The fatal flaw in Marxism

Discussion in 'Politics' started by BennyF, Nov 10, 2010.

  1. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Nope. Probably should at some point, though.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    I have never said communism was a social system and I'm as positive as I can be that joe hasn't either. So in other words your lying to promote your ideology.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    well I have found that the people who believe in the ideology of Randism( call it that as a reflection of the woman herself) are much like it's progenitor: egotistical, narcissitic, self centered, self serving, and being completely devoid of empathy and the other traits most people acknowledge as the corner stone of humanness.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member


    I got the point, but I was countering that capitalism was the best, and Scandinavia Socialism is really a form of regulated capitalism, as is that in the U.S.

    I am not sure of any way in which we always beat Scandinavia, but I do know that our productivity per worker is (last time I saw) higher than all Scandinavian countries except for Norway:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'm sure if I hunted around I could find some way in which we kick Norway's ass.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    How about awesomeness per capita? We are more free according to the Heritage Foundation, though I only assume that is per capita.
  8. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member

    Yep, I am certain you both did. Even if the words weren't exactly that, you said it.

    So in other words, you will lie to save your ass from embarassment.

    Be gone will you!!
  9. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    I've said it was a political system but never a social system. the 2 aren't the same

    No that is you. just like your sociopath prophetess.

    why because you can't deal with being rebuked, refuted, and made to look like a fool?
  10. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member

    Really!! Think about it, it will all come to you.
  11. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    You can get lawyers to dispute whether the above supports Galt's contention or PJdude's contention. In the above case which Galt quoted from in that thread I think joepistole is using the phrase social system differently from what it sounds like Galt is suggesting.

    I bet we all misinterpret each other regularly.

    Throwing into the domain field in an advanced google search allong with other search phrases is the best way I know to search for an answer on these claims of what somebody said at sciforums. It could get time consuming.

    Maybe Joe thinks Communism and capitalism are social systems but what does he mean?

    My quick look at ( pjdude1219 with social system within sciforums ) turns up Galt, Joepistole String and Buffalo using the phrase but not pjdude using the phrase. Galt has been going on about this joepistole using this phrase for months now. I don't understand Galt's point and the and a hasty look at the discussion between Joepistole and Galt does not make any sense. I don't understand what Galt is thinking joepistole meant and I don't understand what joepistole meant.

    I see no sign that pjdude is part of this.

    String and Buffalo were using the phrase in other contexts.
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2010
  12. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member

    I think I have made my point quite clear. joe & dude have been on the same page.

    The issue is the conventional wisdom that a political system is different from a social & economic system. I diagree with CW, and by extension joe & dude. It seems very clear to me that, while one can make the argument of distinction, in fact a political system encompasses both. I just cannot see how you can separate them. One drives the other, you can't have freedom in one and centralization in the other.

    I think you can start with one before the other, but that choice drives what the other will be.

    I think those who argue the distinction are being intellectually dishonest, and probably guilty of attempting to justify a political idea; while claiming that idea isn't being practiced on any level.

    In short, when one tries to argue from this perspective one can mix all kinds of ideology whether they are compatible or not. It is like when people say that the US has 2 systems. It cannot happen, and where one exists it is choking the life out of the other, and for us freedom loses.
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    What you you call the American system Mr. Galt? Is is socialist or capitalist? Is it a Democratic Republic or dictatorship?
  14. pluto2 Valued Senior Member

    In my opinion Marxism/socialism/communism is a much better economic system than what we have now.

    Capitalism is a corrupt and oppressive economic system and the only ones who will disagree with me here are probably very rich and successful people.

    The institution of Capitalism serves exactly what those in power want: Total enslavement and total oppression of poor people.

    Capitalism is keeping many people chained and oppressed and anyone who supports such a unequal and corrupt economic system are probably immoral rich people.
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    It wasnt going anywhere but with your positive endorsement all that will change.

    I think communism requires a revolution and the necessary reign of terror that all revolutions require so I would take communism off the list.
    Sadly you will find it does not matter which economic system you select corruption creeps in somewhere and eventually some do well and some appear to get screwed.

    Socialism is ok depending on the degree...I believe in free health, education, housing and cars and no one to work more than two days a week with a pension at age forty double your salary and ten weeks holiday each year...oh I nearly forgot free legal representation for both criminal and civil cases so justice is not lost in cost.

    I say that we elect you to fix everything so when in control how will you change and fix the system.
    I think taking all the money off rich folk for a start. So we await your plan.

  16. river

    Alex that was good , really but I disagree


    Then what is the plan after you take the money off the rich ?

    What are you going to do with it ? And with no income , persay , you can't grow the amount of people you help .
  17. river

    The flaw in marxism is that it was a stagnet philosophy .

    The common people never see their freedom of slavery from their own ingenuity .
    Last edited: May 10, 2020
  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Thank you and if you wish to be wrong that is your prerogative.

    Redistribute it evenly amongst the rich.

  19. river

    Alex what are you going to do with the money .
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    There is some misunderstanding unless I have been made the treasurer whilst out of the room.
    The only money I expect to cross my palms is perhaps a well earned consultancy fee.
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Pure communism is a toxic and deadly ideology.
    Yes, pure capitalism is quite toxic and exploitative as well.
    Capitalism does exactly what it sounds like it does - rewards the accumulation of capital. The reason it works here is that it is well regulated, and contains elements of socialism.
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    The real reason it (Capitalism) works is that it is most closely based on human nature, which is also why Communism and pure Socialism don't work for long.

    Think about how it would be if you lived with just a few friends and acquaintances in a small remote village.

    Your your friend says "I'm hungry but I'm out of food". You say no problem and give your friend some food. Another friend needs a ride down to the store when his car has a flat tire and so you give him a ride.

    All this works out for a while as long as your (lazy) friend isn't always hungry and your other friend doesn't always have car trouble.

    Eventually the village gets a lot larger, you don't know everyone as well, some people aren't that bright, some are lazy, and eventually you get tired of carrying everyone else. The more intelligent, educated and driven do all the work and the rest get much of the proceeds from that work.

    It just doesn't mirror human nature over the long term and with bigger populations.
    Last edited: May 11, 2020
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Nobody who talks like that knows what Socialism is. (There is no such thing as "pure Socialism").

    Unregulated and uncurbed Capitalism does not work.
    It never has, and never will, partly because it is inherently both self-destructive and community destroying - it not only kills itself, it takes its harboring society down with it. It does this by allowing a couple of limited and dangerously shortsighted aspects of human nature to control the distribution of all wealth and resources and physical circumstances within a society, while banishing all the rest of human nature to the fringes of charity-supported irrelevance.

    That's not the only problem with it (there is also chattel slavery, elevation of various sociopathologies to political and military power, ecological devastation, etc etc etc), but it will do for starters.

    Karl Marx was not the first to notice this (afaik every major branch of every major religion has at one time or another forbidden the lending of money at interest, basically on those grounds), but his (and Engels's, etc) analysis of that and related difficulty with capitalism was among the first to have a solid foundation in economic theory, in data and evidence as well as "morality" - a simultaneous reading of Adam Smith and Karl Marx shows that although they were both on the same general page Marx had taken advantage of a century's worth of experience with the industrial revolution to sharpen his observations.
    "His" car? Some guy is "out of food" but you aren't? You own and control the food? - Whatever your little fairy tale there is about, it's not "pure socialism". It's not socialism at all. It's charity.

    The confusion of socialism with capitalist charity prevents useful thought about socialism. It also illuminates the worldview underlying capitalist charity - the resentment of the poor (who are always "lazy") etc, the reasoning behind the world of Charles Dickens and the French Revolution, the world behind the reasoning that gave us wealth-generating colonial possessions without schools let alone universities, without doctors let alone hospitals, without sewer systems let alone the cultural infrastructure of civilization. The worldview and reasoning that gave us the US Civil War - started by a Confederacy of slave-owning racial bigots and superstition-dominated religious fundamentalists that was defeated but not destroyed, that was pro forma regretted but in practice romanticized, that has undermined and poisoned liberal representative government in the US for centuries, and that now flexes its power and influence as the US Republican Party.

    Its capitalist power and influence.

    For a good look at one of the central flaws of capitalism, check out the latest Republican (couple of days ago) proposal for stimulating "the US economy" in the middle of an uncontrolled pandemic and double digit unemployment among the US citizenry: more tax breaks for corporate wealth.

Share This Page