Communism is the antithesis of individual liberty.
Not if it is viciously protected. Which given the state of today's oligarchy is something entirely possible.
Ideally? The sacrifice of a few privileged people's opulent lifestyles that get toned down to happily comfortable.
In reality? Likely some form of conflict between proletariat and bourgeoisie that shakes the foundations of society to its core. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say otherwise...Marxism is inherently based in the concept of struggle.
How do you reconcile human nature, specifically, if a person works, and has his product taken away from him and given to a person who chooses not to work, eventually the worker stops working. How do you plan on dealing with that very real problem?
I hear many workers complaining about people on welfare yet they still work to survive. I grew up in a Republican household so = P.
At any rate, same situation in Marxism. Except people work to thrive.
This sounds like an oxymoron. You either have democracy or you don't. You can't lock in an economic system that can't be changed by popular consensus and still consider yourself a democracy.
The point of a planned economy is to have it under control of the social good, the popular consensus, rather than random market directions and the consensus of a few billionaires. Also if there are socialist parties that exist under a capitalist government, I see no reason why capitalist parties can't exist under a socialist government.
I don't think you can blame Stalin. Authorization rule was a basic Bolshevik doctrine:
Stalin destroyed whatever chance it had of actually working. However I didn't realize what you're talking about to be the case. But I believe Trotsky's numerous treatises after the fact address the fall of the USSR, including Lenin's mistakes, which is why numerous Trotskyists are for individual rights and democracy.
It's easy to be a Marxist when you are still living off good, old mom and dad and so want to turn the entire state into your parents -- especially if you are unmotivated and aimless in life.
What happens when people grow up and decide to make something of themselves, instead?
Marx believed that work and contributing towards society, benefiting directly from the fruits of their labor, make people happy. He simply doesn't want people to be exploited for their work. I don't believe he had the concept of a "welfare queen" in his mind when he wrote his works.
What about the American Dream of having a wife, couple kids, house, RV or boat? Those things were a common sight when I was a kid.
If the American Dream was feasible for most now, I wouldn't be a Marxist. I feel as though the capitalist engine eventually consumes genuinely important things like family structure and an affluent middle class in the drive for profit.
Marxism seems to work so well, it begs the question why it needs and apologist like yourself.
Because I'm a worthless human being with nothing better to do in my life than to defend a century and a half old ideology. If at the very least to say that considering it as a possibility is still worth it.
However part of my goal is also to find a way to make it feasible in the 21st Century, which requires a lot of research and understanding people who don't think the way I do, since many Marxists seem to be sort of cut off from what the working class wants. Hence why I'm here. I may be an apologist, but I hope to actually do more than apologize someday lol.
Karl Marx Was the Sex Slave of a Patty Hearst Type Duchess
Eliminating hereditary rights is the answer, not any of the others the Left/Right ruling class offers us as fake alternatives. When the son of a millionaire has the same chance of becoming a blue-collar worker that the son of a blue-collar worker has, then the rulers won't be so selfish and cruel towards the working class. They won't start wars when their sons will get drafted for the front lines at age 18
The university, which is the cradle of the Socialist fraud, is designed specifically for richkids living off an allowance. All others are slavish nobodies and traitors to their class.
Hereditary rights beyond passing down things like houses and heirlooms should be abolished, I agree. But do you think the upper class will allow that to happen without some sort of long, drawn out fight?
Also I could say a great many slanderous things about whatever person/s you follow. Won't stop you from subscribing to their ideology.
Trotsky massacred the Kronstadt sailors for objecting to the absolutist dictatorship of the Communist Party members and their inhuman idol Lenin. So he wouldn't have been any better than Stalin when his pseudo-intellectual utopia became threatened by reality.
Possibly. This incident is not something I heard of before...but considering Trotksy wasn't a paranoid asshat like Stalin, I believe he would have done a better job.
Castro's Daddy Was a Rich Landowner
"Bourgeois" is another snob word that indicates the aristocratic origin of the Socialist fraud. It originally was a term of contempt from those who had inherited wealth for those who had earned it, honestly or dishonestly. But all inherited wealth is dishonestly earned. Until you get rid of that rotten privilege, you can't criticize Capitalism, which has been distorted by it.
Castro isn't even a communist, I believe i mentioned that earlier.
Marx wasn't an aristocrat, he was the son of a factory owner. Thus he received an education...but I must ask, do you honestly think a person dedicated to his own survival and ensuring that his own kids and wife don't die by working in a factory for 12 or more hours straight would be concerned with creating some ideology? How could it possibly originate anywhere else but a class that actually received at least somewhat of a political education? The important thing is that it's carried on by the proletariat.
Also, Marx was involved with struggles for the working class to gain rights ever since he began his political work. I can understand calling Marx deluded, but I know for a fact that he wasn't a fraud.
People have theorized that Marx and Engels wrote mostly while imbibing in wormwood or inspired by wormwood driven experiences.
An incorrect theory most likely...if you're talking about absinthe, it never was a hallucinogenic. It was touted as such by a French doctor named Valentine Magnan, who induced muscle spasms in a guinea pig by subjecting it to wormwood vapors as part of an experiment involving the deleterious effects of absinthe and wormwood. The control that was breathing alcohol vapors did not experience the same effect, and thus, Magnan concluded that absinthe was a dangerous drink.
It has been proven systematically throughout the years that thujone, the active compound in wormwood that causes these spasms, does not cause hallucinations, merely loss of muscle control when taken in excessively high doses. Of course, it would be seen as a hallucinogenic in these times without modern medical practices to confirm otherwise.
I do however, believe that Marx and Engels were influenced by a legacy of Enlightenment Era philosophers that came before them: Marxism stands on the shoulders of intellectual giants. Though I don't doubt they indulged in absinthe at some point or another, it probably wasn't the reason for the Communist Manifesto's existence.
Mirror Image
Ayn Rand was on drugs when she wrote
Atlas Shrugged, which is basically Stalinism for the plutariat. Reversed from Left to Right, but the same simple-minded tyranny.
Ayn Rand is just an example of why idealist capitalism doesn't work. But people think it still can...which is what I'm trying to understand by being here, tbh.
