TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- karl marx


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jan-23-2009 04:28:

karl marx

now, i used to be a bit of a rabid socialist back in the day. not because i felt marxism provided any real, meaningful solutions, but because i thought his analyses were worth the time to understand and appreciate.

so, i got a kick when given this quote in an email.

quote:

Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalised, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism"

Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867


touche mr marx, touche.


Posted by winston on Jan-23-2009 04:30:

yeah, we know...america is a communist country. what's news?


Posted by Alex on Jan-23-2009 04:32:

That is pretty cool.

I just hope, if countries become more and more socialism oriented, that we don't go down the same path as those countries that rushed into it and had to pay the consequences big time.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jan-23-2009 04:33:

quote:
Originally posted by diggerz
yeah, we know...america is a communist country. what's news?


well no, no it isn't. i just got a kick out of one of my heroes' predictions coming to pass in advanced capitalist america.


Posted by Capitalizt on Jan-23-2009 04:36:

His prediction came true, with one slight error..
quote:

The federal reserve, via easy credit and artificially low interest rates, will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalised, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism"

Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867


Fixed.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jan-23-2009 04:40:

jesus. how many fucking times do i have to tell you that the fed isn't responsible for the lending rates of private corporations? i would think a "capitalist" like yourself would understand that.


Posted by Capitalizt on Jan-23-2009 04:44:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
jesus. how many fucking times do i have to tell you that the fed isn't responsible for the lending rates of private corporations? i would think a "capitalist" like yourself would understand that.


Yes..Yes...just as a kindergarten teacher who brings a bag full of candy into the classroom then steps out for a few minutes isn't responsible for all the children getting a sugar high and tearing the place up..


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jan-23-2009 04:47:

quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
Yes..Yes...just as a kindergarten teacher who brings a bag full of candy into the classroom then steps out for a few minutes isn't responsible for all the children getting a sugar high and tearing the place up..



you just have an ideological problem with admitting the errors of your beloved corporations, that's all. its called confirmation bias. banks set their own rates. im sorry if you still havent grasped this fact.


Posted by winston on Jan-23-2009 04:51:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
jesus. how many fucking times do i have to tell you that the fed isn't responsible for the lending rates of private corporations? i would think a "capitalist" like yourself would understand that.


ok, in your educated and honest opinion do you think that the US is under a socialist (center left) administration at the moment? Which attempts to satisfy the needs of those in poverty by increasing taxes on the wealthier, which some might view as 'communism' (but might not be the actual situation)?

- i am being very polite here. i'm curious to know your opinion here, that's all


Posted by Capitalizt on Jan-23-2009 04:56:

I blame the banks as much as you pk..and think they should all go bankrupt for their stupidity. But it would also be stupid to ignore the role the fed played in this. They have a huge influence over the interest rates banks can charge..and how much new money and credit can be created out of thin air (reserve requirements) . Perhaps if the central banks around the world (including Austrailia) were a bit less tolerant, private banks would have tightened their purse strings earlier and made fewer risky loans...then we wouldn't be in quite such a shitstorm now. You can always blame heroin junkies for ruining their own lives and the lives of those around them...but don't forget the role the drug dealer played.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jan-23-2009 05:04:

quote:
Originally posted by diggerz
ok, in your educated and honest opinion do you think that the US is under a socialist (center left) administration at the moment?


i think its a little early for me to say one way or the other. that said, i dont know of a single 'centre-left' politician ever to grace the white house. given that the left-right dynamic is quite relative, the centre-left US politicians seem to be more centre by australian or european standards.

quote:
Originally posted by diggerz
Which attempts to satisfy the needs of those in poverty by increasing taxes on the wealthier, which some might view as 'communism' (but might not be the actual situation)?

- i am being very polite here. i'm curious to know your opinion here, that's all



communism is the system whereby the workers "own" and control the means of production (business). nationalisation of business is not communism. higher taxes on the rich is not communism. at the moment, i would say the US is a fully-fledged capitalist nation with a few instances of corporate welfare, and an unprecedented level of government intervention. i have no doubt that any advanced liberal democracy that has nationalised some of their financial giants will be selling them off in the not-to-distant future. i certainly don't think we're seeing the beginnings of a new paradigm in political economics. what we'll see is more regulation and control, but there are too many believers in markets (including myself) to ever seriously change the nature of any of these societies. wait for the crisis to end and it will be business as usual imo.


Posted by Capitalizt on Jan-23-2009 05:08:

You spelled center wrong pk.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jan-23-2009 05:20:

quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
You spelled center wrong pk.




cen�tre (sěn'tər) Pronunciation Key
n. & v. Chiefly British
Variant of center.


Posted by Krypton on Jan-23-2009 05:26:

I don't blame the Federal Reserve for banks making loans to subprime borrowers who were told by the government that Freddie and Fannie would buy them up from them.


Posted by The17sss on Jan-23-2009 05:31:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
I don't blame the Federal Reserve for banks making loans to subprime borrowers who were told by the government that Freddie and Fannie would buy them up from them.


do you blame Clinton for doubling down on that policy (Carter's original one) in 1995 and forcing the banks to make those loans?


Posted by Krypton on Jan-23-2009 05:39:

quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
do you blame Clinton for doubling down on that policy (Carter's original one) in 1995 and forcing the banks to make those loans?


There are several factors which are responsible and both Dems and Repubs are guilty.


Posted by Audigy7 on Jan-23-2009 18:59:

quote:
Originally posted by winston
ok, in your educated and honest opinion do you think that the US is under a socialist (center left) administration at the moment? Which attempts to satisfy the needs of those in poverty by increasing taxes on the wealthier, which some might view as 'communism' (but might not be the actual situation)?

- i am being very polite here. i'm curious to know your opinion here, that's all



Nitpicking a bit here, but how on earth could socialism be considered center-left? Doesn't that generally fall under the far-left category?

And I don't think you're guilty of trying to imply this, but it needs to be said that differential tax rates don't exist under pure communism; everyone pays everything they make to the government who then hands out goods to the people as needed, more or less equally. There is no wealthy, there is no poor, just everyone. In that regard, taxing the rich to benefit the poor cannot even be considered communistic. Socialist, perhaps, but certainly not communist.


Posted by Shakka on Jan-23-2009 19:20:

quote:
Originally posted by Audigy7
There is no wealthy, there is no poor, just everyone. In that regard, taxing the rich to benefit the poor cannot even be considered communistic. Socialist, perhaps, but certainly not communist.


The wealthy are the ruling class.


Posted by Magnetonium on Jan-24-2009 10:41:

Re: karl marx

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
now, i used to be a bit of a rabid socialist back in the day. not because i felt marxism provided any real, meaningful solutions, but because i thought his analyses were worth the time to understand and appreciate.

so, i got a kick when given this quote in an email.



touche mr marx, touche.


That's the thing about Marx - I respected the guy and his works a lot, but I hate communism.

THAT quote is jawdropping. Makes me wonder if the Cold War ended with Soviet Union's defeat or communism's [slash socialism] eventual victory?



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.