Discussion in 'Latin America' started by Weatherman2020, Apr 19, 2018.
Everybody who tells me that, Only knows a dictionary's definition worth of Socialism.
About "evidence" that "he advocated totalitarianism", you have offered no evidence that Marx did. Marx did believe that changing government would require a revolution - possibly violent - but Marx viewed capitalism as coming out of the violence of the French Revolution. It is only recently, by the work of Gene Sharp, that we understand the nonviolent way to overthrow a dictator.
Yet, Marx viewed capitalism as the system that does the enslaving as in this quote from "Wages of Labuor" (1844).
Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work. It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.
In today's world, this is called "externalizing" problems or costs to another part of society. For example, the phrase "leave to the poor-house overseer" makes me think "Walmart!" Yet, in the same writings, Marx shows more humanity than is found in many Americans today.
To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs – they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment.
"Break the bondage to bodily needs!" Are we talking about supporting food stamps and Medicaid?! And well, "spiritual enjoyment" is what you make of it, but we need it! And again, Marx sounds more caring than most capitalist employers.
About " Where do you . . . claim is much better", I have traveled more than most, and the people in the countries I have visited do just find. However, the real way to measure the quality of life in a country is with an index, and here are three. The Human Development Index - HDI - was established to place emphasis on individuals, more precisely on their opportunities to realize satisfying work and lives.
The US ranks 10th after those socialist countries of Norway, which is first, and the Netherlands, which is 7th.
Or you could use the "Satisfaction with Life Index." The Satisfaction with Life Index attempts to measure happiness directly, by asking people how happy they are with their health, wealth, and education, and assigning a weighting to these answers. In which case, America comes in at 23rd. Denmark is first. Sweden is seventh. Canada is 10th. Netherlands is 15th. New Zealand is 18th.
The best rating for America is in the "Quality of Life" index. America is 9th after the following which are in order: Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand.
The point, there is nothing special about living in America, and many people around the world have more satisfying lives. Not to mention most of those people think our healthcare is horrifying, our educational costs are insane, and our infrastructure is pathetic.
I demonstrated absolute evidence that he advocated it and you saw it and are lying.
I quoted him word for word advocating despotism and dictatorship.
Not an answer.
New cities, is what they need!
You have demonstrated nothing except that you can quote Marx out of context. I have already pointed out that Marx and Engels have always appreciated the value of the vote. Again, in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto they wrote:
"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."
Looking back, half a century later, Frederick Engels said in the " Introduction to Class Struggles in France": (1895)
"The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the struggle for the general franchise, for democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat . . .
And then, only four years after the Communist Manifesto Marx emphasized his support for democracy in an article in the New York Tribune (25 August 1852), which says:
"The carrying of universal suffrage in England would . . . be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent. It's inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class."
You need to read what Marx actually wrote rather than listening only to the capitalist propaganda put out by the rich. The propaganda is designed to fool you so they can keep stealing the wealth you create.
PS: Remember, NeoMarxist are "currently" advocating businesses based on the "farmer cooperative" model - that is, worker owned and run businesses. This adds democracy to the workplace. That is, it replaces the current workplace dictatorship with democracy!
I have read what he wrote you have not.
Once again dictatorship of the proletariat is not a democracy he meant DICTATORSHIP. Oh sure he supported universal suffrage in the mean time but his revolutionary vision which he advocated required DESPOTISM as I have proven.
It is YOU lacking in comprehension of what Marx wrote like all of his foolish acolytes.
Now this is an oxymoron if there ever was one, "dictatorship of the proletariat." The proletariat is not just the workers, but is the largest group of people in the population of a country. If you have the majority of the people running a country, they do not call it a dictatorship. They call it a democracy or a representative democracy; maybe even a republic. However, you cannot, by any definition anywhere, call such a government a dictatorship.
In fact, capitalists are afraid of real democracies, which is why they have spent so much converting America into an "inverted democracy" (a.k.a: a managed democracy or illiberal democracy) - which is (a quote) "a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics. Every natural resource and living being is commodified and exploited to the point of collapse, as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism."
The rich fear democracy, because the majority - the proletariat - may just decide to tax them to pay for the needs of the society such as schools, roads, healthcare, and more. This is exactly what FDR did in the middle of the Great Depression, when the government had no money. FDR told the rich, you are going to pay for unemployment benefits, Social Security, and a whole lot more.
Sadly, after FDR's death, the rich decided to take all of that back, so they have been steadily undoing the New Deal programs and laws such as Glass-Steagall. The net result is the 1930s are back - albeit in a different form.
To save capitalism from itself - which FDR claimed he did - you would have to reinstitute the New Deal, but sadly it would fail! It took the rich 70 years to get rid of the regulations and programs of the New Deal. Now that the rich know how this is done, if we put the New Deal back in place, the rich would undo it again, but in probably 30 years.
So save capitalism if you wish, and revive the economy if you can, but understand, capitalism will return you to something that looks like the Great Depression over, and over and over again.
PS: Yes, I have read Marx! That is how I know about all of those quotes!
A dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of whether it is a group or an individual.
As I said earlier you do not make it a good idea by hanging the words " of the proletariat " after the word dictator but that is precisely what MArx preached.
He preached a despotic totalitarian dictatorship
Separate names with a comma.