Marxism, what's so bad about it?

Kade said:
Charity is socially forced. And it is almost demanded, given that one will inevitably have that money taken from them somehow anyway...
Click to expand...

Social pressure is quite different than government force. No one is going to arrest me for failing to give to charity. At least, not currently. ;)
 
LibertyEagle said:
Social pressure is quite different than government force. No one is going to arrest me for failing to give to charity. At least, not currently. ;)
Click to expand...

Isn't a world based entirely on charity only; bordering on anarchy?
 
Kade said:
Isn't a world based entirely on charity only; bordering on anarchy?
Click to expand...

A limited Constitutional Republic, because it entails a very small government, does lean that way, yes. But there is a big difference between a limited government and no government at all at any level.
 
First, Marxists do believe in some form of money whether it be a barter or gift economy or credit based on the number of hours one has worked (labor theory of value). Although they don't consider this money, to a certain extent it is since money is just a median of exchange.

Second, Marx's class analysis. While I agree with Marx there is class warfare, I think his analysis is flawed since he includes the bourgeoisie and the working class but not the political class (the state). How can the bourgeoisie exploit the working class without the political class? This flaw causes Marxists to falsely believe the state should take over the means of production in order to combat capitalists and big business, when in fact the state aids big business and would merely become big business if they took over the means of production.

Third, Marxism fails because of the economic calculation problem. If individuals cannot own and trade production goods, how will you know price of production and rationally allocate the number of resources you will need to produce consumer goods?

Fourth, Marxism falsely believes in centralization and large economies of scale as being efficient.

From The Manifesto of the Communist Party:

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the
population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated
population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a
few hands....
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more
massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations
together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to
industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of
whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured
out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such
productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?...
Click to expand...

From "Brandeis and Efficiency:"

There is no help to be looked for by capitalism from a perspective “breakdown” of
efficiency due to size. Size [is] incited by efficiency. [E]fficiency flows from size.
And size will wax and wax to the point when capitalism will “break down,” not
because of the stoppage of efficiency, but because the human agency of efficiency, the
wage-slave class, in whose hands, from captainships down to “high privateships," the
administration of the plants will be found more and more completely lodged, will
discontinue administering for a parasite class, and will administer for themselves.
Click to expand...

The problem here is the capitalists (corporatists) used coercive force, with aid from the state to amass property and infrastructure, and to pass down the cost of infrastructure and production through corporate welfare, taxation, land grants, patents and eminent domain.

"Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the
whole people." Vladimir Lenin
Click to expand...
 
LibertyEagle said:
A limited Constitutional Republic, because it entails a very small government, does lean that way, yes. But there is a big difference between a limited government and no government at all at any level.
Click to expand...

The State's are HUGE.... there is no such thing as "limited" government in this regard.

I say the more we restrict what the Federal Government AND THE STATES can do the better...


As things get smaller and smaller the social pressure is equivalent to physical force, as it could be life or death for families and groups. This is a evolutionary principle.

Not to mention the severe discrimination associated with the concept... Charities will only help their own groups, until the weak and poor groups are almost completely dissolved...

I guess that is a desire though, isn't it?

I don't like the idea of the Crime Rates getting any higher... or the idea of the jails becoming more full of non-violent offenders than they already are...

I don't like the idea of a swath of uneducated serfs waltzing about my neighborhood after they are done picking grains from WalsoftBurton Farms, or bands of survivalists and Holnists shouting from their trucks, waving their weapons and raping and pillaging the countryside...
 
With all of that going on, just what is the Federal government doing?

Oh yeah, I remember now, killing Iraqis and Afghans, etc.. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Occam's Banana
The Rise of the Woke Cultural Revolution
Replies
1
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
Self-Determination, Imperialism, and Secession
Replies
0
Views
737
PAF
PAF
PAF
Ron Paul for President!
Replies
8
Views
843
acptulsa
acptulsa
Brian4Liberty
The Complex Relationship between Marxism and Wokeness
Replies
14
Views
2K
Mach
Mach
Anti Federalist
Cultural Marxism: The Greatest Political Strategy in History
2 3
Replies
46
Views
11K
osan
osan
Back
Top