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.
Umair Haque writing in the Harvard Business Review while not believing that Marx's prescription for the ills of capitalism makes a cogent argument that Marx's critique of capitalism might not have been off the mark and does well to describe the current state of capitalist economies.
3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism (Evolution), Marxism (Communism), Nietzsche-ism (Socialism). To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM. PROTOCOL No. 2
IMO he was 100% in his diagnosis although I would describe our economic system as a plutocracy. Since socialism and communism have never existed we don't know if the cure is valid.
I thought it had been long established that Marx's reading of capitalism was right. It's whether socialism then communism is really a solution that's the debate. How old is that article?
Rarely does anyone person have all the right or wrong answers. I think Marx has some points, but pure communism is not a good system of Gov. It works on paper but so does Capitalism and pure Capitalism does not work either.
Rarely does anyone person have all the right or wrong answers. I think Marx has some points, but pure communism is not a good system of Gov. It works on paper but so does Capitalism and pure Capitalism does not work either.
Pure communism is not a system of government. It's an economic system where every worker has an equal share of profits for the company they work for and a democratic say in how the company is run. It's like a system where every business is unionized, but instead of having an us vs them mentality, everyone is an equal owner and has an invested interest in the success of the business, instead of the current situations where workers try to squeeze out as much as they can from the company and the owners/CEOs of the company try to squeeze out as much as they can from the workers.
That's it. It has nothing to do with government. Although, leftists have a plethora of ideas of how to use the government to get to that point. Obviously, corporations aren't going to freely give all workers equal say and equal profits without a fight.
With equal share of profits (workers get the true values of their labor instead of only a small share like currently), there will be little wealth inequality and society will be naturally democratic because there won't be a minority of really wealthy people who have more influence over the government and media.
Basically, it is like free market capitalism, but every single working person is a capitalist.
This has never existed, that doesn't mean it looks good on paper and will never work.
Pure communism is not a system of government. It's an economic system where every worker has an equal share of profits for the company they work for and a democratic say in how the company is run. It's like a system where every business is unionized, but instead of having an us vs them mentality, everyone is an equal owner and has an invested interest in the success of the business, instead of the current situations where workers try to squeeze out as much as they can from the company and the owners/CEOs of the company try to squeeze out as much as they can from the workers.
That's actually socialism.
Communism is the absence of government.
The confusion comes in because governments that have called themselves "communists" are often practicing some form of socialism, though no one has yet to practice either in it's pure theoretical form.
The confusion comes in because governments that have called themselves "communists" are often practicing some form of socialism, though no one has yet to practice either in it's pure theoretical form.
No. Socialism is when the government takes over all these private companies and controls them. And that's what these countries that call themselves "communists" have done.
Communism doesn't rely on the government. The workers own the means of production.
There are some firms where the workers actually own the company and hire the managers and set business policy. They have been quite successful and remain competitive by producing high quality products.
I read of one such company that survived the economic downturn by limiting the hours worked instead of temporary unemployment. Everyone took lower pay but kept the health insurance and pension payments in place as they were benefits that were promised by everyone to themselves.
We must remember that situations that are good Capitalism such as free and unrestricted markets may make for very difficult business. The petroleum business is a good example because oil is hard to find but easy to produce. Thus, without an effective monopoly provided by government, no company would invest the money to find an oil field without being protected from competition by another company drilling into the same reservoir without having to spend the exploration costs. Rockefeller monopolized the initial oil industry because of this. The industry remains in the control of a few companies because unlimited oil production would drop the prices to production costs and many billions of exploration costs would never be recovered. This is good business but it is NOT Capitalism
We must remember that situations that are good Capitalism such as free and unrestricted markets may make for very difficult business. The petroleum business is a good example because oil is hard to find but easy to produce. Thus, without an effective monopoly provided by government, no company would invest the money to find an oil field without being protected from competition by another company drilling into the same reservoir without having to spend the exploration costs. Rockefeller monopolized the initial oil industry because of this. The industry remains in the control of a few companies because unlimited oil production would drop the prices to production costs and many billions of exploration costs would never be recovered. This is good business but it is NOT Capitalism
Yes, I see that a larger, more central government with the means to support things like this has some benefits. Marx didn't really promote any specific way to handle matters like this. The point he was trying to make was that, as long as workers don't get an equal share of profits, there will always be a minority of people with way more wealth than the rest, and these people will influence government for their own benefits, often at the expense of the rest of society. And that's what we see, for the most part. When there is much less wealth inequality, government decision on how to allocate tax money will be more fair, for the most part, and benefit society as a whole more than individual companies/classes.
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.
