The Capitalist Threat

Post Reply New Topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

The "Right" doesn't believe in freedom of anything but the market. Most individuals on the right are against abortion, against all types of drug use, pro-death penalty, pro-war. Must I continue on with the huge line of things they want the oogity boogity government to place it's hand into? In the end - The government is a tool. A tool that should be used to help the population. Ronald Reagan and Ayn Rand are dead. The prior in which caused a recession with his policies. To make myself abundantly clear though. I'm not a Democrat - I'm a Marxist. And to see people calling Obama anything but a right-winger is pretty insulting. He's not a Socialist or a Communist.

Turn off the Faux News already.


Far from it. He is a great philanthropist. The damned Koch Brothers and Al Qaeda are America's true enemies.

Keep drinking the Kool Aid.

Capitalism is far from perfect, but at least I don't have to worry about being lined up in a trench and executed for my beliefs (China)

And I don't watch Fox news for your information.

That has got to be the most ret*d post you've ever made here on WP. The AMERICAN right ostensibly believes in "liberty", but that's because it's become very much an admixture of libertarians and social conservatives. Nazism did not originate in the United States nor in a society with any sort of underlying belief in freedom. Stupid American teabagger hillbilly conservatives are trying to rewrite history with the "weell hitler was a liberal" BS. The true origins of the conservative *movement* date back to a 19th century backlash against the enlightenment.

First and foremost, conservatives are hierarchical. They believe that inequality is a necessary evil to preserve social stability. Egalitarianism is a liberal idea and *National Socialism* sought to permanently quash any chance of social equality by eradicating minority rights. Hitler sought to unite the wealthy and the proletariat against the middle class(whom he depicted as a threat to the social order) and he did so very successfully.

And then get slaughtered by automatic gunfire by UN & US government troops with LMGs and Gatling guns.

I think he is even a bigger enemy of Britain. The guy f****d that country, through..guess what? Capitalism! It's easy for filthy rich guys to claim solidarity for the little. Guy is a scumbag of the highest order and himself the greatest example of the evils of capitalism.

I don't drink Koolaid. But, now you have a big sin to confess.

Wouldn't the "kulaks" and bourgeois (who as a rule murdered by Marxists) be a part of that population? Also, when has a Marxist/Communist government ever helped it's people?

Do I really have to repeat the list of or atrocities that can be directly linked to the flawed economic theory of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels? Also, should I do so, should I include the list of atrocities that can be directly attributed to their flawed political theory?

A recession is hardly much compared to the famines under Stalin, Mao, the Kim Dynasty, The Red Khmer. The somewhat unneeded "virtue" of Self-interest propagated by Ayn Rand, and described as the late, great Christopher Hitchens as “I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.” has done far less damage than fallacies such as the labor theory of value, planned economies and other gross fallacies from the grossly overrated Karl Marx.


Other fallacies of Mr. Marx includes the fact that when his logic is corrected in regards to value theory and TRPF his conclusion turns out to be erroneous and the exploitation of workers which his entire theory (and I use that word with contempt in this instance) and thus his entire economic theory is internally inconsistent.

The Red Khmer, Soviet Russia, Mao's China, The Kim personality Cult of North Korea, and most other countries which have attempted his economic theory have had to utilize massive amounts of literal slave labor (not what Marxist morons call "slave labor" which is actually wage labor) under threat of death and still failed miserably at making any sort of economic progress.

When you also take into account that while capitalism has tended to exist with such values as democracy, freedom of expression, self-determination and human rights. Marxism has tended to exist with such values as torture, imprisonment without trial, mass executions, totalitarian dictatorships, non-existence of human rights and abolition of free expression. The conclusion that the only good thing that has ever come out of any state that attempted Marxism is that its body-count alone disproves the ideology utterly and completely.

I know, you'll come right back with the "communism has never existed" stance that every single one of you uses because the atrocities committed by every single Marxist state in history is irrefutable.

However, if I am to construct a house, and I start by putting down the foundation, then start putting up the frame, it collapses and kills millions people in cold blood. I then start putting the frame back up, it collapses again and kills millions of more people in cold blood. I then start putting the frame up again, it collapses and kills yet more millions of people in cold blood, then I have to open my eyes and realize that regardless of how nice the blueprint of the house looks, it's fundamentally flawed.

So the argument "communism" has never existed is flawed in that the stage prior to communism has existed, namely socialism, where the bourgeois have been robbed and murdered, in a violent revolution, but it has never been able to transcend from there into pure communism. At that stage arguing that "communism has never existed so it can work" becomes moronic because you end up being the alchemist arguing "I know I can transform lead into gold if I just try it again and in the process kill millions of people in cold blood."

Finally, do I really have to reintroduce the "tazed in the balls" analogy?

The definition of 'right' and 'left' is so warped and twisted that people think Naziism/fascism and communism are these diametrically opposed ideologies. The conflict between the two ideologies is more akin to a sibling rivalry than sitting on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

False dichotomies are annoying. There are other possibilities besides global liasez-faire capitalism and traditional Marxism. Also, just because Marx's proposed "revolutionary solutions" have failed, many of his critiques of capitalism are still valid today. Modern capitalism has only been in existence for the past 200 years or so, which is a remarkably short period when put in perspective relative to the long history of human civilization. There are plenty of reasons to suspect that it will not be a stable arrangement far into the indefinite future. I fear in the not too distant future rising energy costs due to rising demand in the developing world and the surpassing of peak oil will start to crowd out discretionary spending and lead to a permanent state of stagnation, high unemployment, inflation, mounting government debts, and increasing political instability. Something will have to give eventually. If no global plan is advised and countries retreat into petty nationalism the risk of violence grows. We are foolish to be lulled into complacency just because there's been a half century of relative peace and prosperity in the west. The "tazed in the balls" analogy is pretty accurate analogy to what will happen when the world retreats from the problems we face and instead goes into a petty blind reactionary rage.

Last edited by marshall on 04 Nov 2012, 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

I be prepared to make an arrangement to get an MG-42/3 so I could slaughter populist right-wingers like sheep.

I would go for the latter, as 7.92×57mm Mauser isn't as widely available as 7.62×51mm NATO/.308 Winchester.

An M2 packs a lot more punch, though.

No need to shoot UN troops at all, BTW. The UN couldn't close an envelope, let alone a border...

If I'm going to use an American made gun for military purposes, it would be the M134 Gatling Gun. The M2 packs a punch because of the large size of its ammo but it's still a piece of s**t. The MG-3 is an excellent LMG and has improved barrel cooling. Mine will have a custom tungsten carbide barrel to resist overheating.

You do realize I was speaking to someone who identified as a Marxist and that anyone who identifies as a Marxist would have to accept at the very least his labor theory of value and TRPF from his economic theory. Furthermore, would also have to accept a means of transforming society from having individual property rights to collective ownership of the means of production, and collective operation of the means of production. Otherwise, one isn't really a Marxist, it's a bit like being a Christian who doesn't believe that Jesus was the son of God, that he rose from the dead, healed the sick, was born of a virgin, raised Lazarus from the dead, was crucified and died for our sins. It's a fancy title one gives oneself due to a need or desire to belong or identify with something but at it's core its self-deception.

I purely criticized Marxism on economic, ideological and historical grounds, then contrasted the consequences of capitalism (not just laissez faire capitalism, state capitalism or any form of capitalism, just plan 'ol capitalism.) with the observed consequences of Marxism. You created the argument of "laissez faire vs traditional Marxism" which was not my argument, which means you just made a straw man. I left open everything from social democracy with a market element to laissez faire capitalism, and the 50 shades of gray in between, hence the accusations of false dichotomy are wrong.

Which criticisms are you referring to specifically?

Seeing as TRPF has been proven inconsistent/wrong that somewhat kills off the Marxist criticism of capitalists as exploiters of workers. It's one of those "Marx criticizes capitalism from the point of view of his own ideology which has proven to be largely internally contradictory." which kind of takes the bite out of his criticisms.

Nonsense!

I'll choose the GAU-8 Avenger cannon (with 30mm HE rounds), as it will make short work of your puny Saturday Night Special M134. Take THAT!

Although I'm more of a sniper enthusiast, so I'll settle with either a TAC-50, TRG-42 or an AWM.

Fine. It's just that your contemptuous attack of Marxism is definitely not bias free. You don't express the same amount of outrage towards the acts of violence and exploitation perpetrated by capitalistic empires.


Criticisms on the treatment of wage labor and finance as commodities indistinguishable from goods and services. I'm not just talking about the negative social consequences. Labor is fundamentally different from other forms of commodities from a market perspective as well. Also, the problem of perpetual increases in automation and cost-cutting measures undermining demand.


Not really. The concept of exploitation can be explained using marginal theory as well. It can be said to occur when so-called "inferior goods" (jointly inelastic items, necessities) are traded for "superior goods" (jointly elastic items, non-necessities). In terms of consumption, the marginal utility of money decreases when it becomes less evenly distributed between individuals. TRPF and LTV are hardly necessary to explain exploitation.