news.yahoo.com — "She said we have been an on-your-own society. She said it's time to get rid of that and replace that with shared responsibility and we're-in-it-together society. That's out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx."
Jul 23, 2007 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountJul 24, 2007
man law!
maz2331Jul 25, 2007
Ok. Comment Buried.
childeroland420Jul 25, 2007
Yes, Subter, it does.
sphigelJul 25, 2007
There's nothing more annoying than some condescending assh**e grouping all Americans together and actually pretending like he has a f**king clue about the issues in our country. Seriously dude, go f**k yourself.
bitorlogicJul 25, 2007
Which aspects of her voting records do you think show her to not be "a very conservative Democrat"? Surely you can back up this claim, and are not just repeating a talking point given to you by someone else. Right?
kingraoul3Jul 25, 2007
It is not the free market which causes growth but human capacity to improve technique, resulting in improved efficiency.
endikuAug 2, 2007
Liberals are just just socialists-lite.But to all you "marxism in theory is good", "it could work in a perfect world but can't in the real" and "it's always warped in real practice" types. You are all pretty bad thinkers. Marx believed that humans as they naturally exist are bad. The natural human condition is one of selfishness. But this is not a bad thing. We feel our own hunger and feed ourselves naturally. We look after ourselves and want better for ourselves naturally. In this way we all survive and grow and eventually we learn empathy for others and most everyone grows beyond being a purely selfish person. However marx thinks that this is no good. He wants to completely break down the natural human condition and reform it into a new human condition where no one even contemplates self want or desire. He wants humans who instinctively work "for the whole" and never for themselves. The guy was insane. His "great idea" is an ant colony or the Borg from star trek. An mass of humans who are not individuals with choice, but mechanical cogs in a greater wheel. All of you who think this "Utopia" is a 'grand idea but its just so sad its out of reach', well what do you really wish for? A world where people are at peace because they basically aren't people anymore. They don't even think, they aren't in any way free.Marx was simply an atheist who still yearned for a heaven. His solution was a frankenstein version of humanity. A mortal heaven where people cease to be people anymore and become something new. Because to marx, people were broken and there was no fixing them, only remaking them. If you think there is something worthwhile in that pile of nonsense you are really screwed up.
eugenitorSep 22, 2007
Mitt Romney has child torturers (no s**t) for finance managers for f**k's sake, and everyone's worried about some little comment he made about the bitch queen Hillary?
mattyj77Nov 4, 2007
As a quasi-socialist it would be fair to say Marxism is flawed. It's almost a religion where a better outcome is determined on faith. My main problem with Marxism is Labour value theory, how does Marxism value a physicist working on theoretical things of no value, should he too work in a factory when he has so much more to offer. What value is the environment if no labour is attached to it and it is merely utilised for view. Hence modern economics has utility value and exchange value. Marx is a little outdated. Also Marx never worked in a factory. what is the labour value of a hard luck philosopher?Economics and marxism is bad mix, what is a better mix is inclusive society, but when they talk about the communal raising of children that concerns me, how do we determine who is better (or worse) than the parent to raise children.On topic, Hillary isn't a Marxist, hell you've barely got anyone left of centre running for president, I'm not even sure america knows what left wing is.
mattyj77Nov 4, 2007
Believe me i've dabbled in Marxism and my line of thinking as a scientist is always, how could we ever prove the unprovable wrong, hence i've discarded most of marxism as fallacy.The real problem with marxism is it talks about freedom to do what you want through the formation of idea groups or some s**t and to be frank, a majority of people could just turn out to marginalise any number of minorities (eg homosexuals may be voted as illegal). The good news is there would only be lynch mobs to facilitate this as the police would be long gone.
smurfsahoyDec 5, 2007
The on paper part of Marx's views are mostly historical, so there isn't really much of a question of whether they work or not. The real life part has never yet been tried (there have been no actual marxism socialisms or communisms in the world, ever). So how would you know whether it works?
smurfsahoyDec 5, 2007
If you actually read Marx, you would know that he thinks that in between capitalism and communism, there is a little thing called socialism, which is, guess what? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his DEEDS (with a D)." In other words, ability is subsidized, or at least so long as you use that ability to actually do some honest work. "to each according to his needs" comes later.capitalism --> pure meritocracy --> communism. You are saying that you would like socialism. The first step on the way, which is just what Marx wanted first, too. Nice job unintentionally agreeing with him.By the way, 300 or 400 years ago, if you had gone up to most people in Europe and said that slavery should be illegal, they would have said that you "fail economics." Economics changes over time. That's the whole point. Your whole idea about how people shouldn't be forced to give anything to the needy is also pretty new on the scene. Enlightenment era or so. Not billions of years. people were pretty content with systems that made them give things to all sorts of people before then, both needy and not needy, because it was necessary to do so given the technology of the time, and more limited resources. Universal private property is a pretty novel concept in human history. Better go hit the economic history books, my friend.
smurfsahoyDec 5, 2007
socialism = a system where nobody privately owns the means of production, and instead only earn money through wage labor. The end. America is not that.
smurfsahoyDec 5, 2007
It's not a "fault," because Marx didn't expect communism to work until the future, when the future "today's society" WOULD be right for communism. Thank you though, for being the only other person in this thread though to recognize that Marx's idea was time-sensitive, and not just a here and now suggestion.
smurfsahoyDec 5, 2007
You're absolutely right. But Marx's point is that as time goes on, everybody's jobs start to get closer and closer to a mindless McDonald's job, as capitalists keep merging and getting more super rich and fewer in number. And when enough of us are pushed out of being capitalists, and into McDonalds, there will be a revolution, because it won't just be pimply faced teenagers agreeing with the ideas anymore, it will be everyone.