Marxism

Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
deprave said:
its marxism
Click to expand...
Nuhh Uhh!! it just looks identical to Marxism if you KNOW anything about Marxism.

If you studiously avoid reading Marx, it's a whole different thing, that's totally unrelated to mean ole Marxism and the authoritarian dictatorships it breeds.

See! Anarcho-________ism is totally different in ways that are 100% identical.

Cuz Spider Mites aren't Mites, they're SPIDER mites. and that's totally different. They are also Totally Not arachnids too!



I thought i would fill in, so Godhere and Anbandonconflict don't have to wear out their claptrap posting fingers.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are finally reading thier first critique of state socialism by a libertarian socialist and all they can do is ascribe Marxism to the person giving a critique.

The context is like this, Chomsky explicating the arguments of Rudolf Rocker, an anarchosyndicalist (if you don't know what that is, think anti-state unionist or decentralized communist). Then going on to criticize this view for it's flaws, not bitterly, but to draw upon it's merits and understand it's flaws.

Dip shits quote it out of context so it looks like Chomsky is pushing anarchosyndicalism and call him a Marxist.

You're just butt hurt because Chomsky called Adam Smith a statist, which he was.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
retardedconflict said:
Chomp chompy chomp chomp. Chomp chomp chomp-ism. Anarchist Socialist Libertarians. Chomp Chomp.
Click to expand...
We get it bro, you're hard for a paedophile looking literary professor.

This is the politics section, not the Literary Works Forum.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Don't forget to call him a Marxist.
Click to expand...
He's not a Marxist, he's a paedophile, hippy, writer type.

Marxists at least have a solid (yet flawed) doctrine to adhere to, Chomp Chomp just has his own ramblings and self important musings (both pre-raped solidly by a thesaurus).
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
He's not a Marxist, he's a paedophile, hippy, writer type.

Marxists at least have a solid (yet flawed) doctrine to adhere to, Chomp Chomp just has his own ramblings and self important musings (both pre-raped solidly by a thesaurus).
Click to expand...
Marxists have beards.



 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
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...
There's nothing objectionable about this result. People chose to accept wages because they wish to avoid risk.

The meaningful comparison is not the disparity between the billionaire and the peasants. Instead it's the difference between the outcome in one system versus that in another. Without profit motivation, the farmer might not have cared about increasing his crop yields; without that demand for increased crop yields, the financier might never have invested in his technology. The net result of gutting incentives is more equality, but that also means less food at higher cost. No one would benefit from eliminating concentration.

lifegoesonbrah said:
"Industry can only be
democratically owned and controlled by the workers electing directly
from their own ranks industrial administrative committees. Social-
ism will be fundamentally an industrial system; its constituencies
will be of an industrial character. Thus those carrying on the social
activities and industries of society will be directly represented in the
local and central councils of social administration. In this way the
powers of such delegates will
ow upwards from those carrying on
the work and conversant with the needs of the community. When
the central administrative industrial committee meets it will repre-
sent every phase of social activity. "

So it is essentially representative democracy then?
Click to expand...
One of the great merits of capitalism is that profit-seeking enterprises in free markets make more efficient allocation decisions than any other comparable entity. Permitting rule by committees purporting to represent social needs just invites horrific troubles--they'll inevitably make very bad decisions. Economic democracy is a value-destroying farce.
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
Great I am glad someone liked my response. Another problem with marxism and its flawed narrow view of worker/captilist relationship in some more hypothetical examples:

Today we have the autmotated lines at wal-mart, A marxist would say something like: "All the machines are taking peoples teller jobs! That is Bad people are getting hurt!", well the problem is thats not nessecarily true and a very narrow view, The reality is that they were slowly phased out by the machines and now they do other things producing more for the economy. The obvious result is a poor economy when you use force to keep people in their jobs, when you block progress you end up like North Korea and stuck in the 1950's. Imagine if we banned all farm machinery because it was taking famers jerbs, well we all have to eat so the positive is everyone would have a job but where does that leave the economy? Where does that leave us? At a huge loss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top