"In practice, it is capitalism, not communism, which has been the greater dissolver of classes, by enabling an ever-increasing fraction of the population to acquire assets other than their labor power, in the form of shares, small businesses, and other entitlements to streams of income not deriving from work. This is exactly the reverse of what Marx foresaw." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is quote from your link Nitro. Ok, this is true more people can have "other entitlements to streams of income not deriving from work." But this same people need labor to have "income not deriving from work." So the more people who can have income from not derived from work still mean they need (more) people for the cheap labor (OR) less people paid more money?
Thank F*CKING GAWD!! Communism CAN'T "dissolve classes"... because everybody's the same... F*CKING POOR PEASANTS! Who want's to "be the same" if "same = SHIT"? The appeal of the "everybody equal" society is TOTAL BS. In ALL societies, there are 2 classes... when "they" say, "everybody equal", what they really mean is "everybody equal.... except for the ruling elite"... And the "ruling elite" is NOT YOU!
Scataphagus, I am not saying that quote. That is quote from the link of Nitro. You quote me in your post, but my post is quote from the link. Then I ask Nitro how more people can have income derived from other people labor. How? Because the more people who move from labor to derived income from labor, then is less people for labor(cheap) Capitalism need cheap labor. What can happen when the (price) the company can pay for labor is too low for the person to survive in that country?
Capitalism did implode - it didn't survive the 19th century. Marx was right on that - the most enduring capitalist societies (eg US, Canada, other parts of the G20 when not experimenting with totalitarianism) were the ones that added generous dolops of egalitarian social policy.
i will only make 3 points: 1) "What Wheen fails to do is to convey any sense of Marx's intellectual grandeur. He asserts that he was a great thinker, a prodigious worker, and that his collected writings fill fifty volumes..." 50 volumes - this is highly suspect IMO. a formula or a short article would be more appropriate for a major theory that actually works (think Einstein). 2) is there a shorter version of the review (e.g. comics format)? 3) the way to fix everything is to nationalize everything soon and reset capitalism: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=202171&highlight=nationalize Karl Hegel-Shortie Marx Out
I think the value in most competing economic theories is their criticism of other theories. That said, understanding Marxism is still important, as it points out some valid criticisms of capitalism. In Das Kapital, Marx differentiated between industrial capital and finance capital, and was extremely critical of finance capital. You don't have to be a Marxist to appreciate this view. All too often people have a knee jerk reaction to Marxism that I believe is based more on the USSR cold war era than on honest study of Marx's writings. Do I believe in Communism? No. But I do believe that Karl Marx was ahead of his time and held some valid opinions. Here is a very interesting (lengthy and dense) article by Michael Hudson. For those that want to really expand their knowledge - give it an honest read. You'll be surprised at how much you will agree with Marx - and don't worry, that doesn't make you a Marxist. From Marx to Goldman Sachs: The Fictions of Fictitious Capital http://michael-hudson.com/2010/07/from-marx-to-goldman-sachs-the-fictions-of-fictitious-capital1/
The credit system, which has its focus in the so-called national banks and the big money-lenders and usurers surrounding them, constitutes enormous centralisation, and gives to this class of parasites the fabulous power, not only to periodically despoil industrial capitalists, but to interfere in actual in a most dangerous manner â and this gang knows nothing about production and has nothing to do with it. - Karl Marx Does the above statement sound outrageous to anyone here?