Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bull. Marx fundamentally misunderstood human nature. Capitalism is human nature, the instinct to survive that evolved into a society. All other systems are the result of thought and planning, and usually fail because they ignore the instincts that Homo sapiens still possess.
Marx fully understood human nature. Read some of his works and those of Engles. Marx never goes away after all this time. Why? Because he got a hell of a lot right. Marx understood that Capitalism can be misused and abused and it is today. He could not come up with a method to counter the negative aspects. So his solution was to get rid of Capitalism. That was his solution. His analysis of matters was very astute, just short on the solution front.
I never stated that common ownership of land is the key. Although it is one of many good solutions. BTW, land is commonly owned by the state, you only have title, which is a map on the sovereign territory and set of rights. Land is a part of the common. We need to reclaim the commons from predators and rent seekers. The solution to many of all the world's problems is using commonly created wealth to pay for common services.In short reclaim commonly created wealth not allowing it to be appropriated. This prevents the trickle up effect we now have, where the vast majority of a society's wealth is in the hands of a few who did not create that wealth - legalized theft. You are half right, give any human a choice between working for their own benefit and working for the benefit of a community, and they may choose themselves first, community second. Geoism does exactly that in eliminating Income and Sales taxes. Private people keep all the fruits of their own labours. Commonly created wealth stays common. All common sense. I am sure you agree.
Quote:
To build a society on any assumption other than human beings behaving in their own best interests first, that is to build a failure.
Not quite. Men are social animals. They form groups for the collective good and always have and that is the key to their survival, advancement and prosperity. They need each other. Some human societies will accommodate the individual or sociopath, others are not so tolerant.
Capitalism has lifted more out of poverty and created more value for society than any other system in history.
100% incorrect. In the Middle Ages the quality of life of the average man was far superior. He was no wage slave. In the 1800s as the technical revolution was underway there was amazing advancement. This created social fallout. People noticed that in all this technical advancement, mass production of cheap products and wealth creation a layer of unshifting grinding poverty emerged that was not there previously. This layer is still there. There was no need for this layer of grinding poverty in all this massive wealth creation. So how this poverty layer was created was analysed by many and various methods on solution were proposed. Marx was one, American Henry George was another. Socialism eliminated the grinding poverty layer but was far from he complete solution. Geoism accommodated all aspects.
Quote:
Business -- through corporations,
You are so wrong ! Corporations are the slow death of a society. Corporate Fascism. Monopolies and rigging of the free market. They key is enterprise and production in an actively promoted, unrigged and unmonopolised free market. Unfortunately we do not have that.
Marx understood that Capitalism can be misused and abused and it is today.
Any system of organizing a society can be abused and will be abused. Capitalism is not unique in this regard, it is nothing more than the power of government and human nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
I never stated that common ownership of land is the key. Although it is one of many good solutions. BTW, land is commonly owned by the state, you only have title, which is a map on the sovereign territory and set of rights. Land is a part of the common. We need to reclaim the commons from predators and rent seekers. The solution to many of all the world's problems is using commonly created wealth to pay for common services.In short reclaim commonly created wealth not allowing it to be appropriated. This prevents the trickle up effect we now have, where the vast majority of a society's wealth is in the hands of a few who did not create that wealth - legalized theft. You are half right, give any human a choice between working for their own benefit and working for the benefit of a community, and they may choose themselves first, community second. Geoism does exactly that in eliminating Income and Sales taxes. Private people keep all the fruits of their own labours. Commonly created wealth stays common. All common sense. I am sure you agree.
Nah, it just shifts the taxation to people who you find to be deserving of it. It wouldn't solve any problems, in fact it would make many problems by encouraging people to find ways around the taxation. That is what people do when they perceive the tax burden to be excessive or unfair. It is the reason that raising taxes reduces revenue over the long term. The only way to avoid this is to have all active citizens (voters) pay some tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
Not quite. Men are social animals. They form groups for the collective good and always have and that is the key to their survival, advancement and prosperity. They need each other. Some human societies will accommodate the individual or sociopath, others are not so tolerant.
Well, not quite. They form groups because the collective good and the individual good do often lie along the same path - it is as you say, the key to their survival, advancement, and prosperity - both as individuals and a society. However, there are limits, and most non capitalist societies have quickly discovered those limits. I will not claim it is impossible to strike a balance, because it seems that some European countries have managed it. I will claim that it is impossible to strike the same balance everywhere - some cultures are simply too dishonest to make it work (I include the US in that category).
100% incorrect. In the Middle Ages the quality of life of the average man was far superior. He was no wage slave. In the 1800s as the technical revolution was underway there was amazing advancement. This created social fallout. People noticed that in all this technical advancement, mass production of cheap products and wealth creation a layer of unshifting grinding poverty emerged that was not there previously. This layer is still there. There was no need for this layer of grinding poverty in all this massive wealth creation. So how this poverty layer was created was analysed by many and various methods on solution were proposed. Marx was one, American Henry George was another. Socialism eliminated the grinding poverty layer but was far from he complete solution. Geoism accommodated all aspects.
You are so wrong ! Corporations are the slow death of a society. Corporate Fascism. Monopolies and rigging of the free market. They key is enterprise and production in an actively promoted, unrigged and unmonopolised free market. Unfortunately we do not have that.
No, he was basically an actual slave, a serf, and likely rural.
100% incorrect. In the Middle Ages the quality of life of the average man was far superior.
. This has to be nominated for most idiotic post on city-data.
Lol. Who needs things like sanitation, running water, voting, and property rights? Bubonic plague, perinatal mortality, and drawing-quartering for all!
. This has to be nominated for most idiotic post on city-data.
Lol. Who needs things like sanitation, running water, voting, and property rights? Bubonic plague, perinatal mortality, and drawing-quartering for all!
A slave? No. Rural? yes. He worked far less hours to live. Then came the modern world and people treated less than machines. The wage slaves.
It very much depends on where and when you are talking. Many of the serfs worked morning to night, and it is definitely true that life expectancy is much longer now, with healthy life expectancy also longer. Modern medicine and sanitation are boons, but I think (hope) you aren't saying we should abolish those boons, but instead combine a healthy work-life balance with what we have rather than driving for infinite and all-consuming growth.
And it is true that capitalism has never allowed us to enjoy the fruits of our labor or of history's labor generally. I mean, we have enough wealth that we could live comfortable lives while working far less, but our society's opposition to the idea of redistributing current wealth (as if everything has been just to this point) means we toil needlessly in spite of our own desires to pursue our own interests.
Work, in the sense of our own desires and interests, should be life's prime want, but capitalism redirects it by exploiting the collective action problem and because the interests of a relative few are monetarily greater than the interests of those without substantial assets.
No, I understand quite well, yet I still disagree with your premise that this scheme is superior. Like many at the fringes, you can't seem to take disagreement as anything but ignorance. Ultimately, the closed mind turns to force when its attempts at reasoned argument fail - that is all your "You never understood" and "You don't get it" are - the rejection of a closed mind.
Much as I, and most others, dislike income taxation, it is the surest way to have the bulk of citizens paying tax. All taxpayers should vote and all voters should pay some tax - anything else is just shifting the burden to some group that the shifter does not like - landowners, corporations, whoever.
On another note, those wonderfully happy Medieval serfs also tended to die at age 35 (or far younger) of a wide variety of diseases brought on by malnutrition, woefully inadequate sanitation, and living in hovels with inadequate heating and ventilation. I'm certain I've never seen a claim quite so ridiculous as the preceding being "a superior quality of life".
I'm guessing your reply will again be nothing more than "You don't get it"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. This has to be nominated for most idiotic post on city-data.
