Karl marx.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=ltsdd]
Isn’t that enough proof there that marxism is shit?[/quote]

It’s shit for people who got swept away.
In the big scheme, the revolutions in Russia and China were just changes of dynasties. If they get established and are able to smoothly hand power over time, they will just become like us.[/quote]

No, whether the red revolution in Russia, Maos Revolution or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the socialist upheavals resulted in something more akin to feudalism than socialism. I suspect what Marx was driving at looks more like Norway and not what most think of for communism. Nor am I aware in his work where people come up with a surgeon and janitor making the same.

[paramount]

[quote=no_such_reality] Nor am I aware in his work where people come up with a surgeon and janitor making the same.[/quote]

How else would one eliminate class warfare?

[no_such_reality]

[quote=paramount][quote=no_such_reality] Nor am I aware in his work where people come up with a surgeon and janitor making the same.[/quote]

How else would one eliminate class warfare?[/quote]

Estate taxes so wealth isn’t passed generationally? Direct taxation of wealth (assets) and not income? Class isn’t having money or not, class is a level of privilege.

Keep in mind Marx lived during Dickenesque London, died about the beginning of the Gilded Age. Child Labor, no real safety concerns for workers, seventy hour work weeks were the norm. A few decades later, Ford was considered radical in raising wages to attract workers to the assembly line.

[CA renter]

[quote=ltsdd][quote=FlyerInHi]
Russia, China, Vietnam now do have billionaires and ownership in a capitalist sense. But that’s capitalism, not communism.[/quote]

Isn’t that enough proof there that marxism is shit?[/quote]

No, it’s proof that corruption is shit. Those countries are not truly socialist countries. They are/were under the control of a dictatorial regime…that’s the complete opposite of socialism.

Any type of economic system will fail if corruption becomes rampant. But there is only one system that can reasonably contain corruption and that’s socialism. With capitalism, wealth and power are concentrated. When wealth and power are concentrated, corruption will be endemic, whether it’s a capitalist system or a “communist” system.

In a true socialist system, the hierarchy is relatively flat, and those who have are in more powerful positions are accountable to the masses. This helps prevent the power/wealth inequality that drives corruption and better ensures the well-being of the majority of the population.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=ltsdd]
Isn’t that enough proof there that marxism is shit?[/quote]

It’s shit for people who got swept away.
In the big scheme, the revolutions in Russia and China were just changes of dynasties. If they get established and are able to smoothly hand power over time, they will just become like us.[/quote]

No, whether the red revolution in Russia, Maos Revolution or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the socialist upheavals resulted in something more akin to feudalism than socialism. I suspect what Marx was driving at looks more like Norway and not what most think of for communism. Nor am I aware in his work where people come up with a surgeon and janitor making the same.[/quote]

+1, NSR.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=paramount][quote=no_such_reality] Nor am I aware in his work where people come up with a surgeon and janitor making the same.[/quote]

How else would one eliminate class warfare?[/quote]

Estate taxes so wealth isn’t passed generationally? Direct taxation of wealth (assets) and not income? Class isn’t having money or not, class is a level of privilege.

Keep in mind Marx lived during Dickenesque London, died about the beginning of the Gilded Age. Child Labor, no real safety concerns for workers, seventy hour work weeks were the norm. A few decades later, Ford was considered radical in raising wages to attract workers to the assembly line.[/quote]

A steeply progressive income tax where ALL forms of wealth are taxed equally is the best way to prevent gross wealth and income inequality. The reason for the rich getting wealthier at an accelerating rate over time is because of passive “unearned” income. Tax that income appropriately, and the wealth never gets to the point that it becomes a major problem.

And there is nothing wrong with making good money if one truly earns it, nor is there anything wrong with accumulating wealth and passing it on to your heirs. The problem arises when the wealth disparity reaches such a point that the masses never have a chance to catch up, eventually having to beg for their basic necessities and perform whatever tasks their masters want, for whatever wages their masters desire to pay, because they have no other choice.

[The-Shoveler]

I would definitely agree we need to raise the incomes at the lower levels to make up for the last 20 years of suppression but I would not call that Socialism, just a fair wage act, there is a huge difference between the two.

[CA renter]

Stephen Hawking is a socialist (this post of his exemplifies socialism), as was Albert Einstein, among many other notables.

——————–

Prof-Stephen-HawkingStephen Hawking[S] 4159 points 5 days agox2

[Question posed to Professor Hawking: -CAR]

I’m rather late to the question-asking party, but I’ll ask anyway and hope. Have you thought about the possibility of technological unemployment, where we develop automated processes that ultimately cause large unemployment by performing jobs faster and/or cheaper than people can perform them? Some compare this thought to the thoughts of the Luddites, whose revolt was caused in part by perceived technological unemployment over 100 years ago. In particular, do you foresee a world where people work less because so much work is automated? Do you think people will always either find work or manufacture more work to be done? Thank you for your time and your contributions. I’ve found research to be a largely social endeavor, and you’ve been an inspiration to so many.

Answer:

If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.

Comment
by u/Prof-Stephen-Hawking from discussion Science AMA Series: Stephen Hawking AMA Answers!
in science

[CA renter]

[quote=The-Shoveler]I would definitely agree we need to raise the incomes at the lower levels to make up for the last 20 years of suppression but I would not call that Socialism, just a fair wage act, there is a huge difference between the two.[/quote]

Actually, there is not a huge difference. Socialism is based on giving power to the workers — those who create value and capital. Contrary to what people hear from right-wing media, socialism is not about giving money to lazy people…that would be capitalism, as the fruits of productive labor are directed to the capitalists who don’t have to labor for a living. Socialism is, first and foremost, about empowering workers.

[no_such_reality]

Wealth and income are very different. In 2007, top 1% of household income earners started at $350K. The top 1% of wealth started at $8.6 million. If you make $350k, save aggressively (40%) for 25 years, it still isn’t enough to climb into the wealth 1%. Very few without the wealth will be on the top 1% of earners for that long, or maintain that investment rate.

The top 1% have 40% of the wealth, and total wealth (networrth) is just north of $80 trillion.

The last proposed U.S. Federal budget was $3.9 trillion, roughly 5% of totals wealth. Luckily were taxing income because anyone doing financial independence knows what happens when you start spending 5% and growing of your networrth each year. You go broke. And that’s just federal.

We can talk about who pays, however in the end, the problem still remains that our spending is outstripping our income and wealth.

This goes back to the commodity fetishism that Marx discussed as being responsible for distracting the masses.

[FlyerInHi]

CAr, what would Stephen Hawkins say about solidarity to the undocumented immigrant who works irregular jobs to feed his family. Does citizenship matter?

[FlyerInHi]

NSR, if your income growths, your debt can grow along. You’re increasing your standard of living by taking on a larger mortgage and buying a bigger house.
Your mortgage is savings to someone else. Higher debt means higher savings which means more overall wealth.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=FlyerInHi]NSR, if your income growths, your debt can grow along. You’re increasing your standard of living by taking on a larger mortgage and buying a bigger house.
Your mortgage is savings to someone else. Higher debt means higher savings which means more overall wealth.[/quote]

The budget isn’t debt. And collectively, mortgages are a zero sum game, they don’t create networrth. The interest on that mortgage isn’t networrth either, it’s a transference of your income to my income thru access to my networrth whether you chose a house or consumed anything else (payday loan). I can then spend that income and thus consume it or retain it (save) creating a .net worth.

I’m talking budget, the annual expenditures. Not the debt to income levels. It’s cash flows. When living off your assets, when you start to exceed 4% expenditure rates, you very quickly deplete the asset base unless investment growth goes perfectly.

Effectively, you eat the seed corn when your expenditures grow. Or like having too large a mortgage, you cripple yourself with debt payment. Again commodity fetishism, or in our case consumerism.

[FlyerInHi]

Capital markets to match savers to borrowers did work very well in increasing overall wealth.

There is an optimal level of debt, but debt is good in increasing net worth.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Capital markets to match savers to borrowers did work very well in increasing overall wealth.

There is an optimal level of debt, but debt is good in increasing net worth.[/quote]

Got a link for that? Debt only if used for investment that grows faster than the cost of debt will increase networrth. Debt for the purpose of anything else destroys future networrth growth. I.e. Credit card debt, car loans, etc.

[Author]

Posts