Rethinking Marx

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Time Magazine Feb. 2nd 2009
The book has been on the best-seller lists in Germany for nine weeks, and in the provincial town of Trier it has special resonance, especially in tough economic times.

It's Marx's Das Kapital, and dozens of copies of it are laid out in the bookshop in Trier's pedestrian-only town center. But no, this is not the seminal 19th century work on political economy by Karl Marx, who was born in Trier in 1818. It's a book by Reinhard Marx, the former Roman Catholic Bishop of Trier who is now Archbishop of Munich and Freising. He cheekily borrowed the title for his own thesis, namely that today's troubled economy needs to reconnect with fundamental Christian values if it is to be restored to health.

The book's introduction is a letter to Reinhard's celebrated namesake in which he rejects revolutionary Marxist solutions. Nonetheless, as he surveys the wreckage of the global financial system and the growing insecurity of ordinary people, the Archbishop wonders: Was Marx's critique of capitalism right after all? "It lasted longer than you expected back in the 19th century," he writes, "but could it be that capitalism is just an episode of history that will end at some point because the system will collapse as a result of its internal contradictions?"


Great article in Time, had the big bearded guy on the cover of the European editions also.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
There are problems now and positives to parts of socialism but the fact is the US has become the wealthiest nation on the planet by adhereing in great part to capitalism and this has helped the average joe, too. The reality is that capitalism has proven itself as fairly effective if not perfect and socialism has yet to do so, but it has proven it's capable of destroying countries.

Actually, you know what that entire article is just fvcking rubbish. It basically obsessed with the trees and misses the forest. Would you rather live in America or a country that has tried socialism? Let's look at venezuela as a contemporary example. As its government has applied socialist ideas they have, with such easy predictability, fvcked the economy over.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
There are problems now and positives to parts of socialism but the fact is the US has become the wealthiest nation on the planet by adhereing in great part to capitalism and this has helped the average joe, too. The reality is that capitalism has proven itself as fairly effective if not perfect and socialism has yet to do so, but it has proven it's capable of destroying countries.

You are talking of Communism, there have been and still are Socialists parties and successful countries that admit or even have aspects of Socialism in their constitutions everywhere.

Socialism is a mixed market system based on keeping a balance.

And how much of Americas wealth is because of Left reforms since Roosevelt?
I remind you since FDR we have become the superpower that we are.
Do the lefts ideas deserve no credit?

I am curious, what example of countries destroyed by Socialism do you mean? Without intervention and meddling by forces of imperialism and corporations of course.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
How can one argue the virtures of a system while not being allowed to discuss its history?
The world isnt an experiment with perfect conditions.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
How can one argue the virtures of a system while not being allowed to discuss its history?
The world isnt an experiment with perfect conditions.

As I said before, this is not about Communism, there is a world of history including today of countries who subscribe to Socialist ideals without the failed Leninist aspects of Marxism. (Communism)

Read the OP before you fly off the handle please.

To make it brief:
The US Socialist Party (back when we had a viable Left before govt purges and brutal repression) was against Bolshevism and Communism from the start, but the party was destroyed by Capitalists trying to connect the two as they shared the same roots, but they are totally different creatures if you read.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Originally posted by: Genx87
How can one argue the virtures of a system while not being allowed to discuss its history?
The world isnt an experiment with perfect conditions.

As I said before, this is not about Communism, there is a world of history including today of countries who esubscribe to Socialist ideals without the Leninist aspects of Marxism. (Communism)

I glanced the article and he has the typical talking points about corporations are bad. I see you are trying to play the game of claiming Europes Mix Markets socialism is "Socialism". Personally I dont see mixed markets as socialism. Mixed markets contain a bit of all three major 20th century economic idelogies, Socialism, Fascism, and Classic Liberal.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Yes yes we know you are a socialist steeplebot. I'm sure you'll find plenty of supporters here but most will likely not post in this thread because they don't want to show their true colors.

Socialism no matter how perfect the scenario will fail. The number 1 reason why? human nature. Socialism fails without the big stick of an authoritarian beating people back into line thus distorting it and eventually causing it to collapse.

IMO socialism is for the weak and/or spineless, those who don't want to succeed and climb to the top.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Originally posted by: Genx87
How can one argue the virtures of a system while not being allowed to discuss its history?
The world isnt an experiment with perfect conditions.

As I said before, this is not about Communism, there is a world of history including today of countries who esubscribe to Socialist ideals without the Leninist aspects of Marxism. (Communism)

I glanced the article and he has the typical talking points about corporations are bad. I see you are trying to play the game of claiming Europes Mix Markets socialism is "Socialism". Personally I dont see mixed markets as socialism. Mixed markets contain a bit of all three major 20th century economic idelogies, Socialism, Fascism, and Classic Liberal.

But yet Socialist parties are winning elections worldwide again.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

IMO socialism is for the weak and/or spineless, those who don't want to succeed and climb to the top.

This shows you have no clue what Socialism is then, but without getting personal seeing your posting history, why does this not surprise me?
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
We have a Socialist Senator now, something like this has not happened/been possible thanks to Govt repression since the 30s.

What is this repression of which you speak?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Originally posted by: Genx87
How can one argue the virtures of a system while not being allowed to discuss its history?
The world isnt an experiment with perfect conditions.

As I said before, this is not about Communism, there is a world of history including today of countries who esubscribe to Socialist ideals without the Leninist aspects of Marxism. (Communism)

I glanced the article and he has the typical talking points about corporations are bad. I see you are trying to play the game of claiming Europes Mix Markets socialism is "Socialism". Personally I dont see mixed markets as socialism. Mixed markets contain a bit of all three major 20th century economic idelogies, Socialism, Fascism, and Classic Liberal.

But yet Socialist parties are winning elections worldwide again.

Sure they are and I bet Fascist parties will as well. When people are part of a major crisis the first thing they do is blame somebody else. Then they align themselves with people who will take their blame and use govt force to enact revenge.

When the world economy recovers, those socialist and fascist parties will go back into the closet and wait for the next major economic downturn to spew their ideology on the desperate.
 

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yes yes we know you are a socialist steeplebot. I'm sure you'll find plenty of supporters here but most will likely not post in this thread because they don't want to show their true colors.

Socialism no matter how perfect the scenario will fail. The number 1 reason why? human nature. Socialism fails without the big stick of an authoritarian beating people back into line thus distorting it and eventually causing it to collapse.

IMO socialism is for the weak and/or spineless, those who don't want to succeed and climb to the top.

I'd define every nation in the world as adhering to socialism to some aspect.

I would also define socialism as the implementation of programs to uplift as many people as possible for the common benefit of society. I'd consider public education to be one of the biggest, and most important, socialist programs. I'd say some form of universal health care is also important, though it need not cover the more expensive treatments, just the easier to fix medical problems.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

IMO socialism is for the weak and/or spineless, those who don't want to succeed and climb to the top.

This shows you have no clue what Socialism is then, but without getting personal seeing your posting history, why does this not surprise me?

lol, your response is no surprise considering your own posting history. I think it seems to be you who have no clue what socialism is if you don't understand why I opined what I did.

Socialism no matter how perfect the scenario will fail. The number 1 reason why? human nature. Socialism fails without the big stick of an authoritarian beating people back into line thus distorting it and eventually causing it to collapse.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
We have a Socialist Senator now, something like this has not happened/been possible thanks to Govt repression since the 30s.

What is this repression of which you speak?

The repression of Labor from the 1920's, beatings, killings, deportations, imprisoning all the way up to the MCarthy era witchunts.

It still continues today with right wing radio blaming everything on "Socialism".

Socialism scares the hell out of the people in power, for they fear the peoples power.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Socialism no matter how perfect the scenario will fail. The number 1 reason why? human nature. Socialism fails without the big stick of an authoritarian beating people back into line thus distorting it and eventually causing it to collapse.
[/quote]

What big stick? Democracy? Please read the OP, we are not talking about Communism, quit with the straw man trying to link the two.

Most people are educated enough to know the difference between Social Democratic governments and the failed Communist totalitarian states like the USSR.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
We have a Socialist Senator now, something like this has not happened/been possible thanks to Govt repression since the 30s.

What is this repression of which you speak?

The repression of Labor from the 1920's, beatings, killings, deportations, imprisoning all the way up to the MCarthy era witchunts.

It still continues today with right wing radio blaming everything on "Socialism".

Socialism scares the hell out of the people in power, for they fear the peoples power.

What what exactly did Socialism do to combat the beatings and strike breaking of the 1920's?
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Cad,
I think arguing that socialism will fail because of human nature is awfully short-sighted given that our banking system just failed due to human greed. Not saying your stance is without merit, but I think that's a pretty terrible example to use, especially right now.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Carmen813
Cad,
I think arguing that socialism will fail because of human nature is awfully short-sighted given that our banking system just failed due to human greed. Not saying your stance is without merit, but I think that's a pretty terrible example to use, especially right now.

Eh? Are you confused? Just because something else(something you don't seem to understand anyway) isn't perfect has ZERO bearing on why socialism fails.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Socialism no matter how perfect the scenario will fail. The number 1 reason why? human nature. Socialism fails without the big stick of an authoritarian beating people back into line thus distorting it and eventually causing it to collapse.

What big stick? Democracy? Please read the OP, we are not talking about Communism, quit with the straw man trying to link the two.

Most people are educated enough to know the difference between Social Democratic governments and the failed Communist totalitarian states like the USSR.[/quote]

Did you even read what I wrote?
Socialism no matter how perfect the scenario will fail. The number 1 reason why? human nature. Socialism fails without the big stick of an authoritarian beating people back into line thus distorting it and eventually causing it to collapse.
I stated it fails WITHOUT the big stick because of human nature. Try opening your eyes and quit ASSuming everyone who doesn't buy into your socialism BS is talking about communism.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Carmen813
Cad,
I think arguing that socialism will fail because of human nature is awfully short-sighted given that our banking system just failed due to human greed. Not saying your stance is without merit, but I think that's a pretty terrible example to use, especially right now.

Eh? Are you confused? Just because something else(something you don't seem to understand anyway) isn't perfect has ZERO bearing on why socialism fails.

I think what you are not grasping is that Socialism came into being because of these problems happening repeatedly and to many is an answer to these failures to a certain degree.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I stated it fails WITHOUT the big stick because of human nature. Try opening your eyes and quit ASSuming everyone who doesn't buy into your socialism BS is talking about communism.

Then why do you keep bringing totalitarianism/authoritarianism up? Socialism is based upon Democracy, people who have changed it turned it into something else, which we know is not viable/or even Socialism anymore as it is not Democratic which is fundamental to Marx's writings.

You are the one trying to connect Communism/Socialism together here, the two do not mix historically regardless of what talk radio representing capitalist interest says.

If you are trying to say that pretty much the rest of the civilized world are authoritarian or dictatorships? Funny, last I checked the UK for example has free speech and free press (except for certain incidents which happen here also) I would have to say you are misinformed.

Damn that Labour party, Tony Blair, friend to GW Bush and a mini-Stalin Communist authoritarian.

You are reaching CaD.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Carmen813
Cad,
I think arguing that socialism will fail because of human nature is awfully short-sighted given that our banking system just failed due to human greed. Not saying your stance is without merit, but I think that's a pretty terrible example to use, especially right now.

Eh? Are you confused? Just because something else(something you don't seem to understand anyway) isn't perfect has ZERO bearing on why socialism fails.

I think what you are not grasping is that Socialism came into being because of these problems happening repeatedly and to many is an answer to these failures to a certain degree.

That doesn't change why socialism fails. Learn to read steeplerot.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I stated it fails WITHOUT the big stick because of human nature. Try opening your eyes and quit ASSuming everyone who doesn't buy into your socialism BS is talking about communism.

Then why do you keep bringing totalitarianism/authoritarianism up? Socialism is based upon Democracy, people who have changed it turned it into something else, which we know is not viable/or even Socialism anymore as it is not Democratic which is fundamental to Marx's writings.

You are the one trying to connect Communism/Socialism together here, the two do not mix historically regardless of what talk radio representing capitalist interest says.

huh you accuse Cad of confusing the two then talk about the direct democracy stateless utopia known as communism? Socialism was the 2nd step which nobody got past because the 3rd step was even more absurd and unrealistic.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

That doesn't change why socialism fails.

Last I checked it is the Republican party that failed miserably in recent years.

Nice try.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I stated it fails WITHOUT the big stick because of human nature. Try opening your eyes and quit ASSuming everyone who doesn't buy into your socialism BS is talking about communism.

Then why do you keep bringing totalitarianism/authoritarianism up? Socialism is based upon Democracy, people who have changed it turned it into something else, which we know is not viable/or even Socialism anymore as it is not Democratic which is fundamental to Marx's writings.

You are the one trying to connect Communism/Socialism together here, the two do not mix historically regardless of what talk radio representing capitalist interest says.

If you are trying to say that pretty much the rest of the civilized world are authoritarian or dictatorships? Funny, last I checked the UK for example has free speech and free press (except for certain incidents which happen here also) I would have to say you are misinformed.

"keep bringing"? Seems you are the one who can't let go of it. I commented that socialism FAILS due to human nature and thus turns to authoritarianism to keep the plebes in line - which eventually causes it to fail as well. Again, try reading what I post instead of ASSuming I'm saying something else.