Serious question: what if Karl Marx wanted to make capitalism stronger and his books are trojan horse to make people work in the direction of capitalism thinking they are destroying it(but in fact they are enforcing it)?
Serious question: what if Karl Marx wanted to make capitalism stronger and his books are trojan horse to make people...
Angel Smith
Jose Rodriguez
>what if Karl Marx wanted to make capitalism stronger
He didn't want to, he thought it was inevitable that it would be, and that capitalism would continue to make innovations in production that made life continuously simpler and better for people.
The problem is that he also thought that the inequalities that capitalism created would reach critical mass and a new social and economic system would need to take it's place.
Julian Rivera
>He didn't want to
There are two ways to make capitalism weaker(without killing it)
1) distribute lands and property and make tax as low as possible
2) heavy tax on non-essential goods and single tax for the farmers
Karl Marx proposed concentration of capitalism in the hands of a single political party and heavy progressive tax.
Even worse: Karl Marx said the capitalist state wouldn't vanish without a long period of strong centralization.
Conclusion: he either wanted to make capitalism stronger or he failed to realize his ideas would make capitalism stronger
Logan Peterson
Also I forgot one simple note to show you that you didn't understand my observation
>and a new social and economic system would need to take it's place.
But there is the catch. The new social system he proposed would make capitalism and inequality stronger.
The new social system (communism) taking place capitalism would occur, according to him, after X, Y and Z measures.
X, Y and Z makes the capitalist system stronger and inequality greater.
Cameron Ramirez
>1) distribute lands and property and make tax as low as possible
People would inevitably create a free market capitalist system with low taxes.
It would make corporativism (crony capitalism) weaker.
Kayden Barnes
Forget about market capitalist system. There is no alternative
If you want to make socialism work you have to protect free market capitalism. You can do this in two ways: a) heavy progressive tax and concentration of land
b) distribution of lands and low tax(single tax) for farmers
Jace Perez
>Karl Marx proposed concentration of capitalism in the hands of a single political party and heavy progressive tax.
No he didn't. That was a later idea by Lenin and other Marxist-Leninists. Marx proposed that the workers should organize into a federation and seize political power. They should then abolish private property and run all existing businesses democratically through worker's councils.
He then thought that money and the State wouldn't need to exist anymore, and thus capitalism had morphed into Communism.
Liam Butler
>No he didn't.
Yes he did.
>A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
>Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
>Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
marxists.org
Another
>All private banks will be replaced by a state bank whose bonds will have the character of legal tender
>All means of transport: railways, canals, steamships, roads, posts etc. shall be taken in hand by the state
marxists.org
Another
>Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.
>Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers
>Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.
marxists.org
How can you claim he didn't when I proved above both Marx and Engels claimed for the centralization of economic power in the hands of the state (which is in the hands of a political power)?
Isaiah Price
You're right of course, but all this assumes that the workers have taken political power, not a political party as we know it now.
Carter Perez
>that the workers have taken political power
>This constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end -- the abolition of classes.
marxists.org
Marx and Engels declared the need for organizing into a political party. They did not say 'many political parties', they said, and were quite clear about the necessity of, a single party-movement.
TL;DR: Lenin didn't betray Karl Marx.
TL;DR 2: If you want to centralize the economy you need a single-political party
Charles Foster
So where are we on your original question then?
Marx obviously didn't want capitalism to become stronger, he thought it was inevitable because of historical materialist contradictions.
Evan Gutierrez
Recommendations of Marx & Engels:
>centralization of economic power
>One party system
>abolition of family and transfer property to the hands of state
I can only see the capitalist system becoming stronger if the above is followed
Jeremiah Scott
The centralization of market into the power of the state is literally the antithesis of capitalist markets.
David Bell
>The centralization of market into the power of a political party is literally the antithesis of capitalist market
quite the opposite. It's the only way the capitalist system can survive.
Jason Jones
Well, Capitalism and Marx's Communism eventually formed a synthesis in the 20th Century welfare state.
Camden Nguyen
State capitalism (welfare state) was the end goal of Karl Marx.
Only those who read the works of Karl Marx understand this.
The british socialists were right all along
Adrian Collins
>quite the opposite. It's the only way the capitalist system can survive.
Explain, because this is probably the stupidest thing I've heard.
Everyone knows that in the Soviet and Maoist systems, since there was no legitimate and functioning market where people traded money for goods and services, the only thing that was left was domination, subordination and coercion.
And a market cannot function in a scenario where the only thing that determines trade is a direct order with the threat of violence.
Aaron Garcia
I have a question for marxists. If I am the one who sets up a workshop woth my own resources, effort and time. Do my workers get an even part of the product profit or can I claim more due to my previous investments.
Levi Cooper
>The concentration of economic power in the hands of a single political party will abolish capitalism eventually
explain
Logan Ortiz
Well it has already abolished capitalism if there is no market.
A single entity that controls everything isn't a market.
Caleb Ramirez
"socialism is the logical conclusion of capitalism as capitalism's concentrated powers eventually capture the state, resulting in a form of state capitalism/socialism"
Cooper Morgan
we are talking about the process of abolishing capitalism. It cannot be abolished without going through the concentration process.
At that stage there is capitalism, as predicted by Marx and Engels(and they were right).
In fact Marx said that stage is the advanced stage of capitalism.
Jason Johnson
>Corporatism is now socialism
>Socialism no longer has it's own definition
Nathaniel Lee
>we are talking about the process of abolishing capitalism.
I am talking about what capitalism actually is, its definition.
A system in which there is no market, cannot, by definition, be capitalistic.
Cameron Roberts
>Corporatism is now socialism
How do you get this conclusion from the following phrase
"socialism is the logical conclusion of capitalism as capitalism's concentrated powers eventually capture the state, resulting in a form of state capitalism/socialism"
?
Grayson Jones
Because calling corporatism for socialism is wrong, because it would mean that Nazi-Germany and Fascist Italy were socialist.
Which is absolutely retarded.
Landon Powell
>What if [insert pants-on-head retarded extreme conspiracy theory]?
The answer is always the same.
Kevin Hernandez
>A system in which there is no market
by market you mean in that stage there is no exchange of goods and industries?
- If 1 entity (the state) owns the market the market doesn't exist. Ok.
- Therefore the market doesn't exist
?
Ryan Anderson
>Because calling corporatism for socialism is wrong
where in that phrase it says corporatism is socialism?
You are saying socialism is not concentrated power in the hands of the state to distribute accordingly?
Nicholas Murphy
>You are saying socialism is not concentrated power in the hands of the state to distribute accordingly?
>Socialism;/ˈsəʊʃəlJz(ə)m/ - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Kayden Jones
>regulated by the community as a whole.
and distributed by one entity (the state) accordingly to each one needs.
Agreed?
Jaxson Reyes
No, I don't agree. That definition can be interpreted in many ways and has been interpreted in many ways.
>"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13]"
Brayden Johnson
>social ownership
>democratic control
if people can distribute themselves according to their own need and will there is no need to be regulated by the community as a whole
Anthony Smith
Well a public park is owned by the community, and everyone contributes to it's upkeep. Granted, the state hires people to mow the grass and clean trashcans, but there's no reason the State has to be the middleman through taxation for such a thing.
Jeremiah Davis
Without the state workers there is no guarantee that it will function and there is no police force to protect from someone from claiming the park as private.
I can't understand how a public park would work without a middleman(the state).
If so, how would control the park if not the state?
Gabriel Mitchell
*who
Tyler Bell
Obviously there would still be a police force.
What are you talking about?
Do you think people are incapable of cooperating if the state doesn't do it for them?
Thomas Hughes
If you need someone to work 22 days a month to distribute the money to the police and the park maintainers, this person obviously needs to receive money from the people because his only job is to make sure the park works
You are saying people should voluntarily give money to this person instead of state collecting money to pay him?
Carter Wright
are you still here with us?
Anthony Hill
>How can you claim he didn't when I proved above both Marx and Engels claimed for the centralization of economic power in the hands of the state (which is in the hands of a political power)?
You do realize they created this program for the workers in Britain at the time right ?