MarXX is Bad?????

Karl marx born in 1818 in prussia.

My Q is Y pepole still use marxis arguments even though 150 years have passed since he died?

Capitalism gained its prominence with the decrease in power of the Feudalist system around the time of the 16th century, although mercantile-style Capitalism has been around since the Middle Ages.

To be conservative with the number, fully-accepted Capitalism is probably 2 centuries older than the idea, not the practice, of Communism.

So why should we follow Capitalism when it's been 400 years since it first came about?

and because the problems of capitalism 150 years ago are still with us today

examples of continuing ideas that originated from a person even after they die include:

religion.
feudalism.
capitalism.
tribalism.
socialism.
culture/traditions.

I'm moving this topic to the opposition section.

SicSemperTryannis wrote:

Capitalism gained its prominence with the decrease in power of the Feudalist system around the time of the 16th century, although mercantile-style Capitalism has been around since the Middle Ages.

To be conservative with the number, fully-accepted Capitalism is probably 2 centuries older than the idea, not the practice, of Communism.

So why should we follow Capitalism when it's been 400 years since it first came about?

answer my Q first pleas.

solpacvoicis wrote:

examples of continuing ideas that originated from a person even after they die include:

religion.
feudalism.
capitalism.
tribalism.
socialism.
culture/traditions.

I'm moving this topic to the opposition section.

none invented capitalism, civilasation created it

Steel wrote:

and because the problems of capitalism 150 years ago are still with us today

yes none

well actually, i'm sure there was some ambiguous "first person" that started it first...

and from THAT point it develops largely on its own!

however, you also leave out key expansion on what exactly capitalism is, how it should work, etc....

look at adam smith =D

and just so you know, a lot of the things i listed may have sprung from one person, but people nowadays don't really know who it is....so...is the person being remembered central to your argument? i don't think so because i think that some people would still use some "marxist debate" even if they didn't know who marx was....

mattabesta wrote:

SicSemperTryannis wrote:

Capitalism gained its prominence with the decrease in power of the Feudalist system around the time of the 16th century, although mercantile-style Capitalism has been around since the Middle Ages.

To be conservative with the number, fully-accepted Capitalism is probably 2 centuries older than the idea, not the practice, of Communism.

So why should we follow Capitalism when it's been 400 years since it first came about?

answer my Q first pleas.

Because he was just as credible of a social scientist and economist as any other political theorist?

solpacvoicis wrote:

well actually, i'm sure there was some ambiguous "first person" that started it first...

and from THAT point it develops largely on its own!

however, you also leave out key expansion on what exactly capitalism is, how it should work, etc....

look at adam smith =D

and just so you know, a lot of the things i listed may have sprung from one person, but people nowadays don't really know who it is....so...is the person being remembered central to your argument? i don't think so because i think that some people would still use some "marxist debate" even if they didn't know who marx was....

no my point is that marxis m was created for a world 150 years ago when violent revolution was the only possible way to change things.

SicSemperTryannis wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

SicSemperTryannis wrote:

Capitalism gained its prominence with the decrease in power of the Feudalist system around the time of the 16th century, although mercantile-style Capitalism has been around since the Middle Ages.

To be conservative with the number, fully-accepted Capitalism is probably 2 centuries older than the idea, not the practice, of Communism.

So why should we follow Capitalism when it's been 400 years since it first came about?

answer my Q first pleas.

Because he was just as credible of a social scientist and economist as any other political theorist?

credible yes outdated yes

they still follow becuase of the wide sellings of his books ever year. and that it was popularizde by the ussr, people learn it and think its cool. marxism gets new followers ever month

enviro wrote:

they still follow becuase of the wide sellings of his books ever year. and that it was popularizde by the ussr, people learn it and think its cool. marxism gets new followers ever month

oh ok a straight forward answer TY

But aren't marxes Idears out dated?

he predicted that wages would fall, povrety increas and profits decline, none of those things have happend.
wages have risen and povrety has decresed and profits haven't declined.
Also he was born in the industryal revulution wich was a while back when it was the norm for kids as young as 6 to work in coal mines And the aristocracy had all the power and the pepole had none so there is no wonder that he wanted a violent uprising becuse there was no othere way at the time.

today the pepole have power and live much better lifes than before and getting wealthy isn´t limited to the aristocracy.

-_- have you even LOOKED at a third world country? they are NOT living better lives -_-

also, marx meant far off in the future....you know...when all nations are fully developed...?

this still hasn't happened yet ^_^

Yes standards have risin but they are beginning to fall. Even now in America the standards are falling greatly in health care and the wages are getting worse and worse

BAM!

^^btw its a link

Quote :

Dr Chitty says: "Why do I think Marx won? I would guess that it is because we live in a society increasingly permeated by capitalism and its logic. The ceaseless preoccupation with productivity and cost-efficiency, the daily bombardment of every household by TV advertising and junk mail, the continual transformation of our lives by new technology, the drive toward overt or covert privatisation, the widening national and international gaps between rich and poor, the destruction of environments, global warming, even in my view the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, are all driven by the logic of capitalism.

much more useful ^_^

solpacvoicis wrote:

-_- have you even LOOKED at a third world country? they are NOT living better lives -_-

also, marx meant far off in the future....you know...when all nations are fully developed...?

this still hasn't happened yet ^_^

much better lifes than long before, the media makes it look like pepole in 3rd world countryes are all starving and stuff but that'S not true the wast majoraty are well fed and economic growth is happening and qalaty of life is slowly improving.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Gdp_real_growth_rate_2007_CIA_Factbook.PNG

LOOOK at that pic, look only zimabawbe and chad are experinceing decrese in real gpd.

wages rose last Q...fact
the credit crisis is not something that will last it's effects are likley to dissapere completly by mid/late '09
not just that the credit crisis won't last it's origins are that the pepole can't pay becuse they got greedy and had to buy houses they cun't afford, putting it simple the pepole are the problem not the bank.

hey, um, in case you forgot, increase in GDP does NOT mean an improvement in standards -

here, i'll let you in on a little secret....

all the western governments pump MILLIONS of dollars into african governments, for good PR.

remove the millions of dollars to african governments - THEIR ECONOMIES COLLAPSE!!

this is NOT a sign of growth, its a sign of DEPENDENCY! also, for the vast majority of africans, your assuming that they are all healthy and fine and dandy for the most part, means that you would support the removal of western financial support - afterall, they don't need it anymore!

http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/english/regions/africa/index.htm

read THAT and THEN get back to me on how wealthy africans are!

i didn't tell you that africans were wealthy I told you they were slowly getting better....
I said real GPD i.e increas in purchasing power wich is btw an increas in standards.

pumping millions of dollars???????????????
you mean billions ofcours?
wtf do you mean that the aid already given can be withdrawn????????????????
wtf eaten stuff can't be retrived.????

mattabesta wrote:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Gdp_real_growth_rate_2007_CIA_Factbook.PNG

.

HAHA even though that proves nothing look what it came from...wikimedia and the CIA factbook

i was understating, but you got my point.

no, i meant removing aid in the future, it would cause their economy to collapse.

increase in GDP just means that AN increasing in purchasing power occurred, NOT everyone.

so, whereas there are a few select groups of people with tons of money, the majority of africans still live in poverty, with NO END IN SIGHT.

Ruadhan wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Gdp_real_growth_rate_2007_CIA_Factbook.PNG

.

HAHA even though that proves nothing look what it came from...wikimedia and the CIA factbook

the cia fackt book happens to be accuret.
or should I use date from marxworld?

the cia factbook told me that cubas litercay rating is 100% and that fidel s networth is 900 million

enviro wrote:

the cia factbook told me that cubas litercay rating is 100% and that fidel s networth is 900 million

why can't that be true?

the reason we still follow marx is because capitalisim stll lives and opresses working men
all over the world the best thing to do with marx's ideas is to take the base of them and morph them to modern times thus adjusting the system to work