|
Hi Joe, John 'n all
I wish to clarify some political philosophy
terms.
My understanding of Marx (and I agree he didn't analyse
the monetary architecture) is his hypothesis, to wit
When capital and labour and organised, so as to
create a profit, there is an imbalance because the profit all goes to one side,
the owners of the capital, whereas he felt that after wages and costs had
been paid out, the profit should then go 50/50. Half to capital, half to
labour.
Because of this percieved bias he saw in industrial
organisation, Karl postulated that this would lead to ever increasing wealth to
the owners, and impoverishment to labour. He studied early industrialisation in
Britain, and saw the parallels to the lord/serf dichotomy.
Karl also postulated that such industrialisation would
lead to an inevitable revolution by the 'ripped off' workers, who would
seize the means of production from the owners, in a peoples'
revolution(socialism).
Then says Karl, the state dissolves into localised
communities, where, from each according to their ability, to each according to
their need, manifests(communism).
He gave no timeframe, just a dialectical analysis from his
observations of the arrangements of early industrialisation.
That some countries have tried to impose state socialism
onto feudal agrarian populations is not Karl's fault, imo.
Industrialised countries introduced pension funds, to
ostensibly offer some profits back to workers, post their working
life.
It is interesting that Marx never studied "money", and
maybe just took it as a"given". I'm open to stand corrected on
that.
As Ghandi said when asked about Modern Western
Democracies, "I'd like to see one".
I'm like that about socialism and socialist parties,
sometime henceforth, one may occur.
cheers
Graeme Taylor
----- Original Message -----
snipped | 
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
