Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Marx Rules!

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 3, 2011, 12:33 a.m. EST by metapolitik (1110)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

...Just sayin'.

192 Comments

192 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 8 years ago

"Panics do not destroy capital; they merely reveal the extend to which it has been previously destroyed by its betrayal into hopeless unproductive works."

-- John Stuard Mill, Political Economist, 1806-1873

"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics."

-- Plutarch, Greek historian, biographer, 46-120 AD

[-] 4 points by Corium (246) 8 years ago

Now the Plutarch quote.... that's great!

[-] 3 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

You give good quote

Me likey :)

[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 8 years ago

It's getting negative credit though. No surprise at all. And you had a great point: simple and elegant.

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Thanks :)

As for negative credit, I assume you mean the little arrow-vote tabs. That makes sense you'd get voted-down... What do you expect in a forum populated with paid-trolls?

Ahhh... Capitalism™

I find that Google also de-ranks things of a socialist bent. Example: For all my attempts at SEO, good-luck finding this exact without quotation-mark quotes:

http://myopsy.blogspot.com/2010/06/deep-green-democratic-socialism.html

[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 8 years ago

I will treasure your site. It's fun, inspiring, original and sensitive. May I suggest the following link (you might have seen it):

Prof. Albert A. Bartlett's lecture on "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy." http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6A1FD147A45EF50D

There are 8 short (~10 min) sections and it really gets interesting after the 3rd. I'm guessing that you will like it very much as I did immensely.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Wow!

He gets right to it.

[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 8 years ago

Something you MUST keep in mind as energy curves will bend in your lifespan. I presume, now you will have a better chance of understanding what's going on around you and a better chance to manage your life.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Actually, I am already well familiar with these concepts.

And with lower carbon footprint than almost anyone, I know - I do a pretty good job of "manag[ing my] life."

[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 8 years ago

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. When I refer to "managing your life" I meant socioeconomic dangers that our generation will experience. Who knows how the life will look like when world economies turning into less and less growth mode (or worse). Just keep in mind.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

I don't think that "less economic growth" is a bad thing.

I do however, think that better use of resources, an end to traditional monetary systems and the de-comodification of our society are the only keys to our survival.

[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 8 years ago

100% agree. But many growth oriented idiots will continue to believe in their fallacies (re: examples in Prof. Bartlett's lecture). And I think they will pose great danger on humanity.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Re. "Marx Rules !" : Find the time coz to make up your own mind is Not a crime ! Thus, http://www.marxists.org/ et fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 8 years ago

A very good reference. I book marked it. Tq.

And "RSA Animate - Crises of Capitalism" is in my bookmarks too.

[-] 1 points by salvorappa (7) 8 years ago

for a balance there should be no rich

[-] 3 points by SandyEnglish (60) 8 years ago

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Frederick Engels

In this popular pamphlet, Engels describes the greatest accomplishment of Marxism - that of transferring Socialism from the realm of abstract morality and basing it upon the laws and potentialities of the world as it exists. He explains the relationship between previously-existing types of socialism, which ultimately considered the reorganization of society as a question of appealing to the better sentiments of the ruling class, and that of Marxism, which recognizes the material basis for the antagonism between capitalist and worker, and, with the aid of this knowledge, seeks to reorganize society through the class struggle.

http://wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/socm-o21.shtml

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

You have to wonder how these ever became unpopular ideas.

I guess because so many people would rather be rich that to have integrity or ethics.

[-] 2 points by SandyEnglish (60) 8 years ago

The betrayals of Stalinism and its genocide of Marxists, McCarthyism, the post-war boom. All, on the greater historical scale powerful but transient phenomena. The class struggle --and its intellectual reflection in socialist thought -- is about to return with a vengeance.

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

I thought it already had.

[-] 3 points by RonnieStRaygun (74) from Sacramento, CA 8 years ago

But not like me!

Privatize the profit! Socialize the losses!

[-] 1 points by RonnieStRaygun (74) from Sacramento, CA 8 years ago

Thou shalt not take Mine Holy Name in vain nor construct graven images of Me.

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Haha! Lmao!

So glad Reagan is finally dead.

I was beginning to think he was being kept alive on the blood of unwanted inner-city children.

[-] 1 points by sinthytech (30) 8 years ago

I'll take your Marx and raise you one Jefferson.

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 8 years ago

Roger Marx rules over Karl Marx and Marx Marx rules above all! http://www.marxmarx.org

Of all the Marx geniuses, You only know Karl Marx?

[-] 1 points by TexasThunder (68) 8 years ago

COMMENT: Replace politicians with 'The People'. We now have the technology for Deep, Direct, Digital Democracy and the political will to do it. It's only a matter of time. REPLY: You are suggesting a pure democracy:” Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.[1] Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.[1] It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy Using this definition the people would vote to determine all matters, and of course, it would be determined by the majority. Is this a fair understanding of your proposal?

[-] 1 points by TexasThunder (68) 8 years ago

I find our elected officials incompetent to govern. They need some incentive that will mean something to them instead of putting funds at risk that will cause harm to those persons and institutions who can least afford such loss. I suggest that these officials’ pay and/or benefits be cut if and/or when they fail to do their job. As it is, party “a” threatens to harm parties “”d” through “z” if parties “b” and “c” can’t come to an agreement. It makes no sense whatsoever to threaten Congress with cuts that will not have any impact on them directly. Our Constitution establishes the type of government we are to have. We do not need to establish any “sub” groups within these institutions. They are all responsible collectively to govern and if/when they fail to do so they are all liable collectively. The “carrot and stick” method only works when the carrot or stick is guaranteed to the same one. These officials have received their carrot upon being elected as they shall receive full pay and full benefits for the rest of their life even if they only serve one term. I say put all options “on the table” including their lifetime pay and benefits. I’m of the position that such a “stick” would cause these officials to get their head out of the clouds and their feet on the ground.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Or we could just hold trials culminating in the execution anyone who violates the public trust, including (but not necessarily limited to):

  • Politicians
  • Bankers
  • CEOs
  • Police
  • Anyone who tries to "privatize" anything...

How's that for a 'stick'?

[-] 1 points by TexasThunder (68) 8 years ago

Now that’s a stick! Not much chance of materializing but…

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Certainly not with that attitude.

You know...

My favorite thing about Texas is that big 'People's Star' on the flag.

Turns out (thankfully)...That with the exception of old 'Dubya' - Y'all got some populism in ya!

http://tx.cpusa.org/

[-] 1 points by TexasThunder (68) 8 years ago

Advocating change that has a realistic chance of materializing is a positive way of spending one’s energy. If anyone truly believes that they have a realistic chance of making it a capital offense to violate public trust in a “free” society then they need not waste their time attempting to convince me. Have a good day.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

So you would rather they be perpetually rewarded for their crimes?

In the 17th Century, financial speculation was a crime and speculators were publicly hanged.

It happened before.

It will happen again.

[-] 1 points by TexasThunder (68) 8 years ago

Obviously you have not read my initial comment if you think that I believe they should be rewarded for their acts.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

It's not that I did not read it.

It's the fact that it's so poorly written and inarticulate that deciphering your message becomes somewhat painful and difficult.

Also, in an environment where politicians can be openly bribed (lobbied), the 'stick' that you propose would be completely ineffectual.

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/the-american-ruling-class/

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/what-conservatism-really-means/

[-] 1 points by TexasThunder (68) 8 years ago

Thank you for the critique. I disagree however that the possibility of a politician forfeiting his life-long payments as being “ineffectual”.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Clearly, you are deluded.

Members of congress don't even break $200K a year.

They can make more that off of a single lobbyist.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

Conservatives think you can solve any problem with money.

Truth is, you can't.

[-] 1 points by TexasThunder (68) 8 years ago

Thank you for the cite info. We must start somewhere. There have been many attempts to prevent the lobbyist to no avail. Do you have any suggestions other than execution that may be more palatable to the general public?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Sure!

Replace politicians with 'The People'.

We now have the technology for Deep, Direct, Digital Democracy and the political will to do it.

It's only a matter of time.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

For more information on why 'Marx Rules', check out the documentary film:

"The Corporation"

http://www.thecorporation.com/

Freeware version available on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Facebook is selling info to NSA/FBI/CIA et al...

Use Metapolitik intstead:

http://metapolitik.org

"The People's Social Network"

Registrations open: 1 / 2 / 2012

[-] 1 points by CaptFlint (1) 8 years ago

Why are you not occupying the Government in Washington DC - the president that most of you voted for and the Congress that most of you elected, if you voted, are the ones that made the rules and continue to make the rules that govern what the 'greedy corporations' can do and exempt the 'greedy unions' from having to conform to the government regulations [exempt them from 'Obama care', give them special breaks, etc]- Remember in a Marxist society you no longer have freedom of choice - you will be told what your job will be what your pay will be and where you will live. That really sucks in my opinion. CaptFlint

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Actually that's not true.

Properly implemented, a Marxist society would be more deeply democratic that one requiring a 'republic' of 'leaders'.

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Marx was a playa

[-] 1 points by Wellington2 (13) 8 years ago

I thought we were mocking the commies. Anyway. go Maoism!

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

I'm not so much a 'commie' as a card carrying Pink0™

http://myopsy.blogspot.com/2010/06/deep-green-democratic-socialism.html

http://myopsy.blogspot.com/2011/06/revolution-postponed-due-to-rampat.html

...I don't actually have a 'card'... But I do carry a picture of Mao in my wallet to tease Beatles fans with. Somehow, I still managed to get laid.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

New Proletariat Social Network in the works:

http://metapolitik.org

Seeking Drupal developers and co-maintainers.

Contact if interested in participating in the dev end.

Everyone else is also welcome.

Registrations Open: December 1st

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Re. Marx, Marxism & Marxist thought & for an excellent research resource, please see : http://www.marxists.org/ .

Further, for an excellent animation & critique by David Harvey, "Crisis of Capitalism: Is it time to look beyond Capitalism to a New Social Order?", pls try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0 & NJOY !!

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by Soul (9) 8 years ago

Ron Lawl is a Crypto-Marxist.

Can't be all bad.

[-] 1 points by classicliberal (312) 8 years ago

Is that like a kind of poker tournament? "All in, no limits, five card Marx rules."

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago

We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of domestic wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid ’07′ however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic political manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitation workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I’ll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won’t. Not by a longshot. Jobs don’t necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The ‘free market’ just doesn’t cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of ’08′ the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of ’08′, every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation’s wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job creation, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don’t. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent of Americans already own over 40 percent of all US wealth. More than double their share before Reagan took office. The lower 90 percent of Americans own less than 20 percent of all US wealth. Still, the rich want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.

Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Yep.

[-] 1 points by WakeUpWorldTV (58) 8 years ago

All the -isms lacked the use of technology to free people from repetitious and monotonous jobs. The Resource-Based Economic Model proposed by http://www.TheVenusProject.com/ utilizes technology to free people.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Word!

[-] 1 points by unitedwe (78) 8 years ago

Richard Marx?

[-] 1 points by Dalton (194) 8 years ago

You know how Marxism failed, right? 'Cos of being stupid?

[-] 1 points by MakeLuvNotBillions (113) 8 years ago

"So what, Nietsche is dead?" -----God

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 8 years ago

This is not the industrial age, this is the information age.

Your brain is the means of production.

I know you don't want to believe that but it is true.

Communism is obsolete.

Non-crony capitalism with sensible regulation and a social safety net is the answer.

Just like other first world countries have.

Just like the USA used to have.

And free Netflix with unlimited streaming Marx Brothers movies for all!

[-] 3 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

A) Saying that "Marx Rules" is not ipso facto, a subscription to "Communism" or anything that masqueraded as such throughout the 20th Century.

B) Socialized Netflix would kick ass! But I think that's called the BitTorrent.

C) I don't see how "non-crony Capitalism" is feasible. There are too many opportunities for graft and corruption in a society where the means of production are privately owned.

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 8 years ago

C) Regulation and a DOJ that stops prosecuting whistleblowers & drug cases and starts enforcing the sensible regulation that will rein in cronyism. Separation of corporation and state.

Public ownership & operation of public resources that exist for the common good. There should be a "commons" but it shouldn't encompass every possilbe enterprise that man can engage in.

Nature shouldn't be privately owned.

But a man's inventions and a man's labor should belong to him not to the state or the commons.

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Those all sound on-point.

A sort of people's capitalism that encourages and fosters small, private enterprise and works toward integrating the labor-force with the necessary engines of production.

Decentralized and autonomous, but with strong mechanisms for incubating and fostering sustainable economic development through a people's commons.

But - from a strictly semantic perspective - once it stops being driven solely for profit and the means of production are held in a common trust, it doesn't really qualify as "capitalism" any more. At least not in any literal sense.

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

I endorse this conversation.

[-] 1 points by voicefromolddominion (4) 8 years ago

I have been saying the same thing. I think the next wave for this world is a fair trade capitalism based on ideas of fair competition, working for the common good as well as your own, sustainability, and still encouraging entrepreneurship, innovation, and betterment of the self and community. Its wonderful that you can start your own company and make your own way, helping yourself but its not wonderful how hard it is to do that thanks to unfair business practices, greed and corruption caused by too much influence. The fact is that not everyone is really smart, lucky, innovative, tenacious or whatever to have their own business or run some business. The fact is that there are people that are at their best just twisting tops on to jars. but they should have the opportunity to live a meaningful, fulfililng, comfortable and happy life just as much as the boss. I think a new, kinder, better form of capitalism that is already starting to bud up all around the world is the answer and it is coming. I see it happening right here in my own city every day and its results are wonderful.

[-] 1 points by Redsuperficiality (96) 8 years ago

For example?

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Jobs twisting lids onto jars onto jars are done by robots these days.

The only way to make a profit.

[-] 0 points by 666isMONEY (348) 8 years ago

Karl Marx (and Angela Davis who spoke at OWS) believes in eliminating money:

The final step is when the new socialist [communist] society reaches the stage where profit and money disappear. It is through transforming society into a fully productive society, and through reaching in production a level where the material needs of the members of society are satisfied. On that final stage, profit will automatically disappear and there will be no need for money. -- MUAMMAR AL QATHAFI, The Green Book: The Solution of the Economic Problem, pt. 2 (1977)

Finally, when all capital, all production, and all exchange are concentrated in the hands of the people, private ownership will automatically have ceased to exist, money will have become superfluous, and production will have so increased and men will be so much changed that the last forms of the old social relations will also be able to fall away. -- F. ENGELS, Principals of Communism, 1847

The task of abolishing the essence of Jewry is actually the task of abolishing the Jewish character of civil society, abolishing the inhumanity of the present-day practice of life, the most extreme expression of which is the money system. -- KARL MARX, The Holy Family, 1845

Communist society will know nothing of money [or barter/work credits] . . . socialism is an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. -- NIKOLAI BUKHARIN, The ABC of Communism, 1919

http://666ismoney.com/Satan.html

[-] 1 points by Redsuperficiality (96) 8 years ago

There is a real problem here with the only quote from Marx being from 1845. This is well before Marx had developed a comprehensive understanding of capitalism. Marx wrote a great deal about money but to my knowledge never in a moralistic sense. Rather, he realized its historic necessity. Money has a number of uses in most types of economy. Probably the most important in a capitalist economy is when capital comes out of its production phase as commodities. If any of those commodities does not get sold and therefore transformed into money then the capital has been devalued rather than increased in value. Those that are sold represent the now liquid value of the capital and can purchase the raw materials and labor power to continue production. Money is not the problem. Capitalism is: it is the social relation that privatizes the accumulated labor of all who have been by an ever diminishing percentage of the population to exploit the living. It is the private ownership of the productive forces that enables capitalists to dictate the terms of life for everyone else. The change will come when society is no longer for the sake of profit but for the sake of social relations: i.e. humanity. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the private ownership of the productive forces is now a drag on their development. Getting rid of money won't change the situation. We have to go beyond capitalism. And Marx is very clear about this.

[-] 1 points by 666isMONEY (348) 8 years ago

The final step is when the new socialist [communist] society reaches the stage where profit and money disappear. It is through transforming society into a fully productive society, and through reaching in production a level where the material needs of the members of society are satisfied. On that final stage, profit will automatically disappear and there will be no need for money. -- MUAMMAR AL QATHAFI, The Green Book: The Solution of the Economic Problem, pt. 2 (1977) Qathafi (spelled this way in the book), the populist leader of Libya, is a theistic communist who believes in eliminating money.

Finally, when all capital, all production, and all exchange are concentrated in the hands of the people, private ownership will automatically have ceased to exist, money will have become superfluous, and production will have so increased and men will be so much changed that the last forms of the old social relations will also be able to fall away. -- F. ENGELS, Principals of Communism, 1847

Communist society will know nothing of money [or barter/work credits] . . . socialism is an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. -- NIKOLAI BUKHARIN, The ABC of Communism, 1919 Bukharin was a colleague of Lenin and editor of Isvestia; he was arrested for betraying the socialist revolution, his book was banned and in 1938, after a show-trial, he was executed.

[-] 2 points by Redsuperficiality (96) 8 years ago

In response to the Qathafi quote:I do not think there is any likelihood of material needs ever being satisfied at least in the real terms of our being human. And this is not a question of our greed or our insatiable appetite except as these are superficial reflections of what it is to be human. I have not read Qathafi but in terms of your description of him as a theistic communist I will take it as given he believes in an afterlife. Only in heaven could the material needs of a human being ever be satisfied for the simple reason in heaven there would be no material needs. Qathafi could claim with some consistency then that there would be no need for money. But as for any suggestion that even one human being's material needs could ever be satisfied to the extent that that human being would no longer desire, or no longer have hope, or no longer imagine, or no longer breath is wrong. Most people do not sell their souls (I am using this word only metaphorically) to the unremitting pursuit of increasing personal material wealth. Most people do not suffer greed. This does not mean their material needs are now satisfied or that they would not be able to develop more complex or higher material needs given the leisure. Art is a leisure activity but no art is without a necessary materiality to work. Matter has to do with being human: our very existence is our relation with matter. Marx called it a materialist dialectic. Don't fall for vulgar material as if any commodity or any thing could adequately satisfy a human being: not even a baby is content with a dummy for too long. More importantly don't fall for vulgar materialism. It is a capitalist perspective. Now back to profit: profit is the surplus value that workers produce in the production process and that is confiscated by capitalist who hold ownership of the productive forces. Workers produce more than the value they are paid in wages. Even in very primitive society a surplus value is able to be produced. Hence they are able to develop a cultural, social and religious dimension. They do not generally develop a history. History had to wait until a more productive society had enough leisure to tell a more complex story about themselves. There would be no reason to change society from capitalism to communism if communism did not produce more surplus value. It needs to have more surplus value to work. What it won't have is profit: the confiscation of the social surplus by an ever diminishing percentage of the population in an increasingly stupid and oppressive way.

In regard to Engels, Engels made profit (I use the word "made" advisedly given all I have said above). He owned a business through inheritance which he managed. Part of the surplus value his workers produced found it way into Marx's pockets. He supported Marx's intellectual effort to make capitalism comprehensible to revolutionize workers. I think the first thing to be said about this is that both Marx and Engels realized you have to change the system. There is a vast range of differrences in the way workers are treated in capitalist enterprises so it is important not to waste time on reform and concentrate on revolutionizing the entire system. One of the problems with most of the rhetoric of OWS is they demonize the 1%. They give them far too much credit and this reflects the dominance of a reformist agenda at present in OWS: they need someone to blame because they do not know enough about capitalism The second thing, Marx is a far more sophisticated thinker and intellect than Engels. You managed to quote something from Engels that I don't disagree with. That takes some doing. The crucial thing for our dialogue is "money will have become superfluous". Thanks for that quote: it is no whim I am Redsuperficiality. But money is already superfluous. It is more and more an electronic transfer. Notes and coins are less and less of the percentage of financial transactions. This means that it should be more apparent to everyone (not only Marxists) that the problem of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is the social relations of capitalists being able to confiscate the social surplus. It is not money, an increasingly superficial token of occasional, convenient liquidity.

In regard to Bukharin: anyone associated with the USSR and what was an extraordinary adventure in attempting to create a more human society needs to be read with caution. And I include here Trotsky and his comrades and the Euro-communist responses to Soviet repression. Marx realized real communism could only develop out of the most advanced capitalist economy. There are very good reasons for this but you have enough to critique already.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Why did you toss in the out-of-context quote regarding "jewry"?

This short snippet taken from the larger paragraph regarding the historical survival of Jewish culture gives the reader the false impression that Marx was somehow anti-Semitic. He was in fact Jewish himself.

"On the other hand, it was proved that Jewry has maintained. itself and developed through history, in and with history, and that this development is to be perceived not by the eye of the theologian, but only by the eye of the man of the world, because it is to be found, not in religious theory, but only in commercial and industrial practice. It was explained why practical Jewry attains its full development only in the fully developed Christian world, why indeed it is the fully developed practice of the Christian world itself. The existence of the present-day Jew was not explained by his religion — as though this religion were something apart, independently existing — but the tenacious survival of the Jewish religion was explained by practical features of civil society which are fantastically reflected in that religion. The emancipation of the Jews into human beings, or the human emancipation of Jewry, was therefore not conceived, as by Herr Bauer, as the special task of the Jews, but as a general practical task of the present-day world, which is Jewish to the core. It was proved that the task of abolishing the essence of Jewry is actually the task of abolishing the Jewish character of civil society, abolishing the inhumanity of the present-day practice of life, the most extreme expression of which is the money system."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch06_3_b.htm

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

You should probably also check out:

http://marxwords.blogspot.com/

"In a review of the recently published book, Antisemitic Myths: A Historical and Contemporary Anthology, edited by Marvin Perry and Frederick M. Schweitzer, David Hirsh has argued that it is a “standard misreading” of Marx to say that “Marx was an antisemite.” With this, he concurs with Robert Fine, who attempted to “explode the myth” of Marx’s antisemitism. As far as Professor Fine is concerned, those who believe this “myth” have an “inability” to read Marx or comprehend Marx’s “ironic style” of writing."

  -Michael Ezra
[-] 1 points by 666isMONEY (348) 8 years ago

Marx was anti-religion, it doesn't matter to me what U want to call him. Here's more:

Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew, not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time. An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. ...In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism. [Here as elsewhere, Marx uses the words Jude and Judentum in the figurative sense, i.e., denoting usury, huckstering, trading, etc.] The Jew has already emancipated himself in a Jewish way. The Jew, who in Vienna, for example, is only tolerated, determines the fate of the whole Empire by his financial power. The Jew, who may have no rights in the smallest German state, decides the fate of Europe. While corporations and guilds refuse to admit Jews, or have not yet adopted a favourable attitude towards them, the audacity of industry mocks at the obstinacy of the medieval institutions. (Bruno Bauer, Die Judenfrag.)

Read more: http://666ismoney.com/Marx.html

Was Jesus antisemetic? http://666ismoney.com/JesusJews.html

[-] 3 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

I don't care what historical or theological precedent you use, I am not buying-in to some anti-semitic crap of some weird bible addict. If you want to get epistemological about it and argue that bankers are (for all intents and purposes) "The Beast"... Or US foreign policy or whatever... I can go along with that. If you want to argue that Jesus fought for social justice and that's why the state nailed him to a tree, I can go along with that too. If you want to say that from an anthropological perspective Jesus was a sort of proto-communist ad well as being a "liberal jewish intellectual", I can go along with that as well. But please, let's not try to bring Hitler into this for the god's sake.

And since I pretty much agree with Marx in his indictment of religion. Just look at the violence of the crusades and the hoarding of wealth that has been done by the Catholic Church... Not to mention the kid-fucking and the ridiculous prospect of believing superstitious nonsense, what with laser beams and computers pretty much proving the efficacy and accuracy of science. Thus, I see no reason to bring religion into it.

Still, from almost any religious perspective... Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, Jewish... Secular Humanist... Wall St. is wrong. The only religion that I can think of that might defend Wall St., late-capitalism or the corporatocracy is maybe Hindi when they still had a strongly enforced caste-system.

[-] 1 points by owstag (508) 8 years ago

Christian sects with a Calvinist bent would be inclined to defend Wall Street largess, since they regard wealth and worldly success and power as indicators of being among the so-called 'elect' arbitrarily chosen by god. It really is a particularly vile belief system.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Yes, but one can also argue that such "Christians" are in fact anti-christian in that they eschew Jesus' mandate to help the poor.

[-] 1 points by owstag (508) 8 years ago

Secular Humanism isn't a religion.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Good point...

Wall St. is even wrong from a completely secular standpoint as well. There's just no defending them.

[-] 1 points by 666isMONEY (348) 8 years ago

Jesus (if he existed) upset the tables of the moneychangers and told his disciples to carry no money he also said: "you can't serve god & money, U'll either love the one and hate the other" but the Pharisees, who loved money heard all this and scoffed." -- Luke 16

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Yeah well, if you wanted to, you could just as easily make the case for Jesus being a Punk Rocker (maybe that's what the Ramones were really saying).

I'm not really into the whole 'god' thing. But I sure do hate money.

That so primitive an invention still buttresses the daily activities of the technologically advanced modern world boggles the mind.

Maybe I'll (reluctantly) earn a place in 'heaven' one day after all.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 8 years ago

B) You are correct, my bad.

[-] 1 points by RogerT (36) 8 years ago

A system that has never actually been put into practice can't be obsolete. Some historical attempts to prepare the grounds for it have failed due largely to the fact that the attempts were premature, even from a Marxist perspective, with respect to the economic level of development in the places making the attempt. Capitalism no longer works, just look around you, so it's time, maybe, for another attempt to bring about socialism-- this time in an advanced economically mature society-- if working people can't run society better than bankers and corporate CEOs its time just to relax until we all suffocate from a poisoned atmosphere: Victory or Death.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

An added corollary to the Excellent Animated Film re, 'KAPUTalism': "Crisis of Capitalism: Is it time to look beyond Capitalism to a New Social Order?" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0 ) ... might be http://www.marxists.org/ - dissemination optional !!

Because Theory & Ideas Matter ~{;-)

spero maliora ...

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 8 years ago

"This is not the industrial age, this is the information age.' pray tell by what sort of processes bricks, steel girders, automobile transmissions and tractors come about? Industria?

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 8 years ago

Saying this is not the industrial age is not the same thing as saying traditional industry is dead.

It is saying that there are now infinitely more ways to earn a living and create wealth than there were in the actual Industrial Age 18th / 19th / early 20th century.

[-] 1 points by MakeLuvNotBillions (113) 8 years ago

"God is dead"

----Nietsche

[-] 1 points by MakeLuvNotBillions (113) 8 years ago

Marx is dead!

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

So's Adam Smith, Ayn Rand and all the others that Capitalists cite in order to buttress their ridiculous, self-serving conclusions about economics.

[-] 1 points by classicliberal (312) 8 years ago

I agree. There is too much personal liberty in the world, we need centralized government to stop the abuse of authority.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Better, yet DEcentralized & Democratic.

[-] 0 points by classicliberal (312) 8 years ago

Or more centralized, it limits corruption to have all the power in a few people's hands.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Is that sarcasm? (:|

[-] 0 points by classicliberal (312) 8 years ago

No! People are inherently good! After seeking power their whole lives and careers they will sit back contentedly and help people with their power. Well until Bush got in office that was what happened.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

That's possibly one of the more absurdly flat statements that I have ever encountered on this forum.

[-] 1 points by LaughingDreamer (5) 8 years ago

how so?

[-] 0 points by classicliberal (312) 8 years ago

Well it's worked up until the Bush administration didn't it?

[-] 1 points by LaughingDreamer (5) 8 years ago

...I'm hoping you're being sarcastic, but seeing as this is a text based conversation, I have no way of knowing.

[-] 0 points by deaner (24) 8 years ago

lol

[-] 1 points by Tommiethenoncommie (211) 8 years ago

Credibility issue there.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Who's credibility?

Probably yours, given the biased Username.

[-] 1 points by Tommiethenoncommie (211) 8 years ago

What biased username?

[-] 0 points by nikka (228) 8 years ago

Zeppo's.

[-] 0 points by Joeschmoe1000 (270) 8 years ago

I think, with KARL They are all now covered....

[-] 0 points by KahnII (170) 8 years ago

The best thing you can do with a Marxist is use them as a moving target for marksmanship practice, with a high powered rifle.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Kalashnikov?

[-] 0 points by KahnII (170) 8 years ago

I buy US made, like Colt, LMR or Bushmaster....

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by gale (14) 8 years ago

Marx is the biggest academic hoax of all time. Used to divide people on left and right. Instead of referencing on Marx the way that works just fine is to set lowest common denominator that can build unified message that has 99% behind it, 99% that none will mess with.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Your grammar makes it impossible to discern what you are saying.

I see that you think: "Marx is the biggest academic hoax of all time", but aside from that, your message is largely incoherent.

Also, if you're going to make ad hominem attacks, please at least try and back them up with some sort of evidence or supporting materials.

Otherwise, you just make yourself look stupid.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

Yes!

[-] 0 points by dameatballs (1) from New York, NY 8 years ago

If you "99%" succeed in bringing MORE Marxism = Socialism = Communism to this government what you will get is MORE corruption, no middle class and a very wide gap between the politically-connected 1% and the rest of you.

True capitalism, free of government intervention, is the only way to bring back the middle class.

EVERY problem you're complaining about can be traced back to government meddling whether it be regulations or laws favoring corporatism, congressman involved in insider-trading and pay-to-play scams.

Ask yourself, how many people does Goldman Sachs have in Obama's administration, in congress, in lobbyist firms?

Follow the foreign policy money trail and it will ALWAYS somehow involve a current or former Goldman Sachs employee. They own this country lock-stock-and-barrel. And if you think they are pro-capitalism think again just because they are in the Finance business, think again. The big banks would love nothing more than to have a totalitarian government running this country.

Think about that next time you demonstrate for and demand socialist policies in this country.

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

You keep changing your comment... You last one said something about "communist genocide" so I am responding to that even though you changed it to some BS about Goldman Sachs... Whatever:

As for genocide, both sides are guilty of horrific acts. US Imperialism, War Profiteering, Crony Capitalism, and Strongarm Interventionist Policies have cost countless millions for every hundred thousand or so of a Stalin or a Pol Pot.

Besides - contrary to right-wing rhetoric - no one is arguing for "totalitarian statist-policies a la the Soviet Union".

We are arguing for Direct Democracy and an end to money in politics (among other things).

Capiche Comrade?

[-] 0 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 8 years ago

Marx 2012? Personal liberty is stupid. Everything should be controlled by a few for the benefit of everyone

[-] 1 points by LaughingDreamer (5) 8 years ago

That's exactly the problem we have now. I suggest you look into what Marxism is more thoroughly, if you're implying that that is what Marx intended. While his theories (and there were just that) are not perfect (I have yet to see a governmental theory which is) they do raise some very good points.

[-] 0 points by raines (699) 8 years ago

You ARE joking, aren't you?

[-] 0 points by classicliberal (312) 8 years ago

I was hoping I wasn't the only one around here.

[-] 0 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

No, everything should be controlled by everyone for everyone.

[-] 0 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 8 years ago

Nope, I'm sorry Marx and me agree. All controlled by a few.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

I don't think you've read Marx or are familiar with how his view regarding "vanguardism" evolved over the course of his career.

Attempting to paint the man's entire body of work with such broad strokes is a testament to you lack of erudition on the matter.

[-] 1 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 8 years ago

You lack erudition

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Really?

How so?

[-] 1 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 8 years ago

Your erudition levels are below optimum

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Actually, my "erudition levels" are hyper-optimized...

...Thank you very much.

[-] 0 points by Joeschmoe1000 (270) 8 years ago

GROUCHO!

[-] 0 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Turn your Caps off, 'Harpo'.

[-] -1 points by Joeschmoe1000 (270) 8 years ago

CHICO!

And fuck you with the anti caps crusade

[-] 0 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

That's the most articulate thing you've said yet.

[-] -2 points by stevo (314) 8 years ago

The freaks can't contain themselves any longer. They long for a return to the good old days of Stalin and Mao

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Hey 'Wierdo', get a grip, get a brain and get a load of http://www.marxists.org/ and try to stop giving way to your prejudices !

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

I suppose you'd prefer robber-barons, carpetbaggers and snake-oil salesmen?

[-] -1 points by brettdecker (68) 8 years ago

Yes, as they don't murder millions of their own people.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Sure they do.

What do you call war profiteering?

[-] 0 points by brettdecker (68) 8 years ago

WRONG!!!!! Hyperbole and BS.

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

What exactly did I say that was remotely hyperbolic?

Look at Blackwater/Xe Services, look at Halliburton... These are private companies making billions on war, oppression, death and the destruction of our planet.

But hey, what ever's good for the economy, right?

[-] 0 points by brettdecker (68) 8 years ago

Jeez,comparing Haliburton and Blackwater to Stalin and Mao is "hyperbolic" and you know it.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

You're right...

Private death squads are WAY worse.

[-] -3 points by nohooknose15 (0) 8 years ago

Marx, just like his supporters, was a radical scumbag jew

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

You're not helping yourself with derogatory racial comments.

No one here supports that, save for trolls.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

For the time he was a radical. He was a Jew. And in the view of people that value freedom and not slavery he was a scumbag. So your point red filth?

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Red filth?

Technically, my political leanings tend to favor "green" politics (grass roots, environment, labor and green infrastructure) - rather than "statist", "corporatist", "private" or "authoritarian". So I'm afraid you're mischaracterizing my political leanings.

http://metapolitik.org/article/approaching-metapolitical-discourse

Unless of course you were being racist and insinuating that I am of American Indian blood. While I am honored to be associated with such noble people, I cannot confirm or deny that particular rumor.

As for being "filth[y]", I bathe regularly thank you.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

Green on the outside Red on the inside. American Indian blood blah blah.. You need to come up with new material.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

My material is updated and revised regularly thank you.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/approaching-a-metapolitical-discourse/

http://metapolitik.org/article/approaching-metapolitical-discourse

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Metalvx

And I haven't seen you produce jack shit.

So step off.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

Step of yourself you Red piece of shit. Show all the articles you want attempting to justify your death system. To anyone with more than two brain cells to put together your garbage won't convince anyone.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

"Death System"?

That's an absolutely absurd and baseless statement.

Nowhere in my article do I advocate killing anyone.

On the contrary, it provides a framework for Direct Digital Democracy (D3GA) and a metapolitical dialogue between people of ALL stripes.

But if you had bothered to actually read the article you would already know that.

Say... Didn't we just have this conversation?

MVSN: "Same thing. In the end it would kill a lot of people."

Metapolitik: "Absurd and baseless statement... Nowhere in my article do I advocate killing anyone."

MVSN: "Sigh.... I didn't say you wanted to kill people"

...Now here here you are making the same accusation you claimed you never made, but did.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/approaching-a-metapolitical-discourse/#comment-447094