What's wrong with Capitalism?

[donmara]

Speaking of Adam Smith/ Marx dichotomy, I've been reading the wealth of nations and Marx's Capital as of late. I find the latter to be a tiresome and complex book.

[Alan]

Don't read it. It's boring and completely wrong.

[donmara]

Originally Posted by Alan

Don't read it. It's boring and completely wrong.

You attack the falsehood of a book from which your ideals come from ? You call yourself a marxist, correct ?

[Shadowagony]

Originally Posted by JCC

You've got Google, why don't you stop complaining that people aren't taking you seriously and learn something before you talk about it? It's not difficult.

No, I was responding to what seemed like a condescending remark in regard to a post that I made. It's my way of saying "there is no reason to be a jerk about it."

[Shadowagony]

Originally Posted by Alan

It's too big. You obviously read a post that specifically said 'corruption'

Please point it out to me, because that person is fucking stupid. Out of all the things one can blame capitalism, corruption is not one of them.
I seriously need to rip that person to shreds, so help me out.

It's at the beginning of the entire thread where someone referenced it. Other things referenced that I was addressing was greed and unequal distribution of resources and wealth. These are certainly problems with capitalism, but I think that the human element contributes to this and such things would occur in any system. This was all that I was saying. I wasn't trying to make a cop out or trying to derail the conversation in any way. My apologies for being an ass.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by donmara

You attack the falsehood of a book from which your ideals come from ? You call yourself a marxist, correct ?

Adam Smith's ideas were also stupid; does that mean that the free market holds no value to a capitalist, or that he must completely delude himself?

The philosophical, sociological, and political aspects of marxism are correct. But Marx was not an economist and it shows.

You really assume too much. Christ.

[donmara]

Nearly every free market capitalist espouse Adam Smith's ideas in the Wealth of Nations, specially those who express loyalty to the austrian school.

Marxists believe in marxist economics, which is a derivative of Marx's Capital and the Communist Manifesto.

How can someone call himself a Marxist while knowingly rejecting the veracity of Marx's Capital. The only possible explanation is that Marx's Capital has no relevance to Marxism. Is this what you propose ?

[JCC]

Originally Posted by donmara

Nearly every free market capitalist espouse Adam Smith's ideas in the Wealth of Nations, specially those who express loyalty to the austrian school.

Marxists believe in marxist economics, which is a derivative of Marx's Capital and the Communist Manifesto.

How can someone call himself a Marxist while knowingly rejecting the veracity of Marx's Capital. The only possible explanation is that Marx's Capital has no relevance to Marxism. Is this what you propose ?

Marxism is far larger than Marx.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by donmara

Nearly every free market capitalist espouse Adam Smith's ideas in the Wealth of Nations, specially those who express loyalty to the austrian school.

Marxists believe in marxist economics, which is a derivative of Marx's Capital and the Communist Manifesto.

How can someone call himself a Marxist while knowingly rejecting the veracity of Marx's Capital. The only possible explanation is that Marx's Capital has no relevance to Marxism. Is this what you propose ?

Pretty much. No marxist since the nineteenth fucking century takes Das Kapital to be remotely true. Karl Marx himself didn't even finish Das Kapital and the biggest marxist speculation for this is that he realized he was wrong.

By the way, it was stupid enough for you to try and school me about Marxism, but even worse, you actually fucking believe "Nearly every free market capitalist espouse Adam Smith's ideas in the Wealth of Nations"?
The only ones who espouse SOLELY Adam Smith are Austrian capitalists, a group you mentioned but failed to mention they are a ridiculously tiny minority; plus they only use Smith's economic writings and not his social writings
(""Behold! I have invented the most devious pyramid scheme of all time! CAPITALISM!"
& "What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same ... The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.")

Every other capitalist knows better than to believe in the stupidity of Austrian Economics, an economic cult so ridiculous that its own leader demands FAITH to believe in it (""its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts." Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics.)

Capitalism has evolved in theory as much as Marxism. Capitalism's greatest contributor since Adam Smith, and in man ways much more important than Smith, has been Keynes, yet you did not mention him at all. And then there's the contributions of Piero Sraffa and Gunnar Myrdal.
You seem to be stuck in economic theories of two hundred years ago. You need to update your economics.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Alan

Pretty much. No marxist since the nineteenth fucking century takes Das Kapital to be remotely true. Karl Marx himself didn't even finish Das Kapital and the biggest marxist speculation for this is that he realized he was wrong.

By the way, it was stupid enough for you to try and school me about Marxism, but even worse, you actually fucking believe "Nearly every free market capitalist espouse Adam Smith's ideas in the Wealth of Nations"?
The only ones who espouse SOLELY Adam Smith are Austrian capitalists, a group you mentioned but failed to mention they are a ridiculously tiny minority; plus they only use Smith's economic writings and not his social writings
(""Behold! I have invented the most devious pyramid scheme of all time! CAPITALISM!"
& "What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same ... The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.")

Every other capitalist knows better than to believe in the stupidity of Austrian Economics, an economic cult so ridiculous that its own leader demands FAITH to believe in it (""its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts." Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics.)

Capitalism has evolved in theory as much as Marxism. Capitalism's greatest contributor since Adam Smith, and in man ways much more important than Smith, has been Keynes, yet you did not mention him at all. And then there's the contributions of Piero Sraffa and Gunnar Myrdal.
You seem to be stuck in economic theories of two hundred years ago. You need to update your economics.

Not to mention Fredrick Von Hayek (sp). Not that I like the man (I don't) but he's the often sighted counterpoint to Keynes

[Cat Man]

Well, I'm not well read on the topic, so I can only offer my own opinions. But one thing that really pisses me off is how it is basically selling sex to minors. All those adverts that are basically soft porn, those abominable Bratz dolls, the record companies who will basically sign any old whore up who can pout in mini skirt...ugh. I'd feel more comfortable with Gulags, and military parades with a lot of red flags and hammer and sickles.

[Despanan]

[Cat Man]

Originally Posted by Despanan

But I'm not a troll

[Jochon]

There is nothing wrong with capitalism, it's the reason we can walk around dressed all black and express ourselves freely.

If we were a Communist country we wouldn't be able to do this, we could be imprisoned for doing it actually.

Even if we don't appreciate the man or woman that happens to be our head of state or their politics, we should all be pretty God damned grateful that we live in a Capitalist country.


P.S. If you don't live in a Capitalist country, I'm sorry.

[Alan]

There's many reasons to complain against communism, but we don't do clichés around here.

Please refer from saying "In communist Soviet Union you'd be shot for listening to Alien Sex Fiend!" or any parallel stupidity.

[Jochon]

Originally Posted by Alan

There's many reasons to complain against communism, but we don't do clichés around here.

Please refer from saying "In communist Soviet Union you'd be shot for listening to Alien Sex Fiend!" or any parallel stupidity.

Why don't we do clichès around here?

If it's a clichè it's because it's been used alot.

If it's been used alot, it's probably because of a reason.

And if that reason happens to be that Communist rule is inferior to Capitalist rule, well so be it.



I gotta agree that clichès aren't the best thing to use when you wanna make a point as it will bore the audience.

But you gotta admit that having laws that prohibit your children from getting siblings is pretty extreme.

I mean China can be as overpopulated as they want to be, and I guess it's good that they try to reverse it, but killing off the female babies that's not good enough for adoptions.. I can't respect that.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Jochon

I mean China can be as overpopulated as they want to be, and I guess it's good that they try to reverse it, but killing off the female babies that's not good enough for adoptions.. I can't respect that.

Really? I've always seen forced abortions and misogynistic infanticide as the finest points of Marxist theory, KILLING BABY WHORES was definitely my favourite chapter of the Communist Manifesto.

[Jochon]

Originally Posted by JCC

Really? I've always seen forced abortions and misogynistic infanticide as the finest points of Marxist theory, KILLING BABY WHORES was definitely my favourite chapter of the Communist Manifesto.

Yeah that's real mature, Karl Marx's dream is not fit for a society, it doesn't work.

Communism is the closest you can get to a functional version of Marxism, and it's horrible.

Capitalism has proven itself to be the most functional of the two, and I'm grateful I live in a country that supports that philosophy.

[Alan]

Pinochet killed thousands of intellectuals.

There ya go. Proof that capitalism does not equal freedom.
Seriously, Desp and JCC asked very challenging questions about Marxism in a thread I think below this one, and I tried to answer as best as I could as an actual Marcist thinker, and you come here and pretend to school us when you defend your position through clichés AND THEN defend your use of clichés?
We're trying to have an actual discussion here.

[KontanKarite]

Did the troll seriously just say that because of capitalism we're allowed to dress like idiots and enjoy obscure music?

That's just... insane and completely wrong.

Self expression is much more a cultural or social thing, not exactly a matter of distribution of wealth.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Did the troll seriously just say that because of capitalism we're allowed to dress like idiots and enjoy obscure music?

That's just... insane and completely wrong.

Self expression is much more a cultural or social thing, not exactly a matter of distribution of wealth.

But is is a matter of private enterprise, because niche interests exist only when there is a market for them that can sustain the industry; if the government takes control of industry then it's incredibly unlikely that it will cater to niche interests like goth clothing, which was part of the question about what happens to luxury items in a Marxist state. You would be allowed to wear it, yes, but where will it be produced for you to do so?

[Jochon]

Originally Posted by JCC

But is is a matter of private enterprise, because niche interests exist only when there is a market for them that can sustain the industry; if the government takes control of industry then it's incredibly unlikely that it will cater to niche interests like goth clothing, which was part of the question about what happens to luxury items in a Marxist state. You would be allowed to wear it, yes, but where will it be produced for you to do so?

Thaank you.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Jochon

Thaank you.

Don't piggyback on my point and pretend that it was your point, you were saying that Marxism is naturally predestined to turn into a society where people are disallowed from being goths by the state. What I'm saying is not what you were saying.

[Jochon]

Originally Posted by JCC

Don't piggyback on my point and pretend that it was your point, you were saying that Marxism is naturally predestined to turn into a society where people are disallowed from being goths by the state. What I'm saying is not what you were saying.

I really don't see the difference, maybe you formulated it better than me.

Please don't accuse me of "piggy backing" you, you're giving yourself too much credit.

[Jochon]

Originally Posted by Alan

Pinochet killed thousands of intellectuals.

There ya go. Proof that capitalism does not equal freedom.
Seriously, Desp and JCC asked very challenging questions about Marxism in a thread I think below this one, and I tried to answer as best as I could as an actual Marcist thinker, and you come here and pretend to school us when you defend your position through clichés AND THEN defend your use of clichés?
We're trying to have an actual discussion here.

Marxism is a beautiful dream that doesn't work in the real world.

I'm not pretending to "school" you, I am merely expressing my opinion, I already read through some replies that this thread is dominated by idealists, it is impossible to "school" idealists because they(you) are too closeminded to allow themselves to be "schooled".

And bashing clichès is not a counter arguement, as I stated; there's a reason clichès become clichès, no matter how sick of them you are.