Karl Marx Was Wrong

It appears that we are not the only people who are debating Marx, Darwin and the wrongheadedness of Marxism. The following is from Madsen Pirie, Ph. D.

Dr. Pirie is president of the Adam Smith Institute.  According to the Adam Smith Institute website, Dr. Pirie:

…subscribes to a broadly empirical and libertarian philosophy and values the insights of the Austrian School of Economics.  He has written books on logic, philosophy, economics, and children’s science fiction.  His own website is at www.madsen-pirie.com.

In response to the debate proposition,

Karl Marx was right. Capitalism post-2008 is falling apart under Its own contradictions.

Dr. Pirie responds:

Like many public figures who leave a legacy, either in their writings or their deeds, Karl Marx was sometimes right and sometimes wrong.  I concentrate on some of the things about which he was wrong.

He was wrong to predict that history would take us to the inevitable triumph of the proletariat and then stop.  History shows no signs of doing either.  Marx was also wrong to suggest that this would happen first in the most advanced economies as the final stage of capitalism.  In fact such revolutions as came took place in less developed economies such as Russia and China.  It has not happened in the advanced economies, and this could be because Marx was wrong about something else.

He predicted that capitalism would drive down wages to survival level before its final denouement.  In fact as economies became more advanced, both wages and living standards rose to levels not even dreamt of in Marx’s day, and this seems to have lowered the pressure for revolutionary change.

Marx was also wrong about something more fundamental.  He was wrong about change.  I don’t just mean that he was wrong about the changes that would come about; more fundamentally he was wrong about how change takes place.  He took the Hegelian model of change.

To Hegel change comes about through staccato triangles.  A state of affairs nurtures its opposite, and from the violent clash between the two a new state of affairs emerges.  Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis.  Violence is at the core of it, and hence Marx’s commitment to revoution.

But Marx was a contemporary of Darwin.  He had read Darwin’s “Origin of Species” and admired Darwin’s account of the origins of humankind. He failed, however, to spot the significance of Darwin’s theory of change and to incorporate it into his own programme.  [Funny that everybody in the world knows about the connection between Darwin and Marx except our friend, the useful idiot Karl – ed.]

Darwin advanced a gradual mechanism of change in which small differences gradually come to dominate over time.  It is evolutionary, not revolutionary, and is a much more accurate description of how change usually happens in human societies than was Hegel’s account.  Indeed, Darwin was right and Hegel was wrong.  This means that Marx was also wrong, wrong about change, and wrong about how capitalism would develop.

The point is that capitalism changes and evolves.  It has been through many transformations.  The capitalism that Marx thought would collapse under its own contradictions is not the capitalism of today – the one this motion refers to.

In the material world organisms evolve.  They respond to crises and they change.  A similar thing happens with our social practices.  They evolve and adapt to new circumstances.

Capitalism has faced many crises, and each time it has evolved and changed.  Each time a new form of capitalism has emerged to solve the problems its predecessor faced.  This is how human beings progress.  We solve our problems by adapting our practices.

Capitalism certainly faced a crisis in 2008, but it is still with us, as yet uncollapsed.  It is evolving and responding to the changes that are needed and, as before, when the dust of crisis has settled, it will be a new version of capitalism that goes on to generate more wealth and to expand the opportunities open to humankind.

That new version of capitalism that emerges will have to be one which somehow manages to keep at arm’s length the politicians wanting to fix its outcomes for political advantage.  Greedy bankers can only take reckless risks if politicians make it cheap for them to do so by turning on the taps of credit and money.  Politicians like booms and bubbles because they help them to win elections and office, so procedures must be found that limit their ability to do this.  Those whose greed is for power are no less deadly than those who greed is for gain, and both need rules to circumscribe their scope for action.

I wish to make a further point: that capitalism will survive because it is the only valid way we have found that works in practice to create wealth and the opportunities it brings.

Marx was wrong about another important thing.  He subscribed to the labour theory of value, believing that the value of a thing arises from the labour put into producing it.  Wrong.  Value is based on demand.  If no-one wants a thing, then no matter how much labour went into producing it, it is valueless.

We all value things differently, which is why trade takes place.  We trade because we each put greater value on what the other person has than on what we are offering in exchange.  We both gain more value when we trade, and that’s how we create wealth.

W produce in order to trade and to create wealth, and we invest in order to produce.  That’s in essence what capitalism is, and it works – certainly better than anything else that has been tried.  And it works more humanely, too.

Yes, capitalism grows more complicated and more ambitious as it evolves, but its principles remain.  Capitalism will survive its current crisis.  It will be tweaked and modified but it will not collapse, because nothing has ever been found that can replace it or do what it does, or bring the advantages and benefits it brings.

It has brought the resources that have lifted most of humankind above subsistence and starvation, that have enabled us to conquer diseases, to fund education and social services, to enable people to engage in artistic and cultural activities and to enrich their lives with previously undreamt-of opportunities.

The leftists love to use Ph.D.’s as experts to claim that we simpletons just don’t get it. Well, Madsen Pirie is a Ph.D. – and notice that we, the unenlightened and unwashed, are making similar arguments to those he makes.

For “ignorant” people like us to see it, the truth must truly be self-evident.

The link to the Adam Smith Institute is in the blogroll, I highly recommend that you visit there frequently.

45 thoughts on “Karl Marx Was Wrong

  1. Utah,

    I just had a thought, and would appreciate yours in return.

    Marx seems to have wanted to devise a way by which he could bypass the slow change or evolution Darwin described and jump straight to the final version of society he desired. Could it be that this is all there is to it: that those who subscribe to the Marxist/Socialist paradigm are just looking for the easy way out? And, if so, doesn’t their own action vindicate those who of us who assert that the primary cause of poverty in a free society actually does lie in the character of the person and not the structure of the system?

    • Joe & Utah,
      I believe, Marx merely wanted to replace those in charge with himself and his cronies. Nothing more to it. That is the reason for the deceit and lies and outright theft.
      Put “government in charge”.
      Put himself in charge of government.
      Thereby making himself master in charge of his fellow man.

  2. Wages have been falling since the 70’s. Stagflation has now just become stagnation. The richer get richer and the poor get poorer. Marx was right. Price is determined by demand, if the actual labor value of a product is lower than the price, it means the capitalist has lost money in that venture. The cost it takes to create a product is its labor cost: extraction, processing, marketing, customer service, accounting, management are all labor value inserted into the product. If the price of it is lower than the labor cost the capitalist loses money, if it is higher he makes a profit. Marx never claimed price is equal to labor cost, value is. Adam Smith is considered the father of the labour theory of value.

    • Wages have been falling since the 70′s.

      Minimum wage has gone up steadily since the 1970’s. What has eroded the wage earners earnings are MARXIST policies designed to erode their worth through inflation — exactly as Lenin and George Bernard Shaw advocated.

      Stagflation has now just become stagnation.

      HISTORY (that’s scientific observation of objective fact, Karl), HISTORY shows that this is ALWAYS the pattern wherever socialist economic policy is enacted. It is caused by sapping too much capital from the free market, which then leads to corruption as corporations realize the only way for them to survive is to buy favor from the govt. so they can buy laws to protect their markets.

      The richer get richer and the poor get poorer.

      Karl, this is not exclusive to a free market. Have you ever noticed there are no poor leaders in socialist nations? But people in a free and self-governing society with a free market are often represented by poor men. Samuel Adams was o poor, his constituents had to buy him a suit so he would look decent while serving in Congress (that’s the red suit we see in so many pictures). Truman was so poor we changed what we paid our President.

      Marx was right.

      This is dogma — and it is dogma that contradicts everything upon which Marx claimed his ideas were based — science. Observation of actual occurrence says Marx was WRONG! So, to cling to his FAILED ideas is to become dogmatic. To insist his ideas work in the face of reality is to become irrational.

      Marx never claimed price is equal to labor cost, value is.

      Then this means the labor value of people who help build computers is infinite, since the potential value of what can be done with a computer is infinite. And there is no way to pay anyone an infinite amount of money for their labor, so this pretty much destroys your FALLACIOUS assertion. It is fallacious specifically because it is false.

      See what I mean:the principles of Marxism have to be forced on people because they cannot stand up to an open and honest debate on its merits.

      • Inflation since the 80’s has been so ridiculously low. It is funny how right-wingers go on about inflation when it is almost non-existent.

        Corporations are forced to seek favors from the gov’t by the free-market. If the pay-off for undue influence on the gov’t leads to profits and no jail time, why wouldn’t you participate in bribery. It is silly to think the gov’t is extorting money from (sarcasm) the poor ethical corporations, who recoil at the thought of making money unethically.(sarcasm)

        You don’t understand labor value. It is the labor going into a commodity that determines its value, not the amount of labor that can be used alongside the commodity. Here I’ll explain it to you. The labor value of a plow is the amount of labor it took to get that plow in the hands of the user. Not the labor the user will do with that plow.

        Peasant interpreted Marxism of the 20th century won’t define proletarian Marxism of the 21st century. Stalin lived the rest of his life out in an apartment as did many Soviet leaders.

        • Inflation since the 80′s has been so ridiculously low.

          No, inflation since the 1980’s has been measured by a different standard — and specifically so the govt. can lie about its involvement in causing it. Incidentally, since the 1980’s, we have been under the control of Progressives. The change in the inflation index is not a coincidence.

          Anyone who has had to buy groceries, gas or pay utilities bills knows you are trying to blow sunshine up their skirt.

          Corporations are not “forced” to seek govt. help by the free market, and even if they were, the fact that the govt. ALWAYS accepts their money PROVES THE FALLACY OF YOUR ENTIRE IDEOLOGY! It proves that the govt. is no different than the evil corporations you complain about. the only reason you embrace the govt. is because you see a path to power in the govt. (because you can’t make it in the free market).

          The fact that Obama stole GM and Chrysler from its LAWFUL owners and gave it to his union allies is PROOF that govt. is ALWAYS over business. Obama’s extortion of BPO is another example.

          Again, reality disagrees with you — and again, you continue to ignore reality.

          I understand your fallacious argument about labor. I also understand that you have a flawed understanding of the concept of value. Once again, all you are trying to do is justify theft because you do not want to work for yourself. And, once again, you keep using language steeped in the notion of a wrong while denying that right and wrong exist.

          This is also why you can’t “explain” anything: because your mind is a hodge-podge jumble of self-contradicting and wholly unsupportable assertions. In other words, you’re irrational, which is also why it is so easy to smack you around. The sad part — at least to me — is that you refuse to open your eyes and see your errors.

          • In an environment of private property, why wouldn’t gov’t officials take the bribe? You capitalist expect people to act in ways that go against profit-seeking capital accumulating behavior, when that is the goal of individuals. Sure some individuals don’t grease the wheels, but those individuals get overtaken by the more successful wheel greasers. GM and Chrysler went through a bankruptcy, please find a news article saying Obama confiscated stocks, I can’t find one. BP settled out of court with the gov’t. BP would have paid more if it went to court. Gas and grocery prices are effected by oil which has gone up, not because of inflation but higher demand and less supply.

            Your ideology is wrong, what is going to stop capitalist legislator and capitalist corporations from exploiting the system? Remember legislators make and change law.

            • You say ALL of that and then turn around and want people to believe that, if the govt. owns and controls all property, these same failings of human nature are somehow going to just go away???

              You are as insane as Marx was.

              • see, you have no solution. Private property corrupts people.

                Collective property could not be exploited by the individual since the collective would stop any individual from doing so.

                • No, Karl, property doesn’t corrupt people. If this were true, then people will still be just as corrupt if you ever got your way because — contrary to what you like to say — there will still be property in that fantasy world. The only thing that changes is who owns it. In the fantasy, everyone will own it equally, but then, that doesn’t do anything to resolve the desires of the human heart. And THERE is the problem.

                  You see EVERYTHING as a matter of material things, but the desires of man is not material. Therefore, you can have no answer for it. Instead, you ignore it, and that leads to you ignore reality and to insist on something that simply cannot exist because it is based on a belief that omits 1/2 of our reality.

                  You have ears, but you do not hear: eyes, but you do not see. You are dead, and you want to drag others into the abyss along with you.

                  Well, Karl, as long as I still breath, you had better count me as one more you and yours will have to kill because I will oppose you with every fiber of my being — because you advocate evil.

                  • You are insane. Tell me how you are going to bribe someone, in a world where property can be taken by the collective, so if you give someone a Ferrari, the collective can investigate and see you got it through illegitimate ways, and confiscate it. Also Since the amount of currency a man has would be counted in hours of labor, the collective would ask how a man obtained 49 hours of labor credits, in a period of 48 hours, with no record of the hours of credit being given to the individual in the past 2 days. Who is even going to bribe people? Are they going to be bribing in exchange for business deals, that don’t even happen since the people own the means of production and democratically decide what to do with them.

                    • Karl,

                      you really are a shallow thinker. It’s people who cause all these things you complain about, not things. But I still keep coming back to WHY DO YOU CARE!

                      Since there is no morality, there is no exploitation — only your desire to be the king of the world.

                      Everyone with eyes, ears and a brain knows it, and that’s why no one listens to you.

                    • there doesn’t need to be morality for life to suck. I want life to be awesome for my working class brethren. Working 48 hours a week and not being able to afford a middle class home, car and health insurance is bullshit. Especially when I know someone is making a buck off of me. Time for the proletarians to become class conscious, and seize power.

                      You believe in natural laws, souls, free-will and deities. You believe man is inherently corrupt, because of your faulty beliefs. Please look at reality and see how upbringing economics and mans relationship to the means of production alters human behavior. You areguments are like feudalist landlords and slaveholders saying, it is man’s nature to work for their superiors. so please form a rational argument or go back to the middle ages.

        • No, I understand labor value, you don’t.

          The labor to use that plow is included in the value of the next good produced with it.

          What you speak of is not capitalism, it corporatism or crony capitalism.

          Inflation is not non-existant, it is being covered up by the mass printing of currency by a central government trying to pay for the impact of its adventures in socialism.

          Stalin lived in an apartment at the end of his life? Stalin lived in a dacha until he dies in 1953 that he had custom built on the bank of the Moskva River after moving there in 1934. The only time he spent in an “apartment” was when he was planning the famine in the Ukraine.

            • capitalism has always been crony capitalism. He who has the gold makes the rules.

              No, he who holds the power makes the rules. Money is only 1 form of power. If you hold all the money but I hold the only gun, then I have the gun and the money.

              So, by your own admission, you and your allies have been making the rules (Progressives have been in charge for more than 20 years and mostly in control for 60 years before that). Therefore, the problems with our society and economy must be of Marxist/Socialist making.

              Thanks, Karl. You just stumbled across your nut for the week. 🙂

              • Money buys guns and more importantly it buys elections. Progressives are not Marxist. Calling for universal healthcare is very different than calling for class struggle and the end of private property. Cronyism has been rampant in the gov’t since the founding.

                • Money cannot buy LEGAL guns if the people with the guns make owning them illegal, so your objection fails.

                  Progressives ARE Marxists with one exception — they reject revolution in favor of ‘progressive’ advancement toward the same goal. This is not MY argument, is is the bold assertion of the Progressive movement (who got their start from the Fabians).

                  Finally, your comment about healthcare is nothing more than a fallacious distraction. It’s irrelevant.

                  • Everyone knows money can be used to get around laws, don’t be so thick-headed. Your definition of Marxist is anyone who doesn’t tow the Joe Bakanovic line, if a mother wants foodstamps for her kids, she suddenly becomes a Marxist, if a man supports universal background checks, he also becomes a Marxist. Your definition is not a definition but an epithet to be used against anyone who doesn’t tow your line.

                    • Strawman. How predictable.

                      Karl, when you revert to strawman, you admit your own defeat. So, again, thank you. It would seem you’ve found two nuts today.

                    • @Joe
                      What strawman? You don’t have a solution to corruption among business interests and legislators. Your definition of Marxist is also incorrect. if someone wants to raise taxes on the rich or anything else ‘progressive,’ they suddenly become Marxist.

                    • He doesn’t need to give you an answer – the Constitution does that. Free and open elections in a representative republic.

                      How many collectivist governments have been corruption free, Karl?

                      What collectivist country has ever has the standard if living, even for the “poor”, that the US has provided? Did you know that our “poor” own their own homes and those are larger in square footage than those rented by the middle class in Europe?

                      Oh, right. I forgot. Nobody has ever done collectivism “right” but if we just forget the inconvenient history, you can do that now.

                      I get it.

                    • @ Utah

                      If your solution is a solution, how come it has failed and led to what you call crony capitalism? Two words, private property.

                • Health Care is one of the Pillars of Communism / Socialism……read the Soviet Constitution.

                  It is a known and sought after route of Social Control.

                  In fact Stalin himself rose to power upon the “Insignificant ” role of deciding which housing and healthcare the Party elite would and esp COULD recieve…..the Early Party members thought he was little more than a Secretary. He solidified power easily with such crucial “resources” under his control….the rest is history….( as were most of the originalPolitburo members when he finally became Head-Commie).

        • Inflation since the 1980s LOW ….??? Low ????

          The price of the average Home in 1980 versus 2007 … even now with the so-called Houseing Crunch / Crises shows what inflation has wrought. The Price of everything else that is a Consumer discretionary clearly shows “infaltion” ….. 3-4 times the price and smaller packages.

          Your statement is so devoid of any reality as to be virtually worthless for serious discussion.

    • Good Lord.

      “Marx never claimed price is equal to labor cost.”

      What a load of bullshit.

      If you eliminate the concept of price – which is defined as the point a seller is willing to sell and a buyer is willing to buy, then the only way left to value a good or service is cost and since Marx proposed that all materials belonged to the people, material did not factor in as a cost – only labor. So Marx did say that labor cost is equal to price.

      The problem is that without price as as proxy for demand, an economy has no way to regulate itself and depended on some bureaucrat or committee to establish quotas for production and these people, acting on static and arbitrary data cannot modulate an economy with any degree of efficiency and nowhere near the corrective efficiency of the free market.

      Adam Smith said:

      The real value of all the different component parts of price, it must be observed, is measured by the quantity of labour which they can, each of them, purchase or command. Labour measures the value not only of that part of price which resolves itself into labour, but of that which resolves itself into rent, and of that which resolves itself into profit.

      The final sentence shows how Smith sees value of a product as relative to labor of buyer or consumer, as opposite to Marx who sees the value of a product being proportional to labor of laborer or producer. And we value things, price them, based on how much labor we can avoid or command, and we can command labor not only in a simple way but also by trading things for a profit.

      Karl, you are as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

      • The cost of extracting and processing materials is also labor derived. steel just doesn’t appear in front of auto factories. Minerals don’t mine themselves. To say Marx didn’t factor in materials, because he claimed materials belonged to the people is ridiculous. Labor is the source of all value generation, piles of money don’t cut down trees and drill oil, workers do. When the working class realizes this fact, capitalism will be cast aside.

        About Adam Smith get an education, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

        Like I said before value does not equal price. Any economist can tell you this.

        • You DON’T get an education reading Wikipedia …. you get it by Reading Adam Smith himself….and Marx…and etcetera.

          • Don, don, don;

            Marxists don’t allow their young to read and learn on their own. That is too dangerous. Free thought is dangerous.

            They teach them to remember what they’ve been told to believe. No more, no less.

            Good little members, repeat from memory all the propaganda that never actually occurs in the real world, along with the reasons why free capitalists are at fault for the world being round.

    • About that “we are so much worse off in America today” crap:

      That simply isn’t the case in the America of today. A recent (September 2011) Heritage Foundation survey found that :

      For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests near destitution: an inability to provide nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter for one’s family. However, only a small number of the 46 million persons classified as “poor” by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity.

      The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau as taken from various government reports:

      80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
      92 percent of poor households have a microwave.
      Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
      Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
      Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
      Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
      More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
      43 percent have Internet access.
      One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
      One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.
      96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food.
      83 percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat.
      82 percent of poor adults reported never being hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food.
      Other government surveys show that the average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and is well above recommended norms in most cases.
      Television newscasts about poverty in America generally portray the poor as homeless people or as a destitute family living in an overcrowded, dilapidated trailer. In fact, however:

      Over the course of a year, 4 percent of poor persons become temporarily homeless.
      Only 9.5 percent of the poor live in mobile homes or trailers, 49.5 percent live in separate single-family houses or townhouses, and 40 percent live in apartments.
      42 percent of poor households actually own their own homes.
      Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
      The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom.

      The vast majority of the homes or apartments of the poor are in good repair.

      By their own reports, the average poor person had sufficient funds to meet all essential needs and to obtain medical care for family members throughout the year whenever needed.

      There is no doubt that poor Americans do not live in the lap of luxury. They do clearly struggle to make ends meet, but when the struggle is not for day to say sustenance and shelter – but to pay for cable TV, air conditioning, and a car it illustrates that his lifestyle is far from the images of stark deprivation purveyed equally by advocacy groups and the media.

      And the number one health issue among the poor in America?

      Obesity

      .

      • These are the effects of cheap credit, meant to keep the capitalist system alive. Consumer debt is what has paid for these ‘luxuries.’

        • These are the effects of cheap credit, meant to keep the capitalist system alive. Consumer debt is what has paid for these ‘luxuries.’

          And who forced the banks to give that cheap credit (this is what caused the housing bubble)? Who passed the laws that allowed credit card companies to charge usury interest rates? Who is it that has messed up the credit market by spending this nation into bankruptcy, thus forcing the fed to just print and give away money to keep the system propped up? And which Party/ideology was behind all of this?

          You and your buddies, that’s who.

          Every time people show you the effects of your ideas, show you how they actually destroy rather than build up, you squeeze your eyes shut. Pitiful…

          • In a free-market shouldn’t credit card companies charge whatever rate they want. The answer to your questions is Randroids Ronald Reagan, Alan Greenspan, and non-Randroid Bill Clinton. How can a bank be forced to give cheap credit? Did they have guns to their heads? Also banks charge what interest they want. The prime mover for cheap home loans was the realtors and developers. Lets look at reality and see who benefited from the crisis. Banks emerged from the crisis with a bailout package and foreclosed home, so they came out with government money and mortgage payements along with the houses that were mortgaged. I wonder who could have influenced legislators to benefit the banks, and who had the money to do so?

            • “How can a bank be forced to give cheap credit? Did they have guns to their heads?”

              ROFLMAO!!! YES! They did — in the form of govt. supported Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton (who were supported by govt. affirmative action policies and regulations).

              Why do you speak of reality when you are so totally out of touch with it?

              You are insane.

              • (sarcasm)yes, heads of federal reserve and supreme chairmen of the people committee on banking, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Are the ones behind toxic mortgaged back securities, mass foreclosures, the bailouts. Also the government threatened to kill bank employees, read it, right there it is in the community re-investment act.(sarcasm)

                Why are you so blind to corporate lobbying and influence in Washington D.C. Has Glenn Beck not done a special on it yet?

                • Karl,

                  Beck doesn’t really focus on Marxism. He’s yet to make the connection between the Progressives and Marxists — at least, if he has, he has never mentioned it. But it’s right there, in their own words and in the records of their own meetings.

                  You really don’t have much of a grip on anything other than your own Party-line dogma, do you? Sad.

                  • Indoctrination complete. No Thinking occurring.

                    bark bark bark bark bark: “this is WHAT i am so suppose to think, it has to be true and accurate”

            • Reagan,Bush,Clinton,Obama – just who do these men represent, Karl?

              Whether you are for them or against them, they were the heads of our GOVERNMENT, a government that was making policy for the citizens of the US. What you just admitted was that policies enacted by a central organization are subject to influence and do not necessarily make the right decisions on the economy.

              And yet somehow, you hold the opposing thoughts that in a socialist/Marxist/communist system, where central planning is a necessity, this would not happen.

              I would argue, as would people like Bastait and F.A. Hayek, that to believe that it couldn’t is insane.

              The difference is that in a capitalist society, these things cannot go on in perpetuity because the people have a tool to stop it and protections against it. Not true in a collectivist state.

              It is called cognitive dissonance Karl – you might be a mild schizophrenic.

              Perhaps you should get that checked.

            • Yes they were threatened with prosecution by Janet Reno if they didn’t comply with Clinton’s Expanded AHA . Jimmy Carter started the insanity in the 1970s…..the very next Socialist (quasi_Marxist) Administration we got , ramped it up…..then under the House and Senate Democratic majority under GW it pushed the final nail in the coffin……under much public protest by Bush officials BTW.

              And then Barney Frank made his famous remark that the Banks and Loan situation was never better….everything was strong…..a WEEK before the beginning of the End.

              Frank is one of your Folks BTW…..Marxist to the core.

      • See, Karl, Utah just posted a survey that uses REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS to PROVE your ideas are nothing more than a demand to “let” you take over society. Why do I say that? Because your BS about “poverty” doesn’t stand up against the reality of what people have.

        That brings us to the crux of this problem: poverty is a relative concept. If every worker in this country made $1 million, you would STILL be crying about the “greedy” rich who have anything more than that. You have to do that because exploiting the poor — yes, YOU are the one exploiting the poor here — but exploiting the poor is your ONLY path to power. Without them, you are back to groveling in the ditch because you will not work, save and invest. You want your cake, you want it now, but you want someone else to make it for you and feed it to you — and you want to be told how great and benevolent you are for giving the people your crumbs. But worse than this, if you do not get your caake and praise, you look for others who are willing to FORCE people to give it to you for the promise of an extra helping of crumbs.

  3. I love the smell of a good beatdown in the morning. Karl is black and blue and bloody all over. But you have to give him credit…he will still come back for more. Must be a sadist.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.