Are Americans Who Admire Socialism and Communism Miseducated or Stupid?

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.

The defining quality of Marxist thought is tyranny and oppression. Cooperation is something which is strictly and exclusively voluntary based on individual volitional choice. When it is forced it is no longer cooperation at all it is slavery which is the essence of marxist thought.

Slavery is a regressive step backwards in human development

There is nothing oppressive or tyrannical about Marxism. It is simply a different way of organizing the way we produce the things that we use. It is actually less tyrannical than capitalism.
You've been conditioned your entire life to view the economy from only perspective. You can't see that it is the capitalists who enforce, with violence, their way of doing things.

Wrong

Marx himself proves you wrong.

Marx demands despotism and tyranny over others.

Marx clearly stated his vision demands dictatorship of the proletariat which means tyranny.

A dictator is a dictator is a dictator and they are all tyrannical even if they come from the proletariat.

It is not a different way of organizing production it is in fact a different way of FORCING production. Which is precisely what seizing the means of production is about.

First you seize it by force then you force it to function a certain way with workers who have to work.

That is slavery.

I cannot see mythology.

There is no force in trading pay for labor no matter how much you lie to the contrary.

That is why capitalism is morally superior to your regressive and outdated system. Capitalism is based on free will, marxism is based on violence.

You can deny those facts all day but you cannot refute then as they come from Marx himself

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not tyranny, it is an end to tyranny. Marx explains that you live in a dictatorship now in capitalist society. You've been conditioned to it so you don't see it or you don't think of it in this way, but it is there. Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat seeks to bring an end to the tyranny already imposed on society by the ruling class.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch."
The German Ideology. Karl Marx 1845

The dictatorship of the proletariat is despotism and tyranny which is precisely what Marx meant.

One does not remove tyranny from dictatorship by calling it of the proletariat and even Marx acknowledged that fact.

Rulers mean rulers regardless of what class they come from and your while quotation is meaningless contradictory crap which is also self defeating.

Now we know Marx meant tyranny and that is fact. You know it as well.

Stop the denial and lies and answer this.

Why should I live under a dictator in order to someday maybe have a classless stateless society?

How is such a society worth such a high price.

Stop the denial and lies and answer this.

Why should I live under a dictator in order to someday maybe have a classless stateless society?

I already answered that question in my previous post.

You are already living under a dictatorship now, in the very sense that Marx was using the phrase.

The question isn't why should you, you already are. The question is, why do you not object to it?

We are not living in a dictatorship now in any sense of the word especially marxs sense.

Of course we are.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch."
The German Ideology. Karl Marx 1845

Now answer up and explain what is superior about a dictatorship of the proletariat ?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the time when we the people rise up and take control of our country.

"Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it.."
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

"That, in fact, by the word "state" is meant the government machine, or the state insofar as it forms a special organism separated from society through division of labor"
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

It's when we the people stop pretending that voting once every couple of years for ruling class leaders is going to solve our problems.

We need to stop pretending that "demanding things which have meaning only in a democratic republic from a state which is nothing but a police-guarded military despotism, embellished with parliamentary forms, alloyed with a feudal admixture, already influenced by the bourgeoisie, and bureaucratically carpentered, and then to assure this state into the bargain that one imagines one will be able to force such things upon it "by legal means"."
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

All of this that Marx is saying is saying is exactly echoed in the popular support for Donald Trump.

We are not living In a dictatoeship.

That is proven fact and your lame attempt to say otherwise is a massive failure without one shred if supporting evidence.

Now answer the question why would we want a dictatoshop?

Why is marxsi despotic and tyrannical dictatorship better than any others?

 

[Tehon]

We are not living in a dictatorship now in any sense of the word especially marxs sense.

Of course we are.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch."
The German Ideology. Karl Marx 1845

Now answer up and explain what is superior about a dictatorship of the proletariat ?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the time when we the people rise up and take control of our country.

"Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it.."
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

"That, in fact, by the word "state" is meant the government machine, or the state insofar as it forms a special organism separated from society through division of labor"
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

It's when we the people stop pretending that voting once every couple of years for ruling class leaders is going to solve our problems.

We need to stop pretending that "demanding things which have meaning only in a democratic republic from a state which is nothing but a police-guarded military despotism, embellished with parliamentary forms, alloyed with a feudal admixture, already influenced by the bourgeoisie, and bureaucratically carpentered, and then to assure this state into the bargain that one imagines one will be able to force such things upon it "by legal means"."
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

All of this that Marx is saying is saying is exactly echoed in the popular support for Donald Trump.

You dummies just don't realize it. You are conditioned to believe that the ruling class are nothing but leftists. It hides the truth in plain sight.

 

[Norman]

Don't know if miseducated or stupid. Probably both...

But it's difficult to call them Americans with a straight face. American values are of course completely antithetical to all that.

 

[Tehon]

There is nothing oppressive or tyrannical about Marxism. It is simply a different way of organizing the way we produce the things that we use. It is actually less tyrannical than capitalism.
You've been conditioned your entire life to view the economy from only perspective. You can't see that it is the capitalists who enforce, with violence, their way of doing things.

Wrong

Marx himself proves you wrong.

Marx demands despotism and tyranny over others.

Marx clearly stated his vision demands dictatorship of the proletariat which means tyranny.

A dictator is a dictator is a dictator and they are all tyrannical even if they come from the proletariat.

It is not a different way of organizing production it is in fact a different way of FORCING production. Which is precisely what seizing the means of production is about.

First you seize it by force then you force it to function a certain way with workers who have to work.

That is slavery.

I cannot see mythology.

There is no force in trading pay for labor no matter how much you lie to the contrary.

That is why capitalism is morally superior to your regressive and outdated system. Capitalism is based on free will, marxism is based on violence.

You can deny those facts all day but you cannot refute then as they come from Marx himself

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not tyranny, it is an end to tyranny. Marx explains that you live in a dictatorship now in capitalist society. You've been conditioned to it so you don't see it or you don't think of it in this way, but it is there. Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat seeks to bring an end to the tyranny already imposed on society by the ruling class.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch."
The German Ideology. Karl Marx 1845

The dictatorship of the proletariat is despotism and tyranny which is precisely what Marx meant.

One does not remove tyranny from dictatorship by calling it of the proletariat and even Marx acknowledged that fact.

Rulers mean rulers regardless of what class they come from and your while quotation is meaningless contradictory crap which is also self defeating.

Now we know Marx meant tyranny and that is fact. You know it as well.

Stop the denial and lies and answer this.

Why should I live under a dictator in order to someday maybe have a classless stateless society?

How is such a society worth such a high price.

Stop the denial and lies and answer this.

Why should I live under a dictator in order to someday maybe have a classless stateless society?

I already answered that question in my previous post.

You are already living under a dictatorship now, in the very sense that Marx was using the phrase.

The question isn't why should you, you already are. The question is, why do you not object to it?

We are not living in a dictatorship now in any sense of the word especially marxs sense.

Of course we are.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch."
The German Ideology. Karl Marx 1845

Now answer up and explain what is superior about a dictatorship of the proletariat ?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the time when we the people rise up and take control of our country.

"Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it.."
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

"That, in fact, by the word "state" is meant the government machine, or the state insofar as it forms a special organism separated from society through division of labor"
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

It's when we the people stop pretending that voting once every couple of years for ruling class leaders is going to solve our problems.

We need to stop pretending that "demanding things which have meaning only in a democratic republic from a state which is nothing but a police-guarded military despotism, embellished with parliamentary forms, alloyed with a feudal admixture, already influenced by the bourgeoisie, and bureaucratically carpentered, and then to assure this state into the bargain that one imagines one will be able to force such things upon it "by legal means"."
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

All of this that Marx is saying is saying is exactly echoed in the popular support for Donald Trump.

We are not living In a dictatoeship.

That is proven fact and your lame attempt to say otherwise is a massive failure without one shred if supporting evidence.

Now answer the question why would we want a dictatoshop?

Why is marxsi despotic and tyrannical dictatorship better than any others?

I gave you the context of the phrase. You can pretend you aren't being dominated by a ruling class all you want. Or you can pull your head out of the sand. I don't give a shit which you choose.

 

[Soupnazi630]

We are not living in a dictatorship now in any sense of the word especially marxs sense.

Of course we are.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch."
The German Ideology. Karl Marx 1845

Now answer up and explain what is superior about a dictatorship of the proletariat ?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the time when we the people rise up and take control of our country.

"Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it.."
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

"That, in fact, by the word "state" is meant the government machine, or the state insofar as it forms a special organism separated from society through division of labor"
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

It's when we the people stop pretending that voting once every couple of years for ruling class leaders is going to solve our problems.

We need to stop pretending that "demanding things which have meaning only in a democratic republic from a state which is nothing but a police-guarded military despotism, embellished with parliamentary forms, alloyed with a feudal admixture, already influenced by the bourgeoisie, and bureaucratically carpentered, and then to assure this state into the bargain that one imagines one will be able to force such things upon it "by legal means"."
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

All of this that Marx is saying is saying is exactly echoed in the popular support for Donald Trump.

You dummies just don't realize it. You are conditioned to believe that the ruling class are nothing but leftists. It hides the truth in plain sight.

No one is conditioned and to say other wise is to admit that you are too stupid and ignorant to defend the crap you spew with any degree of intelligence or logic.

Answer my questions and stop running like a coward bitch

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong

Marx himself proves you wrong.

Marx demands despotism and tyranny over others.

Marx clearly stated his vision demands dictatorship of the proletariat which means tyranny.

A dictator is a dictator is a dictator and they are all tyrannical even if they come from the proletariat.

It is not a different way of organizing production it is in fact a different way of FORCING production. Which is precisely what seizing the means of production is about.

First you seize it by force then you force it to function a certain way with workers who have to work.

That is slavery.

I cannot see mythology.

There is no force in trading pay for labor no matter how much you lie to the contrary.

That is why capitalism is morally superior to your regressive and outdated system. Capitalism is based on free will, marxism is based on violence.

You can deny those facts all day but you cannot refute then as they come from Marx himself

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not tyranny, it is an end to tyranny. Marx explains that you live in a dictatorship now in capitalist society. You've been conditioned to it so you don't see it or you don't think of it in this way, but it is there. Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat seeks to bring an end to the tyranny already imposed on society by the ruling class.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch."
The German Ideology. Karl Marx 1845

The dictatorship of the proletariat is despotism and tyranny which is precisely what Marx meant.

One does not remove tyranny from dictatorship by calling it of the proletariat and even Marx acknowledged that fact.

Rulers mean rulers regardless of what class they come from and your while quotation is meaningless contradictory crap which is also self defeating.

Now we know Marx meant tyranny and that is fact. You know it as well.

Stop the denial and lies and answer this.

Why should I live under a dictator in order to someday maybe have a classless stateless society?

How is such a society worth such a high price.

Stop the denial and lies and answer this.

Why should I live under a dictator in order to someday maybe have a classless stateless society?

I already answered that question in my previous post.

You are already living under a dictatorship now, in the very sense that Marx was using the phrase.

The question isn't why should you, you already are. The question is, why do you not object to it?

We are not living in a dictatorship now in any sense of the word especially marxs sense.

Of course we are.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch."
The German Ideology. Karl Marx 1845

Now answer up and explain what is superior about a dictatorship of the proletariat ?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the time when we the people rise up and take control of our country.

"Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it.."
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

"That, in fact, by the word "state" is meant the government machine, or the state insofar as it forms a special organism separated from society through division of labor"
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

It's when we the people stop pretending that voting once every couple of years for ruling class leaders is going to solve our problems.

We need to stop pretending that "demanding things which have meaning only in a democratic republic from a state which is nothing but a police-guarded military despotism, embellished with parliamentary forms, alloyed with a feudal admixture, already influenced by the bourgeoisie, and bureaucratically carpentered, and then to assure this state into the bargain that one imagines one will be able to force such things upon it "by legal means"."
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

All of this that Marx is saying is saying is exactly echoed in the popular support for Donald Trump.

We are not living In a dictatoeship.

That is proven fact and your lame attempt to say otherwise is a massive failure without one shred if supporting evidence.

Now answer the question why would we want a dictatoshop?

Why is marxsi despotic and tyrannical dictatorship better than any others?

I gave you the context of the phrase. You can pretend you arenn't being dominated by a ruling class all you want. Or you can pull your head out of the sand. I don't give a shit which you choose.

No you did not and now you are lying.

The context is tyrranical despotism which is the context Marx said and meant

Stop lying and answer the question .You uneducted coward

Defend the despotic dictatorship your sickening God marx demanded.

Answer me now

 

[Soupnazi630]

Are Americans Who Admire Socialism and Communism Miseducated or Stupid?​

Are Americans Who Admire Socialism and Communism Miseducated or Stupid? - Black Community News
By Walter Williams -- A recent Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation survey found that 51 percent of American millennials would rather live in a socialist or communist country than in a capitalist country. Only 42 percent prefer the latter (Forty-Four Percent of Millennials Prefer Socialism. Do They Know What It Means?). Twenty-five percent of millennials who know who Vladimir Lenin was view him favorably. Lenin was the first premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Half of millennials have never heard of Communist Mao Zedong, who ruled China from 1949 to 1959 and was responsible for the deaths of 45 million Chinese people.… The number of people who died at the hands of Josef Stalin may be as high as 62 million. However, almost one-third of millennials think former President George W. Bush is responsible for more killings than Stalin (How Many Millennials Think Bush Killed More Than Stalin). By the way, Adolf Hitler, head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, was responsible for the deaths of about 20 million people. The Nazis come in as a poor third in terms of history’s most prolific mass murderers. According to professor Rudolph Rummel’s research, the 20th century, mankind’s most brutal century, saw 262 million people’s lives destroyed at the hands of their own governments (20th Century Democide)…. Young people who weren’t alive during World War II and its Cold War aftermath might be forgiven for not knowing the horrors of socialism. Some of their beliefs represent their having been indoctrinated by their K-12 teachers and college professors. There was such leftist hate for former President George W. Bush that it’s not out of the question that those 32 percent of millennials were taught by their teachers and professors that Bush murdered more people than Stalin.... America’s communists, socialists and Marxists have little knowledge of socialist history. Bradley Birzer, a professor of history at Hillsdale College, explains this in an article for The American Conservative titled “Socialists and Fascists Have Always Been Kissing Cousins.” Joseph Goebbels wrote in 1925, “It would be better for us to end our existence under Bolshevism than to endure slavery under capitalism.” This Nazi sentiment might be shared by Sen. Bernie Sanders and his comrade Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Goebbels added, “I think it is terrible that we and the Communists are.... Cold War aftermath might be forgiven for not knowing the horrors of socialism. Some of their beliefs represent their having been indoctrinated by their K-12 teachers and college professors. There was such leftist hate for former President George W. Bush that it’s not out of the question that those 32 percent of millennials were taught by their teachers and professors that Bush murdered more people than Stalin.... America’s communists, socialists and Marxists have little knowledge of socialist history. Bradley Birzer, a professor of history at Hillsdale College, explains this in an article for The American Conservative titled “Socialists and Fascists Have Always Been Kissing Cousins.” Joseph Goebbels wrote in 1925, “It would be better for us to end our existence under Bolshevism than to endure slavery. This Nazi sentiment might be shared by Sen. Bernie Sanders and his comrade Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Goebbels added, “I think it is terrible that we and the Communists are bashing in each other’s heads” (Socialists and Fascists Have Always Been Kissing Cousins)…. Are Americans who admire the world’s most brutal regimes miseducated or stupid? Or do they have some kind of devious agenda?


~~~~~~
If Socialism is such an ideal utopia of sunshine, lollipops and everything wonderful then why was the damn Berlin Wall built in the first place? Why all the positive Hype by the biased media for Venezuela that is suffering hyper-inflation, people starving and seeking to leave despite the fact that before the Chavez - Marxist Socialist takeover was the richest country in South America. (Venezuela Before Chávez: Anatomy of an Economic Collapse Edited by Ricardo Hausmann and Francisco R. RodrÃ*guez).
Millennials today are the results decades of infiltration by socialist/communist propagandists posing as educators inculcating brainwashing children from their pre-school training forward. Ideological Marxist Socialist pseudo-educators have revised, rewritten history, misrepresented fact and inserted Marxist Socialism into every classroom. The brainwashed are taught that government should provide them with everything in life without any contribution from them. They are a generation of takers. They don't want to work or think. They believe they are owed something. In answer to Dr. Williams’ question, I would say mislead, lied too and stupid. An innately inquisitive intelligent person can, and probably will overcome faulty teaching. A sensible person can eventually wake up to reality. Those who can’t are simply stupid.
Remember kindergarten children taught to sing the praises of Barack Hussein Obama. This was not only done with the children in the video, it was widely done.
School children sing praises to their savior Obama

Both…..

Especially this dishonest and cowardly piece of filth tehon who wants it.

 

[Anathema]

Capitalism was necessary for human development and for many it provides enormous amounts of freedom. But it hasn't liberated everyone in capitalist countries, nor does it tolerate social systems in foreign countries that compete with it. It is not truly emancipating.

Not all of us who support Capitalism believe in Freedom or Rights. Many of us believe thst people need to earn their Privileges by living proper lives.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism was necessary for human development and for many it provides enormous amounts of freedom. But it hasn't liberated everyone in capitalist countries, nor does it tolerate social systems in foreign countries that compete with it. It is not truly emancipating.

Not all of us who support Capitalism believe in Freedom or Rights. Many of us believe thst people need to earn their Privileges by living proper lives.

what do you mean by, proper lives.

 

[Staidhup]

Simply the result of indocturnation, unwillingness to question, peer pressure, lack of world travel experience and exposure.

 

[Tehon]

Capitalism was necessary for human development and for many it provides enormous amounts of freedom. But it hasn't liberated everyone in capitalist countries, nor does it tolerate social systems in foreign countries that compete with it. It is not truly emancipating.

Not all of us who support Capitalism believe in Freedom or Rights. Many of us believe thst people need to earn their Privileges by living proper lives.

That is an honest statement and I think common among the modern American conservative. Though most won't admit it, or don't realize it.

 

[Anathema]

That is an honest statement and I think common among the modern American conservative. Though most won't admit it, or don't realize it.

Most don’t realize that it is the proper, natural order of things for those who earn to be granted more than those who don’t and especially those who take. If you want the benefits of Society, you need to add something to the Society.

 

[xband]

Progs are dysfunctional morons and should be locked up so they can't do any more harm.

 

[Tehon]

That is an honest statement and I think common among the modern American conservative. Though most won't admit it, or don't realize it.

Most don’t realize that it is the proper, natural order of things for those who earn to be granted more than those who don’t and especially those who take. If you want the benefits of Society, you need to add something to the Society.

No one disputes that. Not even Karl Marx.

 

[Anathema]

No one disputes that. Not even Karl Marx.

Many American Socialists and Progressives dispute that concept n a daily basis, choosing to believe thst ttevjnwise and lazy are somehow entitled to public monies to support something more than their burial in a potters field.

 

[Lysistrata]

The Americans who vote for Laissez-faire capitalism sure are nuts. I guess some people like to be poor and live in trailers.

 

[Tehon]

No one disputes that. Not even Karl Marx.

Many American Socialists and Progressives dispute that concept n a daily basis, choosing to believe thst ttevjnwise and lazy are somehow entitled to public monies to support something more than their burial in a potters field.

They don't dispute the concept as described in your previous post.

 

[Anathema]

They don't dispute the concept as described in your previous post.

“From each accorito their ability. To each according to their need” iis the antithesis of what my previous post suggested.

 

[Tehon]

They don't dispute the concept as described in your previous post.

“From each accorito their ability. To each according to their need” iis the antithesis of what my previous post suggested.

The way I understood you was that those who produce more for society will receive more back from society.

the proper, natural order of things for those who earn to be granted more than those who don’t

If that was not what you meant then disregard my comment.

“From each accorito their ability. To each according to their need”

Let's put that phrase in context so we can have a proper discussion about it.

Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

 

[Anathema]

The way I understood you was that those who produce more for society will receive more back from society.

If that was not what you meant then disregard my comment.

Hopefully I can clear this all up quickly and easily...

I do not believe thst Society owns any part of my life. Not my labor, nor my money. Nothing. Nor do I believe that I have the right to take funds from the public coffers unless I am employed by the Government in the limited number of jobs that should exist in the Government (non-military).

I believe that the powers and impact of Government in Society should be severely limited. Only those powers SPECIFICALLY LISTED in the Constitution should be legislated or spent on.

The budget should be set based on the projected income from a basic flat income tax (10% max with no deductions) rather than the tax rate being set based on spending. Any excess funds at the end of the year need to be returned to the citizenry.

As you can see the basic concepts of Socialism run contrary to my beliefs on even the most basic level.