Karl marx.

[no_such_reality]

If you actually look at the Dow 30 from 1965, you might be shocked. The effective companies and their products are quite alive and dominating. Post, no longer Post, was Phillip Morris, then Altria, now Kraft and another company. Don’t Kraft and Post products pretty much own one of the aisles in most supermarkets. Little known firms like united Aircraft, still around, you may recognize their new name United Tech. UTX. $64B in revenue, total slouches. AT&T recently booted from the Dow, still around. In 1965, they were huge, $3.1B in revenue, those losers barely rake in $132B today.

GM now they imploded a couple years ago, still around. After a massive political shuffling of who owned it, profit in 1965, $1.7B, today, $5B with a $10B cash flow.

Sure, anaconda copper is gone after close to a century, sort of, Arco bought them, then BP bought Arco, but effectively, the assets have been sold off and operations ended. The principal owners, the Rothchilds and Rockefellers, well we know how down on their luck they’ve been.

[quote=livinincali][quote=scaredyclassic]im less concerned with inequality. in equality by itself seems neither bad nor good, since it doesn’t in itself describe the conditions of the lower end.

I am more concerned with the endgame. capitalism, does it necessarily end in the desctruction of our souls, our planet, our society?[/quote]

It doesn’t seem too. How many companies that were in the DOW 30 50 years ago still around today or as big as they are today. Kodak was a huge company that dominated photography now it’s gone. Walmart and McDonald’s have both been struggling recently. Apple would never be here today if Steve Jobs didn’t come back in the late 1990’s. The visionary leader that built these companies eventually leaves and dies and the next round of Wharton business grads eventually grinds the company into the ground because they don’t know how to innovate. All the wealth doesn’t eventually end up in the hands of the few because they die and their heirs eventually squander it.[/quote]

[livinincali]

[quote=no_such_reality]If you actually look at the Dow 30 from 1965, you might be shocked. The effective companies and their products are quite alive and dominating. Post, no longer Post, was Phillip Morris, then Altria, now Kraft and another company. Don’t Kraft and Post products pretty much own one of the aisles in most supermarkets. Little known firms like united Aircraft, still around, you may recognize their new name United Tech. UTX. $64B in revenue, total slouches. AT&T recently booted from the Dow, still around. In 1965, they were huge, $3.1B in revenue, those losers barely rake in $132B today.
[/quote]

I have looked and while their are wildly successful stories there are also complete failures. In addition these are supposedly some of the biggest most influential companies around when they are in the DOW. If it were true that capitalism ends up with the rich always getting richer and concentrating wealth then GM would have never gone bankrupt, Woolworth and Bethlehem Steel would still be around, AA’s market cap would be vastly greater than it was 20 years ago.

GDP in 1965 was ~ 750 million now it’s 16.7 trillion (you’d have to grow revenue 22x just to keep up with the general growth of the economy) . I would hope there’s some success stories in the DOW from 1965 like AT&T, PG, GE, and Post. Go back even further and there are even more failures. My point is that all the rich companies don’t just keep getting richer they surprisingly end up replaced by some new innovation more often than you would think.

[no_such_reality]

That’s because today we actually are more socialist than capitalist. Unbridled capitalism looks more like Rockefeller in the gilded age and the vertical crushing of competition with standard oil and the monopolistic rail behavior. Company towns, children used to oil running machines. Etc. BTW rockefellers grandson is still on the Forbes worlds richest list. He’s old, 92 and his daughters when they inherit will likely remain on the list. The other 200 members of the “family” need to share a measly $9 billion. Not bad for something that’s near 100 years after the founders passing and he was ancient when he went 97 back in 30s

The Kennedys have been a dynasty in the U.S. For quite some time, granted they’ve even done some good but don’t gloss over how the original Joe got his money

Carnegie gave it all away, frankly, I think we’d probably be better off with a few more like him. The gilded age was actually good for American workers, our wages blew most of Europe out of the water. Don’t really want Pinkertons back or 70 hour work weeks but they were better than the seed like conditions in Europe.

I don’t mind people making money. I’d rather have Bill Gates deciding how to dispose of his wealth than our esteemed leaders in Sacramento appropriating it and deciding how to spend it.

I do think though in political speech, that we need to find a way to muzzle Bill, Warren, Broad, the Koch brothers at least down to parity with people. I also think we need to muzzle the unions to in the political realm. To me, a teachers union or AFL CIO spending millions is no different than the Kochs spending millions

Elon Musk is a good example, he made money with Zip2, but then he really made money when he learned to suck the government subsidizes. SpaceX, SolarCity and Tesla.

The primary problem socialism has was identified by Marx, the people. To me, LAUSD represents the end result. Until production advances to the point that a life a leisure can be available to all, commodity fetishism will continue to be a problem so we’re best off with bridled capitalism. In a society with so many externalized costs naked capitalism becomes just as problematic. Unless of course, you prefer a California with no pollution regulations.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=scaredyclassic]saw last night the movie LE HAVRE, new french release on netflix about a guy named rather obviously Marcel Marx, who meets an African refugee and helps him. was very french and blue colored and maybe communist. i liked it…[/quote]

I’ll watch the movie this weekend. Le Havre mean the haven. There’s a small town in Maryland named Havre de Grace.

Frankly I’m not inspired by Steve Jobs at all. I’m impressed by his money, but not inspired. I know the power of money so I’m incentivized to make more.

I am inspired by this old lady in Calais, France. She devised a numbered electrical outlet system to charge cell phones for refugees. She prepares meals and invites a few refugees to eat with her. Her neighbors are upset because the refugees know her and come everyday.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=scaredyclassic]im less concerned with inequality. in equality by itself seems neither bad nor good, since it doesn’t in itself describe the conditions of the lower end.

I am more concerned with the endgame. capitalism, does it necessarily end in the desctruction of our souls, our planet, our society?[/quote]

The Pope kinda spoke to that.

But do we really need souls? Just adopt a very logical attitude governed by laws like a very good software program. If you think fast, you can make money in a capitalist system.

Souls are too much drama. It’s easier stick to objective measures of success. Trump does that pretty well. He who owns the biggest building wins. He who lives in a dingy place is a total loser.

[Anonymous]

[quote=no_such_reality]That’s because today we actually are more socialist than capitalist.[/quote]

That’s not remotely accurate, using even the most contrived metrics and the loosest definition of socialism.

By any economic measure: investment, employment, GDP, whatever — the US economy is overwhelmingly capitalist.

[ltsddd]

[quote=scaredyclassic]im less concerned with inequality. in equality by itself seems neither bad nor good, since it doesn’t in itself describe the conditions of the lower end.

I am more concerned with the endgame. capitalism, does it necessarily end in the desctruction of our souls, our planet, our society?[/quote]

Taoism & Buddhism could be the answer for your concerns. Marxism, definitely no.

[CA renter]

They’re having a great conversation with Robert Reich right now about this topic. Not sure if you guys can catch it, but try if you can.

http://act.democracyforamerica.com/sign/SavingCapitalismDFALive/

Phone number: (855)-756-7520
Conference number: Ext 30220#

[Anonymous]

On a summer visit to the grave of Karl Marx, Ben Gliniecki found that he would have to pay £4, or about $6, to pay respects to the man who sounded the death knell for private property.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/death-to-capitalism-visitors-to-marxs-grave-balk-at-fee-1445818914

[Jazzman]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Isn’t life on the spaceship enterprise like communism?[/quote]
I often wondered that. No government to speak of but a federation so presumably a world government. No medium of exchange except roles (jobs/careers) for the betterment and furtherment of humanity. A clear leadership hierarchy and legal system so although we evolved away from capital markets, presumably because we used up all resources, we still can’t agree on many moral questions. Racial problems continue but are inter-planetary, and social commentary is the same as it is now. So we haven’t evolved much expect in respect of markets and the medium of exchange. Maybe a stronger, more united, global sense of purpose. Cosmic communism.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Jazzman][quote=FlyerInHi]Isn’t life on the spaceship enterprise like communism?[/quote]
I often wondered that. No government to speak of but a federation so presumably a world government. No medium of exchange except roles (jobs/careers) for the betterment and furtherment of humanity. A clear leadership hierarchy and legal system so although we evolved away from capital markets, presumably because we used up all resources, we still can’t agree on many moral questions. Racial problems continue but are inter-planetary, and social commentary is the same as it is now. So we haven’t evolved much expect in respect of markets and the medium of exchange. Maybe a stronger, more united, global sense of purpose. Cosmic communism.[/quote]

The original Star Trek and Federation had currency, specifically Federation Credits. See episode “”The Trouble with Tribbles”. The Also ran several mining operations see “”The Empath” and “Devil in the Dark”. All part of the original series. Also including Dr McCoy quipping “I’m a doctor not a coal miner”

Leading one to conclude, wage disparity, social hierarchy in employment, money and even dirty fuel sources are alive and well I the Star Trek utopia.

[Jazzman]

[quote=harvey][quote=no_such_reality]That’s because today we actually are more socialist than capitalist.[/quote]

That’s not remotely accurate, using even the most contrived metrics and the loosest definition of socialism.

By any economic measure: investment, employment, GDP, whatever — the US economy is overwhelmingly capitalist.[/quote]
Socialism isn’t just an economic system though; it is about sharing (more) equally. Meritocracy came out of socialist ideals. The guy who runs that hedge fund so successfully, or manages that restaurant got there through being good at what he does. Often, those success are enabled by technology, another socialist principal. Marx was all for it if it gave people more leisure time. Public parks, libraries, the right to vote came about from the notion of sharing and equality. Socialism is everywhere. The current debate is not about socialism vs capitalism—except perhaps in school-boy debating forums. It is on a more micro level. So while Mr Saunders may rant on about corporate power and Pickerty about inequality (both relevant BTW), the western world is struggling to repair itself from a damaging recession. The damage wasn’t confined just to the financial or material, it overturned what we had taken as an axiom; that markets self-regulate and are always right. If you follow this debate, you will see that it is not socialists bashing capitalists, but former free market capitalists scratching their heads, and followers of Keynes debating austerity vs more debt. Neither welfare, nor healthcare, nor corporatism and profit are no under threat. The problem is always whether we can bail out the water fast enough while we search for the leak. Whether we list to the left or the right is a side show.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Jazzman]
Socialism isn’t just an economic system though; […][/quote]

Yes, that’s been the trend since Marx’s time: Every time socialism fails, someone will redefine it an attempt to match what is actually working. These days that definition is no where close to what Marx promoted.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=Jazzman]
Socialism isn’t just an economic system though; […][/quote]

Yes, that’s been the trend since Marx’s time: Every time socialism fails, someone will redefine it an attempt to match what is actually working. These days that definition is no where close to what Marx promoted.[/quote]

There are often multiple definitions and belief systems that revolve around a single term or idea. Even full-fledged Marxist socialists disagree among themselves. You need to broaden your perspective and read more about the different theories, Pri. Your high school textbook from that one Social Studies class doesn’t come anywhere close to covering the topic — it barely scratches the surface.

[Jazzman]

That’s right CAR.

Lenin hijacked socialism and used it for a violent revolution. That sent chills down the spines of western leaders. Many considered Russia an unsuitable testing ground for socialism or communism, the term often used interchangeably. Stalin clearly put paid to any notion that socialism was a credible alternative. All said and done, the USSR was enormously successful in some respects. It created a super power, a huge industrial complex, an enviable space program and a secret service that out-foxed even British intelligence.

The negative legacy from the Cold War created an atmosphere of fear that was pervasive. You don’t need to be sympathetic to socialist causes to appreciate the historical backdrop around the world that well preceded the Russian Revolution.

Environmental, humanitarian, charitable are all social causes and I think are generally seen to be forces of good.

The tension centers on striking the right balance between government and business, the latter proving superior delivery but on occasion in need of a straight-jacket to tame its waywardness. Taking the best bits from all human experience strikes me as being infinitely more sensible than ideological confrontation.

[Author]

Posts