Marxism, what's so bad about it?

[LibertyEagle]

With all of that going on, just what is the Federal government doing?

Oh yeah, I remember now, killing Iraqis and Afghans, etc..

I think most everyone here understands that our government is out of control. But, the solution is to return to Constitutional government; not to dissolve the government completely and have anarchy.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I think most everyone here understands that our government is out of control. But, the solution is to return to Constitutional government; not to dissolve the government completely and have anarchy.

Unfortunately, you are entitled to your statist opinion. When you've finally managed to shrink it ANY, please let me know.

 

[Kade]

I think most everyone here understands that our government is out of control. But, the solution is to return to Constitutional government; not to dissolve the government completely and have anarchy.

Resorting to "charity only" is anarchy...

 

[LibertyEagle]

Unfortunately, you are entitled to your statist opinion. When you've finally managed to shrink it ANY, please let me know.

Funny, your hero Murray Rothbard, did not refer to limited government conservatives as statists. But, I guess facts don't matter to you. But, please do be sure and tell Ron Paul that you view him as such and that you are doing everything within your power to destroy what his Campaign for Liberty is trying to do.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Resorting to "charity only" is anarchy...

Nope. You were talking about social programs. The federal government was never supposed to be involved in this. That's where charity comes in.

 

[torchbearer]

From a sociological perspective, Marx was wrong in his assumption that people will work without equal gratification.
Meaning, why would someone spend 10-12 years in med school to be paid the same as someone waiting tables?
Why would I work 40 hours a week when I can get everything I need by not working at all?
To each according to his need right?
The whole manifesto is a proverbial sounding response to the modern day slavery of that time.
What people were getting was abuses from capitalist, what Marx was offering was slavery to the state.
How are you going to get production in a system with no personal wealth? You have to force people to work. Its the law. You have to report to this facility to learn this trade, for the good of all.
meaning, slave to majority.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Funny, your hero Murray Rothbard, did not refer to limited government conservatives as statists. But, I guess facts don't matter to you. But, please do be sure and tell Ron Paul that you view him as such and that you are doing everything within your power to destroy what his Campaign for Liberty is trying to do.

Sorry. my hero and libertarian mentor was Robert LeFevre. I do like Murray too, however.

Hyperbole much? I think that you are merely grossly overestimating my very limited powers and abilities.

Nice attempted bogus "spin" there, BTW.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Sorry. my hero and libertarian mentor was Robert LeFevre. I do like Murray too, however.

You should read more of him then.

Hyperbole much? I think that you are merely grossly overestimating my very limited powers and abilities.

I didn't say you'd be successful. You won't be, but that doesn't stop you from continuing to try.

Nice attempted bogus "spin" there, BTW.

Nope. Just the facts.

 

[Truth Warrior]

You should read more of him then.


I didn't say you'd be successful. You won't be, but that doesn't stop you from continuing to try.


Nope. Just the facts.

"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."

 

[Fox McCloud]

I have no problem with voluntary marxism--if a group of people want to get together and poo their money/resources/etc and share/own/use them equally, that's fine, it's when that group forces everyone to join their group.

 

[torchbearer]

I have no problem with voluntary marxism--if a group of people want to get together and poo their money/resources/etc and share/own/use them equally, that's fine, it's when that group forces everyone to join their group.

voluntary marxism would be more like your family. you all share the same things, the property and food, etc.. are held in commune.
voluntary marxism is voluntary communism.
Just like monks at a monestary. nothing wrong with that.

A state forced communism is tryanny.
Just like state forced corporatism.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The problem with Marxism as I envision it while seated at the national dinner table

Alright, im no socialist, but i regretfully admit that i am intrigued by some Marxist philosophy, although i've barely read into it at all. Im currently debating a relative on Free Market Capitalism vs Socialism, and im getting confused, and hes winning. Apparently there isnt even currency in a Marxist society, so obviously this is some extreme socialism that im not sure how to deal with.

I understand that the ends do not justify the means but, im debating someone who really seems to know alot about marxism, and is able to spin it in such a way that sounds pretty nice.


Can you guys give me some hard hitting points against Marxism to use?

If one were to attempt to sue the master class of China for sitting at a different table from its slave class, the Chinese court system would just argue that no slave class exists because no master class exists in China as evidenced by the peasant garments worn by Communist party officials. Material equality is the focus in China and because of this, a broader inequality exists in their classes there.
In the American system, the self evident truths trump all. Tyrants are not allowed to sit at the American dinner table or else he or she is divorced and replaced by the people with the more proper government of a king. So, it isn't equality in the American system but the matter of the same unalienable right being reduced as the conscience of every American soul. This meant that the King of England could not deny knowing the self evident truths because a natural right reduces beyond the idea to become indelibly imprinted equally onto every human soul:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The concept of such a natural right helped put the idea of the social "gentleman" to death in America during the age of American transcendentism. This helped distinguish the American from the more primitive European.

 

[mediahasyou]

Communism has more corruption than any other government system. And history shows.


Think of money as power. The more you have, the more you can tell people what to do.
Now in a free market society, people can succeed and gain power through the market.
However, in communism you cannot succeed. No matter how hard you try. Therefore, those driven, and focused people go through the government to gain power. And those are the stalins, mao, kim jung ills of society.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Communism has more corruption than any other government system. And history shows.


Think of money as power. The more you have, the more you can tell people what to do.
Now in a free market society, people can succeed and gain power through the market.
However, in communism you cannot succeed. No matter how hard you try. Therefore, those driven, and focused people go through the government to gain power. And those are the stalins, mao, kim jung ills of society.

But the order is Rousseau, Hegel, Marx.
Rousseau argued that peasants desired liberty.
So, the problem was with liberty. Hegel said that it was useless bantering on and on about liberty as long as people didn't own property. The King at one time owned every inch of property. He was the public and the state and everything in between.
Marx took up the issue of property. The proletariat, the exploited working class, winning property from the bourgeoisie, those who own the means of production.
While socialism might seem like an evil thing, it is far from it. The worst system would be the types of primitive caste systems in the past where a master class, those who own everything, rule over a faceless slave class, those who don't even own their own souls.

 

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

Shortest answer I can think of: Marxism conflicts with basic human desires.

 

[Acala]

Ahahahaha

Charity is socially forced. And it is almost demanded, given that one will inevitably have that money taken from them somehow anyway...

You DO know what force is, right? It is when somebody physically directs your actions, physically harms you or threatens to physically harm you if you refuse to do their bidding.

Amazing that you have offered to educate all of us ignoramuses on so many occasions on the way things are and should be and yet your thinking is so muddled you can say something like "charity is socially forced".

 

[Defining Obscene]

Marxism would never be truly efficient and satisfying whilst capitalism exists. That, and the people in charge of government have the same greed as every other human. Marxism has a transcendent message, but it is not really possible this day and age with all the corruption, and of course people who are doing quite well in America view this as a leech system. Communism has done well for the Chinese government, not so much for the people. Marxism could work under a world government, but then again, think of the consequences of that.

 

[Zavoi]

In this video (at about 6:40) Murray Rothbard discusses some points that have already been mentioned: The "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" principle conflicts with everything we know about human nature, but even if a Marxist society succeeds in creating a "New Socialist Man" that will work for the benefit of society as a whole, there is still the insurmountable problem of economic calculation, which is impossible without a free market.

Another problem is Marx's theory of exploitation: observing that workers are paid less then the value of what they produce, Marx concludes that a parasitic relationship exists. The Austrian economic theory rejects this analysis, explaining that Marxist economics does not account for time preference:

What is wrong with this analysis? The answer becomes obvious, once it is asked why the laborer would possibly agree to such a deal! He agrees because his wage payment represents present goods—while his own labor services represent only future goods—and he values present goods more highly. After all, he could also decide not to sell his labor services to the capitalist and then map the full value of his output himself. But this would of course imply that he would have to wait longer for any consumption goods to become available to him. In selling his labor services he demonstrates that he prefers a smaller amount of consumption goods now over a possibly larger one at some future date.

(Source)

 

[Conza88]

voluntary marxism would be more like your family. you all share the same things, the property and food, etc.. are held in commune.
voluntary marxism is voluntary communism.
Just like monks at a monestary. nothing wrong with that.

A state forced communism is tryanny.
Just like state forced corporatism.

Voluntary communism is oxymoronic.
I'd deem it more correct to call it voluntary socialism... which is fine in a free society.
All boils down to voluntary > coercion

Mises - Media Section: Marx and Marxism - For anyone wanting to learn.

Btw, for whoever said something earlier about Capitalism running on Greed. <-- It doesn't....

It runs on individuals pursuing their separate self interests..

Any system that departs from this, human nature - fails.

 

[mediahasyou]

Btw, for whoever said something earlier about Capitalism running on Greed. <-- It doesn't....

It runs on individuals pursuing their separate self interests..

Any system that departs from this, human nature - fails.

GREED: http://www.dailymotion.com/related/1023571/video/xlxq4_in-the-classroom-greed-part-1of3_life