Are you for the government regulating prices, wages and profits

[The Great Goose]

I know. Its no surprise he is probably a paid troll in the Cruz/Tea Party/Libertardian fashion....scum that should be erased from history right along with the neo cons,democrats and establishment republicans.

Who me? Hmmm... well if you have the sand in your pants. I'll be at the range getting ready for you, amigo.

wtf?

I know, right? Calling me scum that needs to be erased. Can you believe that? I guess I must have struck a nerve.

He said your politics, not you personally.

That's not how I took it. I read it like he believes I am a paid troll in the Cruz/Tea Party/Libertardian fashion and are scum that should be erased from history right along with the neo cons,democrats and establishment republicans. Not sure how you read it differently. Either way, this guy is damaged goods. If he ever agreed with me, I would have to re-think my position.

 

[ding]

This is the short version. Watch it first then watch the full version.

 

[ding]

I

Who me? Hmmm... well if you have the sand in your pants. I'll be at the range getting ready for you, amigo.

wtf?

I know, right? Calling me scum that needs to be erased. Can you believe that? I guess I must have struck a nerve.

He said your politics, not you personally.

That's not how I took it. I read it like he believes I am a paid troll in the Cruz/Tea Party/Libertardian fashion and are scum that should be erased from history right along with the neo cons,democrats and establishment republicans. Not sure how you read it differently. Either way, this guy is damaged goods. If he ever agreed with me, I would have to re-think my position.

I've had people try to run me over before and I'm still here. Good luck with that.

 

[Onyx]

However, all attempts to implement communism relied an a totalitarian state.

There were never any legitimate attempts. Certainly not from Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Haile Mariam, Pol Pot, or Kim Jung Sung.

I believe communist platforms were always easy for megalomaniacs to exploit. I doubt the leaders of any major communist movement ever really wanted communism. They were just power hungry and had some useful idiots on standby.

People simply do not give up their property unless someone holds a gun on them.

Property does not exist unless someone holds a gun to someone elses head, and tells them to fuck off. That, and rarely principled societies will be respective of property, which is what I support.

 

[ding]

I'm not a big fan of the alt right, I see them the same as communists... evil.

 

[Onyx]

Marxists don't want to abolish the state.

Then they are not Marxists. Karl Marx wanted to abolish the state.

 

[bripat9643]

If Marx wanted to abolish the state, then why did he endorse government schooling, a progressive incquoteme tax and state ownership of banks?

When did Karl Marx of Friedrich Engels support either of those things?

Marxism maintains that a transitional revolutionary state is needed to precede the abolition of the state, which I believe is bullshit.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

From the communist manifesto:

Demands of the Communist Party in Germany “Workers of all countries, unite!”

1. The whole of Germany shall be declared a single and indivisible republic.

2. Every German, having reached the age of 21, shall have the right to vote and to be elected, provided he has not been convicted of a criminal offence.

3. Representatives of the people shall receive payment so that workers, too, shall be able to become members of the German parliament.

4. Universal arming of the people. In future the armies shall be simultaneously labour armies, so that the troops shall not, as formerly, merely consume, but shall produce more than is necessary for their upkeep. This will moreover be conducive to the organisation of labour.

5. Legal services shall be free of charge. 6. All feudal obligations, dues, corvées, tithes etc., which have hitherto weighed upon the rural population, shall be abolished without compensation.

7. Princely and other feudal estates, together with mines, pits, and so forth, shall become the property of the state. The estates shall be cultivated on a large scale and with the most up-to-date scientific devices in the interests of the whole of society.

8. Mortgages on peasant lands shall be declared the property of the state. Interest on such mortgages shall be paid by the peasants to the state.

9. In localities where the tenant system is developed, the land rent or the quit-rent shall be paid to the state as a tax. The measures specified in Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 are to be adopted in order to reduce the communal and other burdens hitherto imposed upon the peasants and small tenant farmers without curtailing the means available for defraying state expenses and without imperilling production. The landowner in the strict sense, who is neither a peasant nor a tenant farmer, has no share in production. Consumption on his part is, therefore, nothing but abuse.

10. A state bank, whose paper issues are legal tender, shall replace all private banks. This measure will make it possible to regulate the credit system in the interest of the people as a whole, and will thus undermine the dominion of the big financial magnates. Further, by gradually substituting paper money for gold and silver coin, the universal means of exchange (that indispensable prerequisite of bourgeois trade and commerce) will be cheapened, and gold and silver will be set free for use in foreign trade. Finally, this measure is necessary in order to bind the interests of the conservative bourgeoisie to the Government.

11. All the means of transport, railways, canals, steamships, roads, the posts etc. shall be taken over by the state. They shall become the property of the state and shall be placed free at the disposal of the impecunious classes.

12. All civil servants shall receive the same salary, the only exception being that civil servants who have a family to support and who therefore have greater requirements, shall receive a higher salary.

13. Complete separation of Church and State. The clergy of every denomination shall be paid only by the voluntary contributions of their congregations.

14. The right of inheritance to be curtailed. 57 Demands of the Communist Party in Germany

15. The introduction of steeply graduated taxes, and the abolition of taxes on articles of consumption.

16. Inauguration of national workshops. The state guarantees a livelihood to all workers and provides for those who are incapacitated for work.

17. Universal and free education of the people. It is to the interest of the German proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie and the small peasants to support these demands with all possible energy. Only by the realisation of these demands will the millions in Germany, who have hitherto been exploited by a handful of persons and whom the exploiters would like to keep in further subjection, win the rights and attain to that power to which they are entitled as the producers of all wealth.

- The Committee Karl Marx, Karl Schapper, H. Bauer, F. Engels, J. Moll, W. Wolff -​

 

[The Great Goose]

I

wtf?

I know, right? Calling me scum that needs to be erased. Can you believe that? I guess I must have struck a nerve.

He said your politics, not you personally.

That's not how I took it. I read it like he believes I am a paid troll in the Cruz/Tea Party/Libertardian fashion and are scum that should be erased from history right along with the neo cons,democrats and establishment republicans. Not sure how you read it differently. Either way, this guy is damaged goods. If he ever agreed with me, I would have to re-think my position.

I've had people try to run me over before and I'm still here. Good luck with that.

You got run over on election day, now you are clinging to the cow catcher screaming for help.

 

[bripat9643]

Marxists don't want to abolish the state.

Then they are not Marxists. Karl Marx wanted to abolish the state.

Not really. Read his Manifesto.

 

[Onyx]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

From the communist manifesto:

Demands of the Communist Party in Germany “Workers of all countries, unite!”

1. The whole of Germany shall be declared a single and indivisible republic.

2. Every German, having reached the age of 21, shall have the right to vote and to be elected, provided he has not been convicted of a criminal offence.

3. Representatives of the people shall receive payment so that workers, too, shall be able to become members of the German parliament.

4. Universal arming of the people. In future the armies shall be simultaneously labour armies, so that the troops shall not, as formerly, merely consume, but shall produce more than is necessary for their upkeep. This will moreover be conducive to the organisation of labour.

5. Legal services shall be free of charge. 6. All feudal obligations, dues, corvées, tithes etc., which have hitherto weighed upon the rural population, shall be abolished without compensation.

7. Princely and other feudal estates, together with mines, pits, and so forth, shall become the property of the state. The estates shall be cultivated on a large scale and with the most up-to-date scientific devices in the interests of the whole of society.

8. Mortgages on peasant lands shall be declared the property of the state. Interest on such mortgages shall be paid by the peasants to the state.

9. In localities where the tenant system is developed, the land rent or the quit-rent shall be paid to the state as a tax. The measures specified in Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 are to be adopted in order to reduce the communal and other burdens hitherto imposed upon the peasants and small tenant farmers without curtailing the means available for defraying state expenses and without imperilling production. The landowner in the strict sense, who is neither a peasant nor a tenant farmer, has no share in production. Consumption on his part is, therefore, nothing but abuse.

10. A state bank, whose paper issues are legal tender, shall replace all private banks. This measure will make it possible to regulate the credit system in the interest of the people as a whole, and will thus undermine the dominion of the big financial magnates. Further, by gradually substituting paper money for gold and silver coin, the universal means of exchange (that indispensable prerequisite of bourgeois trade and commerce) will be cheapened, and gold and silver will be set free for use in foreign trade. Finally, this measure is necessary in order to bind the interests of the conservative bourgeoisie to the Government.

11. All the means of transport, railways, canals, steamships, roads, the posts etc. shall be taken over by the state. They shall become the property of the state and shall be placed free at the disposal of the impecunious classes.

12. All civil servants shall receive the same salary, the only exception being that civil servants who have a family to support and who therefore have greater requirements, shall receive a higher salary.

13. Complete separation of Church and State. The clergy of every denomination shall be paid only by the voluntary contributions of their congregations.

14. The right of inheritance to be curtailed. 57 Demands of the Communist Party in Germany

15. The introduction of steeply graduated taxes, and the abolition of taxes on articles of consumption.

16. Inauguration of national workshops. The state guarantees a livelihood to all workers and provides for those who are incapacitated for work.

17. Universal and free education of the people. It is to the interest of the German proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie and the small peasants to support these demands with all possible energy. Only by the realisation of these demands will the millions in Germany, who have hitherto been exploited by a handful of persons and whom the exploiters would like to keep in further subjection, win the rights and attain to that power to which they are entitled as the producers of all wealth. The Committee Karl Marx, Karl Schapper, H. Bauer, F. Engels, J. Moll, W. Wolff​

Yeah, like I said, the transitional revolutionary state was some serious bullshit.

It is as stupid as the liberals that believe they can end corporate government with more government.

 

[Onyx]

Not really. Read his Manifesto.

Karl Marx wanted a transitional revolutionary state.

He believed that human beings needed to transition to freedom through statism. Probably the stupidest part about the ideology in my opinion.

 

[ding]

Ok, show of hands here, who is for the government regulating prices, wages and profits? Don't be shy, speak right up. Beliefs not worth stating out loud in public are beliefs not worth having.

Not me. That would be communism. Only an idiot would want the government to regulate prices, wages and profits.

You just scared off all the commie idiots who don't want to self-identify.

Sorry. Maybe we can get them back with a promise of free stuff.

 

[ding]

Marxists don't want to abolish the state.

Then they are not Marxists. Karl Marx wanted to abolish the state.

1. The Abolition of Private Property
The fundamental nature of this principle is emphasized, for instance, by Marx and Engels: "The theory of Communism may be summed up in a single sentence: 'Abolition of private property,'" (Communist Manifesto).
This proposition, in its negative form, is inherent in all socialist doctrines without exception and is the basic feature of all socialist states. But in its positive form, as an assertion about the actual nature of property in a socialist society, it is less universal and appears in two distinct variants: the overwhelming majority of socialist doctrines proclaim the communality of property (implemented in more or less radical fashion), while socialist states (and some doctrines) are based on state property.
2. The Abolition of the Family
The majority of socialist doctrines proclaim the abolition of the family. In other doctrines, as well as in certain socialist states, this proposition is not proclaimed in such radical form, but the principle appears as a de-emphasis of the role of the family, the weakening of family ties, the abolition of certain functions of the family. Again, the negative form of the principle is more common. As a positive statement about specific relationships between the sexes or between parents and children, it appears in several variants as the total obliteration of the family, communality of wives and the destruction of all ties between parent and child to the point where they may not even know each other; as an impairment and a weakening of family ties; or as the transformation of the family into a unit of the bureaucratic state subjected to its goals and control.
3. The Abolition of Religion
It is especially easy for us to observe socialism's hostility to religion, for this is inherent, with few exceptions, in all contemporary socialist states and doctrines. Only rarely is the abolition of religion legislated, as it was in Albania. But the actions of other socialist states leave no doubt that they are all governed by this very principle and that only external difficulties have prevented its complete implementation. This same principle has been repeatedly proclaimed in socialist doctrines, beginning with the end of the seventeenth century. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century doctrines are imbued with cold skeptical and ironic attitudes toward religion. If not consciously, then "objectively," they prepared humanity for the convergence of socialist ideology and militant atheism that took place at the end of the seventeenth century and during the course of the eighteenth. The heretical movements of the Middle Ages were religious in character, but those in which socialist tendencies were especially pronounced were the ones that were irrevocably opposed to the actual religion professed by the majority at the time. Calls to assassinate the Pope and to annihilate all monks and priests run like a red thread through the history of these movements. Their hatred for the basic symbols of Christianity--the cross and the church--is very striking. We encounter the burning of crosses and the profanation of churches from the first centuries of Christianity right up to the present day.
Finally, in Plato's socialist system, religion is conceived as an element in the state's ideology. Its role amounts to education, the shaping of citizens' opinions into the forms necessary to the state. To this end, new religious observances and myths were invented and the old ones abolished. It seems that in many of the states of the ancient Orient, official religion played an analogous role, its central function being the deification of the king, who was the personification of the all-powerful state.
4. Communality or Equality
This demand is encountered in almost all socialist doctrines. Its negative form is seen in the striving to destroy the hierarchy of the surrounding society and in calls "to humble the proud, the rich and the powerful," to abolish privilege. This tendency frequently gives rise to hostility toward culture as a factor contributing to spiritual and intellectual inequality and, as a result, leads to a call for the destruction of culture itself. The first formulation of this view can be found in Plato, the most recent in contemporary leftist movements in the West which consider culture "individualistic," "repressive," "suffocating," and call for "ideological guerrilla warfare against culture."
We see that a small number of clear-cut principles inspired the socialist doctrines and guided the life of the socialist societies in the course of several millennia. This unity and interrelatedness of various socialist doctrines was fully recognized by their representatives: Thomas Müntzer cites Plato as an authority; Johann of Leyden studies Müntzer, Campanella considers the Anabaptists as an example of the embodiment of his system. Morelly and the anonymous author of the article in the Encyclopédie point to the Inca state as a corroboration of their social views, and in another article from the Encyclopédie ("The Moravians," written by Faiguet), the Moravian Brethren are cited as an example of an ideal communal order. Among late socialists, Saint-Simon in his last work, New Christianity, declares: "The New Christianity will consist of separate tendencies which for the most part will correspond to the ideas of the heretical sects of Europe and America." Further examples of this sense of kinship among the socialist currents of different epochs could easily be produced. We shall only point here to the numerous works with titles such as Forerunners of Scientific Socialism produced by spokesmen of the socialist camp, where among "forerunners" one can find Plato, Dolcino, Müntzer, More and Campanella. ...
It is of course true that in different periods the central core of socialist ideology was manifested in different forms: we have seen socialism in the form of mystical prophecy, of a rationalistic plan for a happy society or of a scientific doctrine. In each period, socialism absorbs certain of the ideas of its time and uses the language contemporary to it. Some of its elements are discarded; others, on the contrary, acquire especially great significance. This is not unusual: such a pattern applies to any other phenomenon of such historical scope.
In another work on socialism, I referred to religion as an example of the same kind of historical phenomenon which is transformed in the course of time just as socialism has been. Now, however, it seems to me that this juxtaposition rather underscores the unique character of socialist ideology--its unprecedented conservatism. Since the time when socialism's basic principles were formulated in Plato's system, the religious concepts of mankind have been completely transformed:

the idea of monotheism has acquired universal significance in the world; the concept of a single God in three essences, God-manhood, salvation by faith and a series of other fundamental ideas have arisen. At the same time, the basic principles of socialism have not changed to this day; it has only altered its form and motivation.
The unity and cohesiveness of the system of socialist conceptions becomes apparent, together with an astonishing conservatism, in the way that certain details recur again and again in socialist societies and doctrines that are little related one to the other and sometimes widely separated in time. The probability of accidental recurrence is negligible, unless we assume that the similarities are inexorably determined by their exceptional spiritual closeness. We shall cite only four examples from the large number of such coincidences:
a. The coincidence of many details in More's Utopia and the accounts of the Inca state, which lead to the question posed in the French Academy concerning the influence of these accounts on More (which would have been chronologically impossible).
b. The custom of mummification of the heads of state and burial in stepped tombs of pyramid-like design, which is met with in states with strong socialist tendencies (although the states in question may be separated by many thousands of years).
c. In Deschamps's True System we find this vivid detail: Describing the future socialist society, he says that "nearly all people will have almost the same appearance." Dostoyevsky expresses the same thought in the notebooks to The Possessed. The character who is called Pyotr Verkhovensky in the novel and Nechayev in the notebooks has this to say about the future society: "In my opinion even men and women with particularly attractive faces should be prohibited." (92: XI: 270) Dostoyevsky gathered material for his novel from the ideological pronouncements of the nihilists and the socialists, but neither he nor they could have known Deschamps's work, which was published only in our century.
d. In The Republic, Plato wrote that, among the guardians, "none have any habitation or storage area which is not open for all to enter at will." Aristophanes speaks about this in almost the same words in his Ecclesiazusae: "I'll knock out walls and remodel the city into one big happy household, where all can come and go as they choose."
This particular coincidence may be explained by the fact that the authors lived during the same epoch, but the motif is encountered again in More, who, in order to underscore the kind of communality in which the Utopians lived, describes the entrances to their dwellings:
"The doors are made with two leaves that are never locked or bolted and are so easy to open that they will follow the slightest touch and shut again alone. Whoever wishes may go in, for there is nothing inside the house that is private or any man's own."
More, of course, had read Plato and could have borrowed the thought from him. But we meet with a law against the closing of doors in the Inca state as well. Still later, in Crime and Punishment, the character Lebeziatnikov expounds on the question of free entry into rooms in the future society: "It has been debated of late whether a member of the commune has the right to go into the room of another member, male or female, at any time. ..well, it was decided that he does." (92: VI: p. 284) This is not merely an artistic contrivance. Dostoyevsky understood the nature of socialism and anticipated its future role perhaps more astutely than any other thinker of the last century. Of the multitude of petty details that he knew about nihilist circles, he selected some of the most characteristic, among these the very same free entrance into dwellings mentioned almost two and a half thousand years earlier by Plato.
And finally, we encounter this motif in the first years after the revolution in Russia. The force of the explosion experienced then dislodged and threw to the surface deeply buried elements of socialist ideology that had earlier remained almost unnoticed and that were later again displaced from view. We will therefore be turning frequently to this period, which presents multiple facets of socialism in an entirely new light. In particular, there appeared at the time numerous ideas on how the new forms of life could overcome the old ways and make life more collective--for example, by replacing individual kitchens with huge factory-like kitchen facilities, or by housing the population in dormitories instead of apartments. One enthusiast published a book based, as he claims, on Trotsky's ideas (93): "It should be made clear that I do not consider the idea of rooms necessary; I believe that it will be possible to consider a room only as the living space of an individual person. After all, isolation in a room is quite unnecessary for collective man. ...The isolation needed in certain hours of love can be had in special pleasure gardens where the man and his female companion will be able to find the necessary comforts."
It would seem that socialist ideology has the ability to stamp widely separated or even historically unlinked socialist currents with indelible and stereotyped markings.
It seems to us quite legitimate to conclude that socialism does exist as a unified historical phenomenon. Its basic principles have been indicated above. They are:
Abolition of private property.
Abolition of the family.
Abolition of religion.
Equality, abolition of hierarchies in society.
The manifold embodiments of these principles are linked organically by a common spirit, by an identity of specific details and, frequently, by a clearly discernible overall thrust.
Our perspective on socialism takes into account only one of the dimensions in which this phenomenon unfolds. Socialism is not only an abstract ideological system but also the embodiment of that system in time and space. Therefore, having sketched in its outlines as an ideology, we now ought to be able to explain in what periods and within what civilization socialism arises, whether in the form of doctrine, popular movement or state structure. But here the answer turns out to be far less clear. While the ideology of socialism is sharply defined, the occurrence of socialism can hardly be linked to any definite time or civilization. If we consider the period in the history of mankind which followed the rise of the state as an institution, we find the manifestations of socialism, practically speaking, in all epochs and in all civilizations. It is possible, however, to identify epochs when socialist ideology manifests itself with particular intensity. This is usually at a turning point in history, a crisis such as the period of the Reformation or our own age. We could simply note that socialist states arise only in definite historical situations, or we could attempt to explain why it was that the socialist ideology appeared in virtually finished and complete form in Plato's time. We shall return to these questions later. But in European history, we cannot point to a single period when socialist teachings were not extant in one form or another. It seems that socialism is a constant factor in human history, at least in the period following the rise of the state. Without attempting to evaluate it for the time being, we must recognize socialism as one of the most powerful and universal forces active in a field where history is played out.
In a general sense, such an approach is not new. Book titles alone testify to that: The Socialist Empire of the Incas; The History of Communism and Socialism in Antiquity; State Socialism in the Fifteenth Century B.C., and so on. Wittfogel (in the work quoted above, 89) gathers vast amounts of material about the states of the ancient Orient, pre-Columbian America, East Africa and certain areas of the Pacific, for example the Hawaiian Islands, characterizing the states he describes as "hydraulic societies" and tracing the multitude of parallels between them and the contemporary socialist states. The history of the socialist doctrines is no less thoroughly researched, as can be seen from the numerous "Histories of Socialist Ideas," which usually begin with Plato. Koigen has even remarked ironically: "Socialism is as old as human society itself--but not older." (94)
It would seem that this should be taken as the starting point of any attempt to understand the essence of socialism. Despite being quite general, such a point of view strictly limits the range of those arguments that are applicable: any explanations based on the peculiarities of a given historical period, race or civilization must be discarded. It is necessary to reject the interpretation of socialism as a definite phase in the development of human society which is said to appear when conditions are ripe. On the contrary, any approach to socialism ought to be based on principles broad enough to be applicable to the Inca empire, to Plato's philosophy and to the socialism of the twentieth century.

The Socialist Phenomenon

7. Socialism as a special religion
Bulgakov, among others, formulated this thought in the following way: "For socialism nowadays emerges not only as a natural area of social policy but usually also as a religion, one based on atheism and the deification of man and man's labor and on recognition of the elemental forces of Nature and social life and as the only meaningful principle of history." (115: p. 36) More specifically, Bulgakov believes, socialism can be seen as a rebirth of Judaic Messianism. "Karl Marx, along with Lassalle, are the pro claimers of the apocalypse in fashionable dress, the announcers of the Messianic Kingdom." (110: p. 17; Bulgakov treats this idea in greater detail in his "Apocalyptics and Socialism," in the collection Two Cities, Volume II). Semyon Frank also calls revolutionary socialism "a religion of absolute realization of the people's happiness" and the "religion of service to material interests." Frank points to "a train of thought which unites nihilistic morality with the religion of socialism." (116: p. 192) An analogous point of view is developed by Berdiaev in the article "Marxism and Religion."

 

[ding]

However, all attempts to implement communism relied an a totalitarian state.

There were never any legitimate attempts. Certainly not from Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Haile Mariam, Pol Pot, or Kim Jung Sung.

I believe communist platforms were always easy for megalomaniacs to exploit. I doubt the leaders of any major communist movement ever really wanted communism. They were just power hungry and had some useful idiots on standby.

People simply do not give up their property unless someone holds a gun on them.

Property does not exist unless someone holds a gun to someone elses head, and tells them to fuck off. That, and rarely principled societies will be respective of property, which is what I support.

Human Requirements and Division of Labour, Marx, 1844

 

[bripat9643]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

From the communist manifesto:

Demands of the Communist Party in Germany “Workers of all countries, unite!”

1. The whole of Germany shall be declared a single and indivisible republic.

2. Every German, having reached the age of 21, shall have the right to vote and to be elected, provided he has not been convicted of a criminal offence.

3. Representatives of the people shall receive payment so that workers, too, shall be able to become members of the German parliament.

4. Universal arming of the people. In future the armies shall be simultaneously labour armies, so that the troops shall not, as formerly, merely consume, but shall produce more than is necessary for their upkeep. This will moreover be conducive to the organisation of labour.

5. Legal services shall be free of charge. 6. All feudal obligations, dues, corvées, tithes etc., which have hitherto weighed upon the rural population, shall be abolished without compensation.

7. Princely and other feudal estates, together with mines, pits, and so forth, shall become the property of the state. The estates shall be cultivated on a large scale and with the most up-to-date scientific devices in the interests of the whole of society.

8. Mortgages on peasant lands shall be declared the property of the state. Interest on such mortgages shall be paid by the peasants to the state.

9. In localities where the tenant system is developed, the land rent or the quit-rent shall be paid to the state as a tax. The measures specified in Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 are to be adopted in order to reduce the communal and other burdens hitherto imposed upon the peasants and small tenant farmers without curtailing the means available for defraying state expenses and without imperilling production. The landowner in the strict sense, who is neither a peasant nor a tenant farmer, has no share in production. Consumption on his part is, therefore, nothing but abuse.

10. A state bank, whose paper issues are legal tender, shall replace all private banks. This measure will make it possible to regulate the credit system in the interest of the people as a whole, and will thus undermine the dominion of the big financial magnates. Further, by gradually substituting paper money for gold and silver coin, the universal means of exchange (that indispensable prerequisite of bourgeois trade and commerce) will be cheapened, and gold and silver will be set free for use in foreign trade. Finally, this measure is necessary in order to bind the interests of the conservative bourgeoisie to the Government.

11. All the means of transport, railways, canals, steamships, roads, the posts etc. shall be taken over by the state. They shall become the property of the state and shall be placed free at the disposal of the impecunious classes.

12. All civil servants shall receive the same salary, the only exception being that civil servants who have a family to support and who therefore have greater requirements, shall receive a higher salary.

13. Complete separation of Church and State. The clergy of every denomination shall be paid only by the voluntary contributions of their congregations.

14. The right of inheritance to be curtailed. 57 Demands of the Communist Party in Germany

15. The introduction of steeply graduated taxes, and the abolition of taxes on articles of consumption.

16. Inauguration of national workshops. The state guarantees a livelihood to all workers and provides for those who are incapacitated for work.

17. Universal and free education of the people. It is to the interest of the German proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie and the small peasants to support these demands with all possible energy. Only by the realisation of these demands will the millions in Germany, who have hitherto been exploited by a handful of persons and whom the exploiters would like to keep in further subjection, win the rights and attain to that power to which they are entitled as the producers of all wealth. The Committee Karl Marx, Karl Schapper, H. Bauer, F. Engels, J. Moll, W. Wolff​

Yeah, like I said, the transitional revolutionary state was some serious bullshit.

It is as stupid as the liberals that believe they can end corporate government with more government.

What I demonstrated here is that Karl Marx himself didn't even believe in his so-called principles. He postulated that the contradictions of capitalism would continue to grow until it imploded and the communist form of society emerged from the ashes like a butterfly. He never postulated a transitional socialist state.

You claimed no attempt at communism was "legitimate." Unfortunately, not even Marx himself was a "legitimate" communist.

 

[bripat9643]

Not really. Read his Manifesto.

Karl Marx wanted a transitional revolutionary state.

He believed that human beings needed to transition to freedom through statism. Probably the stupidest part about the ideology in my opinion.

You're confusing Leninism with Marxism. Marx never even discussed how the transition to communism would occur. He didn't explain how it would work. He mainly attacked capitalism. Lenin used the "transitional state" to justify his dictatorship.

 

[ding]

I

I know, right? Calling me scum that needs to be erased. Can you believe that? I guess I must have struck a nerve.

He said your politics, not you personally.

That's not how I took it. I read it like he believes I am a paid troll in the Cruz/Tea Party/Libertardian fashion and are scum that should be erased from history right along with the neo cons,democrats and establishment republicans. Not sure how you read it differently. Either way, this guy is damaged goods. If he ever agreed with me, I would have to re-think my position.

I've had people try to run me over before and I'm still here. Good luck with that.

You got run over on election day, now you are clinging to the cow catcher screaming for help.

What are you talking about. You are not making any sense at all. I have never in my life voted for a Democrat. I am a conservative in the traditional sense. You want to run me over, bring it on. I don't believe you have enough sand in your pants. Your buddy, Odium, is the biggest racist here. I don't believe he is a Republican. I believe he is a Democrat. Now I am wondering about you too.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ok, show of hands here, who is for the government regulating prices, wages and profits? Don't be shy, speak right up. Beliefs not worth stating out loud in public are beliefs not worth having.

Creating a poll to complicated for you?

 

[ding]

Ok, show of hands here, who is for the government regulating prices, wages and profits? Don't be shy, speak right up. Beliefs not worth stating out loud in public are beliefs not worth having.

Creating a poll to complicated for you?

No. I'm not a fan of anonymity. Is it too complicated for you to state your position? Or are you just too ashamed to say it out loud publicly?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ok, show of hands here, who is for the government regulating prices, wages and profits? Don't be shy, speak right up. Beliefs not worth stating out loud in public are beliefs not worth having.

Creating a poll to complicated for you?

No. I'm not a fan of anonymity. Is it too complicated for you to state your position? Or are you just too ashamed to say it out loud publicly?

My positions are well known on this board. Now learn how to create a poll noob