Philosophy Now Forum

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 3:27 pm There's no need to give your answer...

That's what I thought, too.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:02 pm 6678mq.jpg

Interesting.

The fact that mcthinks didn't know and said was just a rightist slander is so well known that Lefties have themselves turned it into a meme.

I am amused.

But since you would prefer an argument that is empirical, here is one:

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 2:22 pmPhilosophy requires total commitment to honesty. You do not belong here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:18 pm... mcthinks didn't know and said was just a rightist slander ...

Yeah, that's not true, as anyone who has read my posts and yours can see for themselves. Did you not read where I wrote "Marx had a housekeeper. Her name was indeed Helene Demuth. She conceived Fred Demuth while in Marx’s employ, yes."?

Of course you did! But you are dishonest. You don't belong here, Manny.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:18 pm6ad83fe353042868af530183295813a745c0bdaf9d00b1826e7ffb0b59ddb1cd_1.jpg

Yeah, Marxism isn't about increasing prosperity for the top 1% or even the top 20%. It's about reducing grinding poverty for the bottom 20% or even 50%.

Here's an interesting table showing the most successful countries at reducing grinding poverty of their poor:


That's a much more honest argument for and against the merits of Karl Marx's ideas, don't you think?

Socialism is not an original idea exclusive only to Marx... and no socialisms, so far, have been definitively Marxist. So how Marxism has 'failed' is still a mystery, since there hasn't ever been a Marxist system. Right? Right.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-socialism- ... chtenstein

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 11:49 am ...how Marxism has 'failed' is still a mystery, since there hasn't ever been a Marxist system. Right?

The world has had 150-years or so to "get Marxism right." Marxism has been repeatedly tried...or has been claimed by people who thought they were trying it.

But you say, "there hasn't been a Marxist system"?

So the whole USSR got it wrong. Even with about a quarter of the world's population and some reputation for cleverness, all the people in China couldn't get it right. The people in Vietnam and North Korea were just stupid. The Cubans don't even know they're not actually Marxist. Venzuela, Zimbabwe, Romania, Albania, Moldova, the former Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Poland, East Germany...and on and on and on...all stupid people, all thinking they are being Marxist, but all unable to figure out Marx, all unable to apply his ideas.

Nobody else on Earth ever got it right?

But you, YOU could. You know what "a Marxist system" really is? And you want me to believe that?

Well, all I can say is that that level of confidence is at the level of either a spectacular genius or total arrogance.

Since I don't know you, and can't say which it is, I'm content to leave it to the evaluation of others.

Best I can figure it...

When it fails -- even if the folks involved call it socialist or marxist and implement practical socialist or marxist policy -- it weren't no socialism or marxism, not really (or that debbil capitalism, somehow, screwed the pooch).

And: when it succeeds -- even if the folks involved lay no claim at all to socialism or marxism -- then it musta, somehow, incorporated socialism or marxism.

That's their story, anyway.

-----

Here's the thing: it doesn't matter, not to folks like me.

Marxism could be a friggin' godsend and I'll still reject it, and, Free Enterprise might be friggin' awful and I'd still embrace it.

Freedom isn't measured by efficiency or economics.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:30 pm Best I can figure it...

When it fails -- even if the folks involved call it socialist or marxist and implement practical socialist or marxist policy -- it weren't no socialism or marxism, not really (or that debbil capitalism, somehow, screwed the pooch).

And: when it succeeds -- even if the folks involved lay no claim at all to socialism or marxism -- then it musta, somehow, incorporated socialism or marxism.

That's their story, anyway.

-----

Here's the thing: it doesn't matter, not to folks like me.

Marxism could be a friggin' godsend and I'll still reject it, and, Free Enterprise might be friggin' awful and I'd still embrace it.

Freedom isn't measured by efficiency or economics.

Marxism has a record?

That seems unlikely, since, according to Prom, "there hasn't been a Marxist system." So I have no idea how anybody would be able to claim it had "succeeded" by "never existing."

But you're right: they always want to claim that something like "socialized medicine" or "unionism" or some very limited business case is a case showing that Marxism (or Socialism) does actually work. But the difference between these sorts of limited-sector social arrangement (inevitably surviving solely on the life-support of the surplus avails of Capitalism) and actual Marxism is so great that I have to grant their premise -- nobody has ever been a successful Marxist. Nobody.

In, around 150 years or so, the whole world wasn't smart enough to make Marxism work, even once. All it's ever done is destroy economies and kill people. That much, we certainly know now.

Are Prom or McThinks privy to some exception to the pattern? Okay, let's hear it; but wisdom and experience tell us to remain skeptical.

"Freedom isn't measured by efficiency or economics."

Wait a minute.... who r u reading, George Orwell or Karl Marx?

"inevitably surviving solely on the life-support of the surplus avails of Capitalism"

I have a question. Who produces that surplus, the wage earners or the capitalists? If the former, then why give credit to the particular system in/with which that surplus is generated, rather than to those who generate it?

Clue; in any economic system it is always the working classes that produce the wealth. Call the 'system' whatever you want. And for extra credit, you can even try to weasel your reader into believing that the capitalist has anything to do with the production of that wealth.

Them debbil capitalists, you know they (some, not all) only do what they do cuz they bought the legislators who craft the legislation that permits the debbil capitalists to do what they do.

The solution: end the legislators.

Without the Big Stick to back him the capitalist is just another Free Enterpriser.

who r u reading, George Orwell or Karl Marx?

At the moment: neither.

This -- Freedom isn't measured by efficiency or economics. -- means a sloppy Free Enterprise is superior to an efficient marxism if for no other reason than, with the former, a man is free, and, in the latter, he is not.

you can even try to weasel your reader into believing that...

...the world is populated by only debbil capitalists and downtrodden workers.

The State? Never heard if it.

Free Enterprise? What's that?

Freedom? Hooey-myth-poop.

"Marx sired a illegitimate child with the woman he molested." - a Christian

"Paine considered Moses to be a "detestable villain", and cited Numbers 31 as an example of his "unexampled atrocities". In the passage, after the Israelite army returned from conquering Midian, Moses orders the killing of the Midianites with the exception of the virgin girls who were to be kept for the Israelites." - a Marxist

Bad guy scale:

Marx - 1
Moses - 8

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 24, 2022 9:37 pm I have a question. Who produces that surplus, the wage earners or the capitalists?

That 's easy: the capitalists.

The wage-earners, by definition, work for a wage.

The entrepreneurs, inventors, investors, and owners of production take all the risks, and the wage earners get the guaranteed income for which they've voluntarily contracted.

For example, let's suppose we have a doorman at a hotel. He gets a wage for what he does. But how much did he put into the cost of the bulding? Nothing. How much did he invest in the paving of the parking lot? Nothing. How much land tax does he pay on the business...or supply costs...or wages and benefits...or marketing...none, none, none, and none. How much does the doorman have to kick in for insuring against liabilities, for supplies, for the electricity, for upkeep and repairs...none, none, none, none.

And who had the idea for the business in the first place? Who had the vision? Who bought the property and paid the builders? Who owes the franchise fees? And if the business fails, the doorman goes looking for a new job; but the owners are bankrupt, indebted and ruined. And if it thrives and the risk-takers do well, does it take a single penny away from the wages of the doorman? Not a cent.

So who is generating the capital? It's not the doorman. If it were not for the capitalist who owns the business, he would not even have his own job. He's a wage-worker, who voluntarily contracted to receive a fair exchange for the amount of labour he performs, and who took no risks at all to make the business happen in the first place, and can get another job anytime he wants, when he perceives that he's not receiving what he's worth.

Marx was a real idiot about that. He thought labour = value. His calculator was broken. It wasn't even true in his day: it certainly isn't true today.

Holy Jesus. I haven't seen someone get it so wrong since my tour at ILP. In fact it's almost like you guys read from the same script.

Shit I should just go over there, find the thread and paste the sonofabitch here. I can't do this stupid argument again bro. No the capitalist invests nothing that he hasn't ready appropriated from the labor of some wage earner. No the capitalist doesn't 'lose it all' if his business fails because he's right back at being a worker, like everyone else, if he does... yet you ain't cryin for the workers 'having nothing'. You don't get credit or admiration for taking financial risks with money you amassed from selling the shit other people produced at marked up prices.

You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:30 pm Here's the thing: it doesn't matter, not to folks like me.

Marxism could be a friggin' godsend and I'll still reject it, and, Free Enterprise might be friggin' awful and I'd still embrace it.

Freedom isn't measured by efficiency or economics.

This is just an aside, however, I don't think your statement makes a whole lot of rational sense, Henry. Why would you embrace free enterprise if it were "awful" or reject marxism if it was a "godsend"? I thought the reason for rejecting Marxism was because it is inefficient compared to free enterprise and ultimately leads to greater human suffering? If marxism was a "godsend" (meaning it alleviated human suffering) then literally it would be the way of God and we would be rejecting God to reject what God wanted for us.

Now I'm not saying Marxism is a "godsend" or that free enterprise is "awful", just that you have the cart pulling the horse if you're not putting human welfare ahead of what would be misguided principles if those principles lead to greater human suffering.