Emma_85 wrote:I've lost my Nietzsche Texts (Antichrist and some other one, which would be quite helpful in this debate, as you seem to take sides with Nietzsche on the subject of compassion.
I don't know if I take sides with Nietzsche or not. Did he argue that compassion is good, but forced compassion is not good (nor compassion at all)? Because that's what I'm arguing. It doesn't sound like Nietzsche, though.
Emma_85 wrote:Lol, well I’ll start with explaining Marxist theory and it’s big fault (which is not in economics, but in humans). Not saying that doesn’t make the fault less of a fault, it’s still a flawed theory, and Marx should have known better, but it’s just so not anything to do with the economics.
No, you're wrong. No economists nowadays, except the die-hard Marxists, believe in the labor theory of value. Without it, Marxist exploitation theory crumbles.
Emma_85 wrote:Mit der Besitzergreifung der Produktionsmittle durch die Gesellschaft (that is that not that the state should take over the companies, but with Gesellschaft he means the people, the workers. Marx knew that otherwise you would just end up with a new upper class)
You don't need to quote the original; I don't read German.
The problem with this idea is that you need a chain of command to run large companies. The "workers" alone would not be able to spontaneously run a large corporation. If they elected from amongst them to do it, 1) they would probably elect the wrong people, much like the politicians that we elect nowadays are usually the wrong people, and 2) those elected people would be the new upper class.
Emma_85 wrote:here he means that it’s not us, who decide what we buy, but the producers. We don’t have a choice is what he says. Now this is important to understand, this is where he sees that the people of the middle classes are in fact in chains, even though they are golden ones, because they just think they are free to choose, but in fact they aren’t.
I've always thought that line of thought was really silly. Nothing makes me buy cable TV, for instance (which is why, in fact, I don't
buy it). This theory that you are being manipulated into buying things that you don't really want is just the Marxist way of saying that Marx and the Marxist intellectuals really know what you want better than you do yourself, so you should let them
decide. It's just a facile justification for the existence of a Marxist ruling class and a command economy.
Emma_85 wrote:Ok, I can choose where I buy my crisps from one company or the other, but well... think about it, what sort of choice is that, and why do I buy crisps anyway?
Because you like the taste of them?
Emma_85 wrote:So in capitalism you produce things we don’t need, but must buy, and in socialism we only produce what we need.)
No, in socialism, the people produce what the Marxist intellectual ruling class decides that people need, as opposed to what the people themselves decide they need, or want.
Emma_85 wrote:Die Anarchie (here he means the unorganised economy, (and you can’t deny that it’s totally unorganised now, can you), and the economic cycles))
There are very good explanations for why an unplanned economy is better than a planned one (read Hayek sometime), which revolve around the idea that no central planning committee of Marxist intellectuals can possibly have enough knowledge to efficiently allocate capital, and even if they did, they would allocate it according to their own selfish agenda (maintaining power), rather than according to the desires of everyday people. Besides which, an unplanned economy has the great advantage of being decentralized, so that no one person or small group of people have all power over everything. Having that much power in the hands of one small group is extremely dangerous.
And contrary to most theories of business cycles, the biggest cause of them nowadays is artificial increases in the money supply by governments that still buy into Keynesian economics.
Emma_85 wrote:we think that the laws of economics have to apply and that they are like natural laws not things humans can make, but that isn’t true, which just goes to show how much we are people of our time and of this system.
The laws of economics are not just "like" natural laws; they are
natural laws. By trying to deny the nature of human beings, and pretending that humanity is a blank slate that anything can be written on, Marxists make their biggest errors and justify their worst atrocities.
Emma_85 wrote:in Marxist theory every one should earn the same amount of money.
Emma_85 wrote:Just because you're intelligent and therefore have a better job does not mean you are entitled to more pay.
Well, yeah, sure it does. Even under the Labor Theory of Value, it would follow that the more a person produces, the more he should be paid. And smarter people tend to be more efficient producers.
Emma_85 wrote:The fact that you are allowed to do a fun job (well more fun that shovelling coal for example) is a big enough bonus in itself sort of, no need to reward you for having more fun than others.
The only problem with this logic is that the more high-paying jobs aren't necessarily all that fun. The only thing that makes them fun, i.e. gives the smart people who can do them the incentive to do them, is the high pay. Take away the high pay incentives, and nobody will do these jobs, much less the smart people who can do them. When nobody does these jobs, the whole economy tanks, and everybody is worse off.
Emma_85 wrote:Also people are voted into positions (like all the teachers are voted for by the parents and students and the directors by the workers) and can be voted out of their positions at any time, too.
You can already do that with jobs, by voting with your feet, i.e. quitting and getting another job. And if schooling were privatized, you be able to do the same with schools.
Emma_85 wrote:The whole theory is regional. You only produce what you need in your town for example, there's nothing like the state really,
Do you think that a regional economy that only produced enough for its own little region would really be able to sustain the size of populations that we have nowadays in the Western world? Could New York City feed itself? The only thing that enables the world to feed itself as well as it does now is the specialization brought about by the division of labor in a modern capitalist economy. Going back to an overly romanticized cottage industry society would kill millions by starvation. The West would be like India.
I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!