Things you hate? How can it be explained as capitalism if you won’t say what it is.
You act like there was never a guy named Karl Marx who proved this stuff, and debunked many myths about the economy, like 150+ years ago. It isn’t just a random thing like a superstition. In fact believing capitalism isnt responsible is almost a superstition.
Wages are flat while production has skyrocketed the last 50 years, a little longer than I’ve been alive. The system produces a few rich people at one end and a bunch of poor people at the other, that’s what it is meant to do, it’s what it does. It isn’t just an economic system, its the state and media as well.
People aren’t just blaming all their problems on capitalism like some petulant child. There are causes that are very clear and some more hidden, but its no secret and hasn’t been for a pretty long time.
You act like there was never a guy named Karl Marx who proved this stuff, and debunked many myths about the economy, like 150+ years ago.
Marx proved nothing and debunkednothing , he’s not a scientist, he’s an ideologist and a creator of a cult.
It isn’t just a random thing like a superstition.
It is exactly that.
Wages are flat while production has skyrocketed the last 50 years, a little longer than I’ve been alive.
That means the balance of power hasn’t changed, or changed in the way that wages stayed flat.
There are causes that are very clear and some more hidden, but its no secret and hasn’t been for a pretty long time.
I disagree. Human societies are very complex, and economy is basically an open system. Any reductionist model, like that of Marx, will fail in most cases and kinda work in some.
Clearly you’ve never read Marx in any meaningful way, which is unfortunate. If you think Marx is a “reductionist model” then you are cleanly, plainly, completely mistaken. Das Capital isn’t a pamphlet, its 4 unfinished volumes.
Your anti intellectualism is a sad affair, but propaganda is a hell of a drug. I love being told by people who haven’t studied Marx what he is all about. Do you also have strong opinions on Augustine, Hegel, Kant or Descartes? Have you ever read them?
Balance of power
What power? The power of workers? You might have more Marxist ideas than you think.
If you think Marx is a “reductionist model” then you are cleanly, plainly, completely mistaken. Das Capital isn’t a pamphlet, its 4 unfinished volumes.
You know, an adequate Marxist (I’ve met such, believe it or not) would not argue that it is a reductionist model (every model is, my point was that Marxists apply it universally without feedbacks, for which no model is good) and of course wouldn’t use amount of text as a measure of quality or correctness.
Your anti intellectualism is a sad affair, but propaganda is a hell of a drug. I love being told by people who haven’t studied Marx what he is all about. Do you also have strong opinions on Augustine, Hegel, Kant or Descartes? Have you ever read them?
This text doesn’t make sense. I have a strong preference for Marcus Aurelius’ notes and Tao Te Ching over these, if you insist, but Descartes is fine too.
What power? The power of workers? You might have more Marxist ideas than you think.
In this case the power of people with interests weighing more on the employer’s side or the worker’s side. I wouldn’t say it’s power of workers, just like wind filling ship’s sails is not ship’s power.
I don’t think anything is strange in intersections.
The USSR moved out of State Capitalism with the end of the NEP. It is technically correct that they had a State Capitalist economy, but they moved on to a traditional Socialist economy relatively early on.
“State Capitalism” is a form of Socialist economy primarily categorized by a State’s participation in a market economy, heavily directing it. The NEP was used early on as the USSR was very underdeveloped, and Marxists believe markets serve as efficient tools for rapidly developing productive forces at lower stages of development. This was shifted away from after the NEP to a more Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned economy characteristic of traditional Marxian Sociailsm. There were still some small markets and small commodity producers, but by far the primary sector of the economy was in the Public Sector.
In my opinion it has to come from a bottom up movement, that puts emphasis on the sort of types of organization a socialist movement ultimately aims for.
The Leninists tried to disconnect the means and the ends of the movement, using the tools of the bourgeoisie to try and build a new system, which failed.
Marxist-Leninists did not “disconnect means and ends.” The goal of Marxism is liberation of the proletariat, the means of which being working towards Communism, a fully publicly owned, centrally planned world republic free of classes, the state, and money. Marxism-Leninism adds analysis of Imperialism, Capitalism as it spreads internationally (which was not developed yet in Marx’s time), as well as strategic advancements like Democratic Centralism and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination.
Marx was not an Anarchist, he wanted full centralization and public ownership, not a horizontal network of Communes. Engels even argued against such a system in Anti-Dühring.
Things I hate were present where I live through half of USSR and then till now, and replaced things even scarier present since the revolution.
Tell me it’s capitalism, mofo, I beg you.
Things you hate? How can it be explained as capitalism if you won’t say what it is.
You act like there was never a guy named Karl Marx who proved this stuff, and debunked many myths about the economy, like 150+ years ago. It isn’t just a random thing like a superstition. In fact believing capitalism isnt responsible is almost a superstition.
Wages are flat while production has skyrocketed the last 50 years, a little longer than I’ve been alive. The system produces a few rich people at one end and a bunch of poor people at the other, that’s what it is meant to do, it’s what it does. It isn’t just an economic system, its the state and media as well.
People aren’t just blaming all their problems on capitalism like some petulant child. There are causes that are very clear and some more hidden, but its no secret and hasn’t been for a pretty long time.
Marx proved nothing and debunkednothing , he’s not a scientist, he’s an ideologist and a creator of a cult.
It is exactly that.
That means the balance of power hasn’t changed, or changed in the way that wages stayed flat.
I disagree. Human societies are very complex, and economy is basically an open system. Any reductionist model, like that of Marx, will fail in most cases and kinda work in some.
Clearly you’ve never read Marx in any meaningful way, which is unfortunate. If you think Marx is a “reductionist model” then you are cleanly, plainly, completely mistaken. Das Capital isn’t a pamphlet, its 4 unfinished volumes.
Your anti intellectualism is a sad affair, but propaganda is a hell of a drug. I love being told by people who haven’t studied Marx what he is all about. Do you also have strong opinions on Augustine, Hegel, Kant or Descartes? Have you ever read them?
What power? The power of workers? You might have more Marxist ideas than you think.
You know, an adequate Marxist (I’ve met such, believe it or not) would not argue that it is a reductionist model (every model is, my point was that Marxists apply it universally without feedbacks, for which no model is good) and of course wouldn’t use amount of text as a measure of quality or correctness.
This text doesn’t make sense. I have a strong preference for Marcus Aurelius’ notes and Tao Te Ching over these, if you insist, but Descartes is fine too.
In this case the power of people with interests weighing more on the employer’s side or the worker’s side. I wouldn’t say it’s power of workers, just like wind filling ship’s sails is not ship’s power.
I don’t think anything is strange in intersections.
What things are you talking about, “mofo”?
USSR had a state capitalist economy
The USSR moved out of State Capitalism with the end of the NEP. It is technically correct that they had a State Capitalist economy, but they moved on to a traditional Socialist economy relatively early on.
And also water is dry, the sky is red, and the earth is neither round nor flat, but a klein bottle.
“State Capitalism” is a form of Socialist economy primarily categorized by a State’s participation in a market economy, heavily directing it. The NEP was used early on as the USSR was very underdeveloped, and Marxists believe markets serve as efficient tools for rapidly developing productive forces at lower stages of development. This was shifted away from after the NEP to a more Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned economy characteristic of traditional Marxian Sociailsm. There were still some small markets and small commodity producers, but by far the primary sector of the economy was in the Public Sector.
I fully agree. So when you are against capitalism, what is your alternative that doesn’t devolve into state capitalism?
That’s something you can write a book about.
In my opinion it has to come from a bottom up movement, that puts emphasis on the sort of types of organization a socialist movement ultimately aims for.
The Leninists tried to disconnect the means and the ends of the movement, using the tools of the bourgeoisie to try and build a new system, which failed.
Marxist-Leninists did not “disconnect means and ends.” The goal of Marxism is liberation of the proletariat, the means of which being working towards Communism, a fully publicly owned, centrally planned world republic free of classes, the state, and money. Marxism-Leninism adds analysis of Imperialism, Capitalism as it spreads internationally (which was not developed yet in Marx’s time), as well as strategic advancements like Democratic Centralism and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination.
Marx was not an Anarchist, he wanted full centralization and public ownership, not a horizontal network of Communes. Engels even argued against such a system in Anti-Dühring.