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.
It's not mythology, the USSR really was a dictatorial communist regime, and they really did have nuclear weapons targeted at us. Russia still has the weapons. China is still a communist dictatorship and also has nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them to US soil.
That's not what's being debated. The discussion is about whether Marxism requires political repression in order to work. There's nothing in the theory that would require that. And Gorby agreed; he thought it could thrive in an open society. He never got a chance to prove it, though.
My favorite chapter in learning Economics is Marxian Economics
That is, commodity values of goods are primarily the labor values put into those goods by the workers. So in order to have a fair system, and close the bourgeoise/proletariat gap between rich and poor, we need to require that laborers are not cheated out of wages for the fair value of their labor...
Instead of paid the lowest wage such that they can keep workers from leaving...which is economic slavery because the voice of workers is then not getting a say in what is a fair wage.
For this reason, you need worker empowerment by requiring labor unions that you must be a member of as a moral obligation to your fellow men and women, to fight alongside workers for fair labor values or else there be a union strike until the employers sit down and negotiate fair labor wages.
What's unfair in globalization is use of multinationals to break up worker unions by outsourcing whole assembly lines to China and India and third world developing nations, so that the workers cannot raise one big voice and fight for fair value of labor, and it is a shock that we allowed this outsourcing to happen and we didn't
1) join an international worker front where the world forms global unions that require fair labor wages no matter where the workers are hired
2) reform immigration laws that if you work for a company that outsources labor overseas, you are allowed to work in any country upon which the multinational company operates...as a token of fairness that if your services are valued by Company X, then you are entitled to a 360 transparent interaction with company X in any nation Company X conducts its operations
Because very few people know anything of Marxian economics while the rest know nothing while thinking they know everything.
The problem with "free market" capitalistic markets is the free markets are rarely free. In the USA many of the successful industries like healthcare, finance, defense and education are heavily dependent on our tax dollars. Can you imagine what would happen to Medical device stock prices if they couldn't Bill the government 2k for an MRI (80% of hospital revenue is still medicare) or overcharge for simple laboratory tests. Or what would happen to Halliburton or Bank of America if they cut off government subsidies. Or what would happen to college tuitions if they stopped the student loan program and stopped federally guanteeing loans.
Lots of lobbying prevents this. Every special interest group adamantely lobbies to keep their portion of government cheese while railing adamently "socialism." Unfortunately when you visit other first world nations people realize that most governments try to benefit the whole populace. Here they just benefit who gives the largest campaign contributions. And then we wonder why our healthcare system is rated at #37 by the WHO or why college costs are obscene, or just why our tax code is 11,000 pages (and chock full of
Special interest loopholes).
Companies cannot survive without consumers or workers. The best system is probably some socialist-capatilist blend like we saw under Eisenhower that protected its workers from exploitation while still giving freedom to allow corporate entities to innovate and prosper. Deregulate everything and you get some hellish version of Czarist Russia or Somalia wherein society breaks down and businesses are afraid to relocate to your country due to lack of safety rules and security. Overregulate and you get the USSR. Some happy medium is ideal. If you guys want a great modern example
Look at Australia. Low unemployment, high minimum wage and social support, high college attendence with low cost, and solid private market innovation.
The biggest injustice of our time is the global mobility of corporations to do whatever they please for a profit, with the workers not able to have any say whatsoever, due to the fact that national boundaries are meaningless to corporations but regulate where the workers can and can't go. It defeats all the Union organizing of the Early 20th century.
I don't understand; you say this as if it were a bad thing.
The owners of those global corporations are by and large union pension funds, 401K & IRA self-directed retirement money, and individual investments by normal people. We rely upon the profits of those corporations to fund our retirement.
This is a good thing.
In some cases, it is a myth that labor is less expensive in the emerging markets. In fact, try hiring a corporate tax attorney in Shanghai - you'll pay well north of $200,000 per year.
For capital intensive industries, the price of labor is irrelevant, so the advantage of lower-cost labor in, say, China is also irrelevant.
Let's take semiconductor manufacturing as an example.
Semiconductor manufacturing is very complex, very capital intensive, and provides good high-paying jobs to skilled employees. The modern microprocessor such as the one inside the computer or tablet on which you are reading this is arguably the most complex thing ever invented by mankind. It is certainly the most complex thing ever manufactured by mankind.
The investment to build a factory to manufacture a microprocessor is enormous. It is north of $6 Billion. That is not a typo. You start with negotiations with governments to secure access to lots of water, electricity, raw land, transportation systems and the like in a location with an educated workforce that is politically stable.
Then it is a dance with governments. Unfortunately, in the USA, the various federal, state & local governments & commissions view the corporation primarily as a source of tax revenue and campaign contributions ("oh, you want permits to build a factory? well, I'm running for re-election, and maybe you would like to contribute to my re-election campaign"). Then, of course, the process to get all the approvals to actually build the factory could take 5 to 7 years. Every non-governmental entity comes out of the woodwork to try to stop the development throwing up all the usual barriers. Eventually, you either give up because of all the opposition, or maybe you stick to it & get the approvals. Then you break ground, spend $6 Billion, and 4 years later you have a microprocessor fab that will produce products for which you hope there is still a market.
Let's contrast that with foreign governments. Foreign governments view the private investment of a modern microprocessor semiconductor fab as a key piece of industrial policy to jumpstart economic development. Once officials get used to the idea that US corporations will not pay bribes because of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, they bend over backwards to win the business. Instead of being a barrier to development as they are in the USA, the foreign governments become a working partner to help make it happen.
Heck, the nation of Vietnam even moved a river -- moved a river! -- to make a site a better choice for a factory! Imagine what would happen in the USA if a corporation wanted a river moved.
The USA needs to understand it is in long-term competition. If we want long-term economic development to occur in the USA, then our governments need to become competitive.
Then why even mention it? There have been brutal capitalistic regimes as well, but you seem fixated on just communist regimes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x
Yes, but the ones with a communist system are not free countries. As I said France has "socialist" in its constitution but not "communist".
Define "free" please. Imperial Russia was not "free" even before the USSR, but somehow it is communism's fault? What percent of the US population was "free" throughout much of US history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x
Special information about the military forces of other countries yes it does. Well it did between 1999 and 2003. I don't have a clearance anymore, nor do I have need to know, but back then I had both.
In your capacity, no you did not. You greatly exaggerate your access to information. You were nothing more than an STS3. You had absolutely zero access to any information that you did not need to know for your job, and being an STS3, you never even performed the full capabilities of your job. So please, stop the BS regarding how "much you know" because you were on a submarine, you are flat out lying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x
Nope. They obtained the technology through Soviet assistance.
You might want to read your links (and reread my comment); the USSR withdrew assistance, the US ensured China had the means to make a nuke because the US refused the Soviet's proposal that a joint US-Soviet force take out Chinese nuke capabilities. The US refused because the CIA had constructed large surveillance stations in China to monitor the Soviets, and any action by the US to take out Chinese nukes would have of course forced the CIA out of China, which the US deemed monitoring the Soviets more important than China having nukes.
Thanks for reminding me of one of the best books I've ever read. This view of capitalism is the one that really allows a person the to see an expanded view of what capital unrestricted is capable of. Very few people I know have actually taken the time to study the works of Marx, a rather obscure economist in his time, and certainly no advocate of the despotic kinds of governments supposedly founded on his thoughts.
Marx and his dialectical views of economics was correct in his assumptions of capitalism being the system that would morph into the changed construct we know it to be today. A "mixed" economy and not a pure form of rule by an unfettered cabal of mercantilism.
The organized labor movement in America brought about those changes through a systematic challenging of the "right" of capital over that of a democracy. Most of Marx's thoughts centered on the fact of the proletariat resistance to the feudal system and it's first born, mercantilism, and subsequently capitalism.
To think that this view of economics could have been so twisted by the capital class through their grip on public education is somewhat disturbing on it's face, but understandable in light of what Marx's theories meant for the capitalists domination of labor. Any of the economic "isms" has to be administered in it's pure form to be adequately critiqued, thinking of Venezuela as a Marxist nation is laughable to those who have taken the time to read the old economists words.
I think he would have denounced the Venezuelan government for the dictatorship it is. Marx was a economist not a revolutionary, but ideas do give rise to action sometimes. There never has been a "Marxist" government that Marx himself would have approved of.
Marx predicted that the nature of change would prevail over the iron fisted rule by the few, we're slowly moving in that direction, China and India being prime examples of that change to a mixed economy and a changing social dynamic that allows workers interests to be a consideration in the pursuit of a more stable and wide spread economic benefit.
Some see this as a triumph of capitalism, but on closer scrutiny one can see the change as that of a workers triumph..And Marx was correct in assuming that the proletariat's demands (democracy) would triumph eventually. China has a long way to go to being a true democracy but we also need a lot of work on our own.
In our modern world the mixed economy will probably be the one that survives, the hybrid of the best of the isms, those changes that Marx predicted as something innate in economic systems has come to be the one thing we can count on. I'm confident that America will find it's own path with regard to what works best for the majority.
The tidal motion of labor and management interests are expected, the to and fro, going back and forth looking for that common ground, it's a fight that has been around for thousands of years. Marx was a blip on the economic radar, things have changed, but, that's what he was saying all along....
Of course there's never been a government of pure true Marxism. I doubt anyone would expect such a government to be possible. It's a bit unnecessary to say that people somehow don't know at true Marxist governments never existed. The point most of us make is that there is no such an utopia in real life. It never became true because it simply will not be.
Marxism may sound great theoretically. But it's silly to expect any country, party, individual to truly implement Marxism in its pure meaning. There is always going to be disagreements over what Marxism is and how to do it, even among people who think they are sincere about it. The most important point I make is this: the unsuccessful revolutions and experimentations of Marxism didn't detail Marxism. They were the inevitable results of Marxism experimentation. The "inconsistency" between what Marxism is and how it became in reality wasn't really inconsistent. It was actually consistent, almost predictable. It's what happens when such utopia dreams are touched by humans.
Broadly, "isms" are just that. They are thoughts and values of a theoretical discussion. "Marxist governments" were more about human behavior and nature than they were about their Marxist slogans. They had little to do with the Marxist value system. They were the corrupt version of an utopian idea.
However, it seems misguided that we throw away corrupt governments and still defend Marxism itself. It's an insightful thought and a different way of looking at our world. But people today are making the mistake again thinking that this time, they could do Marxism the right way. There is no right way to do Marxism. It's better kept in utopia.
You made the point that workers and those not in power have always had the final say. When they are fed up, they will rise up and overthrow the regime and build a just one. But I think you are not looking down the road far enough. Each of these regime changes not only brought great disasters to individuals and families, but also had mixed results or eventually were reduced to the dominance of power. In these revolutions and regime changes, it is the proletariate and have less who suffer the most, even as they pick a few unlucky powerful and make their life hell. The truth isn't pretty, but it's necessary to point out. Those who have less have never had the final say in these things, unless you limit your timeline. It is power, yes, power, that has always had the final say.
The French Revolution not only led to mixed results after blood bath, but also led to a powerful and imperialistic colonial france that brought great tragedies to foreign people's. Today, France may seem like a more egalitarian and enlightened society. But no, France security is based upon not their values, but their nuclear storage, military power, and economic capabilities. The french "republic" is to some extent rhetorical, than real. It is still guaranteed by power. It's like the Ukraine question. In the end, can you fight Russia? Not persuade, soften, change, or anything. Can you fight Russia?
If one day, american workers rise up and change this country, it will be replaced by another system of screaming and yelling eventually. Perhaps the most intoxic of beliefs is the illusion of an almost perfect, just, and awesome world that isn't meant to exist. Evolution isn't altruistic.
Those who are smart, regardless of left and right, never sacrifice their power and chances to gain power. If you do, you may regret greatly. Yes, we are told that societies progress, but that is for regulating people's behaviors and scaring the weak and easily fooliable. In any society, you better be a realist and figure out the game. you don't want to be the victim of human nature.
Last edited by Costaexpress; 02-23-2015 at 08:52 PM..
Interesting thread. I've found that Marx's harshest critics usually haven't read his most important work. And I'm glad you didn't give the snide answer, because the truth of the matter is that the U.S. during the 50's and 60's resembled Marxist vision far more closely than anything that happened in the Soviet Union after Lenin, and particularly since Stalin managed to manipulate the Politburo. Today I see more strands of Marxist ideology in Tea-Party rhetoric, than anything I hear from U.S. Democrats. To the chagrin of many Europeans, the U.S. has always had a knee-jerk reaction to anything coming out of Russia. That's unfortunate because it has let to a lot of ignorance and stunted discourse.
Have you been there recently? China is closer to the US politically and economically than the US is to, say, Finland. There is one exception -- China's middle class is growing. Ours is shrinking.
No, I've never been to China, but it is a one party state and many of its businesses are state owned. It's nothing like libertarian America.
And China could easily be called CINO -- communist in name only. There's not much command economy left there anymore. It's less socialist than Scandinavia, these days. Governments will eventually come to reflect their people.
Scoop LV, Socialism is an economic concept. Communism is a political concept that employs a socialist method of economics. Both the economy and the political institutions of a communist nation are centralized; that centralization has certainly been more extreme within communist nations.
The characteristics of nations’ political structures do not absolutely determine the characteristics of their economies. Germany governed by the rule of the National Socialist German Workers' (i.e. Nazi) Party was very much centralized but much less economically socialist and much more politically tyrannical.
Costaexpress: The one thing that Marx scuffed at most was "utopian." It's the very antithesis of his hopes for the proletariat. You've given your views considerable thought, but I still detect in your conclusions that you condemned the idea before styding it objectively.
As for not looking down the road far enough, I think YOU need to look even further yet. After labor upheavals, your predictions come through, but a case can be made with the "too big to fail" realities of our own times, that Marx knew what he was talking about.
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.
