Request: Please cut the marxist/stalinist/fascist/... bullshit

[☭proletarian☭]

Thus when monogamous marriage first makes its appearance in history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period. In an old unpublished manuscript, written by Marx and myself in 1846, [The reference here is to the German Ideology, published after Engels’ death – Ed.] I find the words: “The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children.” And today I can add: The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male. Monogamous marriage was a great historical step forward; nevertheless, together with slavery and private wealth, it opens the period that has lasted until today in which every step forward is also relatively a step backward, in which prosperity and development for some is won through the misery and frustration of others. It is the cellular form of civilized society, in which the nature of the oppositions and contradictions fully active in that society can be already studied.

​

Frederick Engels
Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State

​

 

[NYcarbineer]

In Germany in the 20's and 30's, the Nazis were able to enhance their attacks on Marxists by associating them with the Jews. That worked in that time and place. Today in the U.S., anti-semitism doesn't fly in the mainstream, so rightwingers simply modified the technique...

...Obama is a Muslim Marxist. See how that works? You simply remove the unacceptable scapegoat reference and insert the one that works. Same demonization device, different details.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Whatever 'traditional marriage' once was, when the term is used today it means 'one man, one woman', usually with kids.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

No woman can be a 'conservative' unless she a masochist or a fool, for the past offers her only subjugation and slavery as a commodity to be bought, sold and collected, and as a burden to her father and brothers. The proud woman, who views herself as equal to her male counterpart and values herself as a human being, has been at odds with the system of systematic oppression of her sex for the past 5000 years of Western Judeo-Christan civilization (and, indeed, in most known societies)- as such, she has found, in her struggle for liberty and recognition as a human being equal in value and merit to any man, camaraderie and recognition not among those who seek to defend the status que or a return to her slavery per the status quo ante, but among the communists, the anarchists, the abolitionists, and the whole ideology of the Left which opposes class oppression and the exploitation of the weak and those deemed inferior to the Bourgeoisie, the Kings, to Men, and to whatever class rules at a given moment. That is why feminism has always been a product of the Left and is usually found alongside abolitionists and terrorists who would destroy an oppressive State and and cast the oppressive ideologies of Christianity and the old order in the fires of revolution.

 

[boedicca]

She's an idiot who either hates herself for being female or doesn't know what traditional marriage is. Traditional 'marriage' robs women of their rights and treats them as mere commodities to be bought, sold, and collected.

She probably espouses such traditions while still casting her ballots, wearing shoes, and daring to work and get an education

Wow. Are you a moron.

Marriage has been one of the most postiive and stablizing forces for civilization. Men in monogamous marriages have an incentive to protect and support both their wives and offspring. They are more productive - it takes more work to support a family than it does a single man.

Compare the lot of women in traditional marriages with unwed mothers living on government assistance. The latter are the ones being used as commodities by cynical politicians and race/poverty pimps. And their children fare much worse in life as a result.

 

[WillowTree]

marxist

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Whatever 'traditional marriage' once was, when the term is used today it means 'one man, one woman', usually with kids.

That's not very traditional. Monogamy is a fairly recent creation in the West, and the willful participation of a woman in the choosing of he spouse, let alone for reasons of sentiment and affection, are newer still.

This is not 'tradition', it is the result of the Left's attack against tradition and the assertion by women of their rights and will against the oppressive systems of yesteryear. It is the beginning of a new social order which finds woman on equal footing with man.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Marriage has been one of the most postiive and stablizing forces for civilization.

Insomuch as it emerged as a means to secure political agreements with gifts of female servants, yes.

Men in monogamous marriages have an incentive to protect and support both their wives and offspring.

No more than men on polygamous marriages, who could have even more offspring, guaranteeing an heir and leading to further stability. There's a reason the oppression of women was accompanied with the practice of tracing the family line through the male lineage.

They are more productive - it takes more work to support a family than it does a single man.

More still to support a harem of women. Hence, per your argument, the old order was better still.

Compare the lot of women in traditional marriages with unwed mothers living on government assistance.

Compare both to the communist societies in which the whole society and all its members all care for, educate, and look after the young.

The old system was slavery. To cite any other form of slavery, such as the exploitation of the female proletarian who is denied equal pay for equal work and is left, in the capitalist society, to her own devices to care for her children while she labours for inferior wages, does not excuse the old order, but merely condemns the current order along with it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The argument for or against something based on tradition has no merit, because its part of the argument whether a tradition is good or bad.

Letting women vote was not supported by tradition, but that it wasn't was no argument against it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

the old order was better still.

The old system was slavery.

???

 

[☭proletarian☭]

the old order was better still.

The old system was slavery.

???

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1]

Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reading comprehension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bo's argument leads to the conclusion, if its accepted, that the slavery of women is desirable and the old systems of oppression are better to the current regime. That's her argument.

'Hence, per your argument, the old order was better still.'

If she stands by her claims, then she must support the old system of the systemic enslavement of her sex. Else she must reject the argument she forwarded, if she disagrees with the inevitable conclusion.

 

[boedicca]

Insomuch as it emerged as a means to secure political agreements with gifts of female servants, yes.

Hardly. The women benefited by having companionship, a home, and the means to raise children.

No more than men on polygamous marriages, who could have even more offspring, guaranteeing an heir and leading to further stability. There's a reason the oppression of women was accompanied with the practice of tracing the family line through the male lineage.

I said positive and stabilizing forces for society. Polygamy sidelines many men (the beta males) who are not able to marry and reproduce. The result is a less successful society. It's not a coincidence that the developed world was led by Western societies which were built upon monogamy.

More still to support a harem of women. Hence, per your argument, the old order was better still.

See the response above. What happens to them men for whom there is no harem.

Jihad anyone?

Compare both to the communist societies in which the whole society and all its members all care for, educate, and look after the young.

Yes, it takes a village to make live miserable for everyone.

I suggest you read "Death by Government".

The old system was slavery. To cite any other form of slavery, such as the exploitation of the female proletarian who is denied equal pay for equal work and is left, in the capitalist society, to her own devices to care for her children while she labours for inferior wages, does not excuse the old order, but merely condemns the current order along with it.

In the real old system, everyone was a serf or a slave of a monarch.

Making unwed mothers the serf of Big Government is not an improvement.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Insomuch as it emerged as a means to secure political agreements with gifts of female servants, yes.

Hardly. The women benefited by having companionship, a home, and the means to raise children.

right.... Where did you get your 'information' regarding the last 5000 years of Western history?

You really need to go to your local library or college and ask for a history book. Try asking about the history of marriage and when women gained their civil rights. Also try asking about socialist systems where everyone has a stale in caring for children and matriarchal societies.

A few aids to get you started:

Feminist Studies

Feminist Studies

UC Santa Cruz - Feminist Studies

Department of Feminist Studies | University of California, Santa Barbara

Gender, Women & Sexuality Studies : University of Minnesota

Women's studies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of Marriage

oppression of women history - Google Search

No more than men on polygamous marriages, who could have even more offspring, guaranteeing an heir and leading to further stability. There's a reason the oppression of women was accompanied with the practice of tracing the family line through the male lineage.

I said positive and stabilizing forces for society

The enslavement of the blacks also was great for society, insomuch as society was comprised of Whites.

You support the oppression of one class for the good of another?

Compare both to the communist societies in which the whole society and all its members all care for, educate, and look after the young.

Yes, it takes a village to make live miserable for everyone.

I suggest you read "Death by Government".

Life has been miserable for many, both with and without government, especially where the lack of a strong and just government leads to local rule by warlords. See: Africa, feudalism, Western history

In the real old system, everyone was a serf or a slave of a monarch.

And the woman was a slave to the patriarch who would be sold as a piece of property 'for the good of the family' to the highest bidder or the strongest warlord.

Making unwed mothers the serf of Big Government is not an improvement.

Nice, but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 

[Liability]

Munin:

I feel rather badly that accurately identifying the Marxist underpinnings of the Obama Adminsitration's policies causes your highly sensitive equilibrium to be knocked off kilter so easily.

Perhaps if the President and the socialists ruining the Congress would cease, stop, desist and refrain from continuing to foist off their socialist agenda in the form of such things as the health care bill, the TARP funding and related economic disasters, we could find it in our hearts to stop referencing the Marxist shit President Obama has already done.

I realize you worship the lad, but really, President Obama sucks. He's more Marxist than anything else. Tell him to stop; and we can bite our tongues in exchange. That's the deal. Take it or leave it.

Repealing his Marxist shit comes later.

 

[Munin]

The OP must be a Pinko Commie.

Just sayin'.

no not really, maybe you should watch this and then tell me that preventing these people from dying is an evil communist act

 

[Munin]

Munin:

I feel rather badly that accurately identifying the Marxist underpinnings of the Obama Adminsitration's policies causes your highly sensitive equilibrium to be knocked off kilter so easily.

Perhaps if the President and the socialists ruining the Congress would cease, stop, desist and refrain from continuing to foist off their socialist agenda in the form of such things as the health care bill, the TARP funding and related economic disasters, we could find it in our hearts to stop referencing the Marxist shit President Obama has already done.

I realize you worship the lad, but really, President Obama sucks. He's more Marxist than anything else. Tell him to stop; and we can bite our tongues in exchange. That's the deal. Take it or leave it.

Repealing his Marxist shit comes later.

I really don't worship this president, although I have respect for him and the nation & a number of ideas/values that he represents.

As far as socialism goes, go to Cuba and see socialism or go to Canada and see socialism or go to Europe and see socialism. But to say that america has a party with socialist ideas that s just ridiculous, fe: European socialist parties consider this legislation to be on the far right of their political spectrum (of their country).

He s not a Marxist as such, as he does not believe in marxism. I don't see him getting elected if he really were the marxist you believe he is.

The problem is that the right wing media and right wing extremists blow things way out of proportion, if we assume that he is talking about socialism then you can say that every organisation is socialist as members paying into it are redistributing their wealth. Take for example the US military as one of the biggest socialist organisations in america, according to your beliefs: we all are forced to pay for it through taxes and some americans benifit from it and others don't (as they feel safe enough already).

If you look at the healthcare bill you ll notice that their aren't really big socialist ideas in it, it doesn't force you to buy healthcare from the government (as that is what you consider to be socialist) or other big measures: the public option that was mentioned was to improve the broken market were insurance companies fail to compete in a way that drives the prices down and the quality up, not to replace the private companies.


You also didn't pay attention to what has happened to the bill over the last months, he took out the controversial public option to please conservatives and republicans. Yet you claim that he presented it as "take it or leave it", while ignoring the compromises he has made.

 

[Liability]

Munin:

I feel rather badly that accurately identifying the Marxist underpinnings of the Obama Adminsitration's policies causes your highly sensitive equilibrium to be knocked off kilter so easily.

Perhaps if the President and the socialists ruining the Congress would cease, stop, desist and refrain from continuing to foist off their socialist agenda in the form of such things as the health care bill, the TARP funding and related economic disasters, we could find it in our hearts to stop referencing the Marxist shit President Obama has already done.

I realize you worship the lad, but really, President Obama sucks. He's more Marxist than anything else. Tell him to stop; and we can bite our tongues in exchange. That's the deal. Take it or leave it.

Repealing his Marxist shit comes later.

I really don't worship this president, although I have respect for him and the nation and a number of ideas that he represents.

As far as socialism goes, go to Cuba and see socialism or go to Canada and see socialism or go to Europe and see socialism. But to say that america has a party with socialist ideas that s just ridiculous, fe: European socialist parties consider this legislation to be on the far right of their political spectrum.

He s not a Marxist as such, as he does not believe in marxism. I don't see him getting elected if he really were the marxist you believe he is.

The problem is that the right wing media and right wing extremists blow things way out of proportion, if we assume that he is talking about socialism then you can say that every organisation is socialist as members paying into it are redistributing their wealth. Take for example the US military as one of the biggest socialist organisations in america, according to your beliefs: we all are forced to pay for it through taxes and some americans benifit from it and others don't (as they feel safe enough already).

If you look at the healthcare bill you ll notice that their aren't really big socialist ideas in it, it doesn't force you to buy healthcare from the government (as that is what you consider to be socialist) or other big measures: the public option that was mentioned was to improve the broken market were insurance companies fail to compete in a way that drives the prices down and the quality up, not to replace the private companies.


You also didn't pay attention to what has happened to the bill over the last months, he took out the controversial public option to please conservatives and republicans. Yet you claim that he presented it as "take it or leave it", while ignoring the compromise he has made.

His father was a Marxist. Uncle "Frank" was a Marxist. The scumbag he worshiped, Saul Alinsky, among other attributes was Marxist in his inclinations. The policies that he has pursued and obtained have been Marxist, too. WTF is our GOVERNMENT doing effectively owning and running car companies? What's up with effectively owning and running Insurance companies. What's up with running the business operations of banks? Why on EARTH do we have a fucking PAY CZAR for? We have taken our somewhat restricted form of socialized medicine and ramped it up to some preposterously expensive supercharged universal socialized health care.

And you are also factually challenged. His law WILL force us to buy health care plans. I don't know what form of proposed legislation you have been reading, but the crap he and Pelousy and Reid crammed down the throats of the unwilling American people sure as hell WILL force us to buy stuff which we have an actual right NOT to buy if we are not inclined to. And his plan WILL end up forcing the private sector entirely out of the health care providing industry. Government control of the means of production in case after case after case. The attack on "unequal" wealth is clearly Marxist in nature and no longer even a hidden component of what this President has been up to.

This enormous success known as the American Republic got to a premiere status in the world by virtue of our founding principles -- together with a healthy respect for capitalism and individualism -- which are all quite antithetical to the absurd notions of the the theory crafted by the likes of Marx and Engels. What President Obama and the stinking liberal Democratics are doing is absolutely undermining our founding principles. I "get" the fact that you don't see it and don't wish to believe it. But your blindness doesn't change it.

As for the "compromises" President Obama supposedly made to "get" the bill, please disabuse yourself of that silly notion. the camel's nose is under the tent flap. They will now tinker with it until they end up with the very thing they sought all along. None of it bodes well for our principles.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why is it so difficult to believe he is marxist? He has essentially stated it in his autobiography. He has told us to judge him by who he looks to for advice. And his advices are openly marxist. His former Church is openly marxist. His policies are the same policies marxists would be employing.

So we are supposed to just ignore all this and stop calling him a marxist?

 

[Munin]

WTF is our GOVERNMENT doing effectively owning and running car companies? What's up with effectively owning and running Insurance companies. What's up with running the business operations of banks?

Why the government is owning car companies, banks, ... is the same reason we can not allow a bridge to fail when trafic rides over it. Because the consequence of not supporting the bridge would be that innocent people would be harmed, the same can be said about the banks. If this were not such a mess then I m sure the government would "gladly" allow the companies to fail as it does normally. You need to understand economics to understand what the gov is doing: if the government did not intervene (as it did with lehman Brothers) things would have gotten worse, not better. These massive companies falling over have a devastating effect on the economy, the threat of Al Quada is laughable compared what would happen if this chain of events would take place. An economic crisis of that kind of proportions can be more efficient in destroying the US than a real war with a superpower that could match the US.

We have taken our somewhat restricted form of socialized medicine and ramped it up to some preposterously expensive supercharged universal socialized health care.

And you are also factually challenged. His law WILL force us to buy health care plans. ...

His plans will cut the healthcare budget in the long term. His plans also involves cutting costs, scrapping unefficient gov programs. In the end it will lower the average healthcare cost for the US.

This enormous success known as the American Republic got to a premiere status in the world by virtue of our founding principles -- together with a healthy respect for capitalism and individualism -- which are all quite antithetical to the absurd notions of the the theory crafted by the likes of Marx and Engels. What President Obama and the stinking liberal Democratics are doing is absolutely undermining our founding principles.

That American success is not owned by right-wingers, you can thank democrats as well as republicans for it and many hard working americans who are democrats/republicans or INDEPENDANTS.

As for the "compromises" President Obama supposedly made to "get" the bill, please disabuse yourself of that silly notion. the camel's nose is under the tent flap. They will now tinker with it until they end up with the very thing they sought all along. None of it bodes well for our principles.

And your principles would be that insurance companies should be able to make profits at the cost of human lives? How many lives are you willing to risk for higher profits, is that the question you should ask? If they are killing hard working americans in the process of making profits by raising prices, ah who cares: they re living the american dream, right?

I concur with those principles when it comes to for example the carindustry, but when you make profits at the cost of human lives then you re crossing a red line. And that red line is morality, you don't play god and decide who dies and who lives so you can make more profits. And if you do like to play god and decide who lives and dies for what price then you re no better than the nazi doctors/butchers who abused their subjects in the name of science, the only difference is that you do it in the name of the $.

Maybe you should tell their family (video below) how good it is that those insurance companies did make good profits and how good free market works for the healthcare industry at lowering costs.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/cspanjunkie/congressman-grayson-stories-those-who

 

[Liability]

WTF is our GOVERNMENT doing effectively owning and running car companies? What's up with effectively owning and running Insurance companies. What's up with running the business operations of banks?

Why the government is owning car companies, banks, ... is the same reason we can not allow a bridge to fail when trafic rides over it. Because the consequence of not supporting the bridge would be that innocent people would be harmed, the same can be said about the banks. * * * *

Absolute rubbish. Pure unadulterated drivel.

In a capitalist system, failure isn't the catastrophe you guys pretend it is.

Let's look at AIG. Had AIG "failed" (instead of being stupidly propped up on the false pretense that it could not be 'allowed" to fail) it's business would have gone ELSEWHERE. It's loss (a pruning of the dead branch) would very likely have assisted and helped nurture some of its competitors. The deservedly FIT would have survived. The SYSTEM should have been allowed to prevail.

Your concern with the temporary consequences of an economic dislocation (like AIG going bankrupt) OVERLOOKS the CONSEQUENCES that propping it up causes. Opportunities FOR other Insurance conglomerates were thereby lost and some of those competitors could go under, instead.

Fucking Marxists never think about such things as the law of unintended consequences. This is why the Soviet Union was famed for its FIVE YEAR PLANS all of which were huge failures and caused much more misery than they prevented. The meddling of "central government 'planners'" is almost always a huge mistake.

No thanks.

You guys keep your Marxist nonsense to yourselves. As for the rest of us, we prefer our LIMITED Government and capitalism. Do try to butt out, as OUR CONSTITUTION actually requires.