- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rolling Stone: Marx Was Right
Posted on 2/1/14 at 3:55 pm to Sleeping Tiger
Posted on 2/1/14 at 3:55 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
How is he contradicting himself?
Read his post five times really slowly. Go ahead and use your finger if you're not good at reading. And then, apologize for your stupidity.
1
Posted on 2/1/14 at 3:59 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Slavery can inhibit progress by limiting the need to advance technology, but that doesn't mean it can't be an economic positive for its benefactors.
Yes, this would be true in the case of Socialism and Communism. The workers are the slaves and the politicians benefit. Kind of like the US today.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 3:59 pm to Zach
Many things, if not all things, are contradicting by nature. Slavery can inhibit progress by limiting the need to advance technology, but that doesn't mean it can't be an economic positive for its benefactors.
That's the point he made, it's truthful, regardless of the imbedded contradiction.
That's the point he made, it's truthful, regardless of the imbedded contradiction.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 4:01 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Slavery did play a role in this countries rise, to say otherwise is blasphemy. The US was able to capitalize on natural resources that would have been impossible to capitalize on without free labor. No machines could do what the slaves did, and paying that many workers wouldn't have been economical. The majority of the south was poor, but that's how capitalism works, just as the majority of the world is poor today while great wealth is also present. Slavery is not why the US became the power it did, but ignoring any role it played in the rise is foolish.
You've done nothing here but restate your position in different terms. Take the following statement for example.
quote:
The US was able to capitalize on natural resources that would have been impossible to capitalize on without free labor.
Really because all the evidence points to the contrary. Paying people a wage and allowing them to freely chose or not chose who their employer is going to be while allowing them to keep what they earn seems to be the best path to general prosperity and wealth.
quote:
The majority of the south was poor, but that's how capitalism works, just as the majority of the world is poor today while great wealth is also present.
Poor is such a relative term. Poor today is not what poor was fifty years ago. Now ask yourself why that is. Look at the nations that have a greater degree of free markets verses those that don't and the answer is obvious. Not only does Marxism lose the battle of philosophical rigor but it loses the empirical test as well.
What's also an interesting "coincidence" is that for all of human history child labor was the norm. It existed in every culture in every time until the industrial revolutions started to occur. That's because when you allow people to create and keep their wealth the need to have children producing goods drops greatly.
quote:
You're saying that because of the way capitalism exploited a region like S America it gave them the opportunity to earn a wage and eat instead of selling their bodies in the streets. I honestly don't even know what to say to that. It's sort of like saying that I helped a homeless man by kicking him in the gut, stealing his clothes, then tossing him a dime.
Idk how you can extrapolate giving a person an option with physical aggression. Do you seriously think you are going to win people over to your way of thinking with such hyperbole?
quote:
Your position is incomplete, it's not really accounting for why their conditions were bad in the first place.
Oh I know why their conditions are bad in the first place. Look at any nation of dirt poor and you will see a large degree of anti free market propaganda.
quote:
Marx in some ways believed something like capitalism was necessary to bridge feudalism and colonialism to socialism, ughh this is difficult to articulate.
That's because it's an incoherent world view with too many foundation premises that are just plain wrong.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 4:02 pm to Zach
quote:
Slavery can inhibit progress by limiting the need to advance technology, but that doesn't mean it can't be an economic positive for its benefactors.
Yes, this would be true in the case of Socialism and Communism
That was the case with slavery in the South. I'm honestly trying to have an organized conversation, but you're making it difficult. Maybe you're doing this on purpose to distract from your failures on the previous page.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 4:03 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Many things, if not all things, are contradicting by nature.
Yes. Some people like to have sex with squirrels and some do not. This would seem contradictory.
But I must leave now because LSU is playing Ark in bassettball on ESPN.
Have a great evening, ST, it's been fun.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 4:13 pm to KissmyAxe
quote:
Really because all the evidence points to the contrary. Paying people a wage and allowing them to freely chose or not chose who their employer is going to be while allowing them to keep what they earn seems to be the best path to general prosperity and wealth.
Yeah, that's great. But that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. The fact that paying people for their labor is the best path to prosperity has nothing at all to do with the fact that the US benefited from slavery. There is no way those natural resources in the south could have been materialized into wealth without free labor.
Really tough for me to continue on with more complex responses to the rest of your concerns until you can show you understand something as simple as this slavery issue.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 4:25 pm to Zach
quote:
Yes. Some people like to have sex with squirrels and some do not. This would seem contradictory.
That's a recognition that people have differing sexual preferences, I don't know if attaching the term 'contradictory' to that is all that appropriate.
And in true form of the interwebz, we just had multiple responses to each other mostly about nothing. Filtering ourselves away from what started the dialogue, the question of whether or not the US was able to benefit, in some ways, from slavery.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 4:26 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Think about the fact that under capitalism we brought slaves from Africa to do our work, think that didn't contribute to the rise of this country?
No? As other people have said, if anything slavery hindered technological and societal advancement. Speaking of which, after the end of slavery how do you think the south picked itself back up after it was left in absolute shambles by the war? The industrial revolution, which was a by-product of free market capitalism.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 4:38 pm to Tyrion Lannister
quote:
As other people have said, if anything slavery hindered technological and societal advancement.
That is true, but it doesn't mean no one benefited.
There was no way to materialize wealth from the natural resources in the south without slave labor.
quote:
Speaking of which, after the end of slavery how do you think the south picked itself back up after it was left in absolute shambles by the war? The industrial revolution, which was a by-product of free market capitalism.
Marx does not say that capitalism does not work, it does work, but at a cost. The point of his work is to recognize that alongside prosperity runs hardship. One creates the other and it doesn't have to be that way, at least not in the drastic terms it is now.
And again, your point is terribly incomplete. Most of the 20th century the rest of the world was in shambles, destroyed by war. To talk about a rise in America, one has to understand that it was the only game in town. America could dominate manufacturing because everyone else was in ruins.
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 4:45 pm
Posted on 2/1/14 at 4:49 pm to Sleeping Tiger
One thing Capitalists don't get is that yes Marxists admit it works. In fact Marxists will say it works pretty well but for whom?
Capitalists have been pretty good at convincing white, middle to working-class Americans who make between 25,000 to 75,000 a year that Capitalism is working so well for them when in fact it's not. Capitalism only works for the top 1 percent at the expense of the the 99 percent. In fact in the top 1 percent it only really works for the top half of the top 1 percent.
You middle to working-class folks who think capitalism is so great have been lied to by the wealthy and misled by the wealthy by using race, religion, and the so called cultural wars in believing that the wealthy have the same values as you.
Capitalism is very efficient at generating greater returns on capital. It doesn't give a damn about your freedom, your handwork, your religion, and your ability to do things yourself and utilize your talents. You just believe it does.
If capitalism is working so good ask yourself then why do four of the top ten wealthiest Americans are Wal-Mart heirs who did nothing to earn it. Sam Walton was a evil person but at least he did it himself.
Capitalists have been pretty good at convincing white, middle to working-class Americans who make between 25,000 to 75,000 a year that Capitalism is working so well for them when in fact it's not. Capitalism only works for the top 1 percent at the expense of the the 99 percent. In fact in the top 1 percent it only really works for the top half of the top 1 percent.
You middle to working-class folks who think capitalism is so great have been lied to by the wealthy and misled by the wealthy by using race, religion, and the so called cultural wars in believing that the wealthy have the same values as you.
Capitalism is very efficient at generating greater returns on capital. It doesn't give a damn about your freedom, your handwork, your religion, and your ability to do things yourself and utilize your talents. You just believe it does.
If capitalism is working so good ask yourself then why do four of the top ten wealthiest Americans are Wal-Mart heirs who did nothing to earn it. Sam Walton was a evil person but at least he did it himself.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 5:01 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
If capitalism is working so good ask yourself then why do four of the top ten wealthiest Americans are Wal-Mart heirs who did nothing to earn it. Sam Walton was a evil person but at least he did it himself.
Exactly, because Sam Walton earned it. Is it his heir's fault that he worked hard enough to provide for his future descendents? Also, Wal-Mart is the number 1 store poor and lower class people can get their everyday necessities from so poor choice of an example. Wal-Mart produces goods that benefit everybody by selling them at a lower costs. Why should I be mad at Wal-Mart heirs for being wealthy? I benefit because of their wealth as do millions of others. And I still have the freedom to choose my occupation and what goods I buy, and Wal-Mart can't do anything about it.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 5:38 pm to Tyrion Lannister
quote:
Exactly, because Sam Walton earned it.
He earned it?
His business model relies on government aid. The taxpayer has to fork over welfare for many of his full time workers. The taxpayer is paying for food stamps to 50 million Americans, many of whom shop Wal-Mart. He grew a business by taking advantage of the system.
You can't call a fascist company a champion of capitalism.
quote:
Also, Wal-Mart is the number 1 store poor and lower class people can get their everyday necessities from so poor choice of an example
That's great, but so much else needs to be considered. The conditions created by the giant wealth gap make Wal-Mart a reality, it only exists because of the faulty system. A poor person could get their basic needs from the land, in an urbanized consumer society they need to buy them.
quote:
I benefit because of their wealth as do millions of others
Again, you're not accepting the notion that Marx believed capitalism does work. What you're missing is the cost. Wal-Mart benefits you and millions of others, but it is not a benefit for billions.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 6:14 pm to Sleeping Tiger
What do you suggest in place of a Wal Mart? Or McDonald's, etc.?
That doesn't sound like capitalism to me.
quote:
His business model relies on government aid.
That doesn't sound like capitalism to me.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 6:15 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:Good. I don't want my economic system to care about any of those things.
Capitalism is very efficient at generating greater returns on capital. It doesn't give a damn about your freedom, your handwork, your religion, and your ability to do things yourself and utilize your talents.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 6:16 pm to Mohican
quote:
His business model relies on government aid.
That doesn't sound like capitalism to me.
Exactly, which is why at the end of the paragraph I said you can't call a fascist company a champion of capitalism.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 6:17 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
There is no way those natural resources in the south could have been materialized into wealth without free labor.
Sure it could have. The people picking the cotton would have been much more productive had they been free and were paid. Is that really so hard to wrap your head around? IDK what you do for a living but just how much less productive would you be if you were beaten and forced to work for no pay? seriously.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 6:29 pm to KissmyAxe
You're making the wrong argument. This isn't about whether or not paying slaves to pick cotton would have yielded better results.
It likely would have, giving them an incentive beyond not getting whipped very well may have created more production. But that is not the point. This isn't a debate on whether or not slave labor or wage labor creates more benefit. The point was that the US was able to benefit from slave labor and it should be recognized as a part of the narrative when talking about Americas quick rise to world dominance, not that there couldn't have been more benefit.
Not really necessary to respond to, the point has already been made, but I'll add that you have to also consider that instead of getting free labor the benefactors now have to pay and pay enough that it's an actual incentive to produce more. You can argue that paying workers they will produce more, but forget to offset that by the loss of profit to paying wages. Especially in the industries slaves labored, which may not have even been reasonable ventures without free labor.
It likely would have, giving them an incentive beyond not getting whipped very well may have created more production. But that is not the point. This isn't a debate on whether or not slave labor or wage labor creates more benefit. The point was that the US was able to benefit from slave labor and it should be recognized as a part of the narrative when talking about Americas quick rise to world dominance, not that there couldn't have been more benefit.
quote:
The people picking the cotton would have been much more productive had they been free and were paid.
Not really necessary to respond to, the point has already been made, but I'll add that you have to also consider that instead of getting free labor the benefactors now have to pay and pay enough that it's an actual incentive to produce more. You can argue that paying workers they will produce more, but forget to offset that by the loss of profit to paying wages. Especially in the industries slaves labored, which may not have even been reasonable ventures without free labor.
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 6:39 pm
Posted on 2/1/14 at 6:30 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
He earned it?
His business model relies on government aid. The taxpayer has to fork over welfare for many of his full time workers. The taxpayer is paying for food stamps to 50 million Americans, many of whom shop Wal-Mart. He grew a business by taking advantage of the system.
You can't call a fascist company a champion of capitalism.
Remember, we're talking about Sam Walton and how he earned his way to the top. Not how its run now, which is nothing illegal btw, although it does need to change whether its an increased minimum wage for full time employees or some other solution. He grew up through the great depression, obtained a loan from his father, and beat his competitors on strategy and pricing. He didn't take advantage of the system.
quote:
That's great, but so much else needs to be considered. The conditions created by the giant wealth gap make Wal-Mart a reality, it only exists because of the faulty system. A poor person could get their basic needs from the land, in an urbanized consumer society they need to buy them.
How does it only exists because of the faulty system? And come on, does Wal-Mart force anybody to buy at their stores? If someone wants to farm the land they can farm the land, if they want to buy their needs they can buy them.
quote:
Again, you're not accepting the notion that Marx believed capitalism does work.
I haven't once argued about what Marx believed, I'm communicating why I believe what I believe.
quote:
Wal-Mart benefits you and millions of others, but it is not a benefit for billions.
So you want Wal-Mart to be even bigger than it is? I'm confused please explain.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 6:46 pm to Tyrion Lannister
I'm going to have to elect to pass on going any further, my man.
It'd be a waste of both of our time. My fault for wasting your time, should have known better.
It'd be a waste of both of our time. My fault for wasting your time, should have known better.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News