You're viewing a single thread.
Come on in. I define myself as a centrist liberal. I think Israel is a criminal apartheid government. I think healthcare is a human right. I also think a market economy is the most efficient way to enrich the proletariat so Marx can stuff it.
And you can be wrong about that last sentence.
You ignore the unequal exchange and imperialism of developing nations the US dominates. Those people are workers too.
That just means that the US dominates and exploits people, it doesn't mean that market economies inherently lead to that. China implemented market economies within its centrally planned system for a reason.
Yes, but they said it is "the most efficient way to enrich the proletariat". Market economies can be fine but to place the emphasis on it being the driver is just silly.
It doesn't need to be the driver to be a necessary component or catalyst.
And it isn't.
I never mentioned the US
OK, there's market economies everywhere. Why is wealth so unequally distributed, within those countries and globally?
Why is a dog's asshole so delicious?
There isn't a single example of Marxism actually helping. Ever.
There is no example of marxism being seriously implemented, it’s always been used as aesthetics and excuses for authortarian government who want total economical control.
Those governments never implement true workplace democracy or worker control over the means of production.
That doesn’t mean marxism can’t work, just no one’s seriously tried. At a small scale it definitely can work, anarchist communes are often successful, despite the best efforts of governments to sabotage them however they can.
There it is. No true Marxist
If 100 people came and claimed to save a forest by setting fire to it, will you say that everyone who tries to save a forest actually wants to set it on fire?
Anarchy and Marxism aren't the same thing, lmao
Anarchist communes tend to be collectivist, (anarcho-communist).
Ukraine Free Territory, Rojava, etc.
Can you answer the question? Either one because the latter would at least be funny.
Sure. Wealth inequality is so rampant because most governments look after the wealthy while ignoring the poor and giving lip service to the middle class
E: gonna have to ask the dog about the second question. Much like Rocky Mountain Oysters I'll never know because I'll never try.
Ok, how do we solve that? More markets? Based on what you said above, that sounds like your solution.
I'm of the opinion that workers need ownership of the companies they work for instead of capitalist ownership, but that's just me. After all, they're the ones doing the work by definition.
Cool! Get together and create a company. Boom, all those people own it.
"Don't like slavery? Well start a farm picking cotten with all of your non-slaves then! Easy." - You in pre-civil war America probably.
All well and good, but that doesn't change how the system in of itself is exploitative (obviously less so than slavery), and we should not allow such strong private property rights. Capitalists are leeching your labor value, don't lick their boots in the process.
What's the alternative, the state leeching my labor value? How do the workers own the means of production if they don't create the means of production?
Someone has to provide the capital (oooh, scary word) to start the whole enterprise. If that's you and me coming together with a couple of computers and a grand idea or a truck and set of tools and we're going to go repair people's houses, the market is the best way for us to thrive.