Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

marxism


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#16 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,769 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:30 PM

Philly B, you are alright with me. I am not particularly a fan of marxism, or I guess capitalism either for that matter prefering to instead be self-employed. But few people on this site are open to new ideas and that is uplifting to see.



you could actually argue (i think) that marxism essentially = self employment as the means and mode of production are controlled by the collective rather than a hierarchy. the reddit definition touches on this as well

#17 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,283 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 05 March 2013 - 12:18 AM

What stops people in this day and age from being self employed?
Millions are self employed keep that in mind.

#18 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,007 posts

Posted 05 March 2013 - 12:30 AM

^inegalitarian distribution of capital in a society that rewards the ownership of said capital

e: for example, the barrier to self employment is basically the same barrier which prevents the fry cook at mcdonalds from opening a competing restaurant across the street (though depending upon the situation, this may be a much larger scale example)

#19 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,346 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:13 AM

What stops people in this day and age from being self employed?
Millions are self employed keep that in mind.


^inegalitarian distribution of capital in a society that rewards the ownership of said capital

e: for example, the barrier to self employment is basically the same barrier which prevents the fry cook at mcdonalds from opening a competing restaurant across the street (though depending upon the situation, this may be a much larger scale example)


I quoted both of ya because I want to answer pstalls question and believe it or not Godspin makes a decent point.

Nothing in theory is stopping someone from opening their own business, but several things in reality are.

The easy and popular answer is you can bootstrap your way into wealth, but the reality is the cards are stacked against you.

If that fry cook wants to compete with McDonalds he needs a way to access supplies/labor/location at the same price as McDonalds. This is virtually impossible. Not to mention how many banks would give a big loan to a fry cook with a dream?

The problem with "Well groups of small businesses should just co-op together to fight the man" is simple. Folks can't agree to poo. ME ME ME ME always destroys WE WE WE WE. Granted sometimes such things have worked, but they lack the pure $$$ muscle and single minded make money at all costs approach that a big corporation has.

#20 OneBadCat

OneBadCat

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,341 posts

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:42 AM

I had a few papers on a communism and marxism at UNCC. All very interesting stuff and I can't stand the ignorance that people have to judge those writing without one glance of reading it. I think there is much to be learned from those ideas.

True communism has never been implemented that's what Limbaugh and Glen Beck don't seem to understand. It possibly may never be able to exist, but do this date it has never truly exist. It's name has been to used for and by the corrupt.

The problem with communism imo, is that people are inheretly selfish. Even in utopia people will want more than they are allotted, for any reason, even just because.

Capitalism has it's flaws too. It creates social class just as much as it does free market or the ability to become wealthy, if not moreso.

#21 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,391 posts

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:44 AM

threads like this are why I continue to visit the tinderbox, props to everyone for providing very useful information and discussion

#22 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,731 posts

Posted 05 March 2013 - 12:51 PM

It's been a loooong time since I studied Marx so I can't talk extensively about his ideas but I do have 2 points to make.

1 - Anyone who refuses to learn about him or his ideas are admitting they are forming their opinions from ignorance. It's not like if you study Marx and his work that you instantly become a communist heathen. He is considered one of the most influential people in history and it could be argued he is the most influential person ever. So to not learn his ideas is just...silly.

I find the cold war/red scare part of our history fascinating. People's idea of communism comes from the perspective of war and fear. Our collective reaction to the threat might not have always been rational but it was natural. The government always framed things as a war on communism or to stop the 'spread of communism' when everyone knows it was against the spread of soviet influence. It's subtle but different, and those are the small things that keep cold wars cold. Yet we still this insanely strong association with communism and the soviet union. Which brings me to my 2nd point...

2 - What we generally refer to as communism is not Marxism, it's Leninism. I think other have said in this thread, but it's important to note that Marx did not really define what communism is. He fleshed out the ideas, but not the mechanics. He constructed the science but not the engineering. So Lenin did and it resulted in an authoritarian state. Communism is just and idea, leninism is just a particular implementation of that idea. We have no reason to be scared of an idea. But, given our past and the unbreakable bond between communism and the soviet union, we do have a natural(but not rational) fear.

#23 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,438 posts

Posted 05 March 2013 - 02:19 PM

The internet and tools like 3D printers have made the distributors of surplus increasingly irrelevant, even though our economy does not yet recognize that. The production and distribution of goods will become more and more democratized to where creating products and distributing them will be just as simple as creating and distributing music or movies are today.

Don't believe me? It's already happening:

http://www.wired.co....duces-physibles

The only thing left to exploit in that scenario are raw materials and energy, and we'll be that much closer to moving past the idea of scarcity. Without scarcity, capitalism as Marx knew it ceases to exist.

#24 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,614 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:51 AM

I haven't read Marx but it always felt like Atlas Shrugged...a really interesting ideological exercise that has no chance of working in real life. I agree with his ideas that being the worker sucks. Anyone who has sat in their cube wondering why they put up with the same crap everyday can identify with this. But in modern society most "workers" have the ability to move up over time which gets them closer to the capital and means of production. Marx commune society makes sense in world where there is a dictatorial boss reigning over 100s of workers making pennies. Like sweatshops in Laos or something.

Cuba is probably the closest to a marxist state, right?

#25 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,346 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:56 AM

Marx commune society makes sense in world where there is a dictatorial boss reigning over 100s of workers making pennies. Like sweatshops in Laos or something.

Cuba is probably the closest to a marxist state, right?



I don't think so, but again I am a novice at this stuff.


From what I can tell Marxism would be everyone working together for a common benefit, without the overpowering dictator.

Thus Cuba/Laos would be more a Leninist type of communism.


I could be very wrong here tho.

#26 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,346 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:58 AM

The internet and tools like 3D printers have made the distributors of surplus increasingly irrelevant, even though our economy does not yet recognize that. The production and distribution of goods will become more and more democratized to where creating products and distributing them will be just as simple as creating and distributing music or movies are today.

Don't believe me? It's already happening:

http://www.wired.co....duces-physibles

The only thing left to exploit in that scenario are raw materials and energy, and we'll be that much closer to moving past the idea of scarcity. Without scarcity, capitalism as Marx knew it ceases to exist.


When 3D printing starts making Real Usable parts for machines and such things will get REALLY interesting.

#27 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,614 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:01 AM

I don't think so, but again I am a novice at this stuff.


From what I can tell Marxism would be everyone working together for a common benefit, without the overpowering dictator.

Thus Cuba/Laos would be more a Leninist type of communism.


I could be very wrong here tho.


Yeah i read that modern communist states would have been rejected by Marx. But Cuba certainly thinks it is a Marxist state. There is such a thing as Marxist-Leninism too. Apparently.

Here is their constitution which actually references Marx multiple times.

http://www.constitut...onstitution.pdf


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.