- Apr 12, 2021
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
No, that's not reading Marx objectively. That's reading him credulously.
Well, according to Republicans every Democrat of the last 80 years has been a Marxist, yet somehow the economy consistently does better when we're in charge of it.Name any nation that has a Marxist economy. Marxism seems OK as a theory, but in practice only changes who exploits the workers.
Marxism is NOT practiced anywhere, nor ever. If it was, it would work.....Name any nation that has a Marxist economy. Marxism seems OK as a theory, but in practice only changes who exploits the workers.
It looks like a mixed economy works well though,
which is why it’s practiced in all wealthy nations.
And its the mixed piece that keeps capitalism from concentrating too much wealth and eventually failing once people get desperate for food.Mixed economies work better than socialist economies, because the capitalist side of the economy actually creates wealth.
No, and I suspect mixed economies will probably be replaced by something else as technology progresses, just as technology supplanted slavery.Slavery was practiced nearly everywhere at one point, is that an argument for slavery?
Exactly. There will always be The Elite.Name any nation that has a Marxist economy. Marxism seems OK as a theory, but in practice only changes who exploits the workers.
Marxism is NOT practiced anywhere, nor ever. If it was, it would work.....
Well there certainly were countries that had at least what I would call a socialist economy. I don't know what a Marxist economy is, I don't think that is a real political science term. They were not perfect but an I would say were a good example of working industrialized socialism before the fascist (not a euphemism) Spanish government crushed them.Name any nation that has a Marxist economy. Marxism seems OK as a theory, but in practice only changes who exploits the workers.
In response to these problems, the Generalitat of Catalonia, backed by the CNT approved a decree on "Collectivization and Workers' Control" on 24 October 1936. Under this decree all firms with more than 100 workers were to be collectivized and those with 100 or less could be collectivized if a majority of workers agreed. All collectivized enterprises were to join general industrial councils, which would be represented in a decentralized planning agency, the Economic Council of Catalonia.
Although there were early issues with production in certain instances, however, Emma Goldman attested that industrial productivity doubled almost everywhere across the country, with agricultural yields increased "30-50%".
Anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy. The CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes.
If only that were so lol. But at least you are optimistic.Marxism is NOT practiced anywhere, nor ever. If it was, it would work.....
Marxism was laid out for all to see, but never practiced......................not like alchemyOK, so it is much like alchemy (if it could be made to work). Alchemy is a great theory, using various inexpensive base metals (and a hefty dose of magic?) to produce gold, but has never actually worked.
Marxism was laid out for all to see, but never practiced......................not like alchemy
never attempted either........the leaders chose to ignore it's principles from the get-goYou seem to be confusing practiced (attempted?) with actually made to work.
"I, for one, am not a marxist"
Yeah, and it's never been tried before, huh? Reading what Marx wrote while someone else paid his living expenses and assuming that it has any merit a a governing phiosophy makes no sense.
Do you ever wonder why the Marxist end-state is never created and why every band of comrades who has every attempted to create it “ignore its principles from the get-go?” The answer is quite simple, actually.never attempted either........the leaders chose to ignore it's principles from the get-go
Wanted to know whether that was an actual quote and came across this one. Rather good:"I, for one, am not a marxist"
Source: here.Experience shows that there are two sides to every contradiction. And one would be stupendously naïve to think that anti-Marxism hasn’t for some years now been an article of faith as robust as the genuine article. “I am not a Marxist,” Marx was alleged to have told his son-in-law Paul Lafargue, when the latter brought news from Paris of French “Marxists.” But there is no reason to believe him. Marx was no less vain and insecure in respect of his own intellectual legacy than most of his rivals and opponents, which explains why so many of the letters people sent him went missing, no doubt destroyed by their correspondent. It is difficult to believe that Marx would have been indifferent to the propagation of his own mythology, and to claim that he wasn’t a Marxist is about as convincing and self-critical as Groucho Marx’s hilarious assertion that he wouldn’t wish to join any club that would have him as a member.