Karl Marx

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Karl Marx

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender Not Telling
  • Nation Bestandigkeit
  • Alliance Sons of Rumsod
  1. Rant:

    Yes, because of labor value. Exchange value would vanish along with trade. Use value remains the same. Bread will fill me up just as much tomorrow as it will today.Labor value will have diminished as the means of production improved. However, it will always take more labor to produce some items than others. This means that, for instance, 10 cars will be worth more than 10 bolts of canvas.
  2. Rant:

    Cost would not be an issue in a socialist state. As for time, simply have periodic voting sessions where citizens vote on a variety of issues. There is no need to shut down everything and have everyone drop what they're doing to go vote on a single issue, unless there is an emergency. Please give me an example of a crisis that a direct democracy would be unable to handle. In today's world? Absolutely not. In a world where the three conditions where the three conditions I mentioned above have been fulfilled? Yes.
  3. Rant:

    If the U.S. adopted collective farming tomorrow, it would indeed be a disaster. However, if the means of production were allowed to develop to the point that there was enough for everybody (a requirement for a socialist state, outlined in my previous post), there would be no crisis like the Soviet famines of the 1930s. The famines in the USSR did not occur just because collective farming is a bad thing in and of itself. For instance: The Decree About the Protection of Socialist Property (also known as the Law of Spikelets) allowed the government to take as much grain as it wanted from farmers. Eating your own produce was therefore considered theft of government property, and punishable by death. I.D. cards were required to leave your home if you lived in the countryside, and rail travel was banned. This way, farmers could not leave areas affected by famine. Collectivization did not cause mass death; the government's way of handling what was at first a simple shortage did. On direct democracy: One of your concerns is that people won't be able to have their say. However, this problem is far worse in a republic. How likely are you to find a candidate whose views are the same as yours? You are forced to either vote for someone who may do what you want in some areas, but will be against you in others, or not vote at all. Such a system prevents the masses from having control over their society. Is a system that forces you to either watch from the sidelines or compromise your own interests really better than a system that gives you full political expression?
  4. Rant:

    According to Marxism and Historical Materialism, three conditions are required for the establishment of a socialist (and eventually communist) state: 1. The proletariat must gain class consciousness. 2. Society must naturally progress through capitalism. This includes its inevitable collapse. 3. The means of production must be advanced enough to meet everyone's needs (within reason, meaning everyone does not get a mansion, a car collection, etc.). Class consciousness will not come about for quite some time. Many working people buy into the myth that work alone will bring them prosperity. Many people vote based on party affiliation rather than on a candidate's views. Most people would rather spend their time watching television than reading about class antagonisms and surplus value. The developed world is, as we can clearly see, developing under a capitalist system. Those who have readDas Kapital know that the final crash is coming. A side note on point two as it relates to the USSR: Russia had not ran the course of capitalist development by 1917. Lenin was either a very loose interpreter of Marx, or was merely a man who wanted power, not socialism. To quote a 1918 issue ofSocialist Standard: "Is this huge mass of people, numbering about 160 million and spread over eight and a half million of square miles, ready for Socialism? Are the hunters of the north, the struggling peasant proprietors of the south, the agricultural wage slaves of the Central Provinces and the wage slaves of the towns convinced of the necessity for, and equipped with the knowledge requisite for the establishment of the social ownership of the means of life? Unless a mental revolution such as the world has never seen before has taken place or an economic change immensely more rapidly than history has ever recorded, the answer is 'NO!'" Until consumerism is a thing of the past and the impoverished nations of the world have fully developed (i.e. not for a long time), the means of production will not be sufficient for a socialist state. As for how the masses could make economic decisions, the short (and imperfect) answer is direct democracy. 1. The class consciousness requisite for a socialist state would help to mitigate this. The common man of the future, understanding the need for economic change and the benefits of socialism, will be better equipped to make decisions than today's ignorant consumers. 2. In order to bring about public ownership and rule of the masses, an immense revolution would have to take place. Said revolution would require a considerably large portion of society to participate, whether through actively taking part in or indirectly supporting it. Any capitalists that remain will no doubt flee. People who care for nothing more than their own personal wealth would flee as well, fearing nationalization. The public that remains will be a public that has fought and suffered in order to take control of their own society, empower the individual, and utilize the productive forces of their nation for the common good. I would hardly call such a public apathetic. These concerns would certainly be valid if public ownership was implemented this very instant, without any revolution (physical or mental) taking place.
  5. Rant:

    Yes. For instance, the fact that the state controls the U.S. Postal Service doesn't mean we all collectively own it. Each individual citizen does not have a hand in how it is run.
  6. Rant:

    It was not free-market capitalist, meaning a capitalist class did not own private property (different than personal property, i.e. the means of production). It was state capitalist, meaning that the government owned private property. Because the workers could not control the Soviet government, they did not own the means of production. Because private property (the defining characteristic of capitalism) was not abolished, capitalism was not abolished. The state merely took control of the markets. The article I linked is about the USSR being state capitalist. I would recommend reading it, as it's pretty interesting.
  7. Rant:

    You're using an ad hominem. I used the Lenin quote to prove a point, not to show support for Lenin (or any Bolshevik, or Mao and his successors). Lenin made the wages system standard throughout the USSR. A communist would have abolished it. He did not get rid of surplus value. Instead, he made sure that a new governing class benefited from it instead of the old capitalist class. He was not concerned with establishing any kind of socialist society. Although he was a hypocrite, his assessment of bourgeois democracy is valid. All economic systems, from the far right to the far left, can be abused by government. I do not pretend that Marxist systems (or at least attempts to establish them) are exempt. Just because so-called socialist states have had corruption does not mean that there isn't a problem with capitalism. Also, the USSR is a poor example as it was state capitalist, not socialist.https://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1941/ussr-capitalist.htm In capitalist societies, some individuals have more wealth (and, by extension, political power) than others. In this case, the economic system's failures cause the government's failures. Not just to corruption. How do you propose we keep corporations out of politics? Banning Super PACs is a good start. But how do we prevent bribes? Should we deny CEOs the right to run for political office so that their interests aren't placed above ours?
  8. Rant:

    They always have and always will. "...the more developed, the “purer” democracy is, the more naked, acute and merciless the class struggle becomes, and the “purer” the capitalist oppression and bourgeois dictatorship. The Dreyfus case in republican France, the massacre of strikers by hired bands armed by the capitalists in the free and democratic American republic—these and thousands of similar facts illustrate the truth which the bourgeoisie are vainly seeking to conceal, namely, that actually terror and bourgeois dictatorship prevail in the most democratic of republics and are openly displayed every time the exploiters think the power of capital is being shaken..." -Lenin,Capitalist "Democracy": Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie While I usually disagree with Lenin, (he was as good a Marxist as Hitler was a Christian) he makes a good point. The only difference between the current state of affairs and those of a century ago are that forceful suppression and violence have given way to political bribes and Super PACs. In a free market system where individuals have the capability to accumulate enough wealth (i.e. power) to influence the political process more than other people, there will be people who abuse the power they have. They will, for personal gain, manipulate politicians until they have achieved their desires. In a democracy, a free market, by its very nature, cannot remain free.
  9. Any benifits to war?

    Any benefits to war?
  10. I've been trying to embed a YouTube video in a post of mine. So far I've tried: and These are the only formats I've found on the Internet, and they work on other forums I use. Toggling BBCode mode doesn't change anything. When I preview the post, the only thing that shows up is the identifier or embed code. What format does this forum use?
  11. It would be nice to be able to choose a denomination for your theocratic government, as the current laws are sort of vague. In, say, a Christian theocracy, is real presence a part of the Eucharist? Will they focus more on the legalistic Old Testament or the (relatively) liberal New Testament? Will their inclination to charitable giving make them less unhappy when taxes are raised? Being able to have Protestant and Sunni theocracies would be more descriptive than just Christian and Muslim ones. Each denomination could even have its own effects on a nation's stats. Being able to chose a certain one would also allow the player to better predict the effects it will have. Not all people of a given religion think or behave the same way, and neither should all nations. Some Christians think same-sex and polygamous marriages ought to be outlawed, where others think that they shouldn't. Some Muslims think that the form of Islam advocated by militant groups like Boko Haram is wrong, but some think that it is the only true form of Islam. Having a theocracy being able to sort these things out would be good, as it could affect many things from how easily different laws are passed to how anti-war a country's citizens are (assuming a public opinion feature for war is added).