What is Marxism?

[andophiroxia]

For all you want a Cliff's Notes in debate and quick answers to WHY Marxism results exactly OPPOSITE on what it preaches, I've enclosed a great article here.

March 16, 2009 What is Marxism?

By Steven Plaut

Marxists claim that Marxism is a science. It is not. It is a sort of pagan religious cult. It is a theology. It is a form of superstition.

Marxists claim that Karl Marx understood capitalism and economics. He did not. They also claim that the entire validity of Marx's set of theories on all subjects rests ultimately on how valid Marxist economic thought is. Marxist economic thought was completely wrong.

Marx claimed that all products contain value that is directly proportional to the amount of labor embodied within them. He was wrong. All the rest of Marxism is based entirely on this mistaken and falsifiable premise.

Marxists claim that the operations of markets have a natural tendency to spawn monopolies. They call this "monopoly capitalism." In reality, markets have a natural tendency to break up and undermine monopolies. Almost all monopolies under capitalism are those set up by governments stifling and interfering in the operations of markets.

The most harmful monopolies in modern economies are the labor unions.

Marxists claim that corporate monopolies are growing in importance and in power. In fact, monopolies have been losing power and strength under capitalism for well over a century.

Marxists think that large corporations collaborate and operate power-sharing arrangements among themselves. They do not and cannot. Large corporations compete, undercut, and threaten one another's market shares every day. As one of many proofs, just look at the number of inter-corporate law suits.

Marxism is based on conflict between "social classes." But social classes do not exist at all. This is not to say that there are not richer folk and poorer folk all about. It only means that all the richer folk share no collective common interests, and the same is true for all the poorer folk.

Marxists claim that people's ideas and ideals are dictated by property relations. They are wrong.

Marxists and socialists in general care a lot about the distribution of material wealth. But they have no idea how to bring about the creation of the material wealth that they wish to redistribute. They just assume it all gets produced all by itself. That is why people in communist regimes starve.

Link here.

[X1776kRumor]

Marx claimed that all products contain value that is directly proportional to the amount of labor embodied within them.

That has to be one of the stupidest premises I have heard. May even rank above Al Gores' GW. For example: Try buying a 1-Caret, E-Color, Internally Flawless, Brilliant Cut diamond Engagement ring based solely on the labor of making the ring. The flip-side of that is try buying a set of Aluminum rims that were milled and polished by a Robotic system, in essence near-zero labor. Good luck with buying either at the cost of labor.

[saccvol]

The idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a fallacy. The workers aren't in power in a communist state.

Marxism is just a bunch of petty words with little substance, that is great at rallying the passions of the people by convincing them that they're being exploited by the evil rich people. They convince people democracy doesn't work because the will of the working class would be diluted with other conflicting interests.

Then it's one step to a small group of people getting dictatorial powers, and using whatever resources they want in the country for their own personal benefit... since there is no longer any power to keep them in check. They remain in power whether they do a good or a bad job. They remain in power whether they distribute wealth or not.

Ya think when North Korean children scavenge for food in the streets that Kim Jong-Il is hungry? The man eats what he wants when he wants and has sex with whoever he wants when he wants. If he feels that someone is a threat to his power, he has unrestrained power to take that person out. If you question him, you're a "reactionary," a "capitalist," or an "enemy of the proletariat."

"Workers of the world, unite!"

Capitalism gives more power to everyone, including the poorest.

Without capitalism, the only way to travel is on foot. The only way to eat is to get the source (animal, plants, etc) yourself and process it. Capitalism gives power to everyone by sharing the effort to achieve a common goal. People want to travel? Those with the ability to respond to that need respond to it, and we have cars, buses, taxis, bicycles, etc. Whatever the people want, those with the power and knowledge to provide it, do. You do your part, and you earn the money you can trade in for the commodities.

A small job putting books on shelves in a library or cleaning dishes in a restaurant is enough to get you a small appartment and bus and subway tickets. But the work you do is NOT ENOUGH for you to build the apartment yourself or travel at the speed provided to you by the bus and the street system. Capitalism provides it and trades it to you for almost nothing... because it takes the companies a lot less effort to build a car or a railway system than it would take ordinary people to reach the same benefits. Then it's sampled and distributed en masse in the form of packed food and pencils and bus tickets, etc. A small sample requires a tremendous amount of work to do, but you can buy it for money that you earned doing much less work than is necessary to create that sample, because it is the product of a collective machine that pulls in the same direction.

Capitalism is power for everybody. Communism is not. Capitalism gives you things that you would never be able to get on your own. Communism does not.

[X1776kRumor]

Originally Posted by saccvol

Ya think when North Korean children scavenge for food in the streets that Kim Jong-Il is hungry? The man eats what he wants when he wants and has sex with whoever he wants when he wants. If he feels that someone is a threat to his power, he has unrestrained power to take that person out.

With that in mind -- Mr. Obama needs to take a vacation in the streets of North Korea.

[saccvol]

Originally Posted by X1776kRumor

With that in mind -- Mr. Obama needs to take a vacation in the streets of North Korea.

I'm sure he'll feel right at home. Ever heard about the Chicago "new party"?

Web Archives Confirm Barack Obama Was Member Of Socialist 'New Party' In 1996

In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist 'New Party' was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations "fusion" reform platform as unconstitutional.

After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.

http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com...obama-was.html

[X1776kRumor]

Yes, I have heard of the "New Party". In fact, I found some information on Obama's participation in the "New Party" once, and when I went back later to reference the information on Obama, it had been "cleaned". Seems Mr. Obama's backers were sucking-up the "dirt" ASAP. After that, I started saving entire Web pages.

[swirling_vortex]

Marxism and other forms of socialism are certainly tempting as alternatives, especially if you have nothing to your name. But to embrace Marxism is to alter the way civilization operates. The reason? People like to own stuff. Private property has been the basis of human advancement ever since we started making things for ourselves. To simply take that away is to go against what the human race has adapted to use. That's why capitalistic societies always thrive since since they build upon this principle and allow people to prosper from it.

[andophiroxia]

Well considering it's flourished in a lot of countries where there hasn't been much in the way of private property (aka Soviet Union), only to fail miserably (LIKE the Soviet Union), I find that liberals are more like the morons that sit around in coffee shops intellectualizing all day long with pretty little theories, but never attempting to go and prove the efficacy of those said theories on their own in the real world. They only wish to sit and marinate in the stew of their own "theories" rather than to really see the ugliness and suffering in which those prettily said theories create.

[Warhawk1982]

I can describe marxism in one word: Evil.

[X1776kRumor]

Originally Posted by Warhawk1982

I can describe marxism in one word:

Obama