Economics and free market

[Pyrotex]

lol ...She cut me short with a lecture saying it all should be in the hands of the people, not of the state.....

I'm gonna stick my neck out here. I may be wrong, but I believe the way Marx had it was this:

 

All property should be in the hands of the "people".

But property must not be allowed in the hands of individuals, or they abuse the economic leverage it gives them, and they become "capitalists".

So, the STATE becomes the representative or agent of the "people".

The state then handles the details of who gets to use the property and how and when, but only as a stand-in agency for the "people".

In this manner, the "people" becomes an abstract entity, indistinguishable in practice from the bureaucracy of the state itself.

[Buffy]

So, the STATE becomes the representative or agent of the "people".

The state then handles the details of who gets to use the property and how and when, but only as a stand-in agency for the "people".

Pretty close. This is what Marxists call the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat:"

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a term employed by Marxists that refers to a temporary state between the capitalist society and the classless and stateless communist society; during this transition period, "the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." The term does not refer to a concentration of power by a dictator, but to a situation where the proletariat (working class) would hold power and replace the current political system controlled by the bourgeoisie (propertied class). This transitional stage is also referred to as socialism by many Marxists.

There were of course lots of "sects" that developed within Communist philosophy, and Leon Trotsky--although he was really very radical with his concept of "permanent revolution--was a strong advocate of (at least eventual) a democratically driven political structure and warned against the potential for true dictatorship in Lenin's Soviets, which Stalin ruthlessly exploited and transformed Russian society into a classical tyranny...

 

The whole dream of democracy is to raise the proletarian to the level of stupidity attained by the bourgeois, :)

Buffy

[questor]

What happens when the number of the proletariat greatly outnumbers the number of bourgeoise and you have the one man-one vote system?

[Buffy]

What happens when the number of the proletariat greatly outnumbers the number of bourgeoise and you have the one man-one vote system?

Slick and expensive political advertising paid for by the bourgeoisie! Of course its up to the proletariat to act selfishly enough to resist it! But its oh so much easier to just do what Karl (Rove/Marx/whatever) tells you is the "right thing!"

 

Santa Claus wears a Red Suit. He must be a communist. And a beard and long hair, Must be a pacifist. What's in that pipe that he's smoking? :)

Buffy

[questor]

Buffy, I'm sure you had a cogent comment to my post, but I didn't understand it. Would it be best for people who have the qualities to succeed

in business, medicine, literature or other endeavors to ''call the shots'' in a society, or would it be best to let the ''workers'' lead the country? Or is it best to have beaurocrats of no particular talent to be the leaders? Is it to be a country of meritocracy or should it be less?

[Buffy]

Would it be best for people who have the qualities to succeed in business, medicine, literature or other endeavors to ''call the shots'' in a society

Interestingly Stalin and G.W. Bush ("Dictatorships are fine as long as I am the dictator" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvUEsm0wNIA) are in complete agreement on the need for those who "know what they are doing" to dictate what's good for everyone else.

 

Your question at least implies that democratic voting puts the most votes in the hands of people who are unqualified to make any decisions because they've never done anything successful, which is about as Unamerican as you can get. But there's a kernel of truth there which is why Thomas Jefferson said:

I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.

 

I think that your question:

Is it to be a country of meritocracy or should it be less?

...is a dangerous misstatement of democracy: having a meritocracy is not eliminated by giving everyone an equal vote, in fact it *enhances* the *validity* of the merit. If only a minority are allowed to decide who should be in charge, there is a high likelihood that no matter what the initial benevolent intent might be, that the interests of the disenfranchised will be forgotten and even trampled if their voices can safely be ignored. It gives those disenfranchised only one option for making themselves heard: revolution.

 

This by the way is at the core of Karl Rove's intense efforts over the past 7 years to promote "Voter ID" bills (the majority of folks (mostly poor people) who do not have ID cards (e.g. driver's licenses) vote mostly for the Democratic Party), "caging" (focusing on poor districts to "clean up" voter rolls by sending mail that must be answered within 30 days or the voter will be dropped from the rolls), and targeted prosecutions against Democratic voter registration groups (usually based on no evidence: not a single one as been successfully prosecuted), all of which were at the core of the U.S. Attorney General Firings scandal that drove Alberto "Fredo" Gonzalez from office.

 

None of this sounds bad as long as you're a member of that "elite," but as soon as you're not, it gets very scary.

 

Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government, :)

Buffy

[questor]

Buffy, I don't think the conditions now are as they were when Thomas Jefferson was around. It would seem to me that if the majority of people were second tier ( for lack of a better word ) and every one had an equal vote, it wouldn't take long for the second tier to vote themselves into equality with the first tier. People in the US are not forced to occupy second tier, it is most often earned by lack of ambition, lack of education, lack of mental acuity and poor life choices. There are also those in that position because of illness, physical or mental. It hardly seems fair for those who WILL Not work and contribute to be on equal footing with those who Will work and contribute to society. Those who CANNOT work should be cared for but you can bet that those who WILL NOT work will not contribute anything to their aid.

It would seem reasonable to me for a voter of any tier to know for whom and for what he is voting. I would daresay ther are millions of people in the country who do not know the name of the Secretary of Defense or who is running for president, yet they have equal vote with those who are aware of the coming economic and foreign relations problems. When the vote is given and free, it has no value. In fact, any gift without some quid pro quo has little perceived value. Welfare is a good example.

Your quote:

''If only a minority are allowed to decide who should be in charge, there is a high likelihood that no matter what the initial benevolent intent might be, that the interests of the disenfranchised will be forgotten and even trampled if their voices can safely be ignored. It gives those disenfranchised only one option for making themselves heard: revolution''

This is true, but one also may say that if the minority has to carry the water for an indolent majority, that same scenario may ensue.

Your quote also:

''Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government, :)

Buffy''

We do not have a well informed people in this country. We do have a large group of activist people engaged in activities which may result in our descent to second tier status.

[Buffy]

So you advocate some sort of law that disallows a certain class of people from voting?

 

How would you define that class?

 

Its obvious that you think that you would not be in that second tier, so let me help you out a bit:

 

I have a masters degree from a University that has consistently ranked in the top ten in the country over the last 50 years. Being a member of that group, I could reasonably say that people who did not meet this qualification--in whatever field--does not have enough education to make a well-reasoned decision on anything affecting the future of this country. Saying simply for the sake of argument that you do not fall into this group, how would you feel about such a barrier?

 

The problem with your suggestion lies not so much in the theoretical concepts of "education" or "effort" (remember, if you didn't get into the school I did I can argue you just didn't *try* hard enough), its in the *practical application* of the principles.

 

Who do you leave out and how can you justify it given the inevitable exceptions (which really can be show to be the rules!)?

 

I'd love to see any data you have that would show that somehow the electorate is "different" now than it was in Thomas Jefferson's time: sounds like a pretty subjective and unsupportable generalization to me...

 

You are not superior just because you see the world in an odious light, :thumbs_up

Buffy

[Qfwfq]

I'm gonna stick my neck out here.

And Buffy slices it off! :D

 

What she quotes matches up nicely with my vague memories of the answer that the activist gave me but I didn't want to ramble into the details.

 

What happens when the number of the proletariat greatly outnumbers the number of bourgeoise and you have the one man-one vote system?

But the proletariate always outnumbers the bourgeoisie! What's you're point?

 

For the rest, it seems you only lack a bit of information about how things were under the different Communist regimes, with all the pros and cons.

 

In the Soviet Union and East Block, the educational system was very good and always ready to spot talent and put it in the right channel, especially for things of propagandistic value such as athletics and chess. Nadia Comăneci didn't have to knock on any door at all. I'm not sure she had much choice either. In these countries there was no such thing as unemployment, but management wasn't always good and workers often weren't incentivated, many of them would do no more than the unavoidable which in some cases meant very little at all; this happens in ill-managed private companies too. I work for one, that's why I'm goofin' on the web instead of doing tiresome troubleshooting through a horrible little application, so badly developed that the model and the view are confused together and the new function I added still doesn't work properly; help!

 

Maoism was a variant that placed all the emphasis on agriculture and shunned industry. The reaction is what has been happening in China now, after it ended.

 

Of course during the cold war, each side's propaganda would point out their own pros and the other side's evil...

[Mike C]

Of course he didn't invent it, the ideas behind representative democracy, in various forms, came even more than century and a half before Marx.

In medieval Europe, however, these ideas were being advanced mostly by the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy, while Marx and his buddies were guiding the common people against the ruling classes. They coined the term proletariate for those without a substantial wealth of property. The term capitalist came from the title of Marx'es book The Capital.

 

OUr US Constitution preceded Marx by, as I said, by a century and a half.

It was directed against the 'self serving' kings that can apply to any other SS individuals like dictators and capitalists, IMO.

There is absolutely no similarity with our Constitutions mandate of a representative government and Marx's communism. So anyone equating the two is doing so just to refute Socialism that I say is Constitutional.

 

The self serving mentality is derived from the bible and the 1st 3 commandments.

 

Mike C

[Qfwfq]

OUr US Constitution preceded Marx by, as I said, by a century and a half.

I wasn't talking about YOUr US Constitution. Read what you quote and study a bit of history.

[Mike C]

Sure Mike.

Marx believed that Capitalism was evil because it put "property" into the hands of individuals. People like you and me. Only, some people managed to get more property than anyone else--these people he called "Capitalists"--and he believed that these rich folks got their property (money) by taking advantage of the poorer classes (you and me). Marx believed that all property should be owned by the STATE, and that the STATE should decide who could use that property and for what purpose. He believed that if no one could own any property, then no one could become greedy.

 

So, there you go. Marx then is the inventor of communism because, as you say, he believed that government should own all the property.

 

I am not advocating that the government own all the property.

If you read my post on Socialism, you would know that I just advocate 'guaranteed' security for all the citizens, such as jobs (no UNemployment), healthcare and pensions. Lesser necessities could be added later.

With this security, the citizens would not need religion . So this complies with our CN of not endorsing any religions.

 

Of course, this type of government would be difficult to implement because of our current electoral system of having ‘dollars’ involved that invites corruption.

 

So the only way to eliminate this inequity is with the ‘Public Financing of Our E lections’ that would shut out the self serving dollars of the wealthy. This can be done because the advertisements used to influence the electorate are bought speech rather than ‘free speech’.

 

With this system, free enterprise would still be allowed but with ‘controls’ of the ‘runaway’ dollar stuffers

 

To reduce the lazy workers according to their productivity, I would promote the ‘piece work’ type of wage scale.

 

Mike C

[Michaelangelica]

Some good Karl Marx quotes here

Karl Marx Quotes

Karl is said to be the most quoted and leastunderstood of all writers

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

Karl Marx

 

A specter is haunting Europe - the specter of communism.

Karl Marx

 

I am not a Marxist.

Karl Marx

 

 

For the bureaucrat, the world is a mere object to be manipulated by him.

Karl Marx

 

The development of civilization and industry in general has always shown itself so active in the destruction of forests that everything that has been done for their conservation and production is completely insignificant in comparison.

Karl Marx

Social progress can be measured by the social position of the female sex.

Karl Marx

 

Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.

Karl Marx

 

Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science.

Karl Marx

Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth - the soil and the labourer.

Karl Marx

 

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.

[info][add][mail]

Karl Marx, Thesis 11

Karl Marx “On the Choice of a Profession”, 1837

“If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people.” [Marx, Letter to His Father]

Marx Quotes: Quotes from Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

 

“Political Economy regards the proletarian ... like a horse, he must receive enough to enable him to work. It does not consider him, during the time when he is not working, as a human being. It leaves this to criminal law, doctors, religion, statistical tables, politics, and the beadle.”

[Wages of Labour]

 

“Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science.”

[Private Property and Communism]

 

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.

The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it.

[Marx, On Feuerbach, 1845]

[questor]

I guess the bottom line of this thread is: What type of economic system is best for the US ? Our current one seems to be working quite well, since we have been economic top dog for decades. There has always been a disparity of effort and intellect in our citizens which inevitably leads to a disparity in income. Why would one wonder why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? The rich have more disposable income to invest. Their money works for THEM! The poor have no little disposable income, so no money to invest. Poverty actually has its incubator in the mind, the pocket merely shows the end result of lack of education, lack of ambition and sloth. Money does not insure happiness, but the lack of it is a major cause of crime, lowered living standards and class envy. We will always have a permanent

lower class unless everyone can agree upon what it takes to become an optimum person and pursues that goal. ( see my thread on The Optimum State of Man ). Everyone cannot be a Bill Gates, but every one can avail himself of free education, free books from libraries, TV, and radio.

This problem will not be solved by wealth transfer by excessive taxes, and entitlement programs, it can only be solved by a national consensus on what makes a good citizen and doing the things that lead to that goal. If we have government that continues to punish producers by high taxes and encourages people to contribute nothing by relying on welfare,and entitlements, our economy will eventually fail and we will quickly lose our

preeminent economic position. You can see this happening now with the fall of the dollar and the world looking for a new standard of currency.

Is it good to help the poor? Sometimes. Is it good for the poor to help themselves? ALWAYS

[Buffy]

If we have government that continues to punish producers by high taxes and encourages people to contribute nothing by relying on welfare,and entitlements, our economy will eventually fail and we will quickly lose our preeminent economic position. You can see this happening now with the fall of the dollar and the world looking for a new standard of currency.

Its of course interesting that this latest fall of the dollar and the weakness in our economy has been exactly in parallel with the largest drop in proportionate taxes on those "producers" as you've defined them earlier....

 

The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool, :phones:

Buffy

[Michaelangelica]

Its of course interesting that this latest fall of the dollar and the weakness in our economy has been exactly in parallel with the largest drop in proportionate taxes on those "producers" as you've defined them earlier....

 

The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool, :phones:

Buffy

Yes Marx was at least right about History1

 

Thank you Buiffy for teaching me about supply and demand economics.

Neither is really intuitive.

 

I think the world has moved on since Marx.

Perhaps you do have exploitation of the proletariat in 3rd world countries.

But what I see is exploitation of the professional classes now.

If you don't work 80 hours a week as an accountant, economist, engineer, journalist, lawyer,; your contract is not renewed.

 

What I, personally, would like to see is more companies giving shares and share-bonuses to its employees; so they can feel that they own the company and have a stake in its profitability ('Blackmores' in an Oz example).

 

Now we have high-flying Corporate executives getting obscene amounts of money and shares, often despite what they have done with/to the company (eg Citibank although I prefer to call them "S*ittyBank").

Executives who rarely stay more than a few years.

It is easy to increase company profits (& shareholder dividends and increase in share price) in the short term by firing everybody and giving poorer service.

You (the CEO) then get your performance money and move on.

A great Gravy Train if you belong to the right "Old Boy's Network"

 

"I am not a Marxist"

-Marx

[questor]

Buffy, I assume your solution to the dollar swoon is to raise taxes. This approach should help businesses of all sizes and put more money in the consumers pocket. Just what we need to grow our economy.