CDZ Ask Me About Marxism

[KatieK]

What about the American Dream of having a wife, couple kids, house, RV or boat? Those things were a common sight when I was a kid.

When the GOP killed the middle class it also killed the American Dream.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

To select a salient quote from it, Lenin's thoughts on seceding states: "In the question of the self-determination of nations, as in every other question, we are interested, first and foremost, in the self-determination of the proletariat within a given nation."

I think the actions of Catalans have shown that they are committed to this. This isn't just some move made by a bunch of businessmen, this independence is something the people of Catalonia truly want. They deserve it as human beings with democratic rights.

Commies Are Agressive Preppies With a "Born to Rule" Attitude

Yet they were betrayed by the Communists during the Spanish Civil War, as proven by Orwell's Homage to Catalonia.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Groucho, Harpo, Chico, Zeppo, or Gummo?

Harpo is my favorite = P

All Marxists should be mute.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

In reality? Likely some form of conflict between proletariat and bourgeoisie that shakes the foundations of society to its core. .

Castro's Daddy Was a Rich Landowner

"Bourgeois" is another snob word that indicates the aristocratic origin of the Socialist fraud. It originally was a term of contempt from those who had inherited wealth for those who had earned it, honestly or dishonestly. But all inherited wealth is dishonestly earned. Until you get rid of that rotten privilege, you can't criticize Capitalism, which has been distorted by it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

People have theorized that Marx and Engels wrote mostly while imbibing in wormwood or inspired by wormwood driven experiences.

An incorrect theory most likely...if you're talking about absinthe, it never was a hallucinogenic. It was touted as such by a French doctor named Valentine Magnan, who induced muscle spasms in a guinea pig by subjecting it to wormwood vapors as part of an experiment involving the deleterious effects of absinthe and wormwood. The control that was breathing alcohol vapors did not experience the same effect, and thus, Magnan concluded that absinthe was a dangerous drink.

It has been proven systematically throughout the years that thujone, the active compound in wormwood that causes these spasms, does not cause hallucinations, merely loss of muscle control when taken in excessively high doses. Of course, it would be seen as a hallucinogenic in these times without modern medical practices to confirm otherwise.

I do however, believe that Marx and Engels were influenced by a legacy of Enlightenment Era philosophers that came before them: Marxism stands on the shoulders of intellectual giants. Though I don't doubt they indulged in absinthe at some point or another, it probably wasn't the reason for the Communist Manifesto's existence.

Mirror Image

Ayn Rand was on drugs when she wrote Atlas Shrugged, which is basically Stalinism for the plutariat. Reversed from Left to Right, but the same simple-minded tyranny.

 

[Tuatara]

democratic elections are held under the one party

This sounds like an oxymoron. You either have democracy or you don't. You can't lock in an economic system that can't be changed by popular consensus and still consider yourself a democracy.

Elections happen in Cuba and Vietnam all the time.
Elections in Cuba - Wikipedia

Some observers argue Cuba's political system is democratic, describing it as a grassroots democracy.

Elections in Vietnam - Wikipedia

42 seats were won by non-party candidates

 

[alang1216]

democratic elections are held under the one party

This sounds like an oxymoron. You either have democracy or you don't. You can't lock in an economic system that can't be changed by popular consensus and still consider yourself a democracy.

Elections happen in Cuba and Vietnam all the time.
Elections in Cuba - Wikipedia

Some observers argue Cuba's political system is democratic, describing it as a grassroots democracy.

Elections in Vietnam - Wikipedia

42 seats were won by non-party candidates

If you can't vote out the ruling party you don't have a true election. If there are strict controls on who may run (e.g., Iran) you don't have a true election. If you're afraid of going to the polls (e.g., Kenya) you don't have a true election.

 

[Marxist_Trash]

Communism is the antithesis of individual liberty.

Not if it is viciously protected. Which given the state of today's oligarchy is something entirely possible.

Ideally? The sacrifice of a few privileged people's opulent lifestyles that get toned down to happily comfortable.

In reality? Likely some form of conflict between proletariat and bourgeoisie that shakes the foundations of society to its core. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say otherwise...Marxism is inherently based in the concept of struggle.

How do you reconcile human nature, specifically, if a person works, and has his product taken away from him and given to a person who chooses not to work, eventually the worker stops working. How do you plan on dealing with that very real problem?

I hear many workers complaining about people on welfare yet they still work to survive. I grew up in a Republican household so = P.

At any rate, same situation in Marxism. Except people work to thrive.

This sounds like an oxymoron. You either have democracy or you don't. You can't lock in an economic system that can't be changed by popular consensus and still consider yourself a democracy.

The point of a planned economy is to have it under control of the social good, the popular consensus, rather than random market directions and the consensus of a few billionaires. Also if there are socialist parties that exist under a capitalist government, I see no reason why capitalist parties can't exist under a socialist government.

I don't think you can blame Stalin. Authorization rule was a basic Bolshevik doctrine:

Stalin destroyed whatever chance it had of actually working. However I didn't realize what you're talking about to be the case. But I believe Trotsky's numerous treatises after the fact address the fall of the USSR, including Lenin's mistakes, which is why numerous Trotskyists are for individual rights and democracy.

It's easy to be a Marxist when you are still living off good, old mom and dad and so want to turn the entire state into your parents -- especially if you are unmotivated and aimless in life.

What happens when people grow up and decide to make something of themselves, instead?

Marx believed that work and contributing towards society, benefiting directly from the fruits of their labor, make people happy. He simply doesn't want people to be exploited for their work. I don't believe he had the concept of a "welfare queen" in his mind when he wrote his works.

What about the American Dream of having a wife, couple kids, house, RV or boat? Those things were a common sight when I was a kid.

If the American Dream was feasible for most now, I wouldn't be a Marxist. I feel as though the capitalist engine eventually consumes genuinely important things like family structure and an affluent middle class in the drive for profit.

Marxism seems to work so well, it begs the question why it needs and apologist like yourself.

Because I'm a worthless human being with nothing better to do in my life than to defend a century and a half old ideology. If at the very least to say that considering it as a possibility is still worth it.

However part of my goal is also to find a way to make it feasible in the 21st Century, which requires a lot of research and understanding people who don't think the way I do, since many Marxists seem to be sort of cut off from what the working class wants. Hence why I'm here. I may be an apologist, but I hope to actually do more than apologize someday lol.

Karl Marx Was the Sex Slave of a Patty Hearst Type Duchess

Eliminating hereditary rights is the answer, not any of the others the Left/Right ruling class offers us as fake alternatives. When the son of a millionaire has the same chance of becoming a blue-collar worker that the son of a blue-collar worker has, then the rulers won't be so selfish and cruel towards the working class. They won't start wars when their sons will get drafted for the front lines at age 18

The university, which is the cradle of the Socialist fraud, is designed specifically for richkids living off an allowance. All others are slavish nobodies and traitors to their class.

Hereditary rights beyond passing down things like houses and heirlooms should be abolished, I agree. But do you think the upper class will allow that to happen without some sort of long, drawn out fight?

Also I could say a great many slanderous things about whatever person/s you follow. Won't stop you from subscribing to their ideology.

Trotsky massacred the Kronstadt sailors for objecting to the absolutist dictatorship of the Communist Party members and their inhuman idol Lenin. So he wouldn't have been any better than Stalin when his pseudo-intellectual utopia became threatened by reality.

Possibly. This incident is not something I heard of before...but considering Trotksy wasn't a paranoid asshat like Stalin, I believe he would have done a better job.

Castro's Daddy Was a Rich Landowner

"Bourgeois" is another snob word that indicates the aristocratic origin of the Socialist fraud. It originally was a term of contempt from those who had inherited wealth for those who had earned it, honestly or dishonestly. But all inherited wealth is dishonestly earned. Until you get rid of that rotten privilege, you can't criticize Capitalism, which has been distorted by it.

Castro isn't even a communist, I believe i mentioned that earlier.

Marx wasn't an aristocrat, he was the son of a factory owner. Thus he received an education...but I must ask, do you honestly think a person dedicated to his own survival and ensuring that his own kids and wife don't die by working in a factory for 12 or more hours straight would be concerned with creating some ideology? How could it possibly originate anywhere else but a class that actually received at least somewhat of a political education? The important thing is that it's carried on by the proletariat.

Also, Marx was involved with struggles for the working class to gain rights ever since he began his political work. I can understand calling Marx deluded, but I know for a fact that he wasn't a fraud.

People have theorized that Marx and Engels wrote mostly while imbibing in wormwood or inspired by wormwood driven experiences.

An incorrect theory most likely...if you're talking about absinthe, it never was a hallucinogenic. It was touted as such by a French doctor named Valentine Magnan, who induced muscle spasms in a guinea pig by subjecting it to wormwood vapors as part of an experiment involving the deleterious effects of absinthe and wormwood. The control that was breathing alcohol vapors did not experience the same effect, and thus, Magnan concluded that absinthe was a dangerous drink.

It has been proven systematically throughout the years that thujone, the active compound in wormwood that causes these spasms, does not cause hallucinations, merely loss of muscle control when taken in excessively high doses. Of course, it would be seen as a hallucinogenic in these times without modern medical practices to confirm otherwise.

I do however, believe that Marx and Engels were influenced by a legacy of Enlightenment Era philosophers that came before them: Marxism stands on the shoulders of intellectual giants. Though I don't doubt they indulged in absinthe at some point or another, it probably wasn't the reason for the Communist Manifesto's existence.

Mirror Image

Ayn Rand was on drugs when she wrote Atlas Shrugged, which is basically Stalinism for the plutariat. Reversed from Left to Right, but the same simple-minded tyranny.

Ayn Rand is just an example of why idealist capitalism doesn't work. But people think it still can...which is what I'm trying to understand by being here, tbh.

 

[Marxist_Trash]

Lot of words but I hope I was able to respond to most. I apologize for it being so cluttered, pumped this out rather quick on a break : S

 

[Votto]

I never understood people who are against free trade.

If there is no free trade, then what are we left to freely do? Take illicit drugs once they legalize them? Go stick our head in a fan? Wut?

To be a Marxist, is to hate freedom.

 

[alang1216]

This sounds like an oxymoron. You either have democracy or you don't. You can't lock in an economic system that can't be changed by popular consensus and still consider yourself a democracy.

The point of a planned economy is to have it under control of the social good, the popular consensus, rather than random market directions and the consensus of a few billionaires. Also if there are socialist parties that exist under a capitalist government, I see no reason why capitalist parties can't exist under a socialist government.

This is my main issue with Marxism, the planned economy. We're not smart enough to plan an economy, it must be free to react to changes and evolve. Like biological evolution, there has to be competition to improve efficiency. Capitalism in a more natural system, it just needs to be strictly policed so everyone plays by the same rules.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Communism is the antithesis of individual liberty.

Not if it is viciously protected. Which given the state of today's oligarchy is something entirely possible.

Okay. Bring bubblegum. We're due for another 1776 anyway.

 

[Natural Citizen]

This is my main issue with Marxism, the planned economy. We're not smart enough to plan an economy, it must be free to react to changes and evolve. Like biological evolution, there has to be competition to improve efficiency. Capitalism in a more natural system, it just needs to be strictly policed so everyone plays by the same rules.

We have a Keynesian planned economy now. We have economic intervention. We have a central bank. We have corporatism. We have inflationism. We have a managed economy that is far removed from capitalism in every fundamental way. That's why the socialists are so interested in providing their 'solution' to it.

We do not have capitalism. And this is the Marxist's strength. The Marxist attacks capitalism knowing full well that we have no such economic system of the sort. Then the Marxist offers socialism as the solution because most people don't understand that we don't have capitalism. It's extremely deceptive because they trick people into defending capitalism when people are unknowingly defending the Keynesian managed economy that we actually have except in the name of capitalism. Which is patently in the Marxist's favor. It's a loaded discussion. Bait. The less astute play right into their hand. It's their only way in. And they know it.

The solution to our doomed Keynesian economic system is not Marxism. The solution is free markets. Free markets will restore capitalism because the way capitalism is supposed to work is that free markets tell the government what to do. Not the other way around as it is now with a doomed Keynesian economic system where the government is in control of the economy. The Keynesian system is equally as designed to fail as the socialist system. Both are managed economies. Which is why the socialists are interested in 'fixing' it when all they're really going to do it tailor it to their social structure. They're licking their chops.

The op is just reciting amateur script. A drone, so to speak. And his intention isn't as innocent as he claims in the op. Which, itself, is a common tactic. I'm gonna keep an eye on him. Heheh.

 

[Natural Citizen]

A stalking horse is a figure that tests a concept with someone or mounts a challenge against someone on behalf of an anonymous third party. If the idea proves viable or popular, the anonymous figure can then declare its interest and advance the concept with little risk of failure. If the concept fails, the anonymous party will not be tainted by association with the failed concept and can either drop the idea completely or bide its time and wait until a better moment for launching an attack.

Stalking horse - Wikipedia

I've corralled bunches of em. It's a hoot.

 

[Tehon]

if a person works, and has his product taken away from him and given to a person who chooses not to work, eventually the worker stops working.

That is the exact system we live under now. If you had read Kapital you would understand that to be Marx's theory of alienation. Why do believe it to be fair practice for one class but not the other?

I read Kapital before you were born junior. And no, it isn't. If a person works, they get to keep what they have save for the taxes that are dragged out of them. But, they always have the option of leaving if the job they are doing isn't paying them well enough. Under marxism the government controls where the worker can work. They have no control, they can only go where they are told to.

Obviously the worker gets a wage. Derp. You have no clue what Marx wrote. You didn't even acknowledge the question.

 

[Natural Citizen]

There is no such thing as true equality. Some people are naturally more skilled than others.

There is only institutionalized equality.

 

[2aguy]

I can't give you all the answers, but I'd like to discuss people's objections to it, as well as why I still believe it's a worthwhile philosophy. Not looking to change minds so much as to have an exchange of an ideas. Or at least provide an understanding of how I and most Marxists I know think about politics, the damage done to the idea of Communism by the USSR and governments like it, economics, etc.

Since murdering 100 million innocent men, women and children didn't get you to a true communist society...how many captalists will you have to murder above 100 million to get there?

 

[Tehon]

This sounds like an oxymoron. You either have democracy or you don't. You can't lock in an economic system that can't be changed by popular consensus and still consider yourself a democracy.

The point of a planned economy is to have it under control of the social good, the popular consensus, rather than random market directions and the consensus of a few billionaires. Also if there are socialist parties that exist under a capitalist government, I see no reason why capitalist parties can't exist under a socialist government.

This is my main issue with Marxism, the planned economy. We're not smart enough to plan an economy, it must be free to react to changes and evolve. Like biological evolution, there has to be competition to improve efficiency. Capitalism in a more natural system, it just needs to be strictly policed so everyone plays by the same rules.

Where does Marx call for a planned economy in his writing?

 

[westwall]

if a person works, and has his product taken away from him and given to a person who chooses not to work, eventually the worker stops working.

That is the exact system we live under now. If you had read Kapital you would understand that to be Marx's theory of alienation. Why do believe it to be fair practice for one class but not the other?

I read Kapital before you were born junior. And no, it isn't. If a person works, they get to keep what they have save for the taxes that are dragged out of them. But, they always have the option of leaving if the job they are doing isn't paying them well enough. Under marxism the government controls where the worker can work. They have no control, they can only go where they are told to.

Obviously the worker gets a wage. Derp. You have no clue what Marx wrote. You didn't even acknowledge the question.

The question was not whether the worker got a wage, but what happens when he works, and the other guy doesn't work, but the guy who does work, has to give up his cash to pay for the guy who doesn't work.

 

[Tehon]

if a person works, and has his product taken away from him and given to a person who chooses not to work, eventually the worker stops working.

That is the exact system we live under now. If you had read Kapital you would understand that to be Marx's theory of alienation. Why do believe it to be fair practice for one class but not the other?

I read Kapital before you were born junior. And no, it isn't. If a person works, they get to keep what they have save for the taxes that are dragged out of them. But, they always have the option of leaving if the job they are doing isn't paying them well enough. Under marxism the government controls where the worker can work. They have no control, they can only go where they are told to.

Obviously the worker gets a wage. Derp. You have no clue what Marx wrote. You didn't even acknowledge the question.

The question was not whether the worker got a wage, but what happens when he works, and the other guy doesn't work, but the guy who does work, has to give up his cash to pay for the guy who doesn't work.

Actually, the question relates to the product produced. But that's alright, I shouldn't expect you to understand.