Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A balanced Marxist reflection on Occupy Wall Street

Posted 9 years ago on Oct. 10, 2011, 6:15 p.m. EST by RossWolfe (34)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

30 Comments

30 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by luparb (290) 9 years ago

Many responses here will be vehement due to decades of propaganda from American culture.

This crisis can be directly attributed to capitalism through unbiased observation.

Although Marx should be credited with this discovery, perhaps the emphasis should be the examination and critique of capitalism.

For one thing, the capitalist economy requires constant expansion. This alone, considered with the fact that we live on a planet of limited resources, should be enough for anybody with a basic predictive capacity to comprehend why capitalism will inevitably collapse.

Other topics include the superfluousness of labor due to technological automation and efficiency, outsourcing and the prioritization of capital above human needs and values.

[-] 1 points by MikeLobo (67) 9 years ago

Do not think American propaganda is responsible for the negative outlook on communism. I think communism's historical track record presents a very anti-freedom state.

[-] 1 points by captaindoody (339) from Elizabethville, PA 9 years ago

Oh no Mr. Lobo. Those were not communist states or socialist states. They were dictatorships. Communism has never been tried. And I think our communists and socialists are a lot smarter and better motivated than the ones in olden times.

[-] 1 points by luparb (290) 9 years ago

As many free market capitalist have claimed that 'true capitalism does exist', the same can be applied to communism.

Countries that have gone through social revolutions have been forced to industrialize and militarize in order to engage with the global capitalist economy.

This is why this revolution must be a global effort, because the capitalist economy requires constant expansion in order to sustain itself.

This results in the depletion of natural resources and then war.

When Vietnam began it's social revolutions, America and the west waged war in order to retain the french colonies. When Cuba went socialist, America placed a trade embargo and then launched the bay of pigs invasion.

In true communism, as described by Marx, there is no government and no communist party. This phenomena is only during the transitory stage whereby a socialist republic distributes the infrastructure of self governance.

Today, all public land and assets is being privatized as austerity, you're witnessing the diametrically opposed opposite of socialism.

If you are interested in fixing the crisis of poverty, unemployment, environmental destruction, war - then capitalism cannot be sustained.

just my opinion.

All I am interested in right now is returning the power to the people.

I think we can both agree that the current instance of government has been corrupted by corporate influence.

Once the democratic process has been returned to the people, then the discussions about how to re-structure our civilization can begin.

[-] 1 points by sleonard (54) from Cranford, NJ 9 years ago

I always thought that Marx's commentaries on capitalism were insightful even if his solution was somewhat metaphysical. Importantly, things (and capitalism) have changed since his time. Simply put: I won't live in a world were financial speculators have the ability to ruin society and devastate people who have no say in the matter. If a bank can be so big that we can't let it fail, then we are all 'invested' and should have a voice in our own destiny.

[-] 1 points by 666isMONEY (348) 9 years ago

marx believed in eliminating money: http://666ismoney.com/Marx.html

[-] 1 points by anticorporateantistate (7) 9 years ago

I agree that we've seen exactly as many Marxist orders as we've seen free-market orders.

The problem is that Marxist theory is inherently counterintuitive (invest the state with more power so that it distributes that power to the masses) and goes against everything we know about states and power elites.

Free-market theory is somewhat counterintuitive too (less regulation = less corporate power sounds pretty silly when you say it out loud, though we shouldn't be trying to outright abolish the regulatory structure like some of the ultra-ideologues want to do) but understanding it requires that you understand that most government interventions are on behalf of the power elite, so regulations, taxes, and other interventions must be looked at in that light.

Should shit like CDRs and derivatives be more highly regulated? Yes. But it was previous regulatory policy (known as deregulation, but that's not a very accurate way of describing it) that set the stage.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 9 years ago

The bridge from socialism to communism always fails.

Why? Because socialism centralizes power into the hands of the few and most importantly, it still used money.

Why centralized power fails: All forms of government rely on opinions. As long as opinions determine the direction of society over evidence-based facts inefficiency, conflict, and inequality will exist.

Why money fails: Even if the political system was built to be collaborative, the economic system can not remain competitive. This is because competition implies winners(haves) and losers(have nots), it implies inequality. This inequality can only be maintained if the 'haves' use unethical tactics to gain an advantage, enforce their position in some way by pushing favorable laws, and ensuring the 'have nots' believe these individuals deserve their position. (political education, media, advertising)

Money will always lead to corporatism because in a competition people always look for ways to win regardless of ethics and morality. And centralized power will always lead to an uprising because opinions lead to errors much more frequently than evidence-based facts.

So for society to progress we need collaboration and evidence-based decision making driving society. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDhSgCsD_x8

[-] 1 points by luparb (290) 9 years ago

That video proposes some wonderful ideas.

I really do hope something like this happens.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 9 years ago

First step. End the corruption

After that, then different groups can focus on creating test cities without corporatism getting in the way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwJaLFMf7IA

[-] 1 points by captaindoody (339) from Elizabethville, PA 9 years ago

What is money? If we get rid of money and I make rubber snakes but I want a washer and dryer, how do I get a washer and dryer if the guy who makes them doesn't want any rubber snakes?

[-] 2 points by genanmer (822) 9 years ago

Money is used as a tool to maintain distribution.

In a scarcity based environment money 'is' required. The opposite is also true. Money is dependent on scarcity, a lack of something. e.g. we don't pay for the air we breathe because it is abundant

Sure we have the option right now to go live in self-sustainable communes but then we'd give up many of our luxuries. What's missing in those communities and similar indigenous villages using gift economies is technology.

Technology is what creates abundance. Our society relies extremely on technology for most areas of our life.

A resource based economy is built around the idea that technology today can create abundance when used on a large scale to directly provide for the population.

We can use automation, 3d printing, and cybernation technologies to free the population of many of their repetitive jobs. But in a monetary system this would be called technological unemployment or outsourcing to machines.

When goods are abundant there is no longer a need to pay for the item. But to provide these goods to the population sustainably a limitation must be applied. For example we can't provide everyone a private fullsize jet plane but if access is provided in abundance, those needs are met. E.g. local libraries provide access for books

So we provide an access abundance directly to the population.

As for the need for money, many families operate without trading money for goods and services each member provides. How often do kids pay their mom for cooking or cleaning?

In this type of economy (RBE) every occupation is voluntary. But again, the key is implementing technology to create abundance. If we can do that then we can actually raise our quality of life while eliminating the need for money. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jd1mzi_AUY

[-] 1 points by captaindoody (339) from Elizabethville, PA 9 years ago

So we need robots to do all this? Love it. Love it. Love it.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 9 years ago

Well not robots like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIYRQC2iBp0&feature=player_embedded

We would just apply machinery similar to cars, planes, vending machines, refrigerators, tvs, etc Not all machines require AI if that's what you mean.

[-] 1 points by captaindoody (339) from Elizabethville, PA 9 years ago

LULZ! I fucking love it. Totally awesome!

"What are you doing Dave?" "I'm afraid I can't let you do that Dave."

[-] 1 points by MikeLobo (67) 9 years ago

Marxism looks great on paper but when put into action millions of people always die. Marxism = Facism

[-] 0 points by Uguysarenuts (270) 9 years ago

No such thing as a balanced Marxist. Most violent group of hate filled activists ever.