Ask a Marxist!!!

By proposing the abolition of the market, Marx removed the measurement of values that reveal the performance of an economy effectively. He abolished a measurement that defines human needs, demand, supply, an objective value of goods and earnings. He essentially beheaded the economy.

 

An orthodox Marxist?

Have you ever explored anything after Marx?

 

The reason that the "mistakes" would be repeated is because mistakes were really only made by "useful idiots." I don't think those who managed to attain totalitarian power consider all the human rights violations and whatnot as mistakes.

 

I didn't know affirmative action was a tool of the wealthy?

 

I'd still appreciate a response to my question. The answer very may well lead into the question about value that was recently asked.

 

And the question was exactly what?

 

I originally quoted you by mistake. The question to the Marxist is on page 5

 

because full communism cannot exist with reactionaries running around, we must take billionaires by force and show them what life is like for the working man, we must burn churches, and kill the bourgeoisie

if pure anarchy were too exist today, none of the problems in society would be solved we would still have pedophiles, serial killers, blood diamond miners, slave traders, and paris hilton

 

I see the freak show carnival is still in town.

 

i regard it as absolute nonsense, let's say a garden exists and the people gather what they need too live from that garden, the lockean will claim this garden as his "property" by force and murder, then deem who is able too access the garden through means of his own choosing

of course locke has been discussed for the past 300 years, and most marxists today just consider him to be the developer of "materialist theory of knowledge" and nothing more

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/locke/

 

we wouldn't necessarily "track them down", you would be allowed too stay in school for your entire life, you wont go without food or shelter or basic quality of life, no matter what decisions you make, if you are mentally ill you will receive treatment

 

First of all, I will tell you that I am a geoist. As such, I do support the first Plank of the communist manifesto, which I believe reads 1) Abolition of private property [in land] and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Now, in a truly free market, where labor is completely free to move to where it is most productive, competition between producers is constantly working to erode profits. So, suppose that the market needs more medical doctors. This need shows itself in the form of doctors making higher wages than hamburger flippers. In a free market, some of the hamburger flippers will see this, and throw down their spatula and hang a stethoscope around their neck. This continues until medical doctors and hamburger flippers make roughly the same wage on average. In a free market this competition is working against all profits throughout the entire economic system (including the profits of capital), ensuring that profits are always being eroded while wages rise to absorb the greater levels of production. This is how free markets work up until land starts to become scarce.

After land becomes scarce, this relentless competition between producers in the free market delivers the entire surplus to landowners because landowners have no competition. Labor and capital cannot produce wealth without a landowners permission, so landowners take all they can; leaving BOTH labor and capital just enough to exist, so that the surplus will keep being delivered in the future.

Now my question is, since the free market efficiently delivers all surplus value to the landowner, why do you as a Marxist want to bog the economy down with the remaining 9 Planks of the communist manifesto? All that extra paper work and enforcement are sure to reduce wages. Why not just let the free market concentrate all surplus value into the hands of landowners, and then tax that entire surplus away from them with a simple to administer and enforce land value tax?

The free market, in conjunction with the first Plank of the communist manifesto, will deliver the entire surplus back to the people of the community; and you cannot get more than that, if you try to get more you will end up with everyone getting less. The first Plank of the communist manifesto should also be the last Plank, not?

 

Locke restricted the appropriation of land by the proviso that there must be “still enough, and as good left; and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself: for he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all.” – John Locke

Therefore – according to Locke – once land becomes scarce and commands rent (like it does today), the appropriation of land becomes unjust. Capitalists just like to misrepresent John Locke by ignoring that proviso. He wasn't actually as nasty as the capitalist try to make him look.

 

I have a couple of questiond for the Marxist:

1. Is there a maximum number of people that you are willing to murder in order to institute your dream? If so, what is the number?

2. Would you personally participate in these killings or would you insist that others do it for you?

 

What makes you think that the people not working aren't good at hiding it?

 

friedman pencil 400,000 hits.

No its not. There are littere thousands of little knickknacks in in every department store that while you might think are simple are actually quite complicated. How do these things get built in your world?

 

The problem with the sort of system as proposed by you and other is that people will willy nilly whether you or anyone else like it or not engage in trade in one way or the other and they will only do so if there is something to be gained and that to be gained can be almost anything the human mind can conceive and as long as trade goes on their will also be that odd little thing called buyers remorse. It happens the first time you suddenly miss what ever it was you traded away to get what ever it was you now have or for instance you find out that joe paid one less chicken for his cow than you did for yours.and there's nothing at all logical about.

 

Haha...the irony here is content for a great SNL skit.
Anyone promoting an equal distribution of resources via computer or smart phone on the net using electricity is a joke.

 

Yeah it kind of goes like this.

Over supply and scarcity -> wage and price controls -> hording -> rationing -> black market -> mass surveillance -> abolition of jury system etc. etc.

And that is only one leaf. Another leaf leads to the constant communist purges as since there are no longer any capitalists to blame for the failures of the systems the commies have to start blaming each other. Instead of a communal governance you get an extremely self interested every man for himself government that doesn't' give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the public because everyone is trying to protect themselves from the next purge.

 

Who would chose to be a janitor?

Next question

If the fundamental economic ethic will be 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need' how then do you instill social ethics to the next generation? Imagine trying to teach a child ethics when you say to them

'You reap what you sow'

And they respond

'No you dont. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. You sow what you can you get what you need.'

Its rather hard to teach social ethics when your economic ethic flies directly in the face of the corner stone of universal social ethics. Karma, golden rule, maat, reciprocity, what ever it is called the world over it is the absolute cornerstone of civil ethics the world over. Communism attempts to deny this ethic in economics which bleeds into the rest of the society's ethic.

 

Then I suppose the question I have to ask is what exactly is the revolution. How long does it last? What does it include?

 

My stars … this (the latter stages of capitalism) sounds just horrible.

Albert Nock explains the progression of capitalism into socialism/communism.

Since socialism and communism always grow out of the injustices of capitalism, perhaps we should be looking for a replacement of that system, so we can avoid all of this.

 

You are again confusing the concepts of ownership and monopoly. If a person owns a single car, he does not have a monopoly on cars. If a person owns a single acre of land, he does not have a monopoly on land.

 

That would be socialism. Socialism is becoming increasingly popular in the non-WASP West, whereas Marxism, regardless of faction, remains professorial and esoteric, which is to say elusive.

Speaking of which, what kind of Marxist do you happen to be?

Questions:

1. What is your take on dialectical materialism?
2. Do you agree with Kojève's notion regarding the Hegelian "end of history"? That is to say, that it was achieved at the battle of Jena in 1806, where Napoleon's victory spelled the final Aufhebung of the master-slave dialectic, paving the way for a universal, homogeneous state. If not, please present your take on the matter.
3. Which economic model do you currently favor?