E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-13-2013, 03:23 PM   #21
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 4,891
My Ride: Phoenix Yellow M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Too bad pure capitalism is also basically an intellectual fantasy in terms of actually existing and working in the rough and tumble of the real world in the face of an anything but pure human nature. Hong Kong is hardly some epitome of pure capitalism itself as it is hardly immune from the vagaries of human nature and corruption any more than we are. You'd probably have to go to some ungoverned failed state like Somalia to find something closer to approaching a pure, unrestricted pure capitalism of right wing idealization.

America never has been and hopefully never will be a pure law-of-the-jungle capitalist economy; it has always been a bit of a mixed economy which actually tends to comport more with our democratic republic political system with its balance of powers, laws, rules and regulations taming and tempering the wilder, nastier aspects of human nature.

Neither is it anywhere near being a socialist economy either, GOP/TP bombast and hyperbole notwithstanding. Ironically, perhaps the most socialist element of our society is the very one most adored and idolized by the right, our military -- the right can hardly help themselves but to extol and throw money at it as some ideological article of faith, never mind billion/trillion dollar boondoggles like the F35 program amongst many, many others. If only they would approach military spending with the same cold miserliness as they do with social/domestic spending.
I'm not a fan of large spending period. Defense included. Clean it up.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by M3Inline6 View Post
If there is one thing I despise most it's blacks always pulling the race card. It's so annoying and is often misplaced.
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 03:26 PM   #22
Stankia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 55
My Ride: 4.2FSI S-Line
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcollins View Post
You do have a point that true capitalism will never exist, but the closer we can get, the better it is for everyone. It is the natural way of determining who is smart and who is poor.

If any fanatic disagrees with capitalism, I have an idea for you: Sell your BMW, buy an old Civic, and distribute the leftover cash to the proletariat.
You really should study what capitalism really is. I recommend you to read Karl Marx's works but since you're probably too ignorant, here's a quick summary since for the past few months I’ve been studying and reading Karl Marx’s most important work: Capital (Das Kapital). This thing is enormous. It’s three volumes, containing over 2000 pages. In it Marx attempted to figure out and explain how capitalism ‘works’… What he came up with is fascinating. It is a very detailed and intricate analysis.

While Marx is commonly known for being the “father of communism” the reality is that his major accomplishment is his examination of capitalism. In fact, this may surprise you, Marx never wrote about how communism ‘works,’ which is kind of strange for someone that is considered the father of it.
Unfortunately, there is such a negative stigma attached to Marx that we, as a society, are missing out on a very interesting perspective for understanding capitalism.

In this post, I will lay out the essence of what Marx was trying to tell us about capitalism. His book Capital is much, much, much more intricate and detailed. But the following is the big picture.

Throughout all of human history there is something that happens, no matter what kind of society, no matter when in human history, that we as humans fail to appreciate, consider and integrate into how we understand the world we live in: some people use their brains and their body to transform nature in a useful way, i.e. they do work, and some people do not. The easiest and most simple example is babies. They are not doing work. Often elderly people do not work. Very sick people do not work. Sometimes people who can work, i.e. they are mentally and physically capable of doing work, also do not work.
This raises a question: how is it possible for people who do not work to survive?

In order for it to be possible for some people to not work and also survive, be it a baby or a capable adult, it must be true that those who do work, produce more stuff than they themselves consume. Otherwise, the people who do not work would die.

For each person that works, the produce of their work that goes to maintaining themselves, Marx calls Necessary Labor, and the produce of their work that they do not consume themselves, Marx calls Surplus Labor.
So, Marx asks: how does any given society decide 1) who will work, how will they work, and how much of what they produce will go to them… 2) who will not work, but live off of the surplus labor of those who do work, and how much will they get?

Marx says that how a society decides to deal with this issue shapes the society in various ways: culturally, politically, economically, etc… and if we don’t recognize how this shapes society, we are missing a very important part of understanding how and why our society is the way it is.
Again: who works, who doesn’t, how much of the produce does each group get, and how is that decided.

Marx breaks the history of humans down into 5 types of arrangements based on how the Surplus is distributed to those who do not produce it.
1)) Communism – a community or a group of people work together, and they produce a surplus, maintain it, and themselves distribute it to those that do not work.
For example, if a group of us grow some food, and we have more than we are going to consume, we decide how to distribute the extra.

2)) Ancient – the work is not done not by a group of people, but by individuals alone. This would be someone that is self-employed, and produces stuff on his or her own.

For example, if I grow some food, and I have more than I am going to consume, I decide how to distribute the extra.
At this point, Marx makes a distinction. The following three types of arrangement have something in common that is different than the first two, and it is this: the people who do the work that produces the surplus are not in control of the surplus that they produce, and therefore are not in control of distributing it. Marx calls these systems exploitative. The producers of the surplus are exploited, and all this means is that the producers of the surplus do not maintain and distribute the extra.

3)) Slave – if the work is done by a person or a group of people and none of what that person or the group produces belongs to them. What they produce is maintained and distributed by the slave owner.
For example, if a slave produces some food, the slave owner decides how much the slave gets, how much the slave owner gets, and how to distribute the extra.

4)) Feudalism – the work is done by a serfs, and some of the time is spent producing what is for them, and some other amount of time is spent producing what then belongs to the feudal lord. The lord maintains and distributes the surplus.
For example, if a serf produces some food, some of the food belongs to the serf, and the rest belongs to the feudal lord, and the feudal lord decides how to maintain and distribute the extra.

5)) Capitalist – the work is done by wage or salary earners, and they do not control, maintain, or distribute the surplus that they produce. They receive a wage or salary, and all of what they produce belongs to the capitalist/owner.
For example, if some workers grow some food, they are paid a wage or salary equivalent to some of that food, but importantly not all of it, and the capitalist maintains control of and distributes the surplus/extra.
Marx claims, I think correctly, there is only one reason why a capitalist/owner/employer would pay a worker a wage or salary, and that is if he or she is going to get more out of the worker than the value of what worker contributes during his or her working hours.
...
What’s interesting is this relationship, between the capitalist/employer and the worker/employee, is that it is closest to the slave/slave owner relationship. Hence why sometimes capitalism is referred to as wage-slavery. They are certainly not the same, but strangely they are more similar to each other than the capitalist and the ancient is. (again, ancient refers to self-employed)

Here’s an irony: in our modern day capitalist America, the American Dream for a lot of people is to be self-employed. According to Marx, self-employment is NOT capitalism. It is the “ancient” form of production. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a relationship where someone (a capitalist), pays someone else (a worker), to do work for them, and in this relationship the worker contributes MORE than they receive in the form of a wage or salary. It is precisely in paying workers less than they contribute that the capitalist/owner is able to make a profit.

The common objection to this Marxist perspective is: “But the capitalist/owner is risking his or her own money in the business, so they have to receive a profit, or why else would they invest their money in starting a business.”

Indeed, I don’t think Marx would disagree. That's how capitalism 'works'...
This is Marx's FUNDAMENTAL insight of capitalism: the profits of capitalists/owners come from the exploitation of workers, i.e. paying them less than the value they contribute to the business.
This raises an interesting question: is what’s best for our ‘Job-Creators’ in America (capitalists/owners)... also what’s best for the majority of Americans who live on wages and salaries?

Is it any wonder that Marxism is a taboo subject in America? What if Marxism becomes common knowledge, and workers start thinking to themselves: do we really need the capitalists/owners? Could we collectively run businesses and make decisions as groups, i.e. communally (communist)? If so, wouldn't we then get the full value of what we contribute in our working hours?
__________________
DOGE Crew
Stankia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 04:19 PM   #23
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 107
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
An interesting read. For better or worse, I think so many -isms, from capitalism to socialism to communism, have been demagogued and distorted so badly for various political and other purposes that many of the basics are lost or grossly misunderstood. All to often, we are arguing for or against caricatures or what these terms really mean, usually just hurling them around as aspersions without really understanding them in any depth or detail.

That said, I might interject a possible other element into the capitalism equation in that perhaps part of its value is in the job creator creating a work situation allowing the worker to create more value than he/she otherwise might be able to in an "ancient" (self-employed) circumstance, and if enough so that even while extracting some of that value in profits, leaving enough to still put that worker ahead than if working for one's self. I imagine that margin and the balances within it might be tighter in a capitalist vs. communist working arrangement in that the capitalist would have to create that much more value to make it a better deal for a worker than in a communist situation where the profit slice isn't being skimmed off.

Capitalism itself doesn't seem necessarily inherently evil or whatever, but I would surmise it is rather vulnerable to being exploited to where the capitalist extracts more for himself, at the workers expense, than he adds to the system overall. Its kind of tough to rip yourself off in the self-emplyed/"ancient" arrangement while in a communist arrangement there are too many people keeping their eyes on things to get away with it. Maybe that's somewhat the role unions and outside boards of directors should play in the capitalist arrangement...should.

I might surmise that socialism is somewhat of a blending of capitalism and communism, at least on a societal scale??? Should have paid more attention in social studies classes.
Rhumb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 08:37 PM   #24
Marshmallow
Yacht Club Libertarian
 
Marshmallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: South Joisey, Mid MI
Posts: 2,015
My Ride: E46, E30, Quattro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stankia View Post
You really should study what capitalism really is. I recommend you to read Karl Marx's works but since you're probably too ignorant, here's a quick summary since for the past few months I’ve been studying and reading Karl Marx’s most important work: Capital (Das Kapital). This thing is enormous. It’s three volumes, containing over 2000 pages. In it Marx attempted to figure out and explain how capitalism ‘works’… What he came up with is fascinating. It is a very detailed and intricate analysis.

While Marx is commonly known for being the “father of communism” the reality is that his major accomplishment is his examination of capitalism. In fact, this may surprise you, Marx never wrote about how communism ‘works,’ which is kind of strange for someone that is considered the father of it.
Unfortunately, there is such a negative stigma attached to Marx that we, as a society, are missing out on a very interesting perspective for understanding capitalism.

In this post, I will lay out the essence of what Marx was trying to tell us about capitalism. His book Capital is much, much, much more intricate and detailed. But the following is the big picture.

Throughout all of human history there is something that happens, no matter what kind of society, no matter when in human history, that we as humans fail to appreciate, consider and integrate into how we understand the world we live in: some people use their brains and their body to transform nature in a useful way, i.e. they do work, and some people do not. The easiest and most simple example is babies. They are not doing work. Often elderly people do not work. Very sick people do not work. Sometimes people who can work, i.e. they are mentally and physically capable of doing work, also do not work.
This raises a question: how is it possible for people who do not work to survive?

In order for it to be possible for some people to not work and also survive, be it a baby or a capable adult, it must be true that those who do work, produce more stuff than they themselves consume. Otherwise, the people who do not work would die.

For each person that works, the produce of their work that goes to maintaining themselves, Marx calls Necessary Labor, and the produce of their work that they do not consume themselves, Marx calls Surplus Labor.
So, Marx asks: how does any given society decide 1) who will work, how will they work, and how much of what they produce will go to them… 2) who will not work, but live off of the surplus labor of those who do work, and how much will they get?

Marx says that how a society decides to deal with this issue shapes the society in various ways: culturally, politically, economically, etc… and if we don’t recognize how this shapes society, we are missing a very important part of understanding how and why our society is the way it is.
Again: who works, who doesn’t, how much of the produce does each group get, and how is that decided.

Marx breaks the history of humans down into 5 types of arrangements based on how the Surplus is distributed to those who do not produce it.
1)) Communism – a community or a group of people work together, and they produce a surplus, maintain it, and themselves distribute it to those that do not work.
For example, if a group of us grow some food, and we have more than we are going to consume, we decide how to distribute the extra.

2)) Ancient – the work is not done not by a group of people, but by individuals alone. This would be someone that is self-employed, and produces stuff on his or her own.

For example, if I grow some food, and I have more than I am going to consume, I decide how to distribute the extra.
At this point, Marx makes a distinction. The following three types of arrangement have something in common that is different than the first two, and it is this: the people who do the work that produces the surplus are not in control of the surplus that they produce, and therefore are not in control of distributing it. Marx calls these systems exploitative. The producers of the surplus are exploited, and all this means is that the producers of the surplus do not maintain and distribute the extra.

3)) Slave – if the work is done by a person or a group of people and none of what that person or the group produces belongs to them. What they produce is maintained and distributed by the slave owner.
For example, if a slave produces some food, the slave owner decides how much the slave gets, how much the slave owner gets, and how to distribute the extra.

4)) Feudalism – the work is done by a serfs, and some of the time is spent producing what is for them, and some other amount of time is spent producing what then belongs to the feudal lord. The lord maintains and distributes the surplus.
For example, if a serf produces some food, some of the food belongs to the serf, and the rest belongs to the feudal lord, and the feudal lord decides how to maintain and distribute the extra.

5)) Capitalist – the work is done by wage or salary earners, and they do not control, maintain, or distribute the surplus that they produce. They receive a wage or salary, and all of what they produce belongs to the capitalist/owner.
For example, if some workers grow some food, they are paid a wage or salary equivalent to some of that food, but importantly not all of it, and the capitalist maintains control of and distributes the surplus/extra.
Marx claims, I think correctly, there is only one reason why a capitalist/owner/employer would pay a worker a wage or salary, and that is if he or she is going to get more out of the worker than the value of what worker contributes during his or her working hours.
...
What’s interesting is this relationship, between the capitalist/employer and the worker/employee, is that it is closest to the slave/slave owner relationship. Hence why sometimes capitalism is referred to as wage-slavery. They are certainly not the same, but strangely they are more similar to each other than the capitalist and the ancient is. (again, ancient refers to self-employed)

Here’s an irony: in our modern day capitalist America, the American Dream for a lot of people is to be self-employed. According to Marx, self-employment is NOT capitalism. It is the “ancient” form of production. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a relationship where someone (a capitalist), pays someone else (a worker), to do work for them, and in this relationship the worker contributes MORE than they receive in the form of a wage or salary. It is precisely in paying workers less than they contribute that the capitalist/owner is able to make a profit.

The common objection to this Marxist perspective is: “But the capitalist/owner is risking his or her own money in the business, so they have to receive a profit, or why else would they invest their money in starting a business.”

Indeed, I don’t think Marx would disagree. That's how capitalism 'works'...
This is Marx's FUNDAMENTAL insight of capitalism: the profits of capitalists/owners come from the exploitation of workers, i.e. paying them less than the value they contribute to the business.
This raises an interesting question: is what’s best for our ‘Job-Creators’ in America (capitalists/owners)... also what’s best for the majority of Americans who live on wages and salaries?

Is it any wonder that Marxism is a taboo subject in America? What if Marxism becomes common knowledge, and workers start thinking to themselves: do we really need the capitalists/owners? Could we collectively run businesses and make decisions as groups, i.e. communally (communist)? If so, wouldn't we then get the full value of what we contribute in our working hours?
This was very well written. It find it doesn't make sense to argue with someone who states their point so clearly. Personally though, I sense that you have had a negative view on capitalism probably because of a bad experience. I, however love how the system of free enterprise works and can say from my experience that it works. Nothing in this world is ever perfect though. As a libertarian, I feel that the government is far too intrusive in our lives and our businesses, so naturally I'd disagree with anything even remotely socialist. I support capitalism because it is in everyone's best interest. You compare it to slavery, but in reality, that just doesn't make sense. The beauty of capitalism and free enterprise is that if you don't like your job, you can quit. Then (if you are smart enough) you can start your own business. Maybe I'm biased against stupid people, but why should I have to provide for their shortfalls?
__________________


2003 BMW 325xiT "Audrey"
1987 BMW 325i "Lydia"
1990 Audi 90 Quattro Sport 20v "Chloe"

Marshmallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 02:44 AM   #25
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcollins View Post
but why should I have to provide for their shortfalls?
Why shouldn't they be allowed to bust your head, steal your sh!t, & r@pe and pillage your girlfriend and/or boyfriend and/or goat?

If you want to talk about true capitalism/survival of the fittest/you have no responsibility to anyone else. Than they have no responsibility to you either. That includes respect for you, your property, or these so-called "law". Morality, personal and/or social, no longer exist in a pure capitalistic construct. Neither do right and wrong in the abstract. As long as it make me money, it is right. How it makes me money is of no consequence. If it makes me money by killing other people, I should be free to do so. My monetary gains should not incumbered by the shortcomings of those unable to fend for themselves against such an onslaught.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 06:37 AM   #26
Marshmallow
Yacht Club Libertarian
 
Marshmallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: South Joisey, Mid MI
Posts: 2,015
My Ride: E46, E30, Quattro
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
Why shouldn't they be allowed to bust your head, steal your sh!t, & r@pe and pillage your girlfriend and/or boyfriend and/or goat?

If you want to talk about true capitalism/survival of the fittest/you have no responsibility to anyone else. Than they have no responsibility to you either. That includes respect for you, your property, or these so-called "law". Morality, personal and/or social, no longer exist in a pure capitalistic construct. Neither do right and wrong in the abstract. As long as it make me money, it is right. How it makes me money is of no consequence. If it makes me money by killing other people, I should be free to do so. My monetary gains should not incumbered by the shortcomings of those unable to fend for themselves against such an onslaught.
Well that is a bit extreme for me; I'm not really going for complete anarchy. I just think the government is micromanaging us. A law that says you can't kill anyone is fair and just, but it should have several areas in which it doesn't apply: self defense, to help humanity, etc. but as far the government telling me how I should live my life, that is very unjust. And another thing, they make it so difficult to start a business and charge such high taxes that it is next to impossible for someone to start their own business without a huge loan. It's no wonder the economy is in the toilet when small businesses are such a huge part of it. Maybe the US government should listen to John Stossel and take the hints.
__________________


2003 BMW 325xiT "Audrey"
1987 BMW 325i "Lydia"
1990 Audi 90 Quattro Sport 20v "Chloe"

Marshmallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 09:56 AM   #27
Zell
Registered User
 
Zell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: wow such city
Posts: 5,749
My Ride: Has no throttle
Pure capitalism sucks as much as pure communism. You need a healthy mix of both to function properly. For example, if everything was capitalized, then you'd need to pay each time for the fire department to come and put out a fire in your house, or each time for the police to help you. It wouldn't be good.

If everything was socialized, then a janitor would be in a similar class as a brain surgeon. We're not robots, so we have a problem with that. We will all ask the question, "Why does the janitor supposed to have my money when I went to school for all of this?" There would be absolutely no incentive to do anything apart from doing it because you love it.
__________________
Zell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 02:03 PM   #28
NaZty NaZe One!
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 900
My Ride: 02' 330ci "Ebony"
Send a message via AIM to NaZty NaZe One!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stankia View Post
You really should study what capitalism really is. I recommend you to read Karl Marx's works but since you're probably too ignorant, here's a quick summary since for the past few months I’ve been studying and reading Karl Marx’s most important work: Capital (Das Kapital). This thing is enormous. It’s three volumes, containing over 2000 pages. In it Marx attempted to figure out and explain how capitalism ‘works’… What he came up with is fascinating. It is a very detailed and intricate analysis.

While Marx is commonly known for being the “father of communism” the reality is that his major accomplishment is his examination of capitalism. In fact, this may surprise you, Marx never wrote about how communism ‘works,’ which is kind of strange for someone that is considered the father of it.
Unfortunately, there is such a negative stigma attached to Marx that we, as a society, are missing out on a very interesting perspective for understanding capitalism.

In this post, I will lay out the essence of what Marx was trying to tell us about capitalism. His book Capital is much, much, much more intricate and detailed. But the following is the big picture.

Throughout all of human history there is something that happens, no matter what kind of society, no matter when in human history, that we as humans fail to appreciate, consider and integrate into how we understand the world we live in: some people use their brains and their body to transform nature in a useful way, i.e. they do work, and some people do not. The easiest and most simple example is babies. They are not doing work. Often elderly people do not work. Very sick people do not work. Sometimes people who can work, i.e. they are mentally and physically capable of doing work, also do not work.
This raises a question: how is it possible for people who do not work to survive?

In order for it to be possible for some people to not work and also survive, be it a baby or a capable adult, it must be true that those who do work, produce more stuff than they themselves consume. Otherwise, the people who do not work would die.

For each person that works, the produce of their work that goes to maintaining themselves, Marx calls Necessary Labor, and the produce of their work that they do not consume themselves, Marx calls Surplus Labor.
So, Marx asks: how does any given society decide 1) who will work, how will they work, and how much of what they produce will go to them… 2) who will not work, but live off of the surplus labor of those who do work, and how much will they get?

Marx says that how a society decides to deal with this issue shapes the society in various ways: culturally, politically, economically, etc… and if we don’t recognize how this shapes society, we are missing a very important part of understanding how and why our society is the way it is.
Again: who works, who doesn’t, how much of the produce does each group get, and how is that decided.

Marx breaks the history of humans down into 5 types of arrangements based on how the Surplus is distributed to those who do not produce it.
1)) Communism – a community or a group of people work together, and they produce a surplus, maintain it, and themselves distribute it to those that do not work.
For example, if a group of us grow some food, and we have more than we are going to consume, we decide how to distribute the extra.

2)) Ancient – the work is not done not by a group of people, but by individuals alone. This would be someone that is self-employed, and produces stuff on his or her own.

For example, if I grow some food, and I have more than I am going to consume, I decide how to distribute the extra.
At this point, Marx makes a distinction. The following three types of arrangement have something in common that is different than the first two, and it is this: the people who do the work that produces the surplus are not in control of the surplus that they produce, and therefore are not in control of distributing it. Marx calls these systems exploitative. The producers of the surplus are exploited, and all this means is that the producers of the surplus do not maintain and distribute the extra.

3)) Slave – if the work is done by a person or a group of people and none of what that person or the group produces belongs to them. What they produce is maintained and distributed by the slave owner.
For example, if a slave produces some food, the slave owner decides how much the slave gets, how much the slave owner gets, and how to distribute the extra.

4)) Feudalism – the work is done by a serfs, and some of the time is spent producing what is for them, and some other amount of time is spent producing what then belongs to the feudal lord. The lord maintains and distributes the surplus.
For example, if a serf produces some food, some of the food belongs to the serf, and the rest belongs to the feudal lord, and the feudal lord decides how to maintain and distribute the extra.

5)) Capitalist – the work is done by wage or salary earners, and they do not control, maintain, or distribute the surplus that they produce. They receive a wage or salary, and all of what they produce belongs to the capitalist/owner.
For example, if some workers grow some food, they are paid a wage or salary equivalent to some of that food, but importantly not all of it, and the capitalist maintains control of and distributes the surplus/extra.
Marx claims, I think correctly, there is only one reason why a capitalist/owner/employer would pay a worker a wage or salary, and that is if he or she is going to get more out of the worker than the value of what worker contributes during his or her working hours.
...
What’s interesting is this relationship, between the capitalist/employer and the worker/employee, is that it is closest to the slave/slave owner relationship. Hence why sometimes capitalism is referred to as wage-slavery. They are certainly not the same, but strangely they are more similar to each other than the capitalist and the ancient is. (again, ancient refers to self-employed)

Here’s an irony: in our modern day capitalist America, the American Dream for a lot of people is to be self-employed. According to Marx, self-employment is NOT capitalism. It is the “ancient” form of production. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a relationship where someone (a capitalist), pays someone else (a worker), to do work for them, and in this relationship the worker contributes MORE than they receive in the form of a wage or salary. It is precisely in paying workers less than they contribute that the capitalist/owner is able to make a profit.

The common objection to this Marxist perspective is: “But the capitalist/owner is risking his or her own money in the business, so they have to receive a profit, or why else would they invest their money in starting a business.”

Indeed, I don’t think Marx would disagree. That's how capitalism 'works'...
This is Marx's FUNDAMENTAL insight of capitalism: the profits of capitalists/owners come from the exploitation of workers, i.e. paying them less than the value they contribute to the business.
This raises an interesting question: is what’s best for our ‘Job-Creators’ in America (capitalists/owners)... also what’s best for the majority of Americans who live on wages and salaries?

Is it any wonder that Marxism is a taboo subject in America? What if Marxism becomes common knowledge, and workers start thinking to themselves: do we really need the capitalists/owners? Could we collectively run businesses and make decisions as groups, i.e. communally (communist)? If so, wouldn't we then get the full value of what we contribute in our working hours?
Thanks for that. Ive read, i think, volume one. Have the other two just haven't gotten to it.

Your last point is the beauty of marx's social theory. If citizen could understand that they were being abused and realize material objects are what blind them from understanding their abuse then maybe, they could overtake the capitalist economy. I think what happens with most citizens is that hey are primed to dislike anything socialist /communist. Unfortunately they dont seem to understand that when times were tough the cause was pure capitalism and the remedy was socialism (i.e., fdr's new deal).

Theres more to be explained but i think once the US looses its place as the global hegemony, then maybe we will understand what makes us great isnt our military or GDP but how we coincide as americans to overcome our problems.
__________________
Photobucket
NaZty NaZe One! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 02:46 PM   #29
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 107
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zell View Post
Pure capitalism sucks as much as pure communism. You need a healthy mix of both to function properly. For example, if everything was capitalized, then you'd need to pay each time for the fire department to come and put out a fire in your house, or each time for the police to help you. It wouldn't be good.

If everything was socialized, then a janitor would be in a similar class as a brain surgeon. We're not robots, so we have a problem with that. We will all ask the question, "Why does the janitor supposed to have my money when I went to school for all of this?" There would be absolutely no incentive to do anything apart from doing it because you love it.
^ This.

The American economy has always been a mixed economy --never purely capitalistic, never purely socialist much less communist -- and for the better. Much as a divided government with a (counter) balance of powers makes for a stronger, more robust society, I too think a balance of economic powers makes for a stronger, stabler, more robust economy.

The abstract idea of a pure capitalistic economy sounds wonderful, in the abstract, but quickly devolves into a rather unpleasant dystopia in the real world. Much the same could be said about communism while socialism is a bit of a melding of the two where the main question is where to set the midpoint.

Or midpoints.

These ideal "midpoints" might differ for different aspects of our economy, which might also be described as a complex economy in addition to mixed.

For example, I think in the healthcare sector of our economy/society, a somewhat more "socialist" balance is appropriate whereas for the production side of our economy, that needle should be closer to the capitalist end of the scale though with neither coming anywherer near to being pegged.

So I think have centers of power in our economy, from individual to corporate to union to government, is a good thing, much like multiple centers of power have well served our civil society. None of these entities will, individually, be perfect in their actions or even intentions, nobody and nothing ever is, but all are necessary for the healthier functioning of the whole of society.

Last edited by Rhumb; 03-14-2013 at 02:47 PM.
Rhumb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 03:49 PM   #30
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: Beach Cruiser
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaZty NaZe One! View Post
Your last point is the beauty of marx's social theory. If citizen could understand that they were being abused and realize material objects are what blind them from understanding their abuse then maybe, they could overtake the capitalist economy. I think what happens with most citizens is that hey are primed to dislike anything socialist /communist. Unfortunately they dont seem to understand that when times were tough the cause was pure capitalism and the remedy was socialism (i.e., fdr's new deal).
.
Hey, this guy's a commie!



Seriously, though, you sound like a first semester sophmore. Abused? Overtake the capitalist? smh
__________________
“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

"You don’t burn books because they’re irrelevant. You burn books because you’re terrified that they’re not. You don’t muzzle people who have no audience. You muzzle people only when their voices are amplified far beyond your liking."

Last edited by Act of God; 03-14-2013 at 03:50 PM.
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 06:46 PM   #31
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 557
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Hey, this guy's a commie!



Seriously, though, you sound like a first semester sophmore. Abused? Overtake the capitalist? smh
He shouldnt worry considering you sound what you sound like (i.e.: the guy who doesn't know what a republic is).
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 06:52 PM   #32
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: Beach Cruiser
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
He shouldnt worry considering you sound what you sound like (i.e.: the guy who doesn't know what a republic is).
lol nice try I don't know where you went to school, but you should see if you can get your money back.
__________________
“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

"You don’t burn books because they’re irrelevant. You burn books because you’re terrified that they’re not. You don’t muzzle people who have no audience. You muzzle people only when their voices are amplified far beyond your liking."
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 07:03 PM   #33
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 4,891
My Ride: Phoenix Yellow M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
lol nice try I don't know where you went to school, but you should see if you can get your money back.
Burn
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by M3Inline6 View Post
If there is one thing I despise most it's blacks always pulling the race card. It's so annoying and is often misplaced.
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 07:10 PM   #34
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 557
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 View Post
Burn
Your criteria for a "burn" is weak.

At least the Dueling banjos school of preachin and prayin taught me the definition of a republic. Something you would think an uppity ny lawyer would know.

Last edited by badfast; 03-14-2013 at 07:12 PM.
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 07:13 PM   #35
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: Beach Cruiser
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
Your criteria for a "burn" is weak.

At least the Dueling banjos school of preachin and prayin taught me the definition of a republic. Something you would think an uppity ny lawyer would know.
aww inferiority complex showing, so cute
__________________
“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

"You don’t burn books because they’re irrelevant. You burn books because you’re terrified that they’re not. You don’t muzzle people who have no audience. You muzzle people only when their voices are amplified far beyond your liking."
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 07:24 PM   #36
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 557
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
aww inferiority complex showing, so cute
Is it? Oh my I didn't even notice.
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 07:24 PM   #37
NaZty NaZe One!
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 900
My Ride: 02' 330ci "Ebony"
Send a message via AIM to NaZty NaZe One!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
lol nice try I don't know where you went to school, but you should see if you can get your money back.
Just gotta read my brotha. Stay away from the tv, newspapers and radio. Read!
__________________
Photobucket
NaZty NaZe One! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 10:07 PM   #38
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
aww inferiority complex showing, so cute
Yes, yours is. But, it always does.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Last edited by rdsesq; 03-14-2013 at 10:07 PM.
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 10:14 PM   #39
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: Beach Cruiser
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
Yes, yours is. But, it always does.
awesome comeback!
__________________
“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

"You don’t burn books because they’re irrelevant. You burn books because you’re terrified that they’re not. You don’t muzzle people who have no audience. You muzzle people only when their voices are amplified far beyond your liking."
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 10:41 PM   #40
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 4,891
My Ride: Phoenix Yellow M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
Your criteria for a "burn" is weak.

At least the Dueling banjos school of preachin and prayin taught me the definition of a republic. Something you would think an uppity ny lawyer would know.
Calm down and go to happy hour more often. You'd be a happier man.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by M3Inline6 View Post
If there is one thing I despise most it's blacks always pulling the race card. It's so annoying and is often misplaced.
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use