Marxism

I am creating a thread where tea baggers can rant about Marxism being the all encompassing left wing academy. This would be a good place for them to try to label people who disagree with them as a commie, socialist or Marxist.

Don't forget the hammer and sickle.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......huh? ah., Cool Icon pic.

abandonconflict said:

I am creating a thread where tea baggers can rant about Marxism being the all encompassing left wing academy. This would be a good place for them to try to label people who disagree with them as a commie, socialist or Marxist.

Click to expand...

Another fruitcake thread from you. surprise surprise

Please tell us more we love to hear how a socialist anarchy is the answer to all our problems.

In a libertarian world a person would be allowed to practice socialism with their friends. In a socialist , marxist world, a person wouldn't be allowed to be a libertarian.

Where's my hammer and sickle?

Rob Roy said:

In a libertarian world a person would be allowed to practice socialism with their friends. In a socialist , marxist world, a person wouldn't be allowed to be a libertarian.

Where's my hammer and sickle?

Click to expand...

What you call libertarianism is actually called voluntaryism. Don't make me quote Rothbard. But anyway, putting that aside, voluntaryism will always reward private ownership and so what ever collectives could survive would still be private. Furthermore, if this was intended as a jab at anarchists, most anarchists oppose collective ownership as well. Some of us, in a fringe, actually do not consider the earth an ownable commodity, but instead consider it to be alive and to have rights. The resources of the earth are the common heritage of humanity.

abandonconflict said:

What you call libertarianism is actually called voluntaryism. Don't make me quote Rothbard. But anyway, putting that aside, voluntaryism will always reward private ownership and so what ever collectives could survive would still be private. Furthermore, if this was intended as a jab at anarchists, most anarchists oppose collective ownership as well. Some of us, in a fringe, actually do not consider the earth an ownable commodity, but instead consider it to be alive and to have rights. The resources of the earth are the common heritage of humanity.

Click to expand...

abandonconflict said:

What you call libertarianism is actually called voluntaryism. Don't make me quote Rothbard. But anyway, putting that aside, voluntaryism will always reward private ownership and so what ever collectives could survive would still be private. Furthermore, if this was intended as a jab at anarchists, most anarchists oppose collective ownership as well. Some of us, in a fringe, actually do not consider the earth an ownable commodity, but instead consider it to be alive and to have rights. The resources of the earth are the common heritage of humanity.

Click to expand...

I think I understand your point and agree that ownership of external things such as land etc. as opposed to the individuals body might have some room for intelligent discussion of what and how things can be owned and acquired.

I don't oppose the ownership of personal property. I do consider it to be a grave act of aggression upon humanity to defile the earth.

abandonconflict said:

I don't oppose the ownership of personal property. I do consider it to be a grave act of aggression upon humanity to defile the earth.

Click to expand...

I am curious to know why you consistently bring up Rothbard as the final arbiter. How do you know he is correct? cn

cannabineer said:

I am curious to know why you consistently bring up Rothbard as the final arbiter. How do you know he is correct? cn

Click to expand...

I know he is wrong.

He was the founder of American Libertarianism and coined the term anarchocapitalism. He decoded Ayn Rand's ideas into coherent economic arguments. If he wasn't a prominent authority on voluntaryism, Marx wasn't a revolutionary socialist.

abandonconflict said:

I know he is wrong.

He was the founder of American Libertarianism and coined the term anarchocapitalism. He decoded Ayn Rand's ideas into coherent economic arguments. If he wasn't a prominent authority on voluntaryism, Marx wasn't a revolutionary socialist.

Click to expand...

Fair enough but he didn't come up with individualist anarchy and so I don't think its fair to compare him to Marx, Spooner is probably a better comparison.

In order to believe in socialism at all you have to believe in marxist theory, you have to be focusing on the worker/capitalist relationship so that is why people relate any socialist theory to marx, I think this is a narrow view of the worker/boss relationship. The worker does have some advantages over the "boss" and it is a contractual agreement which is mutually beneficial. One such advatange is that the worker is willing to work for less money so he has more options. The capitalist is far better off hiring the lowely worker to for example manage a start up business for less money, why would he hire someone who he has to pay more? After all he is making his money from investments and this is an investment, the worker is thrilled at the opportunity.

As an example if I can farm 5 tons of corn with my own equipment, but then a capitalist offers me equipment that will enable me to farm 30 tons of corn if I give him 15. The socialist farmers daugher says "Why are we giving him 15 tons of corn daddy when we can make so much more money?" . The farmer explains to his daughter "Well you see without the use of his equipment we only get 5 tons of corn, so you see we are making an extra 10 tons of corn by giving him 15".

*if the workers labor was so valuable that the capitalist was ripping him off and he could do better than why would he work for the capitalist?


So then the question becomes:

"Well that is wage slavery, how can the farmer ever get ahead when the capitalist just keeps adding more and more farmers?"

The answer is your supposed to be able to save money.....Your supposed to be able to become an investor yourself. So the problem then becomes "why can't people save money?"

So this is why I think Marx and socialist in general have a narrow view, it doesn't even go down this path..It is just simply jumps right away to the idea that evil capitalist and the nature of capitalism doom people to wage slavery so how do we stop that?

abandonconflict said:

I know he is wrong.

He was the founder of American Libertarianism and coined the term anarchocapitalism. He decoded Ayn Rand's ideas into coherent economic arguments. If he wasn't a prominent authority on voluntaryism, Marx wasn't a revolutionary socialist.

Click to expand...

Point taken. cn

deprave said:

Fair enough but he didn't come up with individualist anarchy and so I don't think its fair to compare him to Marx, Spooner is probably a better comparison.

In order to believe in socialism at all you have to believe in marxist theory, you have to be focusing on the worker/capitalist relationship so that is why people relate any socialist theory to marx, I think this is a narrow view of the worker/boss relationship. The worker does have some advantages over the "boss" and it is a contractual agreement which is mutually beneficial. One such advatange is that the worker is willing to work for less money so he has more options. The capitalist is far better off hiring the lowely worker to for example manage a start up business for less money, why would he hire someone who he has to pay more? After all he is making his money from investments and this is an investment, the worker is thrilled at the opportunity.

As an example if I can farm 5 tons of corn with my own equipment, but then a capitalist offers me equipment that will enable me to farm 30 tons of corn if I give him 15. The socialist farmers daugher says "Why are we giving him 15 tons of corn daddy when we can make so much more money?" . The farmer explains to his daughter "Well you see without the use of his equipment we only get 5 tons of corn, so you see we are making an extra 10 tons of corn by giving him 15".

*if the workers labor was so valuable that the capitalist was ripping him off and he could do better than why would he work for the capitalist?


So then the question becomes:

"Well that is wage slavery, how can the farmer ever get ahead when the capitalist just keeps adding more and more farmers?"

The answer is your supposed to be able to save money.....Your supposed to be able to become an investor yourself. So the problem then becomes "why can't people save money?"

So this is why I think marx and socialist in general have a narrow view.

Click to expand...

Actually, the result is that eventually, one person (or worse, several people) would own both the farm and the equipment. The guy who owns everything would be a billionaire and the people who farm corn would have nothing but labor to sell to someone who wants to sell them corn.

abandonconflict said:

Actually, the result is that eventually, one person (or worse, several people) would own both the farm and the equipment. The guy who owns everything would be a billionaire and the people who farm corn would have nothing but labor to sell to someone who wants to sell them corn.

Click to expand...

see what I mean....You have to believe this to believe in any form of socialism, marx started this whole line of think. So that is why people are calling you a marxist...If I believed this was true I would also be a marxist but I don't think its that simple. I don't think the problem is capitalism, you do.

abandonconflict said:

Actually, the result is that eventually, one person (or worse, several people) would own both the farm and the equipment. The guy who owns everything would be a billionaire and the people who farm corn would have nothing but labor to sell to someone who wants to sell them corn.

Click to expand...

sounds like the collective farms of the soviet union, and mao's grand 5 year plan....

Dr Kynes said:

sounds like the collective farms of the soviet union, and mao's grand 5 year plan....

Click to expand...

Or what is going on in the US, or feudalism.

abandonconflict said:

Or what is going on in the US, or feudalism.

Click to expand...

still having trouble with the big words, i see.

feudalism has NOTHING to do with capitalism or in fact any economic theory, nor has feudalism ANYTHING to do with the political system in the US or anywhere in the worlds save cuba, north korea or other monarchial autocratic states where leadership positions are based solely on the favour of the hereditary overlord, and are revokable at any time upon his displeasure.

in other words, authoritarian socialist regimes are more akin to feudalism than any liberal progressive capitalist society can EVER be.

once a progressive society begins to approach feudal systems, they become Regressive (like authoritarian socialism) which is easy to spot.

refusing to learn when repeatedly told the difference is willful ignorance. pretending to not know the difference is despicable.