@LeopoldBloom theory of value and surplus value comes from adam smith

@Longpatrol You “don't know much” about her, yet you say she was mad? This makes no sense.

@emiliya Objectivism is incoherent.

@TangledUpInBlue ive no time for anyone who takes marxs writings as almost like a religion and gospel. Mainly because he was a man of his time and critiqued the material conditions that existed back then. Such a way of thinking is very useful for todays times but not in the same way as he approached his analysis

@Guitarman123 I feel the same.

@Guitarman123 i completely agree with his theory that material conditions determine life and agree with his materialistic conception of history

@emiliya Ayn Rand lived off Social Security so she wasn't any better.

@LeopoldBloom I tend to agree. She was also an abortionist. She said: “Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a ‘right to life.’ A piece of protoplasm has no rights, and no life in the human sense of the term.”

The “vicious nonsense” is Ayn Rand.

@Heartlander marx saw that the working class make up the majority of society and produce the commodities that the capitalist profits from. Profits that labourers never see and as a result should band together to force change in accordance to their class interests. Its capitalists who expect labourers to fulfill expectations of consumers

@Guitarman123

If Marx was correct, the ideal business organizational model would be an ESOP, an employee owned business, but we have very few examples of ESOPs sustaining, except in cases where the ESOPS have not lost acceptance of the consumer setting the expectations for the producers. COOPs work but COOPs treat the consumers as stockholders or business partners who share the wealth. The grocery chain HyVee is a great example of a successful ESOP, but they don't seem to forget that their success is based on fulfilling consumer expectation. USAA (the insurance company) is a great example of a COOP, it's owned by the policy holders who reap the profits in form of steep discounts and cash paybacks.

No, capitalism simply rides the reality that consumers rule the economy, and can be expected to tilt in whichever direction that best serves the economy, not the capitalist. Capitalist don't always succeed, in many cases they fail more often they succeed. When a capitalist business fails, the investors and owners eat the losses. For the consumer, there is always yet another producer to rush in to fill whatever void left behind.

@Heartlander hes right in that co operatives are more productive and can be successful. Also that under the right conditions people are more happy and fufilled. All that doesn't occur under capitalism as workers are alienated and exploited

@Guitarman123 I think they both had blind spots. One had too much faith in the individual and the other too much in the collective.

@TangledUpInBlue fair argument. Enough evidence to support it. What i think is that marx was looking at the bigger picture and realised individuals are incapable of changing conditions for the better of everyone as it isnt in their interest to do so. I also think rands understanding of socialism began and ended with the Bolshevicks. I can understand the hatred and im no fan either but it is a very reduced angle

@Guitarman123 they both tried.