So I started reading about Atheism purely for the selfish point of storing boxes of ammo to fire whenever the need arises, but it quickly turned into an interesting read about the realities of human nature, versus ideology.

We all love a good brain fight; some more than others, and I enjoy firing shots about, "well your bloke....", when in the end people that use faith - theist or not - to persecute then it's a sad indictment on humans as a species.

It's a fact that people with murderous agenda will use whatever tools work to achieve their goals. That rings true for the petty criminal, to the serial offender, to the likes of fundamentalist nutters from all creeds.

From the Fundamentals of Marxism Leninism Manual, Materialism and Idealism section.

"The great historic service rendered by materialist philosophy is that it helped man to break free of all superstitions. Ever since ancient times it has taught him not to fear death, not to fear gods and other supernatural forces.

It teaches us not to hope for happiness beyond the grave, but to prize life on earth and strive to improve it. For the first time materialism gave man the realisation of his dignity and intellect, proclaiming that man was not a worm condemned to crawl in the dust, but nature’s supreme creation capable of mastering the forces of nature and making them serve him. Materialism is imbued with the utmost faith in the human intellect, in the power of knowledge, in man’s ability to fathom all the secrets of the world around him, and to create a social system based on reason and justice."

Interesting read. What's even more interesting is the rhetoric versus the man made reality of that Atheist ideology.

Well StG atheism is not a man-made ideology it merely reflects absence of believe in the supernatural. It is just a tag to describe someone who does not believe in God.

Religion is the man-made ideology, probably designed, at best, for good intentions in more primitive times, at worst, for control - who really knows. One of the flaws IMO of religious dogma is the view that man is supreme in nature. We are certainly more higher order in terms of intelligence but that gives us greater responsibility as well to act with integrity when human life impacts on the environment or on other species. Ultimately this protects human life as well. It is all symbiotic.

Atheists like those with faith are a broad Church and what one atheist thinks or believes does not represent all others just as those who subscribe to different religious beliefs would not claim to represent all Christianity or Islam etal given there are many differing sects within.

While a robust debate or joust is fodder for the brain cells, it would be a lot easier to just accept that people think differently for various reasons rather than the continual praising or condemning of either IMO.

The usual stigma of amoral atheism and intellectually handicapped theism serves no other purpose than division.

STG,

Still banging on this old drum?

Lesson in Logic: because all cows have 4 legs, does not mean that all animals with 4 legs are cows.

Similarly because Marxism promoted atheism, linking atheists to Marxism or Marxist ideology is extremely feeble.

The absence of spirituality does not imply that only materialism is left. The proportion of Christians that are materialist is no different than atheists, and from my personal experience higher.

pelican,

>"atheism is not a man-made ideology"<

That wasn't my statement.

I said, "What's even more interesting is the rhetoric versus the man made reality of that Atheist ideology."

Mankind has used faith in the negative as well.

Shadow Minister,

If you don't like it, don't comment. Fairly simple I would think. Anyway, Marxism - Leninism is an Atheist ideology. It doesn't just promote it, it IS it. And you misunderstand the use of the word 'materialist'. They don't mean widesreen teles and such, they mean what you would call scientific evidence. And I didn't write the manual of Marxism - Leninism.

At everyone. If you're going to comment on this topic, take the time to comprehend the original post. Cheers.

STG

Do we HAVE to go over this AGAIN? ? ?

Not believing in a religion is just that. Not believing in a religion.

For example, Shadow Minister and I disagree on many issues, in fact I think the only two things we have in common is not following any religion and posting on OLO.

There are plenty of people who are raging, ranting, right-wing capitalists who are also atheist.

I really like doing origami, doesn't make me Japanese.

Many Buddhists are Communists, so too Hindus, Jews, Muslims and guess what there are communist Christians - despite the rhetoric of Lenin and Marx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

If you were born here in Australia, chances are I have more in common with you than I do with Lenin.

Sheesh!

hey waitttttt a minit folks.. the topic is not 'atheism' but Marxism/Leninism... and what a juicy choice it is :)

Marxism/Leninism is Satanic ?

Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals'.

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to
the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.” (Saul Alinksky.. "Rules for Radicals")

Suprisingly, Alinsky waddles, quacks and has feathers like a communist duck, but never formally joined any party. Nevertheless, his community organizing methods have been taken up by the American left with great gusto.

It's worth reveiwing his methods...because they are seen in a lot of places and movements..including the infamous ACORN.

STG's quote : "The great historic service rendered by materialist philosophy is that it helped man to break free of all superstitions."

...really shows how lacking in understanding these communists are.

The real human condition (for most) is this:

11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. (Eccl 3:11)

That's the condition of the natural man. He/she has only 'general revelation' to inform him her about the nature of God. Special revelation is needed to break through that shell of blindness and ignorance.

Communism, Marxism/Leninism completely misses this fundamental truth.
It begins from the darkness of uninformed, imperfect general revelation....and denies the special revelation in Christ.

As Jesus once said of the religious leaders of his day:

15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."

Harsh words indeed.. (Foxy.. u reading ?)

But anyone who rejects not just the general, but also the special revelation of the Almighty, and then teaches men so, falls under the condemnation of those words of Christ

Boaz, the topic is Marxism-Leninism, not Jesus.

Hypocrite.

As for the topic, what SM and Severin said.

STG,

If I someone posting drivel, then I am perfectly within my rights to say so. I fully comprehended your post, I just thought that the logic was feeble.

Marx called religion the opiate of the masses, as the church used religion to plunder the poor and keep them accepting of their lot.

Marxism is an ideology that embraces atheism. It is not however an atheist ideology. Do I need to use the cow with 4 legs analogy again?

Severin,

Do we have too?, no, but here you are anyway. I didn't raise Communism, you did. The topic is Marxism - Leninism.

What's interesting to me, is the reaction to the topic by everyone in here. That actually was expected by me because I wrote this somewhere else and had the same response.

The topic isn't actually about Atheism, or religion. The topic is the practical use of an ideology versus the theoretical rhetoric. The key words in this particular topic caused a predictable response by those on the defence. Most of you have raised issue with things that aren't even there purely because of some conditioned protection to our own way of life.

In this topic I could have quite easily used fundamental Christianity or fundamental Islam.

Human nature; intriguing.

...which means God won't like us, right?

StG

Thanks for the clarification, I misunderstood because not believing in religion (aka atheism) is not an ideology either. However, I agree that interpretations of Marx or Lenin's works can and have developed into ideologies.

Care to elaborate with some examples?

"man was not a worm condemned to crawl in the dust, but nature’s supreme creation capable of mastering the forces of nature and making them serve him"

Sounds like the manic side of the bi-polar human pendulum!

I just wonder how many materialists were in fact able to stop fearing death...

CJ.. you called me a hypocrite!..... and of course, you are absolutely correct. Any human less than 100% perfect who speaks about Godly things is by definition one who 'preaches' but does not practice 100%. So.. no drama in calling me that.

The 'topic' is Marxism and Leninism..but STG quotes this in his opening post:

//"The great historic service rendered by materialist philosophy is that it helped man to break free of all superstitions. Ever since ancient times it has taught him not to fear death, not to fear gods and other supernatural forces.//

Which makes M/L an attack on religion. Thus.. it forms a legitimate part of the varying perspectives which rightly approach the subject matter.

I realize in CJ's dark Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" world.. people like me won't be allowed to speak..but until your mob runs the show, I think I'm entitled to a point of view. *thanx*.

Returning to the topic... STG says:

[What's even more interesting is the rhetoric versus the man made reality of that Atheist ideology.]

STG...It might be man made..but I'd hesitate to call it a 'reality'.
Man made 'theory' is ok... but reality ? nope.. can't go there.
The ideology is of course a reality, i.e. a 'real' set of ideas, even though they hold little water.

Dear StG,

Thanks for this thread.

Interesting topic.

Karl Marx claimed, the dominant religion in
any society is always the religion of its
economically and politically dominant class,
and it always provides a justification for
existing inequalities and injustices. The
dominant religion legitimates the interests
of the ruling class and, like a narcotic, lulls
the oppressed into acceptance of their lot.

Karl Marx proclaimed passionately:

"Man makes religion, religion does not make
man... Religious suffering is at the same time
an expression of real suffering and a protest
against real suffering. Religion is the sigh
of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a
heartless world, and the soul of soulless
conditions. It is the opium of the people..."

Karl Marx conceded that in very simple,
preindustrial societies that have no class
divisions, religion is simply a matter of
superstition. In all other socieites, he insisted,
the dominant religion supports the status quo and
diverts the attention of the oppressed from their
real problems.

Inspired by Marx's critique, all communist-ruled
societies tolerate religion only reluctantly, and
are officially atheistic. This is a point their
leaders occasionally overlook. At a Vienna summit
meeting in 1979, the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev
commented that "God will not forgive us if we fail."
And in 1985 Mikhail Gobachev, told Western reporters,
"Surely God on high has not refused to give us
enough wisdom to find ways to bring an improvement
in our relations."

Neither remark was reported in the Soviet media.

cont'd ...

Then of course there's the wonderful
Dennis Pryor, who with his tongue-in-cheek,
comical, critical, cynical, sceptical,
ironical, satirical dictionary of Australian
politics, called, "Political Pryorities,"
defines Marxism as:

"A common term of abuse used by the Religious
Right to rubbish the Left. Marxism is a
nineteenth century religion now split into
many sects with no present signs of an
ecumenical movement. Its adherents recite
such ejaculatory prayers as "class struggle,"
and "capitalist exploitation" without seeing
any need to read the writings of their divinity."

Peter Hume,

Yeah, exactly, thanks for speaking for me. That's EXACTLY what this topic is about and THANKS for your input. Very much valued, and seriously, I'll share that piece of input with my kids.

Severin,

No, not really.

ALGOREisRICH,

K, whatever you reckon.

Foxy,

My pleasure. Thanks for your input. Interesting.

I have always found ST G a bit hard to understand.
Not unhappy with him just find it hard to keep track of some views.
Never more than when he defends Christianity against the likes of me.
I am in no way communist, to separate communism from Marxism Leninism is as strange as comparing a non believer to one of the above.
Yet that seem,s to be the proposal
ST G are you aware Christianity is just one of many beliefs?
That clearly it is under challenge as the biggest one in the world?
It must be said in not believing most do so based on the science, not to hurt your feelings.
You are becoming more like runner who lashes out at any attempt to say I have a different view of Gods and think/know man made them and uses them today for control.

Belly

You are not alone - I am as confused by St G as anyone. And now he is going to tell his kids that "god won't like us, right" that P Hume wrote.

Foxy

Thank you for your posts. I haven't read any Marx. I think I should now. You are eloquent as always and, I think you were on topic, but I'm not really sure.

StG

I asked you for examples of "atheist ideology" as there is no book of atheism. Unlike any other ideology be it Marxism or Christianity, no one has to follow any proscription. You claim different, please give an illustration of what you mean.

Where did I claim different?.

Oh I see. I didn't say "Atheist ideology", I said "an Atheist ideology". But, feel free to exchange the word 'ideology' for whatever you think makes sense to not make it an attack on Atheism like you seem to think it is.

"The great historic service rendered by materialist philosophy is that it helped man … blah blah

Hardly!

Lets look at these two individuals

Marx, according to his acolytes, his fabulous theories have never been implemented, instead what happened was they were corrupted by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ceausescu, Pol-Pot & Co

So we still have to experience the ethereal beauty of Marxism in its intended form (cobblers, it just don’t work)

Lenin claimed to be an atheist but observation of history would suggest he and his successors, rather than developing a God free society, imposed by government statute, prison and death

They expected to replace God with themselves.

It is all about power, power of the state and the ones who control the apparatus of the state, harnessing the power previous exerted by the church, to play God over everyone else

And the result of their divine reigns was

Rather than Gods of peace and love,

Gods of starvation, torture and mass murder.

Now as a mere libertarian capitalist, I would contend, you are free to follow the faith of your choosing on one condition

Your faith will tolerate me following the faith of my choosing.

That is my single expectation and anything short of that is not negotiable

You demand the right to impose a creed or values set (including agnosticism and atheism) on me, even if it represents values I might agree with, we are all in trouble.

So rather than debate the piffling theories of Marx, Lenin or any other third grade bum-wipe

You would all be better off considering your future without a powerful state machine there to hold your hand from cradle to grave.

Imagine a community where you were free to be your best, unfettered by the leveling hands of taxation and arbitrary regulation.

Sure the safety net will have wider gaps and some of you will fall them, but others will also escape and soar to new heights of personal growth

You see, the safety nets of socialism do not just stop you from falling

They also discourage you from excelling

StG

I am going to try once more to understand you. I have asked you for examples of what you mean. I think you are saying that the philosophy of Marx is an atheist ideology.

While I am not as well versed as Foxy in study of Marx, I do understand that his philosophy was written in response to religion and to inequity, which is often abetted by religion but which also stems from feudalism and resides in laissez-faire capitalism today.

His quote: "Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."

People cannot be said to be free to be happy if that happiness is created by illusion. Such as the religious illusion of suffering being good for character - may be, but it is GREAT to keep the poor in sufferance. Or the capitalist illusion of money creating happiness.

Not believing in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism does not result in an ideology such as Marxism. Had neither religion nor inequity ever existed, I doubt that we would be (attempting) discussing Marx right now.

Well I misread StG. I thought it was an attack on atheism, given the comment about "storing boxes of ammo".

Not sure if the thread is about Marxism or atheism, two quite different topics.

Dear Severin,

From my understanding Karl Marx wrote
on subjects as broad and diverse as
philosophy,, economics, political science,
and history.

His influence has been immense. Millions
of people accept his theories with almost
religious fervor, and modern socialist and
communist movements owe their inspiration
directly to him. It's important to realize,
however,, that Marxism is not the same as
communism. Marx would probably be dismayed
at many of the practices of communist
movements, and he can't be held responsible
for policies pursued in his name a century
after his death. Even in his own lifetime,
he was so appalled at the various
interpretations of his ideas by competing
factions that he declared, "I am not a Marxist!"

The key to history, he believed,
is class conflict - the bitter struggle between
those who own the means of producing wealth and
those who do not. Marx saw religion as a form of
false consciousness and as a tool of the powerful
in the struggles between competing social classes.

To Marx, belief in religion was a profound form of
human alienation, the situation in which people
lose their control over the social world they have
created, with the result that they find themselves
"alien" in a hostile environment. Therefore people
create systems of government, law, marriage,
feudalism, industrialism, or slavery, then lose the
sense of their authorship of these products, taking
them for granted as though they were part of an
unchanging natural order.

Nowhere is this process more poignant than in the field
of religion: people create gods, lose their awareness
that they have done so, and then worship or fear the
very gods they created.

Foxy

You don't need to explain to me - try explaining to StG.

I have not the slightest doubt that StG is trying to claim that Marxism is has at its roots, atheism.

As Pelican said Marxism and atheism are completely different topics, for the former one requires an entire thesis for the latter it is straightforward either you believe or you don't. Perhaps StG would be better served to use Agnosticism, but then I imagine that Agnostics would reject be tarred with the worst of communism as well and quite rightly.

I don't blame all Christians for the shooting of doctors in family planning clinics, nor should atheists be blamed for the atrocities of Stalin.

In fact, I have had a gutful of the blame game lately - there are too many people whose entire world view is Orwellian - they are free to cast aspersions, but no-one is allowed to criticise them without being threatened across threads!

WTF is wrong with acceptance? Why are homosexuals pilloried? Why are those who value the environment regarded as soft? Why are those who'd wipe out entire tracts of land in pursuit of resources treated with respect, but people who rescue stray animals regarded as somewhat eccentric?

All I can do is try to take care of my tiny place here, I can't make significant changes all I can do is refuse to be silenced when those who hold differing opinions would try to silence me.

Foxy summarizes Marx as follows:

//To Marx, belief in religion was a profound form of
human alienation, the situation in which people
lose their control over the social world they have
created, with the result that they find themselves
"alien" in a hostile environment.//

The Christian/Biblical situation is nothing like that.

Here is the truth.

Eph 2:11ff

11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

ALIENATION.....that Christians know, is the one they experienced outside of Christ.

REPATRIATION.... as the last verse says....in Christ we have been 'brought near' and the alienation is now ended.

Marx...was wrong...and anyone embracing his ideas about human alienation is also incorrect. (from a Biblical perspective)

Dear Severin,

I know where you're coming from.

I was attacked for trying to answer another
posters questions on an article thread.
It becomes blatantly obvious at times that
those who often claim objectivity are in
fact dogmatically, idealogically biased,
and any opposing point of view is taken
personally, and seen as criticism. Then it
usually gets downright nasty and personal.
Which to me is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.

If it's of any consequence, you are a poster
that is much admired by so many of us on OLO,
and quite frankly I wouldn't change you for quids.
It's Thanks to people like yourself, that I'm
still posting.

Dear AGIR,

Given the social conditions that provoked their
inquiry, the early sociologists focused their
attention on the forces that hold society together
and on the forces that fragment it.
People like Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer,
Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber.

Perhaps a further study of the topic
might be in order for you
so that you can fathom what is actually being
discussed here.

Right. For the last time.

This. Isn't. About. Atheism.

I'm not replying because no one here is on topic. I'm NOT ATTACKING ATHEISM. What, because I'm Christian I can't try and raise topics even closely related to it?.

Silence you, Severin?. WTF are you talking about?.

Again, the topic is the practical use of an ideology - NOT NECESSARILY FKN ATHEISM - versus the theoretical rhetoric - again, not necessarily ATHEISM.

I KNOW Marxism - Leninism isn't the sum total of friggen Atheism. I know there's Communist Christians, Buddhists, Goats, WTF ever...

F*@k me. Some of you couldn't comprehend yourselves out of a paper bag.

It. Is. Not. Attacking. Atheism. Nowhere have I ACTUALLY DONE THAT.

Christ, I'm done with this.

Most Gracious Foxy

Your thoughts gladden my heart, I also want you to know that I appreciate your responses on a 'certain other topic', especially the link you posted.

StG

We are certainly talking past each other. As I said previously, a few examples of the various ideologies that have arisen from interpretations of Marx/Leninist philosophy would've helped. The topic is about that isn't it? But I won't hold my breath.

No, please, hold away.

I thank as always foxy for reminding an old bloke about Marxism, anD Stern for the last line in that post, it is so true.
Once Marxism meant a lot to me, then Socialism,but both in current form do not work.
We have a form of Socialism here, have always had, but too many miss use it.
ST G bloke I know you are not very old, but you are much better than that post.
Learn friend to control your anger.
To not show it or some will fish for it over and again.
Never forget you I any one is not always right.
I continue to praise most Christians, but no longer believe, do I have a right in your mind to be me?
And can I say I find it increasingly hard to see Christians devalue other reildgions rights?
I had forgotten much of Carl Marx his thoughts on God are mine too.
I true am only repeating others stated views but while reildgions gave mankind laws to live by moral ethical and in every way, some use it to gain power.
The tools used are fear promises and a great deal we would blame cults for.
If ST G you could prove the Christ of my younger years exists, and mirror,s the views of most believers here I Would live this life standing not on My knees to such a person.

Dear Belly,

As I've said before, you're a man who
has a heart of gold, and integrity to spare.
I consider myself fortunate to count you
as a friend, and its a sheer pleasure to
share cyberspace with you.

I won't say anymore as I don't want to
embarrass you. ;-)

Marxism was a great ideology,until people have finally learned
this ideology was merely a clever cover for mass murderers and thieves,who hid behind this so called " progressive " ideology
and tried to justify their massacres and thievery with poor Marx.
The communist parties all over the world have committed unlimited amounts of massacres, all in the name of marxism and progress...When will people learn, that NO one has the right to massacre and rob people in the name of any ideology ? Look at the world today, communist parties all over the world are still massacring innocent people, just to steal their properties, their belongings, and they commit these massacres in the name of marxism...what a joke. Marxism today is nothing but a clever cover for mass murderers and thieves. Look at the east european ex - communists.... they have all become capitalists in a blink of an eye, to legalize their power over their unfortunate people. Not one communist mass murderer was ever arrested and charged for their crimes against humanity...This is the perfect business to be in ! Kill, rob and rape in the name of " progress " and
get away with it free and clean ! Between 1917 and 1989 the communist parties all over the world have massacred over 200 million innocent men,women,and children, and not one of these mass murderers were ever punished ! you know why ? Because the " FREEMASONS " who rule the west, are the masters of the so called communists, who still rule the east.. so freemason westerners do not punish their communist servants in the east at all... There is NO truth, NO justice and NO MORALS in the world anymore. The " FRreemasons " did a perfect job, destroying
the human soul....

StG et al,

Despite his much reported "opium of the people" quip, Marx felt religion irrelevant to materialism, except to say that religion was served as a distraction to blights of humanity. Else put, if worrying about God is immaterial, there is little point going-on about atheism, because this mirror image is equally immaterial. Materialism is the opposite of immaterialism. Neither, theism nor ant-theism were high on Marx's agenda.

Dear David666,

AS I''ve posted earlier - it is important
to realize, that Marxism is not the same
as communism. Marx would have been dismayed
at many of the practices of communist
movements, and he cannot be held responsible
for policies pursued in his name a century after
his death.

Perhaps you need to do a bit more research into
Soviet-Style Socialism to understand what was
actually being practiced.

Foxy,
>>Marx would have been dismayed
at many of the practices of communist
movements, and he cannot be held responsible
for policies pursued in his name a century after
his death.<<

That is true, and so is:

“Jesus would have been dismayed
at many of the practices of the Medieval
Church, and he cannot be held responsible
for practices pursued in his name a millennium after
his death.”

Nevertheless, one can understand that somebody who was discriminated by the Church, (or worse) - e.g. a Jew having had to live in a ghetto - could have felt uneasy about Jesus. Well, I am not a Jew who lived in the Middle Ages, but a Christian who grew up in a Communist country, and though I do not feel uneasy about Marx any more, I can understand those who still do.

Loved the post George, I always feel people who have never lived in a communist ruled country, like most Australians, cannot understand the deprivations which follow from the practical application of Marxist theory.

Again, separating “Marxist Theory” from the practical application of Marxism is the ultimate state of denial.

It allows the academics to wash their hands of the millions of dead people who suffered under the practical application of Marxism/Leninism or
Collectivism by any name

Doubtless all the Marxists and Leninists and Stalinists and Maoist will find it strange that I find no need to
separate the theory from the fact of libertarian capitalism

But that is because, unlike the bland, monotony of uniform and equal collectivists, who strive to all wear the same shabby grab, eat the same boring gruel and suffer the same pointless existence, forced, by criminal penalty, to worship as an apparatchik of the state, instead of worshipping a deity of their personal choosing -

Libertarian Capitalism not only tolerates but rejoices and sees benefit in peoples natural diversity,

encouraging them to be their individual best and

live their individual lives to the full.

In short, under libertarian capitalism, you get to live the life you choose

Under Collectivism (by any name) the best you can hope for is to exist

"Again, separating “Marxist Theory” from the practical application of Marxism is the ultimate state of denial." - Stern

Marxism is a failed philosphical and economic theory. Marx tried to take Hegel's metaphysics of a dialectical progress of history and apply it to political economics (where each stage of was serially progressive: e.g, capitalism is superior the feudalism and socialism is superior to capitalism).

A common thread running through the neo-Helgelian Maxian scheme was the engagement of dialogue between a thesis and an anti-thesis, which when resolved (synthesis), nudges the system along; the economic system in the case of Marx.

True Marxists I think would see Capitalism as primitive, as we might a developmentally/technologically tribal clan. Marx wanted to turb-change matters towards greater equity. The inequality in capitialism was based on each individual's relationship with the ownership of capital. The wealthy owned the means of production and the workers were said to be (powerless, interchangeable) organic capital/components. Moreover, the Theory of Surplus Value, stated workers generated more value (units of production) than they received as reward. The surplus was kept by the capitalist as profit.

I think Marx made the mistake of overgenalising Hegel's dialectic to political-economic materialism. Moreover, he failed to recognise the wealth that can be generated by a large, weel-educated Middle Class in a democracy.

Both China and Russia entered their so called "Communism" from alarge agriculturally base or recent history. I put, Marx would not have seen leap-frogging the intermediate stages as consistent with natural course of political history. Moreover, with Mao and Stalin, we have ugly, opportunistic autocrats whom cared more about power than the socialist idealism of political economists tooted in the nineteen century

"tooted in the nineteen century" Let's try rooted :-). O.

Hi Oliver,

Yes, if what Marx believed was the "primativeness of capitalism" was actually true -

People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett would not exist

Here is an observation of a general, if little known, fact of life

The first generation invent it

the second generation build it

the third generation pee it up against the wall

- thus making opportunity for others who invent and build -

and resolving the issue of the distribution of equity

Sure some folk have it easy and others do it tough

but under a this primative capitalist philosophy, we all get a chance to climb and join the stars

under the collectivist/Marxist philosophy - we are imprisoned behind the bars of "equality", "equalisation" and some dumb stuff called "social equity", which is a nice philosophical term used to describe

having nothing at all.

workers striving for the glory of equality

the thought of it is enough to make one vomit

Stern,

A society needs a strong Middle Class to create demand. Demand leads to innovation. Without the Middle Class there would be no Microsoft or Mega-stores. The very wealthy if left to their own devices, all too often, seek to spend capriously(Veblein)on things like Faberge eggs. I have been inside must of the major palace and museums of the world and have some sympathy with Veblein's posit.

Moreover, you forget, the other name of State Capitalism, "Fascism", wherein, the State is run for the benefit of powerful capitalists in bed with political power brokers. Ordinary people are quashed.

Libertianism emphasises small government, not so much capitalism. Capitalists will wear a soclialist cap, in need. Consider manifest agricultural subsidises given to farmers all around the world and not forgetting the US bailout of Banks. Herein, market forces would dictate the capitalists should loose their money and a more able better capitalised international bank(s) takeover the US failures. Herein, entrepreneurs will turn their backs on the Marketplace if means joining the ranks of the hoi polloi.

*About forty years ago Rupert Murdoch was about to go under for over extending and several banks would not provide him credit. At the time, he not did say to the lender whom ultimately funding him. He didn't say, "No don't help me, there are more able capitalists with better balance sheets to lend to". He thought of his own ar*e and forgot market and accounting principles.

What is required is balance between the key parties/players; government, capital and employees. Without balance one nurtures either, exploitation or inefficiency.

* TV documentary. He needed $80 million dollars (liquidity) to meet short-term commitments.

Dear George,

Thanks for your input.

However, I am well aware of what communism
means - and as you know my parents fled
Lithuania and came to Australia as displaced
persons after World War II -( victims of
Stalin's terror). My father's brother was
tortured to death in the infamous massacre
at the forest of Rainiai by the Red Army
(he was a high school
student at the time, and totally uninvolved
in politics). The rest of my father's family
were deported to a gulag in Siberia.

I was born in Australia. However, Marxism -
and Communism are totally different things.
As I think that you well know.

Dear Olly,

As always - your knowledge is spot on!
Thank You!

Foxy "Marxism and Communism are totally different things."

yes!

So too a caterpillar is different to a moth

But what starts as one thing strangely, always finishes as the other

like I said before

Quote

"Again, separating “Marxist Theory” from the practical application of Marxism is the ultimate state of denial.

It allows the academics to wash their hands of the millions of dead people who suffered under the practical application of Marxism/Leninism or Collectivism by any name"

I cannot remember how many have died in the name of capitalism.... lets face it who would wish to see loss of a protential consumer

Collectivists, call them Marxists, Trotskyites, Communists or Socialists cannot make that claim....

Now, some would suggest socialism and communism are two different things but it was, after all Comrade Lenin (you know, he who organised mass starvations and the butchering of Kulaks) who made the critically important observation

"The Goal of Socialism of Communism"

and that being the case and on the evidence of history, that is the case,

So too, communism leads to Stalinism and all the horrors a psychopathic dictator can impose on people....

Thats the Stalin who said

"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."

and that was about the only reliable statistic which came out of 70 years of collectivist horror

as another politician commented

" it is worth recalling that economic statistics under the Soviet Union were hardly more reliable than any other official statements. Moreover, a country that produces what no one wants to buy, and whose workers receive wages that they cannot use to buy goods they want, is hardly in the best of economic health."

Yes, Marxism is different to Communism

The former is a whacky theory for intellectuals and academics to pontificate over-

The other is the real world application of the same whacky theory, with all its horrors and abuses of individuals and deaths in the millions

yet, collectivists deny the obvious association...

maybe a putrid maggot and a germ laden house fly is a more appropriate analogy of Marxism and Communism

Dear Stern,

Karl Marx's views, like those of anyone else,
were deeply influenced by the social environment
in which he lived.
He wrote in an era when industry was owned and
controlled by individual capitalists, and the
bulk of the population comprised a poorly paid
labor force living in wretched conditions. But
changes in industrial societies since that time
have thrown doubt on Marx's concept of class.
One significant change is in the occupational
structure: the middle class has expanded rapidly,
and a variety of new jobs have emerged. Most industry
is now run by large corporations. Today a "new class"
is appearing, consisting of well-educated experts
whose high social status is based on knowledge,
not ownership.

Totalitarianism is a twentieth-century phenomenon,
in part because it relies on such modern techniques
as mass indoctrination of the populace and
sophisticated surveillance of potential dissidents.
The outstanding examples of totalitarian governments
are the three that were responsible for perhaps the
most grotesque acts of genocide in history:
Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and more recently
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge regime. In each case
terror was used as an instrument of policy, and
millions of people were slaughtered at the whim of a
regime.

Totalitarian governments are marked by several
characteristics. An elaborate ideology that covers every
phase of the individual's life; a single political party
that is identical with the government; widespread use of
intimidation; complete control of mass media; monopoly
control of weaponry and armed forces; and direction of
the economy by the state bureaucracy.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

Foxy “Totalitarianism is a twentieth-century phenomenon,”

Only if we view the “divine right of Kings” as something which was not “Totalitarianism”

And only if we ignore Napoleon Bonoparte, Emperor of France

If we forget Nero, Caligula as examples of Totalitarian despots

How about the centuries of Russian Czars who ruled with torture and an iron rod?

And you suggest “Totalitarianism is a twentieth-century phenomenon,”

Get an education before you try to “clarify things” for me!

RE “He wrote in an era when industry was owned and
controlled by individual capitalists, and the
bulk of the population comprised a poorly paid
labor force living in wretched conditions”

and he settled in England because that was where he felt his revolution would start

he was wrong on that score too.

those “wretched conditions” you speak of were replaced by companies like Cadbury, who built model communities in a place called “Bourneville”, for the benefit of their workers

And these days I doubt you would find anywhere in Australia where “Wretched Conditions” existed,

So those last two points, the nature of capitalists like the Cadbury family and the social development of capitalist societies through the century which you, erroneously claim saw the introduction of “Totalitarianism” would work to further

Deny what Marx, in his own demented manner, was rambling on about

As I said before

All you are doing is trying to deny the obviously undeniable

just as the maggot turns into a disease ridden house fly

So too, Marxism will only ever turn into the horror of communism, pupating via socialism if you wish but at the end of the day

That is what you get when you merge absolute authority with human ambition…..

Remember the old saying

“Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts absolutely”

It illustrates the fatal flaw of all collectivist theory - that it can only work in an environment where absolute power is the rule

But capitalism, because it is based on individuals each with personal power, devolves the risk of corruption from that collective absolute

Making the capitalist system the vastly superior alternative to collectivism.

And the GFC proved that stern?
It in its Australian form is as good as we can get but will it let us down one day?
Yes.

Dear Foxy,
Thank you for your sincere words. I knew about your parents’ background therefore I thought you might understand those with similar experience, who “felt uneasy about Marx“. Sorry if it sounded like I implied you had to feel the same.

As you might remember from my other posts, I used to communicate with old refugees from the former Soviet Union and its satellites. Some of them had the problem that their children - though rejecting the practice their parents fled from - embraced the theory (the Trockyists of the 1968s), or just the utopian parts of it (all non-Communist versions of Marxian idealism) of which the only actual realisation was, and still is, this practice.

One can exalt the utopian features of Marxism, but I do not know of any other practical realisation of the ideas contained in The Communist Manifesto than those of Lenin and his successors. Marx-Leninism is a version of Marxism, obviously not the only one, whether we like it or not.

Let me repeat, it was a psychological problem for these old refugee parents, rather than a rational argument, and I had and have an understanding for them in this sense.

Please excuse my sincerity. After WWII many Europeans also felt uneasy about anything German, in spite of Goethe and Mozart.

I agree, Oliver gave a very good and concise description of Marx‘s theory. Its roots are indeed in the 19th century, and I think its applicability - for better or worse - ended in the 20th, before cultural and economic globalisation.

I, like many others, can sympathise with Marx as an idealist preacher of social justice. However, on this level I prefer Jesus to Marx, although neither of them can be expected to have explicit and practicable instructions on how to proceed towards the achievement of this desirable goal in the 21st century.

“separating “Marxist Theory” from the practical application of Marxism is the ultimate state of denial" (Stern)
“Marxism and Communism are totally different things“ (Foxy)

Well, I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

Belly “And the GFC proved that stern?”

The GFC proved that if you put socially minded idiots into positions of regulator you get financially irresponsible outcomes.

Fact of Life – no banker lends, willingly, to a bad risk.

The GFC was the culmination of bad regulations which demanded bankers lend to sub-prime borrowers. Borrowers who could avoid their mortgage obligations by sending the keys to the house back to the lender in the mail (Jingle-mail). It was US Democrat policy and enacted progressively since before Jimmy Carter.

These bad regulations carried risk of forfeiture of a banking licence for any bank which did not lend with an affirmative action bias and achieve lending to people who would not normally qualify for a loan in a fit... in the name of, politically motivated, affirmative action lending ratios which closer mirrored ethnic population ratios.

So the GFC was due to BAD regulations and regulators,

not bad bankers.

As to the trade in derivatives

Well anyone who buys something when they do not know what it is or how it works is asking for trouble....

"caveat emptor" remains the most useful maxim for every "investor"

“It in its Australian form is as good as we can get but will it let us down one day?
Yes.”

No –

Pushing the country into massive debt and over-heating a booming building sector to construct over priced and pointless school halls as a knee jerk reaction to a perceived, but not established economic downturn, was the epitome of financial irresponsibility and stupidity.

It displayed a crass lack of statesmanship at every level..

As for capitalism

Like one politician said

“Since its inception, capitalism has known slumps and recessions, bubble and froth; no one has yet dis-invented the business cycle, and probably no one will; and what Schumpeter famously called the 'gales of creative destruction' still roar mightily from time to time. To lament these things is ultimately to lament the bracing blast of freedom itself."

Belly, it will always be better to be free than be the regulated subject of collectivism, by any name.

Stern,

The GFC occurred because stockbrokers and bankers found a new way to make lots of money out of other people's debt. They turned that debt into a product and traded it - making squillions. It was greed... it was greed... it was greed. And when the U.S. housing market went to the wall, this mansion of cards built on a house of cards came tumbling down.

And, during the early days of the meltdown when volatility in the market became evident, the only reason we didn't see a complete collapse of confidence was because the U.S. and various other governments around the world began to regularly pump billions into the market every time the DOW went into free fall.

Dear Stern,

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that
I'm arguing pro Marxism as opposed to Capitalism.
I was merely trying to point out that Marx wrote
in England at a time when a large and impoverished
working class labored for a handful of wealthy
capitalists who owned the factories and other means
of production. Marx assumed that this situation
would inevitably lead to revolution.
The changes that have occurred
in industrial societies since Marx's writing have
thrown doubt on Marx's concept of class.

Many middle-class people, for example, work not for
capitalists, but rather for their fellow citizens,
perhaps as teachers, nurses, or civil servants.
Others don't work for anybody: they are self-employed.
Some blue-collar workers too, are paid more than some
white-collar professionals. A truck driver, for example,
may sometimes earn more than a high school principal -
so where is their relative class status?

Another important change since Marx's time is that most
industry is now run by large corporations, which are
owned by thousands or even hundreds of thousands of
stockholders but are controlled by salaried managers.
As a result, the "ownership" and the "control" of
the means of production are no longer identical.
True, corporate managers and directors typically own
stock in the companies that employ them, but -
especially in the case of large companies - they rarely
own a controlling interest. As I stated earlier, it
may be that a "new class" is appearing, consisting
of well-educated experts, whose high social status is
based on knowledge, not ownership. It isn't clear
where these salaried executives, bureaucrats,
scientists, and others fit in Marx's concept of class.

All I've been trying to rationalise is the fact that
Karl Marx spent most of his life writing about social
class. His pioneering work on the subject, (sometimes
contradictory) has had an immense influence that almost
all subsequent discussion of class systems has had to
confront his ideas.

Anyway, I'm done on this subject.
Thank You for responding to my posts.
And I'll see you on another thread.

Poirot "The GFC occurred because stockbrokers and bankers found a new way to make lots of money out of other people's debt..... And when the U.S. housing market went to the wall, this mansion of cards built on a house of cards came tumbling down."

PRetend all you want

You are suggesting the dirivatives values collapsed because the under-lying debt went bad.

the point with all that is this

being required, by law to lend to people who lacked the ability to support their debt levels is what caused the house market collapse in the firsr place.

Had sub-prime borrowers not been allowed to borrow (but were encouraged to by Democrats affirmative action strategy including threats of loss of licence to any bank who did not sign up enough "blacks, hispanics and single mothers") the house market would not have reached the dizzy heights from which it collapsed.

- and of course, without sub-prime debts, there would have been no incentive to off-load the debts as derivatives

It is all just another example of the "law of unintended consequences", where the immediate, short-term benefit is not considered against the ultimate long term cost.

Like I said previously, caveat emptor, one should never trade in a commodity which one does not understand.

You seem to misunderstand the function of a bank, Poirot

Banks have never been in the business of lending their own money, they have always been in the business of bringing lenders and borrowers together, for a modest margin on the transaction.

Banks are likewise, the masters at hedge transactions and provide a valuable service by doing so - but it is always other peoples debt and other peoples investment funds they use.

The derivative collapse was because bankers held alot of "sub-prime" debt, generateing rates of return above the rate of "prime" debt, making them a tradable commodity but when the mortgage borrowers exploited the jingle-mail option (another unintended consequence). Whilst derivatives were generating higher returns (as explained above) all was sweet - but the loss of the "capital worth" offset everything and thus, the whole process collapsed.

Dear George,

Thank You for understanding me so well,
and for your insight and words of wisdom.
I know what you're saying, and I agree with
you. Life is rarely just black or white.

As I've written many times in the past -
A historian can establish that an act took place
on a certain day, but this, by historical
standards, constitutes only chronology. The moment
the historian begins to look critically at
motivation, circumstances, context, or any other
such considerations, the product becomes unacceptable
for one or another camp of readers.

Survivors and victims' relatives are usually more
interested in condemnation and punishment than in
explanation. Explanations seem tantamount to
sympathizing and excusing. However all this often
leads to the questionable practice of stereotyping
people and nations, and unless people are willing to
modify their judgements, continued stereotyping can
lead to counter-stereotyping and the result is
usually a complete breakdown in communcation.

Again, Thank You for kind words.

Foxy “Many middle-class people, for example, work not for
capitalists, but rather for their fellow citizens,
perhaps as teachers, nurses, or civil servants.”

They are paid by the state and are servants of the state, not their fellow citizens

we do have some people who work for us... cleaning, gardening etc... but I dont think you meant that sort of "help"

“Others don't work for anybody: they are self-employed.”

Ah the individual capitalists… done a lot of that myself

Although never with a market barrow...

Many “capitalists” earn from a mix of sources, director fees, dividend income (aka profit distribution), salary, capital gains

re - “so where is their relative class status”

Capitalism has nothing to do with “Class”

So who knows or cares…

I have not mentioned “class”, it might be part of your mind set but I have never felt “class” was important in Australia…

Nor USA and even in UK it has experienced a most serious decline in recent generations and rightly so.

When I consider the first and to date only, female prime minister of UK (and a leading conservative thinker) was the daughter of a “middle class” grocer I would suggest the “Class war”, which Marx saw as the flash point for revolution is well and truly “Dead and Buried” –

possibly along side him in Highgate cemetery .

Indeed, when I think of it, places like India cling to a class system (Caste in their words) which has not existed in any western country for than a century.

“As a result, the "ownership" and the "control" of
the means of production are no longer identical.”

Stock exchanges –can be traced back to 12th century France

But the modern stock exchange was first formed in Amsterdam in 1602….

Which means the separation of ownership and control was a fact for centuries before young Karl was spat into the world.

So I repeat “Get an education”

“Anyway, I'm done on this subject.”

I think you were done with it along time ago but persisted in pretending to convey an understanding which was clearly unfounded and “unsustainable”

Dear Stern,

Kindly re-read my posts.
You seem to have misunderstood
completely,
what I was trying to say.

I'm merely puzzled by your lack of
comprehension skills.

Foxy "I'm merely puzzled by your lack of
comprehension skills."

Foxy, you just keep making statements to support your view which are, clearly lazy and erroneous generalisations.....

things like

"Totalitarianism is a twentieth-century phenomenon,"

which ignores the fact that Gengis Khan lived in thirteenth century.

and statements like "As a result, the "ownership" and the "control" of
the means of production are no longer identical."

which, in the context you used it, implied that "ownership" and "control" was exercised solely by the same individuals in Marx's day.

whereas, the truth was - joint stock companies and Stock exchanges, were operating and separating control from ownership, 250 years before Marx was writing.


and " "Marxism and Communism are totally different things."

- that would only be true if one fatuously pretended that one can separate different phases of the same life-cycle.

Ie just as the common house fly lays eggs, which turn into maggots, which then turn into house flies -

so too what starts out as the egg in an experiment of applied "Marxist theory", always ends up as juice socialist maggot before turning into a nasty, disease laden "communist" house fly

the "lack of skill" is not some shortcoming in my comprehension

the "lack of skill" is in your poor delivery, which is either completely deficient in research or the acknowledgement of historical facts.

All I've been trying to rationalise is the fact that
Karl Marx spent most of his life writing about social
class. ' - Foxy

Foxy is on target here (Hello, Foxy). If Marx's histo-political thesis was a PhD study his contribution would be argued that "class" as a determining construct has been missed by the extant literature of his time. This is true of any "ism" up until the nineteenth century. The separation of the "have's" and "have not's" is a consistent feature through-out history. Moreover, one should recall that among the nineteenth century intelligentsia, political economics had a social agenda. I would suggest that Market Capitalism was given a boast by the Great Depression, because sellers had to compete for consumerts to survive (well, that is another story).

Like our friends George and Foxy, I am not pro-Marx and definitely opposed to the aberrations of Marx that lead to despots. Yet, Marx could said to be concerned about social conditions of era and his outlook on the world mechanistic, typical of his time.

Also, a quick walk through ant serous book on political philosophy will find support for George's assertion of Marxism being embedded in Utopianism.

"Which means the separation of ownership and control was a fact for centuries before young Karl was spat into the world." Stern

No exactly. What is happening here is that capitalists are being protected from risk. A "Limited" company becomes an artificial whipping boy so the capitalist will assume risk and avoid liquidation. Bankruptcy laws go back to a similar period for a similar reason. In the Age of Exploration and Colonisation, ships started to sink, and, the wealthy risked becoming disempowered and impoverished. The system/laws were adapted to protect the owners of capital: Somewhat consistent with Marx's framework.

/cont...

The so called "revolution" was an unfortunate but necessary intermediate step, because those in power would resist. Afterwhich, there would be a classless (utopian-like) society.

Again, I am not defending Marx, rather trying to present what he actual said in context with his world-view (as George would say). In fact, one highlight of my life was to sit on a (Education) committee with a retired Deputy of Commerce of the United States of Americia. My peers were hardly Marxist-Leninists or Communists. Neither, am I.

Stern,

Have you ever read Dickens?

Oliver,

"Have you ever read Dickens."

Yes, Stern - I've also got a rather jolly book titled "Human Documents of the Industrial Revolution in Britain" by E. Royston Pike. I'll lend it to you if you like. You may then have a better understanding of where Marx was coming from.

Dear Poirot,

Thank you fo your kind offer. Truth is I am way behind in my reading and working on other tasks. Appreciate the thought though.

Marx was not alone. We also have the likes of Robert Owen and Edward Bellamy. Dig deeper, we find Saint-Simonand Charles Fourier. Fourier is believed to have influenced both Emerson and Thoreau. As early as the mid 1600s, James Harrington (The Commonwealth of Oceana) saw the private ownership of land as the main cause of social conflict.

Large profitable capitalism required a break from famililism. This break initially occurred in Germany and was emulated in the US, wherein family dynasties were replaced by highly capitalised companies run by professional managers. Economies of scale and mass production ultimately supported an educated working class, innovation and Middle Class wealth (demand). The twentieth centurry, as George notes,was a different kettle of fish to the nineteenth century

Dear Oliver,

"Human Docs" is a particularly informative read.

I have Robert Owen's report on Lanark. I believe he was one of the first to come up with a comprehensive plan (for mass education) to get the children out of the factories (since a huge dollop of the population had been lured to the towns) and yet prepare them for the "mechanical" life - as you say a break with famililism.

Dear Poirot,

Yes. Owen advocated a reduction in the working day to twelve hours, the prohibition of child labour (under ten years) and elementary education of the masses. It is interesting that he has a textile producer.

In India, Ram Mohan Roy is something of an unsung hero with regards establishing schools.

With regards education, at the other end of the nineteenth century, we have Dewey and the progressive movement prevailing well into the twentieth century (e.g., Dalton System). (sorry, off topic)

Correction of above:

"A 'Limited' company becomes an artificial whipping boy, so the capitalist will NOT assume FULL risk and WILL avoid liquidation.

Poirot “…the Industrial Revolution in Britain…."

That was then and this is now and lets face it the tyranny of USSR and associated collectivist models of common poverty, is far fresher and in living memory

You know Poirot

Where the collectivist government, modeled on Marx theories, used murder, starvation and intimidation to ensure

The inequality of the “haves” versus the “have-nots”

Was superseded with what the retarded consider the far fairer system of

The “have-nots” and the “have-nots”

Actually, Oliver

Reference to “limited” in the context of a company refers to the limiting of liability to the subscribed value of “share” the liability of the investors, from whom the entrepreneur would raise capital to fund his venture.

In this arrangement, the entrepreneur would be more capable of financing his venture to the alternative, unlimited liability (the sort which the “names” at Lloyds insurance and the members of a partnership or sole trader have).

The liability of the entreprenuer may well be broader than the investor, especially if any fraud or criminal misconduct is involved

And the term “share” originally refered to the investors’ “share” of the profits of the venture, as it still does today.

I have already explained to Foxy, previously on this thread that such financing arrangements started around the 13th century (Société des Moulins du Bazacle ) but really got off the ground in 1602 with the Dutch East India company and about the same time the English East India Company and the principle, of limited liability has been used effectively ever since, not to avoid capitalist liability but to protect the investor from any excesses by the capitalist and this has been adopted by many civilized nations since.

Although, some less civilized pretend such arrangement are detrimental and insist on stupid state ownership and other ineffectual collectivist institutions.

"... limiting of liability to the subscribed value of 'share' the liability of the investors, from whom the entrepreneur would raise capital to fund his venture."

- Stern

I accept this definition. Nonetheless, I recall, once, for legal reasons, having to pull a Dunn & Bradstreet on a pretty impressive "appearing" car detailer. The company had a paid-up capital of $12 amd a net worth of $10,000, while profiting from transactions in the millions of dollars per annum. Leased premises, floor plan. It folded.

I feel that Marx would not have seen USSR and Communist China fitting the mould of his noneteenth century political economy based on stages of progression (Hegel). In fact, the Russia refer to the Chinese as "margarine Marxists", withiut seeing that they themselves were not exactly butter.

Failing Marxian theory on the basis of the atrocrities of "margarine" Communism would seem to be argumentum ad misericordiam. Instead, Marxiam failed because its predictions were wrong; whereas, so called communist states failed, because of their dictatorships, their disregard for their people and the counter-balance of the West. Neither worked, but for different reasons.

Stern,

When Elizabeth I and other rulers created monopolies this was under the flag of Merchantilism which extended as you say from c. 1602 until at least the Gunboad Diplomacy of the Opium Wars in China. Albeit, capitalism was starting make headway a century beforehand.

Mertantilism tended to be more protectionist than is market capitalism.

I wholeheartedly support Marxism http://www.spurgeonworld.com/blog/images/groucho.jpg

AND........

Leninism http://gryphonscry.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/john_lennon.jpg

LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!

Oliver “Mertantilism tended to be more protectionist than is market capitalism.”

Indeed but what evolved was the stock exchanges and share markets and form of company incorporation which we use today, albeit with a little more “regulation” than a Manrchs scrawl on a piece of parchment.

I repeat...

Limited Liability protects the investor, not the entrepreneur

Although I have observed circumstances where the $10-shelf company has been used to separate the entrepreneur from the liabilities of his venture... and then it becomes a case of

“Creditor beware”

So I use directors guarantees as standard

As for Marx and him not seeing what happened in Russia

Well two things

1 He thought it would be in UK not Russia

2 despite the call of foul, the outcome is always the same.. revolution (ie not democratically installed) followed by mass murder, torture and starvation.

You cannot isolate “Marxist theory” from the real effects of its practical application,

That is classical “academic think”, to isolate the cosy-notions of the wannabe cerebral thinker from the reality of his failed and flawed thinking.....

It remains and always will remain

the maggot which turns into the diseased laden house fly.

Benq... yes I do so like A Day at the Races and the generous application of the double-entendre, alot more fun than the gulags and killing fields of Marxism

Of course whilst there is some physical similatity betwene Lenin and Lennon the real difference is in what they could

imagine.....

Lennon put his to tune

and in Lenins case, it was the dreamings of a mass murderer

Stern,

"Limited Liability protects the investor, not the entrepreneur"

Yes, I can see this happen as your state: e.g., Nominee Companies.

Directors' and GX guarantees often depend on the size/nature of the project. While Energy Australia might back scores of subies on a billion dollar project someone spending say $10,000 have their house repainted wouls soon see the back of the transperson if asked for a dictors' guarantee.

"He thought it would be in UK not Russia"

So would I. That was the point. Leglisation achieved in the UK what didn't happen in Russia. Nicholas II kept wavering on Constitutional matter.

When last in Russsia my wife and I hire t Hotel's car, driver and a guide. We were shown a spot where in April(?), 1917, before the October Revolution, where the police were called-out to quasing protesters. Then the Army (drawn from the lover class). What happened was the army turned on the police, backing the protesters. Recall, WWI there may have been one rifle for every three soldiers going over top. If the one with rifle was hit, another would pick up the weapon. The Revolution didn't need Marx.

Stern,

/cont...

... and the limited companies controlled by the Nominee companies. Happy to agree the investor is being protected.

Moreover, Henry Ford would say: "Business? It is the effective use of other people's money". Ford understood the difference between the entrepreneur and the investor as you point-out.

Collectivism takes many forms: e.g., buying (in bulk) co-operatives. Recently, the WA Mining Industry co-operated against the Super-Profits tax. In the 1940s, industry rallied together against the Australian Government over the nationalisation of Banks.

OPEC interferes with market processes as does De Beers.

I see both the Left and the Right interferring with Market Mechanisms. People will act in their own interests (Adam Smith) and Capitalism (too) must be tolerant of mild criminalities (Max Weber)

Oliver

thankyou for your response, much of which I agree with

"OPEC interferes with market processes as does De Beers."

I see both the Left and the Right interferring with Market Mechanisms. People will act in their own interests (Adam Smith) and Capitalism (too) must be tolerant of mild criminalities (Max Weber)"

The operation of monopolies works against the intentions of libertarian capitalism....

I would note, an OPEC or De Beers cartel has alot more in common with collectivist monopolies than the spirit of Adam Smith

Regarding tolerating criminalities

the rewards of crime are sufficient to ensure that all economic models are vulnerable to criminal activity.

Capitalism would see the resolution as a public thing

Collectivists will prefer the cover-up

Personally, I recognise imperfections not as something to avoid at all costs but something to consider as any other cost/benefit analysis.

The Institute of Risk Management deal with many such calculations.

And sometimes the "risk" is not worth the cost of avoiding it

Stern,

Thanks for your comments.

I agree with essentially everything you say. Only to add akin with Weber, Samuelson notes of material progess needs to be tolerent of dishonesty and curruption" (Samuelson in S. Gordon Redding):

e.g.,The ACCC seems to turn a blind eye I to "No return signs" in reatil stores not having the consumer rights qualifier. Cash payments from cash incomes. the puffery clause TPA and the ability to lobby government re-legislate, if fines are too high:

Regarding the latter, I recall, a company being fined $100,000 seven (?) times for putting the heart fundation tick on a product that had no such endorsement. It was fined $700,000. After lobbying, the every instance provision was dropped, by the leglislators.

In the US, in the first half of the twentieth century, GM would buy- up city rail networks and shut them down (to increase car sales) and was fined a few thousands of thousands of dollars for this dubious practice.

Oliver... Re GM....

does the punishment fit the crime....

rarely in commercial matters but the world is not a fair place.

It is a case-book study concerning the Ford Pinto petrol tanks and the tale of the strategy adopted by Ford, that Ford decided on the results of risk analysis to pay any court settlements rather than do a recall / refit of the defective tanks.

Such are commercial imperetives....

However, for as bad as that might seems, if it is a government whose negligence results in death and maiming it is swept aside....

talking of which

has any compensation been paid to the personnel who died installing Garretts roof insulation?

Stern,

So, it would seem that some tolerance and/or preference of illegal activity in the real capitalist world? (other systems too, of course)

Thanks for the Pinto example.

I certainly hope that illegal/dangerous practices by installers are prosecuted. I guess WorkCover will go the installers' principals, rather than admit guilt. Given the community attitude (labor or liberal), I felt Garrett should at least been sin-binned to the Back Benches.

Have you ever seen the movie, "Man Who Sued God"? Back c. 1930s/40s, there was a New Zealand rail bridge disaster. The Act of God provision was used to avoid payouts. I tried, but couldn't find it, from a quick check on the internet

Dear Olly,

If it's the movie I'm thinking of, just
google, movie, and the title, and it should
come up. It stars - Billy Connelly and
Judy Davies. Great stuff!

By the way, Thank You for your summation
of Marx. You explain it so much better
Dear Prof!

Hi Foxy,

Love your posts here and elsewhere.

I'm also amuzed Billy Connelly now is the front person for ING.

What happened in 1917 argrian Russsia could be described as Revolutionary Socialism. In more advanced countries it is interesting to noted that Marx in Amsterdam (1872) siad:

"...But we assert the way to assert" our goals will "not be the same evrywhere... the institutions of, the manners, and the customs of various countries must be considered; and we do not deny that there are countries like England and Amercia ... I might even add Holland, where the worker may attain his object by peaceful means, But not in al countries is this case." That is a worker's result might be necessary in a capitalist democracy. Marx was mainly against political autocracies and un the Great Depression actually worked co-operativelt with the capitialists on the New Deal in the US.

All,

Please recall, I am not a Marxist or anywhere near being a Marxist, yet, I think it fair to try to represent him as history might.

Regards.

Oliver

I can only echo Foxy's sentiments - I have learnt much about Marx thanks to you both. I have also learnt that I should be reading Marx.

PS

Whenever I see the ING commercial, I think "sell-out" particularly given Billy Connelly's origins.

Severin,

We all learn from each other.

Cheers.

Oliver "So, it would seem that some tolerance and/or preference of illegal activity in the real capitalist world? (other systems too, of course)"

I do not think it is "tolerance" nor "preference" but simple "acceptance" that, just as people are not all the same height or weight, nor are all people "good" people and hence we have laws which of will be broken or ignored by some.

It has nothing to do with any particular political philosophy and everything to do with human nature.

One thing you cannot legislate for is human nature.

And all the nurturing in the world will never stop bad peole from happening.

Stern

>> And all the nurturing in the world will never stop bad peole from happening. <<

Maybe, maybe not. I found the following interview with neuroscientist Professor James Fallon absolutely compelling listening about the advancement of understanding of nature V nurture.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2010/2962449.htm