Marxism and contemporary society.

[chequita guevara]

Gross oversimplifacation of Marxism so the criticism is easier. This however causes the criticism to be faulty and ignores much of the in depth analysis that Marx and other Marxists have done. In other words, you don't know what you are talking about.

[pchang]

learn some math

[General Ludd]

Learning math is for people who can't do math.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by pchang
learn some math

Ooh, good come back. Let me try.

Learn to read.

[DanS]

I've never had any use for Marx's sociological treatment of capitalism, but his description of capitalism's boom-bust cycle was in some respects valid for a time when looking at the US economy. We've had several full-blown depressions through the years, the Great Depression being the most well known, of course.

The things he got wrong are numerous, but the biggest is that he underestimated capitalism's ability to deal with its inherent problems. The rise of the independent central bank is the most important fix, since it evens out the boom-bust cycle into something manageable for market participants. The US has had only two quarters of negative economic growth in about 15 years, for instance.

I put the social safety net and government involvement in the economy well down on the list of fixes that were necessary to keep the system working, and indeed these might stop some of capitalism's corrective mechanisms from working their magic. That's not to say that some of these things might be valid for other reasons, such as an attempt to make the economic system more just. But the system is sustainable without those changes.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by JohnT
Well, what does Communism and Christianity have in common?

1. Both promise a Utopian tomorrow: heaven vs. the classless society.
2. Both act as a moral and temporal force upon millions (or billions).
3. Both have laid the theoretical foundations for a vast amount of increasingly grandiose (but rational!) poppycock and bull****.
4. Both have acted detrimentally and positively towards billions of people.
5. Both claim to be for the "people", the oppressed, the meek that are to inherit the Earth. See #1.
6. Both get hijacked by the rich, the powerful, the controlling, even the sadistic. See #5, #1.
7. Both were founded by a theoretician (or theologian, as Jesus would be more accurately described), but then were firmly established by leaders of great States: Jesus had his Constantine, Marx had his Lenin.
8. Large swaths of the globe are completely unaware of the ideological and theological issues that torment Communists and Christians. Couldn't give a ****, really.
9. Both are growing increasingly irrelevant to the modern sections of our civilization.

And on and on, even down to the coincidental fact that both movements were founded by Jews.

Yeah, it's a religion.

Free market economics and Christianity:

1. Both promise a Utopian tomorrow: heaven vs. the American Dream.
2. Both act as a moral and temporal force upon millions (or billions).
3. Both have laid the theoretical foundations for a vast amount of increasingly grandiose (but rational!) poppycock and bull****.
4. Both have acted detrimentally and positively towards billions of people.
5. Both claim to be for the "people", the honest hard-working Joe, the meek that are to inherit the Earth.
6. Both get hijacked by the rich, the powerful, the controlling, even the sadistic.
7. Both were founded by a theoretician (or theologian, as Jesus would be more accurately described), but then were firmly established by leaders of great states: Jesus had his Constantine, Adam Smith had his British Empire and USA.
8. Large swaths of the globe are completely unaware of the regulatory and theological issues that torment free-marketeers and Christians.
9. Both are growing increasingly irrelevant to the modern sections of our civilization.

And Marx wasn't Jewish.

One can turn any political, social or economic movement into a religion using your definition - even atheism, probably.

[General Ludd]

Like I said, it's ecomics in general that is religion. Captialism and communism are just different sects.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by JohnT


Yes, but so were Aquinas's. Just because something is based upon "rational arguments" doesn't mean it's true or that it's going to work, it just means that you swallowed the assumptions that made the argument "rational". You believe that the "class struggle" is paramount, that history is driven by economic conditions, that "capitalism" is a necessary evil on the way to the perfect "classless society." These are necessary assumptions that you first must swallow in order to believe in Communism.

That's not true, you're free to accept any assumption you wish, make your own, or just see Marx as an interesting sociologist (instead of a political philosopher).

Especially as it has proven itself to not work in the real world. Now that requires a leap of faith!

If it were so easy to dismiss a system as not working, you could simply say that capitalism has proven itself not to work because it leaves 85% of humanity in misery, that the economic theories are BS, and that in practice it just results in corrupt oligarchs setting unfair commercial policies.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT


Well, what does Communism and Christianity have in common?

....

Yeah, it's a religion.

Well that pretty much confirms that you have no idea what religion is either. Wow!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by pchang
Gross oversimplification of society into "classes" so the math of analysis is much easier. However, this causes the model to be faulty and ignores many 2nd order and 3rd order terms that are necessary to correctly model dynamic environments.

Let's see that math if you don't mind.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
You believe that the "class struggle" is paramount, that history is driven by economic conditions, that "capitalism" is a necessary evil on the way to the perfect "classless society." These are necessary assumptions that you first must swallow in order to believe in Communism.

Not really. I doubt if any commumists here believe in all of those. It's not necessary to make all of those assumptions even though Marx did.

Especially as it has proven itself to not work in the real world. Now that requires a leap of faith!

You have no idea what proof is either?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DanS
I've never had any use for Marx's sociological treatment of capitalism, but his description of capitalism's boom-bust cycle was in some respects valid for a time when looking at the US economy. We've had several full-blown depressions through the years, the Great Depression being the most well known, of course.

For a time? What about the last recession in the US? There's more capital out there than ever now, probably because of central banks. Do you think central banks will always be able to make sure there is enough productive uses for the ever increasing amount? The amount of capital seems to increase at faster rate.

[Alexander's Horse]

forget about Marx

If you want to know who was the most influential economic thinker of our time look at this guy, Friedrich Hayek

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/hayek.htm

He inspired Milton Friedman and the Chicago school

This program is an excellent primer on some of the economic forces moving the world today

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/index.html

[Ted Striker]

PBS

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
forget about Marx

If you want to know who was the most influential economic thinker of our time look at this guy, Friedrich Hayek

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/hayek.htm

If you want to know what happens when you don't have stimulus for a modern economy look at Germany.