invading.

Yet despite what capitalists say there are examples of communism in the world and despite what you may hear while they may be a mess they're not a complete failure. For a start Cuba has fought off hassle from the USA for years and survived despite it all. Then of course there's Russia and China, both not really very communist but they certainly have a history of it. Then of course there's the more reserved populist socialism of south america from Brazil to Ecuador.

If you think this is a subject for other countries, something that happens elsewhere, think again. After travelling south america in particular I can see that there are many in europe sounding just like they are there. Take Argentina. They have a dream there... Peronismo. They're not giving up on that dream. Things may be getting bad but they won't give up. To be fair, for a majority life has improved as things have gone more and more Kafka.

My point is that the UK, Europe... people are sounding a lot like people do in Argentina. In the UK people haven't experienced extremism or occupation so I hear a lot of talk along the lines of "Ban this" "Ban that". We had Occupy. London riots. People have had enough and economic downturn hasn't even started yet.

I would prefer this time to be one of development rather than destruction. If this isn't addressed it's looking a lot like people will be turning to right wing extremism mixed with communism. That's basically the nazis.

If this is to be avoided there has to be a better way. The people need to be satisfied without losing the efficiency of the market.

The market gets blamed for many things. In my experience most of the problems of things being expensive is not a fault of the market but a situation of the market being prevented from working. Examples include:

- qualifications for professionals preventing competition for jobs

- greenbelt land, beaurocracy raising housing costs

- beaurocracy in general actually is a massive one

- patents on phones, copyright on books, trademarks on clothes

Positive examples include:

- p2p lending

- crowdsourcing

- ebay

- forums like moneysavingexpert informing the market

- bazaar style software development

These things should be recognised for the benefit that bring to us all. The EU shouldn't need to bring in a directive forcing mobile phone companies to bring in fair pricing across the union. Governments shouldn't be forced by tax havens to recognise that tax is a market too. Fair energy pricing shouldn't even be an issue.

We have to accommodate people's desire for fairness or everything's going to blow up in our face.

So, hive mind. How do we do this? What are your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Graeber in his "Debt" book points out that communism, markets, etc are not either/or states, that each is appropriate and normal in different aspects of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Graeber in his "Debt" book points out that communism, markets, etc are not either/or states, that each is appropriate and normal in different aspects of life.

the problem really arises from a small group of people who wish to control EVERYTHING...THAT INCLUDES MICRO-MANAGEMENT OF PEOPLES LIVES.

it's hardly a new phenomena.

monopoly corporatism....control of all resources by a few men in suits(international bankers)

state communism....sqeuesterment and control of all resources by a few self-appointed "comrades"....(who look after themselves better than the proles)

basically two cheeks on the same @rse.

the church had a go at that too many years ago...it was called the dark ages.

anybody who disagreed with the pope was starved out(again state control of all resources by a few men in silly-looking frocks).....

.funnily enough they were doing exactly what jesus railed against the pharisees for(...ie keeping the people in physical and spiritual poverty while embellishing themselves with freebies and gifts to keep their power base)

there is no distinction between them at all(and the mad mullahs of islamofascism are exactly the same)

.....and hence how the USA was initially formed...to get away from these people.

that is why the constitution was worded the way it was.....with specific caveats for the issuance of currency/practice of religeon etc.

the problem is,all of the aforementioned have an utter dislike of anything like that document....they want absolute, total control of everything,and everybody, and WILL NOT TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER..JFK/Winston churchill,Ron Reagan and Farage(will be) proved absolutely correct in their assessments.

they cannot be reasoned with,the only thing that they will respond to is an absolute display of military power( ie give these c***s a proper ass-kicking)

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem really arises from a small group of people who wish to control EVERYTHING...THAT INCLUDES MICRO-MANAGEMENT OF PEOPLES LIVES.

Yup. Even if it did 'work' I still wouldn't want it. Even if they know best and can arrange my life in the most logically sound way possible, its my life to arrange and screw up, not theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, hive mind. How do we do this? What are your thoughts?

If only there was an ism that sought to maximise individuals economic freedom and yet maintain an idea of societal commonwealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

Georgism (also called Geoism or Geonomics) is an economic philosophy and ideology which holds that people own what they create, but that things found in nature, most importantly land, belong equally to all. The Georgist philosophy is based on the writings of the economist Henry George (1839–1897), and is usually associated with the idea of a single tax on the value of land.

Georgists argue that a tax on land value is economically efficient, fair, and equitable; and that it can generate sufficient revenue so that other taxes (e.g. taxes on profits, sales or income), which are less fair and efficient, can be reduced or eliminated. A tax on land value has been described by many as a progressive tax, since it would be paid primarily by the wealthy, and would reduce economic inequality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they cannot be reasoned with,the only thing that they will respond to is an absolute display of military power( ie give these c***s a proper ass-kicking)

What kind of 'proper ass-kicking' was needed to bring down the Soviet Union?

In the end, all it took was for the people to say 'no more' and mean it.

'An absolute display of military power' against some assholes in another country requires putting some other assholes in charge of your country, so it will always be a dismal failure. In fact, the West's 'display of military power' during the Cold War probably delayed the collapse of the Soviet Union by giving them an enemy to threaten their people with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only there was an ism that sought to maximise individuals economic freedom and yet maintain an idea of societal commonwealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

Great link. I'm sorry it took so long to reply!

The link to land monopoly needs to be clearer for the lay person. I don't understand why Winston Church wasn't able to enact the land tax from Georgism that would fix the problem in his speech:http://www.progress.org/banneker/chur.html

Consider these experiences:- When my grandmother fell pregnant with my father the landlord didn't want a baby in their house so they had to find somewhere new to live. - When renting I meet friends and of course women. But then I find I cannot have them at home because the contract is not designed with flexibility to cover higher utility bills and other costs. You'd think that the market would adapt to this as only nuns and monks are likely to not be having company over from time to time but no... and so it's the same situation at her place too. - Planning. We are all aware that planning permission is the UK's most corrupt and baffling aspect of government. I don't need to bore youwith examples of the problems we've seen in this bureaucratic process. There is no market incentive for house builders to build infrastructure such as schools and roads. [b]"Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains -- and all the while the landlord sits still"[/b] - Winston Churchill. Rest of speech here: http://www.progress.org/banneker/chur.html. I think it important to note that a massiveworld war didn't really change this problem much for him. This is because change is brought through dreams and when war happens progress isn't guaranteed in the aftermath. Those illuminati schemers seem to think that smashing everything down guarantees progress... in reality it [i]offers[/i] the potential but it's rarely used much. After a war or an earthquake there just isn't the money available to do things properly - it's often a crappy rush job.One way or another these problems are the same thing. The land market is not efficient. It's not just a case of the UK not having enough houses because I have lived abroad and the same problems are still there - just usually less extreme. Through a lot of sacrifice I now finally have enough money to buy a house - in cash in some extreme examples (!party!)... but I am not interested in any of the possibilities on offer. It is so strange to me to finally have this money, finally have the cash that should be able to talk...but to my incredulity the deals just aren't there - not here and as far as I can see, not anywhere in the world. All I have been able to find are a few cohousing projects in areas that aren't right for me. [i]Is this it?[/i]. So I'm staying in hostels and halfway homes... it's bizarre. But enough of all that. What's the answer? How can this market be improved? That's the debate I'm asking you about. I don't expect any ideas straight away. I've been thinking about this for a while. But I remain hopeful. I think the first thing that tends to come up in these debates is communism. The argument is that this is not better than what we have and therefore not of interest. That's fine... but pushing a double bind choice where land is monopolised either by private interests or by bureaucrats is really crappy and negative. The year is coming into 2014 - we have new technology now. It is already possible to bind money with democracy to form direct democracyas a counter-balance to oligarchy. In a perfect world, how would you arrange things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave

We have to accommodate people's desire for fairness or everything's going to blow up in our face.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news here but......

the very first thing you do is abandon the notion of fairness or that government can socially engineer fairness into society without far more undesirable consequences further down the line.

Life ain't FAIR

Never has been, never will be.....END OF

And politicians will never ever improve things on a sound robust basis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to properly understand "Communism", one must first, study the works of Dr Karl Marx.

Most commentators on the topic do not.

Marx concluded, early on, if he was to realise his dream then he had to harness the joint power of what we might call today, SME owners as well as workers.

Most nation states which call their system "Communism", are lying; their imposed system is simply a combination of collective inefficiencies added to a sort of quasi-Fascism.

Soviet Russia proves the best exemplar.

"For each, according to his needs: to each according to his abilities!"

Dr Karl Marx

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:   205 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.