Neo-Marxism and its flaws concerning economics dominance. (976 hits)
Category: Business & FinancialRating: -1.08 on 31 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by d_prime <dprime.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2005-10-23 21:47:39 EDT
'Neo-Marxism: groups who have economic dominance also dominate the other areas of society.'
10/23/05
Neo-Marxists typically make the argument that groups or individuals that have economic dominance also dominate other areas of 'society,' and that a free market, therefore, gives those with financial strength an unjust advantage over others. In order to judge this claim, one has to look specifically at what is meant by 'economic dominance' and what form of compulsion is used with it.
Human production is a process of taking an environment and changing it so that it is valuable to humans. Property rights protect one's ability to do this, because one's physical property represents one's efforts, or the efforts of those who worked on one's property knowing that it was yours. Of course, if a person wants a part of someone else's property and vice versa, it is beneficial to both of them if they exchange it. This is called trade, and allows specialization (someone becoming very good at producing a particular thing and then trading it.) Someone with 'economic dominance' is someone whose property is worth a lot to others, and therefore can compel them to use theirs a certain way because of the value that is offered.
Economics is the concept of human trade and the process of sharing production for various reasons. Someone with economic dominance on a free market attains their dominance through influencing others with the consent of that person (otherwise it would be coercive political dominance, through things such as socialism.) This dominance does not give one an unfair advantage, because the advantage is only over things one has produced, or over things that the producer is willing to give. Nobody can justify the claim that they have an inherent right to what others have produced.
John has a lot of apples. Chris has a lot of bananas. Phil convinces Chris to give him some bananas for free. Chris later decides not to because John is going to give him some apples in exchange for some bananas. Phil, at least if he supported this neo-marxist theory, would claim that John has influenced him without his consent because John's actions have caused him to no longer receive free bananas, because of economic influence. However, this is not an influence, but a lack of influence. Chris was going to influence Phil by giving him free bananas, but decided not to voluntarily, based on John's influence. Chris has no inherent right to Phil's production, and neither does John. Phil, the producer, voluntarily decided to trade with John instead of Chris. Economic influence is really just an influence over others to attain their voluntary consent, usually because one has a value to offer, such as John's apples.
In the same way, a publishing company may decide to give a contract to Microsoft instead of an arbitrary high school dropout because Microsoft has money. Thus, Microsoft is influencing the process of reading because of their 'economic power.' One might claim that Microsoft is, because of their money, not allowing others a chance to be heard. This is a false conclusion.
The high school dropout can, if he wants to, start his own publishing company, and go out on his own. Why not? The reason is that he can't. The publishing company, who can, chooses to use their resources to support Microsoft instead. No individual has a right to dispose of the publishing company's resources, except the owners of the company who produced it, or had it produced by others willingly in exchange for value (such as pay to a worker.) One might claim that this isn't just resources but the exchange of information, which is different. However, the people who read the content from that publishing company which has a contract with Microsoft could read the dropout's work, but don't. It is the reader's choice. If they don't read the person because he doesn't have the resources to build a publishing company and distribute his work properly, it is not the right of him or his potential readers to dispose of resources they can't produce.
During the American Presidential election of 2004, many protested against the two major party's right to use their (legally attained) high level of funding to advertise a lot, and thus (or so the claim goes) eliminate the competition. This, many claimed, made it 'a dollar per vote,' not 'a person per vote.' However, it was a person per vote when the final decision was made. If advertisement is why most people choose either the Republicans or the Democrats, it was their voluntary decision to do so. If one thinks that individuals aren't intelligent enough to know on which basis to vote and should be forcefully corrected, then they aren't supporting democracy. The only justified cure to stop advertising dollars, through the choice of the voters, from influencing the way governments are run, is to not let majority rule take individual rights at all. This, however, is a different issue altogether.
The Neo-Marxist theory that those with economic power have influence over other aspects of society, 'society' being every individual put together into a non-existent, theoretical entity, is actually correct. Economic dominance is the ability to influence others. It is not, however, an unfair advantage. If any individual doesn't want to accept that influence, they don't have to. They simply do, because of how much it offers.
User Reviews
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-03 19:53:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Unhealthy for whom? I don't recognize the right to sacrifice someone else for the health of a non-existent entity, be it called 'God' or be it called 'society.'
Bah, I'm tired of this debate. I'm hearing nothing new. I didn't even write this for ubersite. My mistake.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-11-03 17:08:09 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
nationalizing certain sectors of the economy is not unhealthy, quite the contrary
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-03 16:40:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ah, Williamson. My mistake. It is a philosophical issue.
I don't believe that one's interpritation of what's better for the average person is justification for the initiation of physical force. I'm not an altruist, nor do I believe that more people are better off under socialism, through both direct and theoretical evidence. I also don't believe that there's anything that can be referenced as 'the factories.' They came from somewhere. If creating them isn't special talent, I'm sure workers can do so themselves and live out their socialistic utopia on their own.
Yes, there are people who are worth as much more as anyone is more wealthy than someone else on a free market, unless they did it through preying on the irrational, in which case only those irrationals suffer because of that person's unfair wealth.
Now, do remember that this was an essay for a direct purpose that I happened to put on Ubersite. It was about that particular Neo-Marxist theory and nothing else.
Submitted by jeveuxgagner (user info) at 2005-11-02 23:59:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
needlessto say i agree with him
Submitted by jeveuxgagner (user info) at 2005-11-02 23:59:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
You're attacking left-wing socialism aka Unionism. Even I oppose the whining and bitching that carries on sometimes. You need to understand this Prime; this isn't about workers' rights. It's about assett distribution. That's all it is. Major assetts coming under state control for the greater good. When major industries become necessary for the state to survive, it makes perfect sense that for the good of the whole, the state controls them and benefits from them. That's all it is.
from williamson (i think)
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-11-02 23:49:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-10-27 14:49:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, Willamson, your use of the work 'fucking' made it harder to respect your rebut. A
s far as having a bunch of other people working on your farm: they wouldn't be working on it if they didn't benefit. As far as the success of socialist economies, look at the top 30 economically free countries in the world and the bottom 30. Then do the same for gdp per capita (okay, one can make the fair claim that Canada or Sweden have a higher quality of life than USA even though they have a lower GDP/Capita. You can't say that for the countries that are exponentially less.)
=-=-=--=-==-=-==--==-
Most nations with socialist economies have had a history of war and poverty they are still climbing out of. I hear racists make the same claim that white nations are superior and as a result the people driving those nations are fundamentally better. They forget the history. Remember that America's infrastructure was built with slaves. Remember the lucky predicament the yanks found themselves when the Europeans duked it out. In the last few centuries the world was split into the capitalists and the capitalised nations. The colonisers and the colonised. Those who were subjugated by the capitalist nations revolted into socialism (despite the fact that the industrialised, capitalists nations are the only ones who can really benefit from that system [Marx was talking about Western Europe, not South America or the Ruslands or SE Asia.]). If you do want some economically progressive examples of government I suggest you look at Nazi Germany and China. Both of them were/are socialist and both of them (barring a war) were/are to become the superpower of the world.
'Throw philosophy at it.' I'm not throwing philosophy at any government, nor did I use the word philosophy. Nothing I say applies any less because it could be considered to have a philosophical basis.
-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The whole "noone has an economic advantage over another" arguement looks philosophical to me, but for the sake of a civilised arguement let's leave this topic alone.
'Working 1600 times as hard'? No, probably not. Producing 1600 times as much? Likely. Seeing as human production comes primarily from man's mind (which is why animals that are much stronger than us aren't very technologically advanced,) some can produce a lot more than others.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=
The assetts they own are worth 1600 times more than the assetts of the worker bee, perhaps. But these individuals contributions to society is nothing near it. No one individual deserves hundreds of millions of dollars.
I'm sick of how much workers exploit employers these days. Employers being forced to deal with workers, needing the workers or else they won't be able to eat, the workers only doing it for their own benefit... You also may want to compare the pre-industrial quality of life to that of the 19th century and afterwards, which produced electricity etc. Hey, if you don't want to work in those evil factories, go out on your own!
=--=-==-=-=--=-=-=-==-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-
You're attacking left-wing socialism aka Unionism. Even I oppose the whining and bitching that carries on sometimes. You need to understand this Prime; this isn't about workers' rights. It's about assett distribution. That's all it is. Major assetts coming under state control for the greater good. When major industries become necessary for the state to survive, it makes perfect sense that for the good of the whole, the state controls them and benefits from them. That's all it is.
And I told you, I agree with factories. I love the mass production system. It makes my life better and easier. I just know that it can be done much much better if it was owned socially.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-01 19:03:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2005-11-01 17:08:43 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Absolutely no comment.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-10-27 14:49:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, Willamson, your use of the work 'fucking' made it harder to respect your rebut. A
s far as having a bunch of other people working on your farm: they wouldn't be working on it if they didn't benefit. As far as the success of socialist economies, look at the top 30 economically free countries in the world and the bottom 30. Then do the same for gdp per capita (okay, one can make the fair claim that Canada or Sweden have a higher quality of life than USA even though they have a lower GDP/Capita. You can't say that for the countries that are exponentially less.)
'Throw philosophy at it.' I'm not throwing philosophy at any government, nor did I use the word philosophy. Nothing I say applies any less because it could be considered to have a philosophical basis.
'Working 1600 times as hard'? No, probably not. Producing 1600 times as much? Likely. Seeing as human production comes primarily from man's mind (which is why animals that are much stronger than us aren't very technologically advanced,) some can produce a lot more than others.
I'm sick of how much workers exploit employers these days. Employers being forced to deal with workers, needing the workers or else they won't be able to eat, the workers only doing it for their own benefit... You also may want to compare the pre-industrial quality of life to that of the 19th century and afterwards, which produced electricity etc. Hey, if you don't want to work in those evil factories, go out on your own!
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-10-27 14:49:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, Willamson, your use of the work 'fucking' made it harder to respect your rebut. A
s far as having a bunch of other people working on your farm: they wouldn't be working on it if they didn't benefit. As far as the success of socialist economies, look at the top 30 economically free countries in the world and the bottom 30. Then do the same for gdp per capita (okay, one can make the fair claim that Canada or Sweden have a higher quality of life than USA even though they have a lower GDP/Capita. You can't say that for the countries that are exponentially less.)
'Throw philosophy at it.' I'm not throwing philosophy at any government, nor did I use the word philosophy. Nothing I say applies any less because it could be considered to have a philosophical basis.
'Working 1600 times as hard'? No, probably not. Producing 1600 times as much? Likely. Seeing as human production comes primarily from man's mind (which is why animals that are much stronger than us aren't very technologically advanced,) some can produce a lot more than others.
I'm sick of how much workers exploit employers these days. Employers being forced to deal with workers, needing the workers or else they won't be able to eat, the workers only doing it for their own benefit...
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-10-27 14:47:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, Willamson, your use of the work 'fucking' made it harder to respect your rebut. A
s far as having a bunch of other people working on your farm: they wouldn't be working on it if they didn't benefit. As far as the success of socialist economies, look at the top 30 economically free countries in the world and the bottom 30. Then do the same for gdp per capita (okay, one can make the fair claim that Canada or Sweden have a higher quality of life than USA even though they have a lower GDP/Capita. You can't say that for the countries that are exponentially less.)
'Throw philosophy at it.' I'm not throwing philosophy at any government, nor did I use the word philosophy. Nothing I say applies any less because it could be considered to have a philosophical basis.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-10-27 14:42:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
HFCS: I regret making that comment. It didn't give the 'don't post about economics and controversial issues on ubersite' impression that I intended, with reason. My bad.
If by 'fly' you mean be successful, my goal isn't to get high ratings, or else I actually wouldnt've posted it on Ubersite.
Willamson, I read your rebut and considered it. Thanks for the intelligent critique.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-10-24 22:24:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Prime, maybe you learned something from this, but I doubt it. . .
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2005-10-24 16:22:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Here's an example of -2ness for you.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-10-24 16:13:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
wtf im not
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2005-10-24 11:21:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Here's an example of economic dominance for you:
I copied this report and uploaded it into a site that pays for finished papers on various subjects. I put it in the Grade 10 -> Social Studies -> Economics section with the title "Neo-Marxism and its flaws concerning economics dominance".
Now I get paid for work that YOU did. Pretty great, huh?
Submitted by FuckTheArmy (user info) at 2005-10-24 04:06:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Wow. I'm one of these neo-marxists you refer to, and Williamson already said what I was gonna say.
Submitted by Barnymeinhoff (user info) at 2005-10-24 03:58:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Its a tad more complicated and sinister than that, why in fucking gods name does this have a negative rating???
Submitted by HighFructoseCornSyrup (user info) at 2005-10-24 01:20:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-10-23 21:49:32 (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 for posting this on Ubersite.
-------------
Because this bullshit would fly somewhere else?
Submitted by herbman (user info) at 2005-10-24 00:36:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I'm with Williamson on this one. And since I can't log in with my primary user, I have to use this one. G-Prime does not approve of this post. But -1 because it isn't totally don't bother. It did provoke some thought, even if it was just "What the fuck?". I've seen better, so -1 for effort.
Submitted by bowser (user info) at 2005-10-24 00:17:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
wtf i'm not reading all that
Submitted by bowser (user info) at 2005-10-24 00:16:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Dude, I posted a nonsensical title with a censored goatse picture and got all +2s except a +1. You posted a well-supported article on neo-Marxism and its disadvantages dealing with wealth and are getting all -2s with a spot of pity +1.
lolocaust
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-10-23 23:43:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
filling in for Steven Durel?
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-10-23 23:36:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Looks like you were gone the last three weeks for a reason:
You were in a time warp and somewhere in Russia. Do yourself
a favor, Prime. Stay the fuck out of politics.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-10-23 23:09:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Excuse me for a few spelling mistakes in my writing. I'm at work and keep minimising uber.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-10-23 22:51:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If only you had been born pre-industrial revolution your politics might hold some merit.
Socialised production is a whole new world and these so called "Neo-Marxists" you refer to, probably realise that society can grow stronger, healthier and quicker with Social ownership.
When John makes his fucking apples than all's fair in your little world. When John makes his money by simply owning a farm that is worked on by thousands of Toms, Dicks and Harrys then Johnny boy does have a bug fucking economic advantage and a big fucking economic dominance, whether you can philosophise it away or not.
The problem with most socialists/commies/pinkos/neo-marxists/whatever-you-wanna-call-em, is that they try to revert back to the days when those Tom Dick and Harrys each owned their own farms. This egalitarian ownership policy is a complete step backwards. Socialised production is the way of the future, and this has been known ever since we stopped producing with our own hands and began working in socialised factories.
The thing is, someone has to own these factories. Those who own the factories are (believe it or not) the ones with the power. They aren't particularly working harder for it, they're assetts are earning more through the fruits of other peoples' labour. This is an economic dominance of the have's over the have nots. Soon the tear between society grows and grows until today 1% of Americans own 40% of the wealth while 40% of Americans own less than 1%. But that MUST be because the rich are simply working 1600 times harder than the poor, hey D_Prime?
What we need is for socialised production to be owned socially. The greatest examples of societal growth can be seen with this sort of approach. Nazi Germany, being by far the greatest example, pulling itself out of smoulders within a couple decades to become an even greater superpower than before-hand. Social Produce. Social Ownership. Social Benefit.
Submitted by simple_catalyst (user info) at 2005-10-23 22:03:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
no use talking to these fucking
pinko's around here friend.
-2 for posting on ubersite.
Submitted by Dante_Alighieri (user info) at 2005-10-23 22:01:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2005-10-23 21:56:40 (#)
Ranking: -2
Yeah. Fuck other people.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2005-10-23 21:56:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yeah. Fuck other people.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
Submitted by Xcuses (user info) at 2005-10-23 21:54:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Seriously, you are 16 yrs old.
Go find some pussy man, this is just sad
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-10-23 21:49:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 for posting this on Ubersite.