fucking karl marx
 

Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.

Karl Marx

The emasculation of our society would suggest that we went a bit too far with this idea.

from the same guy:

The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.
Karl Marx

Democracy is the road to socialism.
Karl Marx

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Karl Marx
translation: If you want something and are willing to work for it, you still won't get it unless the Government/State/Party/System decides you need it.

and last but not least:
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.
Karl Marx
translation: If you don't agree with communism, we have the right to use violence against you.

Karl Marx and his buddies obviously won. The masses are just too dumb, too trusting, and easy to herd.

What a horrible misunderstanding of communist theory.

Go and read Friedman.

I know, I prefer the hegelian "woman is the irony of the community"...

http://edkrebs.com/herb/Fascist-Palin-.jpg

ADG

blah blah blah give me money and i will make more :)

Karlo Marx and Fredrich Engels
Came to the checkout at the 7-11
Marx was skint - but he had sense
Engels lent him the necessary pence

The Clash

it's the fucking soy :(

Ok, please explain it to me :)

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__...x_Brothers.jpg

My favorite Marx movie was "Hot To Trotsky"... :stoned

ADG

Wait, GFY is wakening up?

Fine by me. I don't eat the shit.

Enjoy your vegetable oil girls.

Workers own the fruits of their labour. Therefore they own what they create not the fucking State or Government which doesn't exist in a Communist society, as detailed by Marx.

So say if you work for Apple in China and you make iPods which are shipped to the US and sold for astronomical markups of $500+ when the workers in the factories are paid 50 cents an hour to produce wealth for the shareholders and Jobs. CEOs and shareholders direct the investment in the company and workers have no say in either their future or the future of the company.

They could unionise but corporations have castrated this ability.

That's a typical capitalist setup in this global economic market.

Now imagine that a factory produces goods and the workers of that factory made the decisions on what to produce for the people. There's no competition because corporations competiting for marketshare don't exist, so the best technology is freely available to everyone (think open source everything).

The workers work at the factory because they choose to, producing goods for the world population based upon the needs of the people.

A communist system isn't Chairman Mao or Stalin sitting on a throne telling people what to do. Ditch your American propoganda and do some reading.

Start with Hengel, Marx, Chomsky and Adam Smith. Smith is particularly interesting as he is championed as being a father of modern capitalism. They quote him when arguing for free-markets, if you actually read The Wealth of Nations then you will know that Smith argued for tight reins to control a capitalist system.

The fact that these reins fail to stop capitalism from spiriling wildly out of control is why the system is doomed to fail. Deregulation bought by those wishing to profit will see the system crash over and over again.

Indeed that was Lenin's reading (or contribution) of Marx (wich cannot by "bypassed" if you actually adhere to the Idea of communism).

There is "communism - the dream" - which is something that hasn't been achieved yet on any meaningful scale.

There is "communism - the reality" - which is using the dream of a workers paradise to rally the masses into believing in something that will never happen, so a few people or even one man can take over an entire nation and enslave everyone, terrorize them, murder them, starve them and condemn them to an existence of poverty.

We differentiate between the two by capitlization. "communism" is the theory that has not yet been implemented, "Communist" is merely what states choose to label themselves be it the USSR, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba or China.

1. Right now, nowhere in this world do we have a so called capitalist system. The system that is in place in most of the world is a corporatist system.

2. People own their own body and the fruits of their labour (read: John Locke, Hans Herman Hoppe and Frank van Dun). Because people own the fruits of their own labour they are free to use it any way they want as long as they don't cause damage to another human being or his property. So people are free to produce products and sell them, people are free to deliver services in exchange for something else,... People are free to work for an employer if they want. They are free to agree to perform certain duties during certain hours for a certain wage.

If a worker produces something in a factory while being employed by the owner of the factory, the worker does not own the product he just produced. The worker voluntarily agreed to work there in exchange for a certain salary. (he agreed to sell his labour for a certain price).

One thing people like Marx, Chomsky, Kropotkin,... fail to realize is that labour is not the only factor of production that determines the value of a product. Fact is that raw materials are rare, that skilled labour is rare, that there exist is such a thing as risk, that there exist such a thing as time, that people aren't psychic and can't predict how many people will want a certain product at a certain moment in time and can't predict how badly they'll want the product at that moment in time,... (I recommend reading Mises, Hayek and Rothbard)

3. Torcetrapib, Torcetrapib, Torcetrapib. In the early 1990's Pfizer started developing a new drug for people with high cholesterol; Torcetrapib. They worked on the product for about 16 years. In 2006, they suspended their clinical trials due to possible heart risks and they cancelled the project. The drug was never on the market. Pfizer didn't make a penny, while they had invested I think around 800mil USD.

Even though, Pfizer didn't make a penny, all people working on the project (lab technicians, doctors, secretaries, cleaning ladies, managers,...) all got paid at the end of the month for the duration of the product (or at least the time they were employed there).

Now, let's say we'd have a communist system where all people working on the project get an equal share of the profits. If Pfizer said: "We are looking for people to work on our new project. We want to develop a new drug, but we don't know how long it will take. It could be 2 years, it could be 10 years, it could be 16 years,... It is even possible we won't be able to sell it. But if we come up with something and are able to sell it, everyone will get an equal share of the profits.", how many people do you think would be willing to do the work?

Fact is, in a free world (or capitalist world), the entrepreneur carries the risk and the factor time. He supplies the capital, he takes a bigger risk, but may also get a bigger reward for taking a bigger risk.

How do you know how many ipods you'll need, how many htc phones you'll need, how many nokia's you'll need? Without a free market and market prices, there's no economic calculation. Without economic calculation, you'll always have a shortage of certain goods and services and you'll always be wasting others. (Again, read Ludwig von Mises. In the 1920's he wrote a great paper about how the Soviet Union would fail because of the lack of economic calculation.)

4. Rest assured, I've read Marx (and was amazed by his lack of understanding of basic principals of economics, was disgusted by his moral arrogance and horrified when he sugested that certain groups of people should be eliminated for the greater good). I've read Chomsky (and have great respect for his research in the field of propaganda, and can't understand why he doesn't see the flaws in his anarchosyndicalist or mutualist thinking). I've read Smith (and i actually understood what he was saying when he mentioned the invisible hand. Smith defended markets (voluntary transactions) and opposed any kind of intervention).

5. If you want to understand how the economy really works, I recommend reading Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, Jean-Baptiste Say, Frederic Bastiat,...

According so someone that knew a little about facism "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power"
Benito Mussolini
So in essence we are there already, the latest corporate buy out proves it. Shit, I thought we were a democracy ;(

Actually "communism" is the means to establish "Socialism" (with the capital S) (in the Marxist meaning of the word).

No doubt. I've purposely labelled capitalism in the same mistaken way you did communism.
People are not free to pursue work in the way you describe. People are but wage-slaves in this system; bound by debt in a economy that has more unemployed than jobs, most people can not simply up and leave a position they hold.

Commondities are priced by the market, a capitalist cannot change that fact. When one wishes to profit, labour is the only thing left the squeeze.

Product? Profits? Do you have even a redementary understanding of communism?

People are willing to work on things they are passionate about, medicine will not be left with a scarcity of researchers in a communist system. Jonas Salk who discovered the first polio vaccine is testement that profit is not everyones motivation.

How about labelling all of the medicines and drugs that are not produced because there is no profit motive?

There's no profit in the cure.

Adam Smith advocated intervention of the state to distribute public revenues to the poor.

http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm

Ahh the Austrian school of thought that the likes of Ron Paul aspire to. No free healthcare and social security will lead to a better society.

There's only one thing worse than the pyramid scheme we call society now and it's exactly what those people lobby for.

"Comrades! The insurrection of five kulak districts should be pitilessly suppressed. The interests of the whole revolution require this because 'the last decisive battle' with the kulaks is now under way everywhere. An example must be demonstrated.

* 1. Hang (and make sure that the hanging takes place in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known landlords, rich men, bloodsuckers.
* 2. Publish their names.
* 3. Seize all their grain from them.
* 4. Designate hostages in accordance with yesterday's telegram.
* Do it in such a fashion that for hundreds of kilometres around the people might see, tremble, know, shout: "they are strangling, and will strangle to death, the bloodsucking kulaks".

Telegraph receipt and implementation.

Yours, Lenin.

Find some truly hard people"


Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

There are only 2 options:

1. freedom, liberty, justice, the market, no government intervention
2. government intervention, collectivism

So, yes there's a difference between socialism, Socialism, communism, social-democracy, mututalism, anarcho-syndicalism, national socialism, fascism, corporatism, anarcho-communism,.... But in the end they are all the total opposite of pure capitalism. In a pure capitalist world (a free world, a voluntaryist world, a Rothbardian world) every human being is master of his own body and the fruits of his labour.

Like I said, this system is a corporatist system. People are bound by debt because of collectivist principles. Politicians make decisions, spend money and let the people pick up the tab.

The fact that you won't have an income if you quit your job does not mean you don't have a choice. In a free world, you are free to find another job or start your own company.

In a free world wages are determined the same way the prices of of factors of production are determined: law of supply and demand.

If my company needs 10 expert widget makers, and another company also needs 10 and there's only 10 of them out there, guess what will happen. Prices (wages) go up. When people see there's a lot of money to be made if you're an expert widget maker, a lot of them will train to become an expert widget maker.... more expert widget makers => prices go down. Some expert widget makers will decide they're no longer willing to work for that price and train to become something else. and the cycle continues....

I was explaining how the raw materials and labour are not the only factors that determine the value of a 'product'.

But then again, according to Marx there's an infinite supply of raw materials and the concept of price is totaly irrelevant.

I think history proved you wrong on that one. What's thé most distinguishable aspect of communist countries? Queues and waiting lists. Want a car in a communist country? No problem, you'll have to wait 2 years. Oh and if you ware not happy with the color, too bad. The guy who's passionate about building cars, just also happened to be passionate about the color pink :)

Without a free market, there are no market prices. without market prices, there's no economic calculation. without economic calculation, there will be shortages of things people want and too much of things people don't want.

What do you do if only 1 guy is passionate about making shoes and 6000 are passionate about making clogs, but everyone wants shoes?

making a profit = engaging in an activity that results in you having accomplished something you wanted to achieve.

Developing a vaccine = making a profit.
helping poor children in Ethiopia = making a profit.

Let's say you want to feed hungry children in Ethiopia. You'll need food and a way to get it there. You could plow the field, grow and harvest crops, bake bread, build a boat or airplane, fly to Ethiopia, distribute the bread. I doubt you are equally good at growing crops, baking bread, building airplanes, flying airplanes,....

We are all individuals, we are all different, we all have things we are good at. Wouldn't it be more efficient to do what you are good at to make money (=the means to facilitate trade) and use that money to buy bread and ship it to Ethiopia?

Devision of labour is what allows us to specialize in what we are good at or passionate about. The market is the system that 'organizes' everything in the most efficient way.

I'll read that and get back to you.



The Austrian School goes a lot further than Ron Paul....

I live in a country with so called free health care and social security and paid paternity leave and paid maternity leave and free training if you are out of work and free public transportation if you are looking for a job.... Hell, normal employee's can even take up to 5 years of leave 'without pay' and get 80% of their former salary paid every month by 'the state'. but unlike the spoiled masses that just want more and more, I understand that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone always has to pay the price.... And that's where that huge debt came from...

Few people here have known what it means to live in absolute terror for yourself, your spouse, children, friends, relatives etc. in the name of a 'workers paradise'. You might as well post a Childs poem in Finnish, accompanied by abstract art. Even fewer understand or accept that no "communist" regime has ever existed without effectively developing and wielding that terror as its best tool.

If I can't dance, I don't want to be a part of your revolution...

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g2...tDialectic.gif

Thanks for the call, Brian. :thumbsup

ADG

Reminds me of a History Chanel documentary, where a US sailor who had sailed to Russia with supplies during the second world war told how a couple of his fellow sailors were 'red' when they left the US, but not anymore when they left Russia.