Are the 1930s repeating themselves?

by **Ivan** Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:23 am

The Wall Street Crash in the USA in October 1929 affected the whole world, just as the recent credit crunch did. The American President, Herbert Hoover (Republican), had over-inflated the American economy by cutting the top rate of Income Tax from 73% to 24% (shades of Nigel Lawson’s 1988 Budget!), but he thought that “things would right themselves” and he did not support any government action.

How similar to the Tories, who, when they caused recessions in this country with their imbecile policies, said that “the recession must take its course”. More recently, Cameron and Osborne were clueless in 2008 as to how to react to the global crisis, contradicting themselves and each other over what was required, at one time advocating a “do nothing” approach, and another time advocating drastic cuts in spending while we were in recession..

Hoover’s “do nothing” approach led to unemployment in the USA reaching 13 million, with some people starving to death. Fortunately, the Americans voted in Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat) as President in 1932, whose ‘New Deal’ saw government action to help the distressed, to assist the recovery of the economy, and to reform industry and commerce. And it worked.

Britain was not so fortunate, since it had a Conservative-dominated government led by a Labour traitor. Unemployment pay was reduced by 10%, the ‘means test’ was introduced, teachers and civil servants had their salaries reduced by 15%. The government policy of spending less in times of slump (a mistake repeated by Thatcher in the 1980s and Cameron now) made matters worse, not better, since it deflated the economy still further. A recession turned into a depression. It was only when Britain began to re-arm in the face of Hitler’s behaviour, using money it had to borrow, that the economy began to grow again.

Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling learned from the mistakes of the past and followed the policy of John Maynard Keynes, Britain’s greatest ever economist. He advocated government spending in a recession, with the debt being reduced when the economy was growing again. Thanks to Brown and Darling, what could have been a depression on the scale of the 1930s was kept to a recession which ended after eighteen months. The important thing now is to encourage further growth in the economy and to gradually reduce the debt with tight control and sensible cuts in public spending, but that’s not what we’re getting from Cameron's government.

by oftenwrong Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:01 am

It's not so much a matter of the 1930s repeating themselves as an attempt at re-assertion of the Feudal System.

The Ruling classes miss the ritual tugging of the forelock and automatic deference from the lower-orders, and would like a return to the days of hunger, and gratitude for small mercies.

Beggin' your pardon, M'Lord.

by astra Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:53 am

Where they gonna' "Transport" us to now???

by bobby Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:12 pm

Hello V. After Camerons poor showing "who will have us ?"

by oftenwrong Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:19 pm

ORPHANS OF THE STORM

by Stox 16 Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:55 am

THE GREAT DEPRESSION OF 1929 AND THE WORLD BANKING CRISIS OF 2009.

Karl Marx saw recession and depression as unavoidable under free-market capitalism as there are no restrictions on accumulations of capital other than the market itself. In the Marxist view, capitalism tends to create unbalanced accumulations of wealth, leading to over-accumulations of capital which inevitably lead to a crisis. This especially sharp bust is a regular feature of the boom and bust pattern of what Marxists term "chaotic" capitalist development. It is a tenet of many Marxists groupings that such crises are inevitable and will be increasingly severe until the contradictions inherent in the mismatch between the mode of production and the development of productive forces reach the final point of failure. At which point, the crisis period encourages intensified class conflict and forces societal change. WIKIPEDIA

Given the Great Depression of 1929 and the World Banking Crisis of 2009. was Karl Marx right about free-market capitalism? if not why not? if yes why? a very fitting question i feel today. what do you think? looking back on this in terms of History. are there any lessons for today for us. I believe there are lessons for us.

by ROB Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:39 am

Given the Great Depression of 1929 and the World Banking Crisis of 2009. was Karl Marx right about free-market capitalism?

No. Karl Marx, a "kept" man, was an ideological idiot. Reality is a "bugga-bear' that Karl the Kept's pseudo-theoretical cacophony of phony philosophical babble couldn't defeat.

by oftenwrong Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:21 pm

It's no use just being "agin" something unless you have a working alternative.

by Penderyn Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:56 pm

Basically he was right, as was Darwin. Time moves on and sciences need to develop. Alas, the science of revolution ill-consorts with flabby private ambition!

by Stox 16 Sun Jan 01, 2012 1:04 am

Penderyn wrote:Basically he was right, as was Darwin. Time moves on and sciences need to develop. Alas, the science of revolution ill-consorts with flabby private ambition!

Well I have a feeling he was quite right myself.

by ROB Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:00 am

oftenwrong wrote:
It's no use just being "agin" something unless you have a working alternative.

Exactly.

by ROB Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:04 am

Penderyn wrote:
Basically he was right….

Stox 16 wrote:
… I have a feeling he was quite right…

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceased to exist 30 December 1919, twenty years two days ago, partially as a tribute to the utter idiocy of Karl Marx.

by Penderyn Sun Jan 01, 2012 2:28 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
Basically he was right….
Stox 16 wrote:
… I have a feeling he was quite right…

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceased to exist 30 December 1919, twenty years two days ago, partially as a tribute to the utter idiocy of Karl Marx.

Rubbish. It had almost nothing to do with Karl Marx: it was the State-capitalist creation of capitalist armies and the disintegration of the Russian working class, which was a small minority to begin with. Find that in Marx do!

by ROB Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:51 pm

Penderyn wrote:
Basically he was right….

RockOnBrother wrote:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceased to exist 30 December 1919, twenty years two days ago, partially as a tribute to the utter idiocy of Karl Marx.

Penderyn wrote:
Rubbish.

Au contraire. “Precious gems” is a bit more accurate; as a matter of fact, “precious gems” is dead-on accurate.

Penderyn wrote:
It had almost nothing to do with Karl Marx…

It had everything to do with Karl Marx, as in “no Karl Marx, no ‘Communist Manifesto’ and ‘Das Kapital’, no ‘Lenin and the boyz’, no ‘Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”

Penderyn wrote:
it was the State-capitalist creation of capitalist armies and the disintegration of the Russian working class…

It was the attempt to transform “Karl the Kept’s” fantasy into reality in the cold, hard, real world that cares nothing about those who worshipped and worship Karl Marx.

Penderyn wrote:
Find that in Marx do!

Been there, done that (insofar as reading “The Communist Manifesto” from cover to cover is concerned). For the remainder of my life, I’ve no intention of ever again finding anything in Marx’s works.

by Shirina Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:22 pm

In a complex issue like Marxism, no one is ever 100% wrong, not even Karl Marx. To say he was wrong is ignoring the facts.

Capitalism worked like a dream under a very specific set of circumstances. Those circumstances included having virtually no global competition. America was prodigiously successful in the years following WWII because the US had the largest economy and the only intact infrastructure. We were busily rebuilding Europe and Asia, and that put many, MANY Americans to work earning a good pay and a good pension. If you wanted to buy anything from shirt to a locomotive, you bought it from America. This created the illusion that capitalism and the profit motive was some magic formula for national prosperity.

But the moment the rest of the world fully recovered from WWII and started offering up real competition, America's prosperity INSTANTLY began to decline. Wages became stagnant, factories closed, unemployment climbed, the middle class shrank, poverty increased, jobs became more scarce, pensions were abolished, and our vaunted infrastructure began to collapse. In addition, the taxes on the wealthy (above $250k) dropped from 90% in 1950 to 36% in 2011, and people still whine about how the wealthy pay too much. This has depleted the coffers of the US government to such an extent that there is very little money to maintain and repair an infrastructure built in the 1950's and designed to last 50 years. Now that those 50 years have passed, we're facing a crisis.

Capitalism does not work unless it is mixed in with a bit of Marxism. All one has to do is look around and you can see the failure of capitalism everywhere - from the brown-outs in California to the Occupy Wall Street movement; from America having the third highest wealth disparity in the industrialized world to America being the ONLY First or Second World nation without nationalized health care. America has been screwing the pooch for the last 30 years, but we insist upon clinging to obsolete economic models that only worked well for a very brief time in our history.

by oftenwrong Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:35 pm

Marxism and Capitalism are two sides of the same coin, but either can be explained without reference to "Politics" if so desired.

It seems to me that Capitalism as a way of life corresponds rather closely with the unfortunate attribute of humans that we call greed, but in a more positive sense it serves a man's natural desire to improve his situation. The drawbacks are well-known, but as someone said a long time ago, it's the least worst of all the alternatives.

by Penderyn Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:49 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
Basically he was right….
RockOnBrother wrote:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceased to exist 30 December 1919, twenty years two days ago, partially as a tribute to the utter idiocy of Karl Marx.
Penderyn wrote:
Rubbish.

Au contraire. “Precious gems” is a bit more accurate; as a matter of fact, “precious gems” is dead-on accurate.

Penderyn wrote:
It had almost nothing to do with Karl Marx…

It had everything to do with Karl Marx, as in “no Karl Marx, no ‘Communist Manifesto’ and ‘Das Kapital’, no ‘Lenin and the boyz’, no ‘Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”

Penderyn wrote:
it was the State-capitalist creation of capitalist armies and the disintegration of the Russian working class…

It was the attempt to transform “Karl the Kept’s” fantasy into reality in the cold, hard, real world that cares nothing about those who worshipped and worship Karl Marx.

Penderyn wrote:
Find that in Marx do!

Been there, done that (insofar as reading “The Communist Manifesto” from cover to cover is concerned). For the remainder of my life, I’ve no intention of ever again finding anything in Marx’s works.

Chains of pretend logic can connect anything with anything. Marx is about the proletariat taking power. the USSR was about state capitalism and a new class, which morphed easily into the usual smelly gang of monopoly capitalists. What do you see as the point of these games of yours?

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:00 pm

Newspapers always refer to the size of something as a number of football pitches. If a Country it's x-times the size of Wales. But when it comes to economics, there is only ONE comparison, the Wall Street Crash of 1929 (more accurately 1930 - but who's counting?)

by sickchip Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:19 pm

Good, and astute, post from Shirina.

by Shirina Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:47 pm

At which point, the crisis period encourages intensified class conflict and forces societal change.

I believe it was the billionaire Warren Buffett who admitted that class warfare has been going on for decades, and "his side is winning." Those who coddle and defend the wealthy often accuse the middle and working classes of engaging in class warfare (or class "envy" as they like to erroneously call it), but the rich have been waging their side of the war quite effectively. Whereas the middle and working classes use noisy weapons like protests and strikes, the rich use silent killers like financial engineering and the privatizing of profit. The difference between the two are like bombs and missiles as opposed to a biological agent in the water supply. Often, it is the latter that kills the most people in the most efficient way.

We can see that Karl Marx is absolutely correct, and we can see that in the faces of every Occupy Wall Street protester. We have had protests before, but never against the very concept of capitalism. And it stands to reason that for every Occupy Wall Street protester sitting in a tent, there are a thousand or ten thousand others who support him. Americans are willing to put up with a lot of nonsense just so long as they can have their single family home, their 2.5 kids, a dog, and some shiny toys. However, the die-hard capitalists have over-played their hand and now fewer and fewer Americans are able to afford those things that once kept them placated and distracted. What's more, the capitalists know it, and this is why, I believe, many companies are retracting fees and charges when the people raise a fuss - they see the writing on the wall. It is also the reason why the GOP is not offering up any real viable candidates for the 2012 election; there is nothing they can do politically that will remain true to their pro-business ideology and not anger the bulk of the American people. Americans are starting to wake up from a 30 year long sleep.

We are starting to learn a lesson the British learned 60-some years ago. I have seen speeches from British PMs during the war who advocated a welfare state, a socialist state, because they experienced directly the horrors of WWII. That war, if nothing else, taught the British that a war like that can't be fought and won if the post-war plan is to just go back to the way things were before. America did not have Nazis flying swastikas above her cities, America did not have Nazi planes bombing our cities to rubble, America did not have her Jews rounded up and shipped off to death camps, and America never truly felt the Nazi jackboot on her throat. Roosevelt understood what we were really fighting for, which is why his 2nd Bill of Rights was proposed. But because America never faced those horrors, and because there was so much money to be made in the post-war era, we went back to "business as usual" using an 18th Century business model while the rest of the world evolved.

by ROB Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:32 pm

Penderyn wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
Basically he was right….
RockOnBrother wrote:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceased to exist 30 December 1919, twenty years two days ago, partially as a tribute to the utter idiocy of Karl Marx.
Penderyn wrote:
Rubbish.
RockOnBrother wrote:
Au contraire. “Precious gems” is a bit more accurate; as a matter of fact, “precious gems” is dead-on accurate.
Penderyn wrote:
It had almost nothing to do with Karl Marx…
RockOnBrother wrote:
It had everything to do with Karl Marx, as in “no Karl Marx, no ‘Communist Manifesto’ and ‘Das Kapital’, no ‘Lenin and the boyz’, no ‘Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”
Penderyn wrote:
it was the State-capitalist creation of capitalist armies and the disintegration of the Russian working class…
RockOnBrother wrote:
It was the attempt to transform “Karl the Kept’s” fantasy into reality in the cold, hard, real world that cares nothing about those who worshipped and worship Karl Marx.
Penderyn wrote:
Find that in Marx do!
RockOnBrother wrote:
Been there, done that (insofar as reading “The Communist Manifesto” from cover to cover is concerned). For the remainder of my life, I’ve no intention of ever again finding anything in Marx’s works.
Chains of pretend logic can connect anything with anything.

I agree. “Karl the Kept’s” great works of fantasy, The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, are excellent examples of “Chains of pretend logic.”

Penderyn wrote:
Marx is about the proletariat taking power.

“Karl the Kept” is about penning fantasy while being a kept man.

Penderyn wrote:
the USSR was about state capitalism and a new class…

The USSR was about embracing, and attempting to create a reality from, the penned fantasy of a kept man…

Penderyn wrote:
… which morphed easily into the usual smelly gang of monopoly capitalists.

… which damn near broke the economic backs of Russia, the Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, and more “stans” than I can count.

Penderyn wrote:
What do you see as the point of these games of yours?

If you desire to engage in “these games of [mine]” with me, you’re a decade or two tardy; my best “hoops” days are bit behind me. Probably for the best, in terms of your fate on the hardwood; I played to win, and I won often.

by sickchip Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:54 pm

Rock - are you defending poverty or greed?

by ROB Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:13 pm

sickchip wrote:
Rock - are you defending poverty or greed?

I am defending neither.

by Stox 16 Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:11 am

Penderyn wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
Basically he was right….
Stox 16 wrote:
… I have a feeling he was quite right…

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceased to exist 30 December 1919, twenty years two days ago, partially as a tribute to the utter idiocy of Karl Marx.

Rubbish. It had almost nothing to do with Karl Marx: it was the State-capitalist creation of capitalist armies and the disintegration of the Russian working class, which was a small minority to begin with. Find that in Marx do!

Your quite right. he thought it would happen in the UK. but not Russia nor would he of agreed with the USSR.

by Stox 16 Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:14 am

Shirina wrote:
At which point, the crisis period encourages intensified class conflict and forces societal change.
I believe it was the billionaire Warren Buffett who admitted that class warfare has been going on for decades, and "his side is winning." Those who coddle and defend the wealthy often accuse the middle and working classes of engaging in class warfare (or class "envy" as they like to erroneously call it), but the rich have been waging their side of the war quite effectively. Whereas the middle and working classes use noisy weapons like protests and strikes, the rich use silent killers like financial engineering and the privatizing of profit. The difference between the two are like bombs and missiles as opposed to a biological agent in the water supply. Often, it is the latter that kills the most people in the most efficient way.

We can see that Karl Marx is absolutely correct, and we can see that in the faces of every Occupy Wall Street protester. We have had protests before, but never against the very concept of capitalism. And it stands to reason that for every Occupy Wall Street protester sitting in a tent, there are a thousand or ten thousand others who support him. Americans are willing to put up with a lot of nonsense just so long as they can have their single family home, their 2.5 kids, a dog, and some shiny toys. However, the die-hard capitalists have over-played their hand and now fewer and fewer Americans are able to afford those things that once kept them placated and distracted. What's more, the capitalists know it, and this is why, I believe, many companies are retracting fees and charges when the people raise a fuss - they see the writing on the wall. It is also the reason why the GOP is not offering up any real viable candidates for the 2012 election; there is nothing they can do politically that will remain true to their pro-business ideology and not anger the bulk of the American people. Americans are starting to wake up from a 30 year long sleep.

We are starting to learn a lesson the British learned 60-some years ago. I have seen speeches from British PMs during the war who advocated a welfare state, a socialist state, because they experienced directly the horrors of WWII. That war, if nothing else, taught the British that a war like that can't be fought and won if the post-war plan is to just go back to the way things were before. America did not have Nazis flying swastikas above her cities, America did not have Nazi planes bombing our cities to rubble, America did not have her Jews rounded up and shipped off to death camps, and America never truly felt the Nazi jackboot on her throat. Roosevelt understood what we were really fighting for, which is why his 2nd Bill of Rights was proposed. But because America never faced those horrors, and because there was so much money to be made in the post-war era, we went back to "business as usual" using an 18th Century business model while the rest of the world evolved.

A very good and well thought out reply Shirina

by Stox 16 Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:18 am

Penderyn wrote:Marx is about the proletariat taking power. the USSR was about state capitalism and a new class, which morphed easily into the usual smelly gang of monopoly capitalists.

USSR was about state capitalism ....Cannot agree more with this

by ROB Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:24 am

Stox 16 wrote:
USSR was about state capitalism ....Cannot agree more with this

Lenin, Trotsky, et al. were disciples of Karl Marx. The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital were their Bibles. As dictated by Karl the Kept Marx in those Bibles, exercise of religion was outlawed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Capitalists don’t give a damn one way or the other about religion, or any other purported “opiate of the masses.” Had the USSR been about capitalism of any type, (a) USSR leaders would have been too busy making money to care about religion, and (b) the USSR would still be there. It was USSR leadership’s attempted obedience to Karl the Kept’s fantasies that doomed the USSR. That the result of this attempted obedience didn’t look like the model portrayed in Karl the Kept’s fantasy writings testifies to the fact that Karl the Kept’s fantasies (a) are not, (b) never were, and (c) never will be, workable in the real world.

Stox 16 wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
Chains of pretend logic can connect anything with anything. Marx is about the proletariat taking power.

Karl the Kept Marx is not about anything today. Karl the Kept Marx was about publishing works of fantasy while living as a kept man. “Chains of pretend logic” accurately describe Karl the Kept’s works of fantasy.

by Shirina Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:06 am

It was USSR leadership’s attempted obedience to Karl the Kept’s fantasies that doomed the USSR.

The USSR doomed itself by trying to maintain a "tit for tat" arms race with the vastly wealthier and more advanced United States. It was a massive financial drain, and the average Russian worker received no return on their labors - which is not what socialism was supposed to be. Unfortunately, Stalin, not Lenin, set the standard for the Soviet state. Lenin warned the Politburo not to allow Stalin to assume power, but to no avail. Thus a paranoid madman took the reins of a nation destined to become a superpower. Immediately, the changes began with Stalin's failed farming restructuring, the horrific purges of the Red Army, the abolishing of religion, and an obsessive drive to keep up with America (ironically, America dismantled most of its armed forces immediately after WWII giving Stalin the illusion that he was leaping ahead).

Stalin's actions were not hallmarks of communism, socialism or Marxism yet we in the West, as convenient propaganda, link the actions of a madman to his political and economic ideology. We do the same thing today by linking Islam with terrorism as if terrorism is a major tenant of the Muslim faith. In the most simplistic of terms, under socialism the worker works for the state and the state, in turn, gives back to the worker in equal quantities. This did not happen in Soviet Russia. Instead, the workers worked for the state, and the state spent all of the resources on an arms race. Very little went back to the people. Stalin set this precedent, and future premiers, party bosses, and presidents of Russia followed Stalin's lead.

I do not believe that a pure Marxist or socialist model can work ... just as I believe a pure capitalist system can never work. But as is so often the case, leaders rarely ever implement an ideology in the way it was intended, and that does not make for a poor showing of Karl Marx. Instead, it makes for a poor showing of the Russian leadership. And while we can both agree that the leadership did, indeed, doom the USSR, I see the reason for its demise entirely differently.

by ROB Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:24 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
It was USSR leadership’s attempted obedience to Karl the Kept’s fantasies that doomed the USSR.

Shirina wrote:
The USSR doomed itself by trying to maintain a "tit for tat" arms race with the vastly wealthier and more advanced United States. It was a massive financial drain, and the average Russian worker received no return on their labors - which is not what socialism was supposed to be.

Socialism and communism are not equivalents. Kibbutzum (possibly mis-spelled) are serious socialists who work, play, and live in working socialist communities. Kibbutzim are usually Jews, some of whom I suspect are religious Jews, and I’ve never heard of a kibbutzim being persecuted by her/his kibbutz for exercising religion, a forbidden “opiate of the masses” under one of Karl the Kept’s fantasies (he had many) called “communism.”

Shirina wrote:
I do not believe that a pure Marxist or socialist model can work ... just as I believe a pure capitalist system can never work.

The pure socialist model has existed from time to time, and does exist today. Marxism, being nothing more than attempted actualization of a fantasy, cannot exist in reality; thus, neither the USSR, the People’s Republic of China, nor any other “Marxist” society, has ever been Marxist in reality.

Theoretical mathematicians “kill” me getting in deep discussions over imaginary numbers. I’ve asked more hen one person whose livelihood (and with one person, his life) depended upon dead on accurate use of higher math, and not a one of them ever has used imaginary numbers. But that’s akin to what “Marxists” do every day, use imaginary “numbers” to make points about reality that when tested in the real world, simply don’ work.

I’m not an expert economist; when I need to consult the experts, I’ll be checking out a trio of native English speakers called Smith (bilingual probably), Keynes, and my main man, Dr. John Kenneth Galbraith, rather than a kept man’s admittedly beautiful, rambling fantasy about a real world from which he was shielded by his kept status.

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:29 am

It's not the only way Marx could have earned a living. There are hundreds of people in the world right now who are living comfortably off propogation of a theory.

"Just send $10 to this address, and the Way of Salvation shall be yours."

by Penderyn Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:07 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
Basically he was right….
RockOnBrother wrote:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceased to exist 30 December 1919, twenty years two days ago, partially as a tribute to the utter idiocy of Karl Marx.
Penderyn wrote:
Rubbish.
RockOnBrother wrote:
Au contraire. “Precious gems” is a bit more accurate; as a matter of fact, “precious gems” is dead-on accurate.
Penderyn wrote:
It had almost nothing to do with Karl Marx…
RockOnBrother wrote:
It had everything to do with Karl Marx, as in “no Karl Marx, no ‘Communist Manifesto’ and ‘Das Kapital’, no ‘Lenin and the boyz’, no ‘Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”
Penderyn wrote:
it was the State-capitalist creation of capitalist armies and the disintegration of the Russian working class…
RockOnBrother wrote:
It was the attempt to transform “Karl the Kept’s” fantasy into reality in the cold, hard, real world that cares nothing about those who worshipped and worship Karl Marx.
Penderyn wrote:
Find that in Marx do!
RockOnBrother wrote:
Been there, done that (insofar as reading “The Communist Manifesto” from cover to cover is concerned). For the remainder of my life, I’ve no intention of ever again finding anything in Marx’s works.
Chains of pretend logic can connect anything with anything.

I agree. “Karl the Kept’s” great works of fantasy, The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, are excellent examples of “Chains of pretend logic.”

Penderyn wrote:
Marx is about the proletariat taking power.

“Karl the Kept” is about penning fantasy while being a kept man.

Penderyn wrote:
the USSR was about state capitalism and a new class…

The USSR was about embracing, and attempting to create a reality from, the penned fantasy of a kept man…

Penderyn wrote:
… which morphed easily into the usual smelly gang of monopoly capitalists.

… which damn near broke the economic backs of Russia, the Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, and more “stans” than I can count.

Penderyn wrote:
What do you see as the point of these games of yours?

If you desire to engage in “these games of [mine]” with me, you’re a decade or two tardy; my best “hoops” days are bit behind me. Probably for the best, in terms of your fate on the hardwood; I played to win, and I won often.

I feel that establishing liklihood about reality is rather more important.

by ROB Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:29 am

Penderyn wrote:
What do you see as the point of these games of yours?

RockOnBrother wrote:
If you desire to engage in “these games of [mine]” with me, you’re a decade or two tardy; my best “hoops” days are bit behind me. Probably for the best, in terms of your fate on the hardwood; I played to win, and I won often.

Penderyn wrote:
I feel that establishing liklihood about reality is rather more important.

Good luck with “establishing likelihood about reality” by relying on the fantasy works of an out-of-touch-with-reality kept man.

by Stox 16 Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:54 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
What do you see as the point of these games of yours?
RockOnBrother wrote:
If you desire to engage in “these games of [mine]” with me, you’re a decade or two tardy; my best “hoops” days are bit behind me. Probably for the best, in terms of your fate on the hardwood; I played to win, and I won often.
Penderyn wrote:
I feel that establishing liklihood about reality is rather more important.

Goo luck with “establishing likelihood about reality” by relying on the fantasy works of an out-of-touch-with-reality kept man.

The Communist Manifesto, written and published in 1848, remains one of the most influential writings in history, for its ethics and the actions that it inspired. While being propagandistic in its tone, and clear in its message to all workers to consolidate and unite against the oppression of capitalist economists, the manifest of the Communist Party retains an ethical component not to be denied. Many liberal politicians may criticize the practical ideas of Karl Marx and followers such as Russian Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin, but proponents of the ‘revolution’ consistently refer to the moral values and goals laid out by Marx and Friedrich Engels in the manifesto. Although the actions of a select few may have tainted Marxist politics forever in the eyes of liberal democrats, the actual ethical principles held by Karl Marx are undeniably utopian.

The liberation and emancipation of the human race as a whole is a pure and true dream and an ideal worth striving for. Liberals and conservatives hold this belief as strongly as Karl Marx did during his study of the capitalist system and its dark side. The philosophers of previous generations and revolutions stated that human liberty is only possible through cooperation. Participation in democracy and strong governance to enforce rule of law and protect liberties of all classes and individuals was an ideal Marx shared with the capitalist founders of America. Government was to restrain the destructive urges of man and point them in a constructive direction without infringing on his or her desires. Although this idea of liberty as stated by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke came to fruition during the American Revolution and constitutional period, a system of laissez-faire economics became an indisputable contributor to the liberal democratic revolutions of the time. Like the representative democracy, free market economics sought to allow individuals the freedom and liberty to pursue sustenance independently in order to harness the creative ability of man to prosper in and adapt to different market

http://nuyorican21.hubpages.com/hub/Marxism-Still-Relevant

I think very few in the academic world in the UK would agree with you. Karl Marx is still studied in UK universities today.

John Cassidy wrote of Marx, “His books will be worth reading as long as capitalism endures.” That would appear to mean that Marxism and capitalism are symbiotic, and that neither can expect to outlive the other, which is not quite what the prophet intended when he sat all those arduous days in that library in Bloomsbury, and swore hotly to Engels, “I hope the bourgeoisie will remember my carbuncles until their dying day.”

Christopher Hitchens is an Atlantic contributing editor and a Vanity Fair columnist.

by Stox 16 Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:34 am

yes is my answer Ivan. There are many links between 2008 and the Great depression

by ROB Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:25 am

Stox 16 wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
What do you see as the point of these games of yours?
RockOnBrother wrote:
If you desire to engage in “these games of [mine]” with me, you’re a decade or two tardy; my best “hoops” days are bit behind me. Probably for the best, in terms of your fate on the hardwood; I played to win, and I won often.
Penderyn wrote:
I feel that establishing liklihood about reality is rather more important.
RockOnBrother wrote:
Goo luck with “establishing likelihood about reality” by relying on the fantasy works of an out-of-touch-with-reality kept man.

Stox 16 wrote:
I think very few in the academic world in the UK would agree with you.

I know that Dr. John Kenneth Galbraith, PhD, an incredible economist, social scientist, and one of Canada’s finest gifts to the worldwide academic community, predicted the internal economic collapse and implosion of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics nearly twenty years prior to its cessation of existence.

The year was 1973. Dr. Galbraith predicted that, due to the non-workability of Marxism/communism, whenever the West ceased active militarily opposition to the USSR (as in the Korean and Vietnam wars by proxy), the USSR would disappear within twenty years. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics dissolved with barely a whimper 30 December 1991. Dr. Galbraith was generous (by two years).

Stox 16 wrote:
Karl Marx is still studied in UK universities today.

That fact impresses me not at all. I studied Karl the Kept four decades ago, reading his number one with a bullet best selling fantasy fiction, The Communist Manifesto, from cover to cover, and his more voluminous and tedious fantasy fiction work, Das Kapital, in and with sufficient thoroughness to understand unto mastery its tenets.

I also read Hawaii from cover to cover. I prefer Michener.

Stox 16 wrote:
John Cassidy wrote of Marx, “His books will be worth reading as long as capitalism endures.”

I write of Karl the Kept, “His books of fantasy will stand as testaments to the foolishness of Karl the Kept as long as humanity endures.”

Stox 16 wrote:
That would appear to mean that Marxism and capitalism are symbiotic, and that neither can expect to outlive the other…

That would appear to mean nothing. Capitalism has existed since man transitioned from expending all available energy on survival to having energy left over after survival had been secured. Marxism, conversely, has never exited in the real world.

Those who worship Marxism remind me so much of certain theoretical mathematicians under whom I once studied while a physics student, who, to the delight of the mathematics majors and chagrin of the physics and engineering majors, insisted upon delving into and residing within the world of imaginary numbers. I’m sorry, my friend, but unbridled enthusiasm for the study of stuff that does not and cannot exist in the real world just isn’t my cup of “joe.”

Stox 16 wrote:
… which is not quite what the prophet intended when he sat all those arduous days in that library in Bloomsbury, and swore hotly to Engels, “I hope the bourgeoisie will remember my carbuncles until their dying day.”

I’d rather not fill my head with the fanciful musings of Karl the Kept. Fantasies wrapped in philosophical language also are not my cup of “joe.” Also note that “arduous” is a bit more closely associated with working for a loving by the sweat of one’s brow up to twelve hours per day and up to seven days per week than it is with sitting on one’s hindquarters in a library from time to time whilst living on someone else’s dime.

Stox 16 wrote:
Christopher Hitchens is an Atlantic contributing editor and a Vanity Fair columnist.

Dr. John Kenneth Galbraith “was a prolific author who produced four dozen books and over a thousand articles on various subjects. Among his most famous works was a popular trilogy on economics, American Capitalism (1952), The Affluent Society (1958), and The New Industrial State (1967).”

Dr. Galbraith “taught at Harvard University for many years.”

Dr. Galbraith “was active in Democratic Party politics, serving in the administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.”

Dr. Galbraith “was one of a select few people to be awarded the Medal of Freedom, in 1946, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2000, for services to economics.”

Quoted text retrieved 6 January 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kenneth_Galbraith

(Wikipedia) Creative Commons Deed

You are free:

to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
to Remix—to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Retrieved 2 August 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

by ROB Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:49 am

“ Are the 1930s repeating themselves?”

Having heard first-person accounts of the 1930s, no. During then1930s, high school and college (“university”) graduates couldn’t get jobs at the post office because lawyers (“solicitors” and “barristers”) already had ‘em. The only Black professions assured employment in 1930s Texas were teachers (earning perhaps 10% of pre-depression salaries), preachers (who got paid in chickens and dinner invitations), and undertakers (because people die even in a depression).

My uncle, a teacher (that’s how I know about the drastically reduced pay) offered to buy a foreclosed-upon property for a dime on the dollar. The banker laughed him out of his office. Less than six months later, the banker called my uncle and offered to sell the property at that dime on the dollar price. My uncle refused and offered to buy at a nickel on the dollar. He got the property. Although he was barely earning a nickel, at least he had a job and was earning something.

by Shirina Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:11 pm

It's not so much a matter of the 1930s repeating themselves as an attempt at re-assertion of the Feudal System.

And there you have it.

by Penderyn Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:24 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Stox 16 wrote:
USSR was about state capitalism ....Cannot agree more with this

Lenin, Trotsky, et al. were disciples of Karl Marx. The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital were their Bibles. As dictated by Karl the Kept Marx in those Bibles, exercise of religion was outlawed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Capitalists don’t give a damn one way or the other about religion, or any other purported “opiate of the masses.” Had the USSR been about capitalism of any type, (a) USSR leaders would have been too busy making money to care about religion, and (b) the USSR would still be there. It was USSR leadership’s attempted obedience to Karl the Kept’s fantasies that doomed the USSR. That the result of this attempted obedience didn’t look like the model portrayed in Karl the Kept’s fantasy writings testifies to the fact that Karl the Kept’s fantasies (a) are not, (b) never were, and (c) never will be, workable in the real world.

Stox 16 wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
Chains of pretend logic can connect anything with anything. Marx is about the proletariat taking power.

Karl the Kept Marx is not about anything today. Karl the Kept Marx was about publishing works of fantasy while living as a kept man. “Chains of pretend logic” accurately describe Karl the Kept’s works of fantasy.

If you want the human race to survive (and quite possibly you don't), you had better start trying to change the system fast - it is collapsing already. If you do want to change it you will have to look at the only organised thought-system that deals with how you do that thing, the science of revolution begun by Marx and Engels. The crooks have always come out with the same old tired blather and bluster, varying it from stage to stage of capitalist madness. What is the point of shovelling out the same old crap for your masters year after year? Do they pay you? It is difficult to learn to think outside their hutch, but if you want to be human, that is the place to be.

by Stox 16 Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:42 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Stox 16 wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
What do you see as the point of these games of yours?
RockOnBrother wrote:
If you desire to engage in “these games of [mine]” with me, you’re a decade or two tardy; my best “hoops” days are bit behind me. Probably for the best, in terms of your fate on the hardwood; I played to win, and I won often.
Penderyn wrote:
I feel that establishing liklihood about reality is rather more important.
RockOnBrother wrote:
Goo luck with “establishing likelihood about reality” by relying on the fantasy works of an out-of-touch-with-reality kept man.
Stox 16 wrote:
I think very few in the academic world in the UK would agree with you.

I know that Dr. John Kenneth Galbraith, PhD, an incredible economist, social scientist, and one of Canada’s finest gifts to the worldwide academic community, predicted the internal economic collapse and implosion of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics nearly twenty years prior to its cessation of existence.

The year was 1973. Dr. Galbraith predicted that, due to the non-workability of Marxism/communism, whenever the West ceased active militarily opposition to the USSR (as in the Korean and Vietnam wars by proxy), the USSR would disappear within twenty years. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics dissolved with barely a whimper 30 December 1991. Dr. Galbraith was generous (by two years).

Stox 16 wrote:
Karl Marx is still studied in UK universities today.

That fact impresses me not at all. I studied Karl the Kept four decades ago, reading his number one with a bullet best selling fantasy fiction, The Communist Manifesto, from cover to cover, and his more voluminous and tedious fantasy fiction work, Das Kapital, in and with sufficient thoroughness to understand unto mastery its tenets.

I also read Hawaii from cover to cover. I prefer Michener.

Stox 16 wrote:
John Cassidy wrote of Marx, “His books will be worth reading as long as capitalism endures.”

I write of Karl the Kept, “His books of fantasy will stand as testaments to the foolishness of Karl the Kept as long as humanity endures.”

Stox 16 wrote:
That would appear to mean that Marxism and capitalism are symbiotic, and that neither can expect to outlive the other…

That would appear to mean nothing. Capitalism has existed since man transitioned from expending all available energy on survival to having energy left over after survival had been secured. Marxism, conversely, has never exited in the real world.

Those who worship Marxism remind me so much of certain theoretical mathematicians under whom I once studied while a physics student, who, to the delight of the mathematics majors and chagrin of the physics and engineering majors, insisted upon delving into and residing within the world of imaginary numbers. I’m sorry, my friend, but unbridled enthusiasm for the study of stuff that does not and cannot exist in the real world just isn’t my cup of “joe.”

Stox 16 wrote:
… which is not quite what the prophet intended when he sat all those arduous days in that library in Bloomsbury, and swore hotly to Engels, “I hope the bourgeoisie will remember my carbuncles until their dying day.”

I’d rather not fill my head with the fanciful musings of Karl the Kept. Fantasies wrapped in philosophical language also are not my cup of “joe.” Also note that “arduous” is a bit more closely associated with working for a loving by the sweat of one’s brow up to twelve hours per day and up to seven days per week than it is with sitting on one’s hindquarters in a library from time to time whilst living on someone else’s dime.

Stox 16 wrote:
Christopher Hitchens is an Atlantic contributing editor and a Vanity Fair columnist.

Dr. John Kenneth Galbraith “was a prolific author who produced four dozen books and over a thousand articles on various subjects. Among his most famous works was a popular trilogy on economics, American Capitalism (1952), The Affluent Society (1958), and The New Industrial State (1967).”

Dr. Galbraith “taught at Harvard University for many years.”

Dr. Galbraith “was active in Democratic Party politics, serving in the administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.”

Dr. Galbraith “was one of a select few people to be awarded the Medal of Freedom, in 1946, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2000, for services to economics.”

Quoted text retrieved 6 January 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kenneth_Galbraith

(Wikipedia) Creative Commons Deed

You are free:

to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
to Remix—to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Retrieved 2 August 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

That fact impresses me not at all. I studied Karl the Kept four decades ago, reading his number one with a bullet best selling fantasy fiction, The Communist Manifesto, from cover to cover, and his more voluminous and tedious fantasy fiction work, Das Kapital, in and with sufficient thoroughness to understand unto mastery its tenets.
Well was not interested in impressing anyone. as there is no need to on this subject at all. I believe his work stands by itself. you do not. fine its your view but not mine.

Dr. Galbraith “taught at Harvard University for many years.”

Sorry to say but Karl Marx will out live Dr Gilbraith's view on this subject

The fact is we can go on trading links on this for years. but I happen to believe you will always hold your views on this subject while I will never share them.

by ROB Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:16 pm

Stox 16 wrote:
I believe his work stands by itself.

Karl the Kept’s works stand by themselves as irrelevant museum pieces.

Stox 16 wrote:
Sorry to say but Karl Marx will out live Dr Gilbraith's view on this subject

Social scientists are partially evaluated on the accuracy of their predictions.

Karl the Kept predicted the demise of things which have outlived his flights of fantasy and fabrications of pseudo-economics and accompanying pseudo-political science.

Dr. John Kenneth Galbraith predicted the demise of the first nation founded upon Karl the Kept’s pseudo-economics and accompanying pseudo-political science; specifically, he predicted its demise twenty years after the West ceased directly opposing it militarily, even in proxy wars. The prediction was published in 1973, the year the US pulled out of Vietnam and by so doing ceased directly opposing that nation militarily; on 399 December 1991, that nation ceased to exist.

Karl the Kept predicted; the opposite came to pass. Dr. Galbraith predicted; his prediction came to pass.

by Sponsored content