Anyway Gaar, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If Marx was wrong this meltdown would have been avoided. He proved it could not and for the third time he is proved right, much to the chargrin of the philistine capitalist apologists who don't even understan their own sytem, otherwise this wouldn't be happening now, would it? Asia just had it's biggest losses ever, Australia the biggest since 1987 and it ain't over yet.............................................the fat lady sings.
"Women and wokers of the world gather under the spotless banner of the 4th international, it is your road to victory" On Oct 10, 12:28 pm, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Who is this Bozo. Form your own opinions and read Marx for yourself > like I did, instead of relying on the biased opinions of deliberate > falisfiers. Marx made no such bland stupid claims. > > This is just a flat out lie. Where are the equations for suplus value > and the tendency of the rates of profit to fall? This idiot doesn't > even know what they are. > > Marx argued that Capitalism was inherently unstable because: > Workers were abused and disenfranchised. As capitalism developed, > Marx > predicted, workers would become increasingly alienated and seek to > overthrow the capitalist class. > > Marx examined society and argued that the wealth of capitalists was > based on paying labour less than their true labour value (underpaid > labour). This difference between the true labour value and the wages > paid led to the accumulation of money capital. > > Capitalists could make bad decisions about what to produce > Growth was not guaranteed but could become volatile leading to > periods > of economic slump. Marxists certainly point to the Great Depression > of > a vindication of how capitalism can fail. > > Failings of Marxism > > The proletariat mostly became better off. Economic growth did enable > Capitalists to make more profit, but, ultimately, workers benefited > from real wage rises. In the nineteenth and twentieth century, labour > was often exploited with poor conditions and low wages. But, workers > have become better off. After all, it is in the interests of > Capitalists to have a workforce who can afford to buy their goods. > > The elusive 'dictatorship of the Proletariat' in practice tended to > be > more about 'dictatorship' and less about the proletariat. In some > ways > Marx was a democrat. He was criticising a system which did not extend > the vote to large sways of the working class; he wanted these > disenfranchised workers to be enfranchised. But, in practise, Marxism > is indelibly linked to the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union. > > On Oct 10, 11:36 am, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >http://www.economicshelp.org/2008/07/karl-marx-revolutionary-economis... > > > Karl Marx - The Revolutionary Economist > > > There are few economists who have become both so reviled, and admired > > as Marx. Indeed some would even question whether Marx deserves to be > > called an economist; others would prefer terms like 'bungling and > > failed revolutionary'. However, there are certainly few economists who > > read so widely and wrote so much as Marx. Whether you love or loathe > > Marx, we cannot deny his writings had profound influence on the > > twentieth century. > > > What Did Marx Believe? > > > Marx believed society was an evolving struggle. He believed Capitalism > > was an evolving structure. However, unlike Adam Smith, Marx did not > > believe this evolution was always smooth, nor did he believe it > > evolved for the best. In fact Marx, predicted the collapse of > > Capitalism. > > > Marx placed great value on economic forces for explaining social > > structures. He argued that institutions such as church, education and > > the state evolved to support the capitalist class. But, Marx, was > > revolutionary in placing so much emphasis on the power of economic > > forces to influence society. > > > Marxist Critique of Capitalism. > > > Marx examined society and argued that the wealth of capitalists was > > based on paying labour less than their true labour value (underpaid > > labour). This difference between the true labour value and the wages > > paid led to the accumulation of money capital. > > > Marx argued that Capitalism was inherently unstable because: > > > Workers were abused and disenfranchised. As capitalism developed, Marx > > predicted, workers would become increasingly alienated and seek to > > overthrow the capitalist class. > > > Capitalists could make bad decisions about what to produce > > Growth was not guaranteed but could become volatile leading to periods > > of economic slump. Marxists certainly point to the Great Depression of > > a vindication of how capitalism can fail. > > > Failings of Marxism > > > The proletariat mostly became better off. Economic growth did enable > > Capitalists to make more profit, but, ultimately, workers benefited > > from real wage rises. In the nineteenth and twentieth century, labour > > was often exploited with poor conditions and low wages. But, workers > > have become better off. After all, it is in the interests of > > Capitalists to have a workforce who can afford to buy their goods. > > > The elusive 'dictatorship of the Proletariat' in practice tended to be > > more about 'dictatorship' and less about the proletariat. In some ways > > Marx was a democrat. He was criticising a system which did not extend > > the vote to large sways of the working class; he wanted these > > disenfranchised workers to be enfranchised. But, in practise, Marxism > > is indelibly linked to the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union. > > > Why Mention Marxism - Surely it is all History? > > > I can imagine some readers (especially in America) thinking why even > > mention Marx? Surely, he was hopelessly flawed and the inspiration > > behind the despotic Stalinist regime? It is worth mentioning what John > > Maynard Keynes says on Marxism (1931) > > > "How can I accept the [Communist] doctrine, which sets up as its > > bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete textbook which I know > > not only to be scientifically erroneous but without interest or > > application to the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, > > preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above > > the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, who with all their faults, are > > the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human > > achievement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the > > turbid rubbish of the red bookshop? It is hard for an educated, > > decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here, > > unless he has first suffered some strange and horrid process of > > conversion which has changed all his values."[13] > > > Why Marx is Important > > > Marx was a revolutionary, he enabled a powerful critique of > > capitalism. This was perhaps essential for more informed criticism to > > emerge over time. We do not have to agree with a revolutionary to > > acknowledge that they bring new issues into a different perspective. I > > do not agree with Plato, but, at the time his work was important for > > the development for Western thought. > > > Marx never lived to see the Russian Revolution. I imagine he would > > have generally supported Lenin and Trotsky, but would have been > > disgusted with Stalin who was only a Communist out of convenience to > > achieve his goal of absolute power. > > > Whether we like it or not, the ideals of the Communist Manifesto did > > inspire many. At a time of vast inequality and widespread poverty, it > > is hardly surprising that many were excited by a vision of a society > > based on equality and fairness rather than the abject poverty and > > inequality prevalent in nineteenth century society. > > > On Oct 9, 5:06 pm, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The thing is CW, I have said this meltdown was inevitable based on > > > what I have learnt. Leaving aside socialism for the moment, Marxism is > > > a scientific study of socio-economic relations. In other words it is > > > an objective study of the workings of capitalism. Marx didn't set out > > > with a vendetta against capitalism, on the contrary, all Marxists > > > acknowledge that the industrialization of production was a very > > > positive thing, however these forces of production became so efficient > > > that the amount they produce exceeds the requirements of individual > > > nation states forcing them to expand beyond their boarders bringing > > > them into conflict with other nation states that also needed to expand > > > their capital. So when the ablility to expand production ran into a > > > dead end, profit was accured by parasitic speculation divorced from > > > production. > > > That is a major factor and contradiction within capitalism that is the > > > cause unsustainable debt that has been accrued. It has nothing to do > > > with the individual policies of governments. Did they all of a sudden > > > indulge in the same parasitic practices by coincidence? Unlikely. Is > > > it just a few greedy bankers and investors that are responsible for > > > bringing the world markets to their knees? Don't think so > > > > I was a labour voter 5 years ago, I didn't know Karl Marx from Grouch > > > Marx. Upon objective investigation Marxism has proved itself correct, > > > I can't alter that, its the way it is, whether I like it or not. And > > > frankly I don't care. I just want the facts, not the unrelated BS and > > > stupid inane mud slinging between candidates because they have nothing > > > decent to say and they don't even understand why the system they > > > support is in such a state of disfunction. One things for sure, > > > throwing good money after bad is the worst thing they can do > > > > So even if the fat ladies fat is not signing, if gives it a very > > > sonorous mellow tone. > > > > PS. Born n' bread in Australia ya know. Lived 'ere all mi life, I ave > > > > On Oct 10, 8:33 am, Cold Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > It is a little strange that Doric/Frank/Lone Wolf doesn't get it. > > > > Doric/Frank/Lone Wolf claims to live in Australia (although I doubt he > > > > is > > > > Australian born) and any trip to Sydney would include a visit to the > > > > (somewhat odd IMO) opera house where "the fat sings" regularly. LMBO!!! > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Gaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "PoliticalForum" <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 5:19 PM > > > > Subject: Re: Iceland Takes Over Kaupthing as Biggest Banks > > > > Fail..........the > > > > > fat lady sings > > > > > ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
