Late Stage Socialism: Venezuela Kidnaps Chevron Execs

[danielpalos]

You simply don't understand socialism. Special pleading was only good, to keep it simple for the right wing, during the Cold War.

I'm positive I understand Socialism far better than you do.

If you really understood, you'd know better.

Everybody who tells me that, Only knows a dictionary's definition worth of Socialism.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

Well, you can say that Marx is about "totalitarianism", but you saying it does not make it so. Regarding "rise of the proletariat", considering that most of the population fall into this class, the rise of the proletariat would mean democracy. Capitalism is rule by the rich - that is, an oligarchy, which is what America is now!

About that line, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need", that is from the "Critique of the Gotha Programme", and Marx is talking about Socialism producing such abundance that basic needs are met. Capitalism will never meet the basic needs of a society, because capitalism depends on scarcity and a large supply of desperate workers - which is why Republicans always want to cut the minimum wage and unemployment benefits.

Technology has reached the point where all Americans could have their basic needs of food, shelter, education, and healthcare met, but, sadly, capitalism will not allow it. Notice in the quote below the phrase, "all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly." Also, notice how "enslaving" "has vanished!" If "enslaving" "has vanished" and these are the words of Karl Marx, then you have some catching up to do.

Quote)

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!

(End quote)

Wrong.

Marx is not about totalitarianism because I say he is. Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS.

And he did say it as we have proven here.

Most are not in the working class as he envisioned it and we have no ruling class which you showed that he advocated for.

You can say what he meant all day. I am going off of what he said and the clear obvious meaning. You are avoiding what he said and applying your own views and opinions and attempting to lie and claim that he meant what you say.

You may as well ignore what he wrote and simply post your own opinions because your views are not his.

You keep providing quotes proving me correct.

You just supplied one where he advocates enslaving the individual. Good job proving your ignorance and lack of comprehension.

I will save that quote from you to prove the evils of marx's ideology.

About "Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS", Marx never talked about totalitarianism. Try reading Marx

Then, this is just dumb as it applies to America, "we have no ruling class!" America is an oligarchy!

Next, you cannot read, Marx wrote about "enslaving" having vanished, and you think "he advocates enslaving the individual." If you are going to have a discussion, at least, "try" to be an honest person.

He most certainly did and multiple quotes from marx have proven that he did

You are simply lying like a coward at this point as those quotes have been put in your face proving you wrong.

he was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship.

America has no ruling class regardless of how many times you repeat such an ignorantly stupid claim.

I dare you to name such a ruler.

Well, there is no amount of evidence that will convince some as they continue to think Marx "was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship." Yet, somehow the people who hold such views never ask themselves, "Gee, if Marx was so awful, why do economists all over the world still talk about his ideas and what he wrote some 150 years after he wrote his major work "Capital: Critique of Political Economy!"

The problem here is, these people have swallowed - hook, line and sinker - the propaganda from the rich who want continue to exploit the mass of people and the planet.

You have failed to offer or citre such evidence instead the evidence proves IRRFUTABELY that he advocated totalitarianism.

ANd yes he was a pig.

Some ( very few ) economists cite his ideas because they are fools and nothing more.

The propaganda is coming from the marxist professors who dominate schools not from the rich who need no such propaganda.

About "evidence" that "he advocated totalitarianism", you have offered no evidence that Marx did. Marx did believe that changing government would require a revolution - possibly violent - but Marx viewed capitalism as coming out of the violence of the French Revolution. It is only recently, by the work of Gene Sharp, that we understand the nonviolent way to overthrow a dictator.

Yet, Marx viewed capitalism as the system that does the enslaving as in this quote from "Wages of Labuor" (1844).

(Quote)

Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work. It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.

(End quote)

In today's world, this is called "externalizing" problems or costs to another part of society. For example, the phrase "leave to the poor-house overseer" makes me think "Walmart!" Yet, in the same writings, Marx shows more humanity than is found in many Americans today.

(Quote)

To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs – they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment.

(End quote)

"Break the bondage to bodily needs!" Are we talking about supporting food stamps and Medicaid?! And well, "spiritual enjoyment" is what you make of it, but we need it! And again, Marx sounds more caring than most capitalist employers.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

Where do you actually live? Where do you live or have visited for any length of time that you claim is much better.

Okay, this comment is projection of capitalism onto socialism, "supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?" Capitalism, as in America, leads to empire building. I need only point to "the Britain on which the sun never set" and America with its 750 to over 800 overseas military bases and installations. Those American bases are their in case some government does not do what America's rich people want. I suggest you read Gen. Smedley Butler's book "War is a Racket!"

Yes, America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire, took the Asian Pacific for no reason but conquest, and America controls what 168 nations do.

Tell us, what pathetic slave nation to America do you live in?

About "America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire," America is an empire, and you do not get it. All empires end the same way. As they expand, the cost of expansion means they have to let the center of the empire - that's us - rot. It is also true that the torture and cruelty that is used to expand the empire will eventually come home to be used on its own citizens. If you take the time to look, you can see both happening now!

So why won't you tell us what slave nation shithole to America you live in?

About "So why won't you tell us what slave nation shithole to America you live in?", you seem to think America is a great place to live despite America's education that makes you a debt slave, a healthcare system that bankrupts you, roads and more that are awful - not to mention that lack of high speed rail. In Spain, I road a train going 185 mi/hr, and American trains are lucky to do 100 mi/hr. And Americans think of Spain as a "sort-of developed country."

I could go on, but what is the point. America is not the paradise you think it is!

About " Where do you . . . claim is much better", I have traveled more than most, and the people in the countries I have visited do just find. However, the real way to measure the quality of life in a country is with an index, and here are three. The Human Development Index - HDI - was established to place emphasis on individuals, more precisely on their opportunities to realize satisfying work and lives.

The US ranks 10th after those socialist countries of Norway, which is first, and the Netherlands, which is 7th.

Or you could use the "Satisfaction with Life Index." The Satisfaction with Life Index attempts to measure happiness directly, by asking people how happy they are with their health, wealth, and education, and assigning a weighting to these answers. In which case, America comes in at 23rd. Denmark is first. Sweden is seventh. Canada is 10th. Netherlands is 15th. New Zealand is 18th.

The best rating for America is in the "Quality of Life" index. America is 9th after the following which are in order: Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand.

The point, there is nothing special about living in America, and many people around the world have more satisfying lives. Not to mention most of those people think our healthcare is horrifying, our educational costs are insane, and our infrastructure is pathetic.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.

Marx is not about totalitarianism because I say he is. Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS.

And he did say it as we have proven here.

Most are not in the working class as he envisioned it and we have no ruling class which you showed that he advocated for.

You can say what he meant all day. I am going off of what he said and the clear obvious meaning. You are avoiding what he said and applying your own views and opinions and attempting to lie and claim that he meant what you say.

You may as well ignore what he wrote and simply post your own opinions because your views are not his.

You keep providing quotes proving me correct.

You just supplied one where he advocates enslaving the individual. Good job proving your ignorance and lack of comprehension.

I will save that quote from you to prove the evils of marx's ideology.

About "Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS", Marx never talked about totalitarianism. Try reading Marx

Then, this is just dumb as it applies to America, "we have no ruling class!" America is an oligarchy!

Next, you cannot read, Marx wrote about "enslaving" having vanished, and you think "he advocates enslaving the individual." If you are going to have a discussion, at least, "try" to be an honest person.

He most certainly did and multiple quotes from marx have proven that he did

You are simply lying like a coward at this point as those quotes have been put in your face proving you wrong.

he was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship.

America has no ruling class regardless of how many times you repeat such an ignorantly stupid claim.

I dare you to name such a ruler.

Well, there is no amount of evidence that will convince some as they continue to think Marx "was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship." Yet, somehow the people who hold such views never ask themselves, "Gee, if Marx was so awful, why do economists all over the world still talk about his ideas and what he wrote some 150 years after he wrote his major work "Capital: Critique of Political Economy!"

The problem here is, these people have swallowed - hook, line and sinker - the propaganda from the rich who want continue to exploit the mass of people and the planet.

You have failed to offer or citre such evidence instead the evidence proves IRRFUTABELY that he advocated totalitarianism.

ANd yes he was a pig.

Some ( very few ) economists cite his ideas because they are fools and nothing more.

The propaganda is coming from the marxist professors who dominate schools not from the rich who need no such propaganda.

About "evidence" that "he advocated totalitarianism", you have offered no evidence that Marx did. Marx did believe that changing government would require a revolution - possibly violent - but Marx viewed capitalism as coming out of the violence of the French Revolution. It is only recently, by the work of Gene Sharp, that we understand the nonviolent way to overthrow a dictator.

Yet, Marx viewed capitalism as the system that does the enslaving as in this quote from "Wages of Labuor" (1844).

(Quote)

Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work. It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.

(End quote)

In today's world, this is called "externalizing" problems or costs to another part of society. For example, the phrase "leave to the poor-house overseer" makes me think "Walmart!" Yet, in the same writings, Marx shows more humanity than is found in many Americans today.

(Quote)

To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs – they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment.

(End quote)

"Break the bondage to bodily needs!" Are we talking about supporting food stamps and Medicaid?! And well, "spiritual enjoyment" is what you make of it, but we need it! And again, Marx sounds more caring than most capitalist employers.

I demonstrated absolute evidence that he advocated it and you saw it and are lying.

I quoted him word for word advocating despotism and dictatorship.

 

[depotoo]

Not an answer.

Where do you actually live? Where do you live or have visited for any length of time that you claim is much better.

Yes, America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire, took the Asian Pacific for no reason but conquest, and America controls what 168 nations do.

Tell us, what pathetic slave nation to America do you live in?

About "America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire," America is an empire, and you do not get it. All empires end the same way. As they expand, the cost of expansion means they have to let the center of the empire - that's us - rot. It is also true that the torture and cruelty that is used to expand the empire will eventually come home to be used on its own citizens. If you take the time to look, you can see both happening now!

So why won't you tell us what slave nation shithole to America you live in?

About "So why won't you tell us what slave nation shithole to America you live in?", you seem to think America is a great place to live despite America's education that makes you a debt slave, a healthcare system that bankrupts you, roads and more that are awful - not to mention that lack of high speed rail. In Spain, I road a train going 185 mi/hr, and American trains are lucky to do 100 mi/hr. And Americans think of Spain as a "sort-of developed country."

I could go on, but what is the point. America is not the paradise you think it is!

About " Where do you . . . claim is much better", I have traveled more than most, and the people in the countries I have visited do just find. However, the real way to measure the quality of life in a country is with an index, and here are three. The Human Development Index - HDI - was established to place emphasis on individuals, more precisely on their opportunities to realize satisfying work and lives.

The US ranks 10th after those socialist countries of Norway, which is first, and the Netherlands, which is 7th.

Or you could use the "Satisfaction with Life Index." The Satisfaction with Life Index attempts to measure happiness directly, by asking people how happy they are with their health, wealth, and education, and assigning a weighting to these answers. In which case, America comes in at 23rd. Denmark is first. Sweden is seventh. Canada is 10th. Netherlands is 15th. New Zealand is 18th.

The best rating for America is in the "Quality of Life" index. America is 9th after the following which are in order: Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand.

The point, there is nothing special about living in America, and many people around the world have more satisfying lives. Not to mention most of those people think our healthcare is horrifying, our educational costs are insane, and our infrastructure is pathetic.

 

[danielpalos]

New cities, is what they need!

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

About "Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS", Marx never talked about totalitarianism. Try reading Marx

Then, this is just dumb as it applies to America, "we have no ruling class!" America is an oligarchy!

Next, you cannot read, Marx wrote about "enslaving" having vanished, and you think "he advocates enslaving the individual." If you are going to have a discussion, at least, "try" to be an honest person.

He most certainly did and multiple quotes from marx have proven that he did

You are simply lying like a coward at this point as those quotes have been put in your face proving you wrong.

he was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship.

America has no ruling class regardless of how many times you repeat such an ignorantly stupid claim.

I dare you to name such a ruler.

Well, there is no amount of evidence that will convince some as they continue to think Marx "was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship." Yet, somehow the people who hold such views never ask themselves, "Gee, if Marx was so awful, why do economists all over the world still talk about his ideas and what he wrote some 150 years after he wrote his major work "Capital: Critique of Political Economy!"

The problem here is, these people have swallowed - hook, line and sinker - the propaganda from the rich who want continue to exploit the mass of people and the planet.

You have failed to offer or citre such evidence instead the evidence proves IRRFUTABELY that he advocated totalitarianism.

ANd yes he was a pig.

Some ( very few ) economists cite his ideas because they are fools and nothing more.

The propaganda is coming from the marxist professors who dominate schools not from the rich who need no such propaganda.

About "evidence" that "he advocated totalitarianism", you have offered no evidence that Marx did. Marx did believe that changing government would require a revolution - possibly violent - but Marx viewed capitalism as coming out of the violence of the French Revolution. It is only recently, by the work of Gene Sharp, that we understand the nonviolent way to overthrow a dictator.

Yet, Marx viewed capitalism as the system that does the enslaving as in this quote from "Wages of Labuor" (1844).

(Quote)

Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work. It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.

(End quote)

In today's world, this is called "externalizing" problems or costs to another part of society. For example, the phrase "leave to the poor-house overseer" makes me think "Walmart!" Yet, in the same writings, Marx shows more humanity than is found in many Americans today.

(Quote)

To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs – they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment.

(End quote)

"Break the bondage to bodily needs!" Are we talking about supporting food stamps and Medicaid?! And well, "spiritual enjoyment" is what you make of it, but we need it! And again, Marx sounds more caring than most capitalist employers.

I demonstrated absolute evidence that he advocated it and you saw it and are lying.

I quoted him word for word advocating despotism and dictatorship.

You have demonstrated nothing except that you can quote Marx out of context. I have already pointed out that Marx and Engels have always appreciated the value of the vote. Again, in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto they wrote:

(Quote)

"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."

(End quote)

Looking back, half a century later, Frederick Engels said in the " Introduction to Class Struggles in France": (1895)

(Quote)

"The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the struggle for the general franchise, for democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat . . .

(End quote)

And then, only four years after the Communist Manifesto Marx emphasized his support for democracy in an article in the New York Tribune (25 August 1852), which says:

(Quote)

"The carrying of universal suffrage in England would . . . be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent. It's inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class."

(End quote)

You need to read what Marx actually wrote rather than listening only to the capitalist propaganda put out by the rich. The propaganda is designed to fool you so they can keep stealing the wealth you create.

PS: Remember, NeoMarxist are "currently" advocating businesses based on the "farmer cooperative" model - that is, worker owned and run businesses. This adds democracy to the workplace. That is, it replaces the current workplace dictatorship with democracy!

 

[Soupnazi630]

He most certainly did and multiple quotes from marx have proven that he did

You are simply lying like a coward at this point as those quotes have been put in your face proving you wrong.

he was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship.

America has no ruling class regardless of how many times you repeat such an ignorantly stupid claim.

I dare you to name such a ruler.

Well, there is no amount of evidence that will convince some as they continue to think Marx "was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship." Yet, somehow the people who hold such views never ask themselves, "Gee, if Marx was so awful, why do economists all over the world still talk about his ideas and what he wrote some 150 years after he wrote his major work "Capital: Critique of Political Economy!"

The problem here is, these people have swallowed - hook, line and sinker - the propaganda from the rich who want continue to exploit the mass of people and the planet.

You have failed to offer or citre such evidence instead the evidence proves IRRFUTABELY that he advocated totalitarianism.

ANd yes he was a pig.

Some ( very few ) economists cite his ideas because they are fools and nothing more.

The propaganda is coming from the marxist professors who dominate schools not from the rich who need no such propaganda.

About "evidence" that "he advocated totalitarianism", you have offered no evidence that Marx did. Marx did believe that changing government would require a revolution - possibly violent - but Marx viewed capitalism as coming out of the violence of the French Revolution. It is only recently, by the work of Gene Sharp, that we understand the nonviolent way to overthrow a dictator.

Yet, Marx viewed capitalism as the system that does the enslaving as in this quote from "Wages of Labuor" (1844).

(Quote)

Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work. It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.

(End quote)

In today's world, this is called "externalizing" problems or costs to another part of society. For example, the phrase "leave to the poor-house overseer" makes me think "Walmart!" Yet, in the same writings, Marx shows more humanity than is found in many Americans today.

(Quote)

To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs – they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment.

(End quote)

"Break the bondage to bodily needs!" Are we talking about supporting food stamps and Medicaid?! And well, "spiritual enjoyment" is what you make of it, but we need it! And again, Marx sounds more caring than most capitalist employers.

I demonstrated absolute evidence that he advocated it and you saw it and are lying.

I quoted him word for word advocating despotism and dictatorship.

You have demonstrated nothing except that you can quote Marx out of context. I have already pointed out that Marx and Engels have always appreciated the value of the vote. Again, in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto they wrote:

(Quote)

"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."

(End quote)

Looking back, half a century later, Frederick Engels said in the " Introduction to Class Struggles in France": (1895)

(Quote)

"The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the struggle for the general franchise, for democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat . . .

(End quote)

And then, only four years after the Communist Manifesto Marx emphasized his support for democracy in an article in the New York Tribune (25 August 1852), which says:

(Quote)

"The carrying of universal suffrage in England would . . . be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent. It's inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class."

(End quote)

You need to read what Marx actually wrote rather than listening only to the capitalist propaganda put out by the rich. The propaganda is designed to fool you so they can keep stealing the wealth you create.

PS: Remember, NeoMarxist are "currently" advocating businesses based on the "farmer cooperative" model - that is, worker owned and run businesses. This adds democracy to the workplace. That is, it replaces the current workplace dictatorship with democracy!

I have read what he wrote you have not.

Once again dictatorship of the proletariat is not a democracy he meant DICTATORSHIP. Oh sure he supported universal suffrage in the mean time but his revolutionary vision which he advocated required DESPOTISM as I have proven.

It is YOU lacking in comprehension of what Marx wrote like all of his foolish acolytes.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

Well, there is no amount of evidence that will convince some as they continue to think Marx "was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship." Yet, somehow the people who hold such views never ask themselves, "Gee, if Marx was so awful, why do economists all over the world still talk about his ideas and what he wrote some 150 years after he wrote his major work "Capital: Critique of Political Economy!"

The problem here is, these people have swallowed - hook, line and sinker - the propaganda from the rich who want continue to exploit the mass of people and the planet.

You have failed to offer or citre such evidence instead the evidence proves IRRFUTABELY that he advocated totalitarianism.

ANd yes he was a pig.

Some ( very few ) economists cite his ideas because they are fools and nothing more.

The propaganda is coming from the marxist professors who dominate schools not from the rich who need no such propaganda.

About "evidence" that "he advocated totalitarianism", you have offered no evidence that Marx did. Marx did believe that changing government would require a revolution - possibly violent - but Marx viewed capitalism as coming out of the violence of the French Revolution. It is only recently, by the work of Gene Sharp, that we understand the nonviolent way to overthrow a dictator.

Yet, Marx viewed capitalism as the system that does the enslaving as in this quote from "Wages of Labuor" (1844).

(Quote)

Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work. It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.

(End quote)

In today's world, this is called "externalizing" problems or costs to another part of society. For example, the phrase "leave to the poor-house overseer" makes me think "Walmart!" Yet, in the same writings, Marx shows more humanity than is found in many Americans today.

(Quote)

To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs – they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment.

(End quote)

"Break the bondage to bodily needs!" Are we talking about supporting food stamps and Medicaid?! And well, "spiritual enjoyment" is what you make of it, but we need it! And again, Marx sounds more caring than most capitalist employers.

I demonstrated absolute evidence that he advocated it and you saw it and are lying.

I quoted him word for word advocating despotism and dictatorship.

You have demonstrated nothing except that you can quote Marx out of context. I have already pointed out that Marx and Engels have always appreciated the value of the vote. Again, in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto they wrote:

(Quote)

"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."

(End quote)

Looking back, half a century later, Frederick Engels said in the " Introduction to Class Struggles in France": (1895)

(Quote)

"The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the struggle for the general franchise, for democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat . . .

(End quote)

And then, only four years after the Communist Manifesto Marx emphasized his support for democracy in an article in the New York Tribune (25 August 1852), which says:

(Quote)

"The carrying of universal suffrage in England would . . . be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent. It's inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class."

(End quote)

You need to read what Marx actually wrote rather than listening only to the capitalist propaganda put out by the rich. The propaganda is designed to fool you so they can keep stealing the wealth you create.

PS: Remember, NeoMarxist are "currently" advocating businesses based on the "farmer cooperative" model - that is, worker owned and run businesses. This adds democracy to the workplace. That is, it replaces the current workplace dictatorship with democracy!

I have read what he wrote you have not.

Once again dictatorship of the proletariat is not a democracy he meant DICTATORSHIP. Oh sure he supported universal suffrage in the mean time but his revolutionary vision which he advocated required DESPOTISM as I have proven.

It is YOU lacking in comprehension of what Marx wrote like all of his foolish acolytes.

Now this is an oxymoron if there ever was one, "dictatorship of the proletariat." The proletariat is not just the workers, but is the largest group of people in the population of a country. If you have the majority of the people running a country, they do not call it a dictatorship. They call it a democracy or a representative democracy; maybe even a republic. However, you cannot, by any definition anywhere, call such a government a dictatorship.

In fact, capitalists are afraid of real democracies, which is why they have spent so much converting America into an "inverted democracy" (a.k.a: a managed democracy or illiberal democracy) - which is (a quote) "a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics. Every natural resource and living being is commodified and exploited to the point of collapse, as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism."

The rich fear democracy, because the majority - the proletariat - may just decide to tax them to pay for the needs of the society such as schools, roads, healthcare, and more. This is exactly what FDR did in the middle of the Great Depression, when the government had no money. FDR told the rich, you are going to pay for unemployment benefits, Social Security, and a whole lot more.

Sadly, after FDR's death, the rich decided to take all of that back, so they have been steadily undoing the New Deal programs and laws such as Glass-Steagall. The net result is the 1930s are back - albeit in a different form.

To save capitalism from itself - which FDR claimed he did - you would have to reinstitute the New Deal, but sadly it would fail! It took the rich 70 years to get rid of the regulations and programs of the New Deal. Now that the rich know how this is done, if we put the New Deal back in place, the rich would undo it again, but in probably 30 years.

So save capitalism if you wish, and revive the economy if you can, but understand, capitalism will return you to something that looks like the Great Depression over, and over and over again.

PS: Yes, I have read Marx! That is how I know about all of those quotes!

 

[Soupnazi630]

You have failed to offer or citre such evidence instead the evidence proves IRRFUTABELY that he advocated totalitarianism.

ANd yes he was a pig.

Some ( very few ) economists cite his ideas because they are fools and nothing more.

The propaganda is coming from the marxist professors who dominate schools not from the rich who need no such propaganda.

About "evidence" that "he advocated totalitarianism", you have offered no evidence that Marx did. Marx did believe that changing government would require a revolution - possibly violent - but Marx viewed capitalism as coming out of the violence of the French Revolution. It is only recently, by the work of Gene Sharp, that we understand the nonviolent way to overthrow a dictator.

Yet, Marx viewed capitalism as the system that does the enslaving as in this quote from "Wages of Labuor" (1844).

(Quote)

Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work. It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.

(End quote)

In today's world, this is called "externalizing" problems or costs to another part of society. For example, the phrase "leave to the poor-house overseer" makes me think "Walmart!" Yet, in the same writings, Marx shows more humanity than is found in many Americans today.

(Quote)

To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs – they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment.

(End quote)

"Break the bondage to bodily needs!" Are we talking about supporting food stamps and Medicaid?! And well, "spiritual enjoyment" is what you make of it, but we need it! And again, Marx sounds more caring than most capitalist employers.

I demonstrated absolute evidence that he advocated it and you saw it and are lying.

I quoted him word for word advocating despotism and dictatorship.

You have demonstrated nothing except that you can quote Marx out of context. I have already pointed out that Marx and Engels have always appreciated the value of the vote. Again, in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto they wrote:

(Quote)

"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."

(End quote)

Looking back, half a century later, Frederick Engels said in the " Introduction to Class Struggles in France": (1895)

(Quote)

"The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the struggle for the general franchise, for democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat . . .

(End quote)

And then, only four years after the Communist Manifesto Marx emphasized his support for democracy in an article in the New York Tribune (25 August 1852), which says:

(Quote)

"The carrying of universal suffrage in England would . . . be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent. It's inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class."

(End quote)

You need to read what Marx actually wrote rather than listening only to the capitalist propaganda put out by the rich. The propaganda is designed to fool you so they can keep stealing the wealth you create.

PS: Remember, NeoMarxist are "currently" advocating businesses based on the "farmer cooperative" model - that is, worker owned and run businesses. This adds democracy to the workplace. That is, it replaces the current workplace dictatorship with democracy!

I have read what he wrote you have not.

Once again dictatorship of the proletariat is not a democracy he meant DICTATORSHIP. Oh sure he supported universal suffrage in the mean time but his revolutionary vision which he advocated required DESPOTISM as I have proven.

It is YOU lacking in comprehension of what Marx wrote like all of his foolish acolytes.

Now this is an oxymoron if there ever was one, "dictatorship of the proletariat." The proletariat is not just the workers, but is the largest group of people in the population of a country. If you have the majority of the people running a country, they do not call it a dictatorship. They call it a democracy or a representative democracy; maybe even a republic. However, you cannot, by any definition anywhere, call such a government a dictatorship.

In fact, capitalists are afraid of real democracies, which is why they have spent so much converting America into an "inverted democracy" (a.k.a: a managed democracy or illiberal democracy) - which is (a quote) "a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics. Every natural resource and living being is commodified and exploited to the point of collapse, as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism."

The rich fear democracy, because the majority - the proletariat - may just decide to tax them to pay for the needs of the society such as schools, roads, healthcare, and more. This is exactly what FDR did in the middle of the Great Depression, when the government had no money. FDR told the rich, you are going to pay for unemployment benefits, Social Security, and a whole lot more.

Sadly, after FDR's death, the rich decided to take all of that back, so they have been steadily undoing the New Deal programs and laws such as Glass-Steagall. The net result is the 1930s are back - albeit in a different form.

To save capitalism from itself - which FDR claimed he did - you would have to reinstitute the New Deal, but sadly it would fail! It took the rich 70 years to get rid of the regulations and programs of the New Deal. Now that the rich know how this is done, if we put the New Deal back in place, the rich would undo it again, but in probably 30 years.

So save capitalism if you wish, and revive the economy if you can, but understand, capitalism will return you to something that looks like the Great Depression over, and over and over again.

PS: Yes, I have read Marx! That is how I know about all of those quotes!

A dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of whether it is a group or an individual.

As I said earlier you do not make it a good idea by hanging the words " of the proletariat " after the word dictator but that is precisely what MArx preached.

He preached a despotic totalitarian dictatorship

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

About "evidence" that "he advocated totalitarianism", you have offered no evidence that Marx did. Marx did believe that changing government would require a revolution - possibly violent - but Marx viewed capitalism as coming out of the violence of the French Revolution. It is only recently, by the work of Gene Sharp, that we understand the nonviolent way to overthrow a dictator.

Yet, Marx viewed capitalism as the system that does the enslaving as in this quote from "Wages of Labuor" (1844).

(Quote)

Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work. It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.

(End quote)

In today's world, this is called "externalizing" problems or costs to another part of society. For example, the phrase "leave to the poor-house overseer" makes me think "Walmart!" Yet, in the same writings, Marx shows more humanity than is found in many Americans today.

(Quote)

To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs – they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment.

(End quote)

"Break the bondage to bodily needs!" Are we talking about supporting food stamps and Medicaid?! And well, "spiritual enjoyment" is what you make of it, but we need it! And again, Marx sounds more caring than most capitalist employers.

I demonstrated absolute evidence that he advocated it and you saw it and are lying.

I quoted him word for word advocating despotism and dictatorship.

You have demonstrated nothing except that you can quote Marx out of context. I have already pointed out that Marx and Engels have always appreciated the value of the vote. Again, in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto they wrote:

(Quote)

"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."

(End quote)

Looking back, half a century later, Frederick Engels said in the " Introduction to Class Struggles in France": (1895)

(Quote)

"The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the struggle for the general franchise, for democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat . . .

(End quote)

And then, only four years after the Communist Manifesto Marx emphasized his support for democracy in an article in the New York Tribune (25 August 1852), which says:

(Quote)

"The carrying of universal suffrage in England would . . . be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent. It's inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class."

(End quote)

You need to read what Marx actually wrote rather than listening only to the capitalist propaganda put out by the rich. The propaganda is designed to fool you so they can keep stealing the wealth you create.

PS: Remember, NeoMarxist are "currently" advocating businesses based on the "farmer cooperative" model - that is, worker owned and run businesses. This adds democracy to the workplace. That is, it replaces the current workplace dictatorship with democracy!

I have read what he wrote you have not.

Once again dictatorship of the proletariat is not a democracy he meant DICTATORSHIP. Oh sure he supported universal suffrage in the mean time but his revolutionary vision which he advocated required DESPOTISM as I have proven.

It is YOU lacking in comprehension of what Marx wrote like all of his foolish acolytes.

Now this is an oxymoron if there ever was one, "dictatorship of the proletariat." The proletariat is not just the workers, but is the largest group of people in the population of a country. If you have the majority of the people running a country, they do not call it a dictatorship. They call it a democracy or a representative democracy; maybe even a republic. However, you cannot, by any definition anywhere, call such a government a dictatorship.

In fact, capitalists are afraid of real democracies, which is why they have spent so much converting America into an "inverted democracy" (a.k.a: a managed democracy or illiberal democracy) - which is (a quote) "a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics. Every natural resource and living being is commodified and exploited to the point of collapse, as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism."

The rich fear democracy, because the majority - the proletariat - may just decide to tax them to pay for the needs of the society such as schools, roads, healthcare, and more. This is exactly what FDR did in the middle of the Great Depression, when the government had no money. FDR told the rich, you are going to pay for unemployment benefits, Social Security, and a whole lot more.

Sadly, after FDR's death, the rich decided to take all of that back, so they have been steadily undoing the New Deal programs and laws such as Glass-Steagall. The net result is the 1930s are back - albeit in a different form.

To save capitalism from itself - which FDR claimed he did - you would have to reinstitute the New Deal, but sadly it would fail! It took the rich 70 years to get rid of the regulations and programs of the New Deal. Now that the rich know how this is done, if we put the New Deal back in place, the rich would undo it again, but in probably 30 years.

So save capitalism if you wish, and revive the economy if you can, but understand, capitalism will return you to something that looks like the Great Depression over, and over and over again.

PS: Yes, I have read Marx! That is how I know about all of those quotes!

A dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of whether it is a group or an individual.

As I said earlier you do not make it a good idea by hanging the words " of the proletariat " after the word dictator but that is precisely what MArx preached.

He preached a despotic totalitarian dictatorship

I see no amount of evidence will stop you from believing what you want to believe. Proletariat is defined as "the working class." In America, that is about 100 million people. You cannot run a dictatorship governed by a group of 100 million. There is no social science person on the planet that would accept your definition.

By your definition, America is a despotic dictatorship, not "of the proletariat" but "of the voting citizens."

 

[Soupnazi630]

I demonstrated absolute evidence that he advocated it and you saw it and are lying.

I quoted him word for word advocating despotism and dictatorship.

You have demonstrated nothing except that you can quote Marx out of context. I have already pointed out that Marx and Engels have always appreciated the value of the vote. Again, in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto they wrote:

(Quote)

"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."

(End quote)

Looking back, half a century later, Frederick Engels said in the " Introduction to Class Struggles in France": (1895)

(Quote)

"The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the struggle for the general franchise, for democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat . . .

(End quote)

And then, only four years after the Communist Manifesto Marx emphasized his support for democracy in an article in the New York Tribune (25 August 1852), which says:

(Quote)

"The carrying of universal suffrage in England would . . . be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent. It's inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class."

(End quote)

You need to read what Marx actually wrote rather than listening only to the capitalist propaganda put out by the rich. The propaganda is designed to fool you so they can keep stealing the wealth you create.

PS: Remember, NeoMarxist are "currently" advocating businesses based on the "farmer cooperative" model - that is, worker owned and run businesses. This adds democracy to the workplace. That is, it replaces the current workplace dictatorship with democracy!

I have read what he wrote you have not.

Once again dictatorship of the proletariat is not a democracy he meant DICTATORSHIP. Oh sure he supported universal suffrage in the mean time but his revolutionary vision which he advocated required DESPOTISM as I have proven.

It is YOU lacking in comprehension of what Marx wrote like all of his foolish acolytes.

Now this is an oxymoron if there ever was one, "dictatorship of the proletariat." The proletariat is not just the workers, but is the largest group of people in the population of a country. If you have the majority of the people running a country, they do not call it a dictatorship. They call it a democracy or a representative democracy; maybe even a republic. However, you cannot, by any definition anywhere, call such a government a dictatorship.

In fact, capitalists are afraid of real democracies, which is why they have spent so much converting America into an "inverted democracy" (a.k.a: a managed democracy or illiberal democracy) - which is (a quote) "a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics. Every natural resource and living being is commodified and exploited to the point of collapse, as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism."

The rich fear democracy, because the majority - the proletariat - may just decide to tax them to pay for the needs of the society such as schools, roads, healthcare, and more. This is exactly what FDR did in the middle of the Great Depression, when the government had no money. FDR told the rich, you are going to pay for unemployment benefits, Social Security, and a whole lot more.

Sadly, after FDR's death, the rich decided to take all of that back, so they have been steadily undoing the New Deal programs and laws such as Glass-Steagall. The net result is the 1930s are back - albeit in a different form.

To save capitalism from itself - which FDR claimed he did - you would have to reinstitute the New Deal, but sadly it would fail! It took the rich 70 years to get rid of the regulations and programs of the New Deal. Now that the rich know how this is done, if we put the New Deal back in place, the rich would undo it again, but in probably 30 years.

So save capitalism if you wish, and revive the economy if you can, but understand, capitalism will return you to something that looks like the Great Depression over, and over and over again.

PS: Yes, I have read Marx! That is how I know about all of those quotes!

A dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of whether it is a group or an individual.

As I said earlier you do not make it a good idea by hanging the words " of the proletariat " after the word dictator but that is precisely what MArx preached.

He preached a despotic totalitarian dictatorship

I see no amount of evidence will stop you from believing what you want to believe. Proletariat is defined as "the working class." In America, that is about 100 million people. You cannot run a dictatorship governed by a group of 100 million. There is no social science person on the planet that would accept your definition.

By your definition, America is a despotic dictatorship, not "of the proletariat" but "of the voting citizens."

That is not my definition and you are wrong yes a million can be a dictatorship.

It is not my definition it is the derfinition given by your god karl marx

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

You have demonstrated nothing except that you can quote Marx out of context. I have already pointed out that Marx and Engels have always appreciated the value of the vote. Again, in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto they wrote:

(Quote)

"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."

(End quote)

Looking back, half a century later, Frederick Engels said in the " Introduction to Class Struggles in France": (1895)

(Quote)

"The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the struggle for the general franchise, for democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat . . .

(End quote)

And then, only four years after the Communist Manifesto Marx emphasized his support for democracy in an article in the New York Tribune (25 August 1852), which says:

(Quote)

"The carrying of universal suffrage in England would . . . be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent. It's inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class."

(End quote)

You need to read what Marx actually wrote rather than listening only to the capitalist propaganda put out by the rich. The propaganda is designed to fool you so they can keep stealing the wealth you create.

PS: Remember, NeoMarxist are "currently" advocating businesses based on the "farmer cooperative" model - that is, worker owned and run businesses. This adds democracy to the workplace. That is, it replaces the current workplace dictatorship with democracy!

I have read what he wrote you have not.

Once again dictatorship of the proletariat is not a democracy he meant DICTATORSHIP. Oh sure he supported universal suffrage in the mean time but his revolutionary vision which he advocated required DESPOTISM as I have proven.

It is YOU lacking in comprehension of what Marx wrote like all of his foolish acolytes.

Now this is an oxymoron if there ever was one, "dictatorship of the proletariat." The proletariat is not just the workers, but is the largest group of people in the population of a country. If you have the majority of the people running a country, they do not call it a dictatorship. They call it a democracy or a representative democracy; maybe even a republic. However, you cannot, by any definition anywhere, call such a government a dictatorship.

In fact, capitalists are afraid of real democracies, which is why they have spent so much converting America into an "inverted democracy" (a.k.a: a managed democracy or illiberal democracy) - which is (a quote) "a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics. Every natural resource and living being is commodified and exploited to the point of collapse, as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism."

The rich fear democracy, because the majority - the proletariat - may just decide to tax them to pay for the needs of the society such as schools, roads, healthcare, and more. This is exactly what FDR did in the middle of the Great Depression, when the government had no money. FDR told the rich, you are going to pay for unemployment benefits, Social Security, and a whole lot more.

Sadly, after FDR's death, the rich decided to take all of that back, so they have been steadily undoing the New Deal programs and laws such as Glass-Steagall. The net result is the 1930s are back - albeit in a different form.

To save capitalism from itself - which FDR claimed he did - you would have to reinstitute the New Deal, but sadly it would fail! It took the rich 70 years to get rid of the regulations and programs of the New Deal. Now that the rich know how this is done, if we put the New Deal back in place, the rich would undo it again, but in probably 30 years.

So save capitalism if you wish, and revive the economy if you can, but understand, capitalism will return you to something that looks like the Great Depression over, and over and over again.

PS: Yes, I have read Marx! That is how I know about all of those quotes!

A dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of whether it is a group or an individual.

As I said earlier you do not make it a good idea by hanging the words " of the proletariat " after the word dictator but that is precisely what MArx preached.

He preached a despotic totalitarian dictatorship

I see no amount of evidence will stop you from believing what you want to believe. Proletariat is defined as "the working class." In America, that is about 100 million people. You cannot run a dictatorship governed by a group of 100 million. There is no social science person on the planet that would accept your definition.

By your definition, America is a despotic dictatorship, not "of the proletariat" but "of the voting citizens."

That is not my definition and you are wrong yes a million can be a dictatorship.

It is not my definition it is the derfinition given by your god karl marx

About "not my definition", it must be fun to be able to make up your own definitions - despite what the world may think!

About "a million can be a dictatorship", no one calls this issue a dictatorship. The most you will get is "tyranny of the majority", which happens even in the US.

Here is a quote from the article "Democracy in America, Then and Now, a Struggle Against Majority Tyranny."

(Quote)

During the War of 1812, an angry mob smashed the printing presses of a Baltimore newspaper that dared to come out against the war. When the mob surrounded the paper's editors, and the state militia refused to protect them, the journalists were taken to prison for their own protection. That night, the mob broke into the prison, killed one journalist and left the others for dead. When the mob leaders were brought before a jury, they were acquitted.

Alexis de Tocqueville tells this chilling story in "Democracy in America," and warns that the greatest threat the United States faces is the tyranny of the majority, a phrase he is credited with coining. His account of his travels through America in the 1830's, which is often called the greatest book ever written about America, is both an appreciation of American democracy, and a cautionary tale about its fragility.



(End quote)

 

[Soupnazi630]

I have read what he wrote you have not.

Once again dictatorship of the proletariat is not a democracy he meant DICTATORSHIP. Oh sure he supported universal suffrage in the mean time but his revolutionary vision which he advocated required DESPOTISM as I have proven.

It is YOU lacking in comprehension of what Marx wrote like all of his foolish acolytes.

Now this is an oxymoron if there ever was one, "dictatorship of the proletariat." The proletariat is not just the workers, but is the largest group of people in the population of a country. If you have the majority of the people running a country, they do not call it a dictatorship. They call it a democracy or a representative democracy; maybe even a republic. However, you cannot, by any definition anywhere, call such a government a dictatorship.

In fact, capitalists are afraid of real democracies, which is why they have spent so much converting America into an "inverted democracy" (a.k.a: a managed democracy or illiberal democracy) - which is (a quote) "a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics. Every natural resource and living being is commodified and exploited to the point of collapse, as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism."

The rich fear democracy, because the majority - the proletariat - may just decide to tax them to pay for the needs of the society such as schools, roads, healthcare, and more. This is exactly what FDR did in the middle of the Great Depression, when the government had no money. FDR told the rich, you are going to pay for unemployment benefits, Social Security, and a whole lot more.

Sadly, after FDR's death, the rich decided to take all of that back, so they have been steadily undoing the New Deal programs and laws such as Glass-Steagall. The net result is the 1930s are back - albeit in a different form.

To save capitalism from itself - which FDR claimed he did - you would have to reinstitute the New Deal, but sadly it would fail! It took the rich 70 years to get rid of the regulations and programs of the New Deal. Now that the rich know how this is done, if we put the New Deal back in place, the rich would undo it again, but in probably 30 years.

So save capitalism if you wish, and revive the economy if you can, but understand, capitalism will return you to something that looks like the Great Depression over, and over and over again.

PS: Yes, I have read Marx! That is how I know about all of those quotes!

A dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of whether it is a group or an individual.

As I said earlier you do not make it a good idea by hanging the words " of the proletariat " after the word dictator but that is precisely what MArx preached.

He preached a despotic totalitarian dictatorship

I see no amount of evidence will stop you from believing what you want to believe. Proletariat is defined as "the working class." In America, that is about 100 million people. You cannot run a dictatorship governed by a group of 100 million. There is no social science person on the planet that would accept your definition.

By your definition, America is a despotic dictatorship, not "of the proletariat" but "of the voting citizens."

That is not my definition and you are wrong yes a million can be a dictatorship.

It is not my definition it is the derfinition given by your god karl marx

About "not my definition", it must be fun to be able to make up your own definitions - despite what the world may think!

About "a million can be a dictatorship", no one calls this issue a dictatorship. The most you will get is "tyranny of the majority", which happens even in the US.

Here is a quote from the article "Democracy in America, Then and Now, a Struggle Against Majority Tyranny."

(Quote)

During the War of 1812, an angry mob smashed the printing presses of a Baltimore newspaper that dared to come out against the war. When the mob surrounded the paper's editors, and the state militia refused to protect them, the journalists were taken to prison for their own protection. That night, the mob broke into the prison, killed one journalist and left the others for dead. When the mob leaders were brought before a jury, they were acquitted.

Alexis de Tocqueville tells this chilling story in "Democracy in America," and warns that the greatest threat the United States faces is the tyranny of the majority, a phrase he is credited with coining. His account of his travels through America in the 1830's, which is often called the greatest book ever written about America, is both an appreciation of American democracy, and a cautionary tale about its fragility.



(End quote)

Wrong sensible intelligent people DO call a group a tyranny and dictatorship regardless of the size.

It was marx who defined it as such and gave you the definition,.

you were defeated and proven wrong from my first post and are now just grinding your gears and denying fact

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

Now this is an oxymoron if there ever was one, "dictatorship of the proletariat." The proletariat is not just the workers, but is the largest group of people in the population of a country. If you have the majority of the people running a country, they do not call it a dictatorship. They call it a democracy or a representative democracy; maybe even a republic. However, you cannot, by any definition anywhere, call such a government a dictatorship.

In fact, capitalists are afraid of real democracies, which is why they have spent so much converting America into an "inverted democracy" (a.k.a: a managed democracy or illiberal democracy) - which is (a quote) "a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics. Every natural resource and living being is commodified and exploited to the point of collapse, as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism."

The rich fear democracy, because the majority - the proletariat - may just decide to tax them to pay for the needs of the society such as schools, roads, healthcare, and more. This is exactly what FDR did in the middle of the Great Depression, when the government had no money. FDR told the rich, you are going to pay for unemployment benefits, Social Security, and a whole lot more.

Sadly, after FDR's death, the rich decided to take all of that back, so they have been steadily undoing the New Deal programs and laws such as Glass-Steagall. The net result is the 1930s are back - albeit in a different form.

To save capitalism from itself - which FDR claimed he did - you would have to reinstitute the New Deal, but sadly it would fail! It took the rich 70 years to get rid of the regulations and programs of the New Deal. Now that the rich know how this is done, if we put the New Deal back in place, the rich would undo it again, but in probably 30 years.

So save capitalism if you wish, and revive the economy if you can, but understand, capitalism will return you to something that looks like the Great Depression over, and over and over again.

PS: Yes, I have read Marx! That is how I know about all of those quotes!

A dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of whether it is a group or an individual.

As I said earlier you do not make it a good idea by hanging the words " of the proletariat " after the word dictator but that is precisely what MArx preached.

He preached a despotic totalitarian dictatorship

I see no amount of evidence will stop you from believing what you want to believe. Proletariat is defined as "the working class." In America, that is about 100 million people. You cannot run a dictatorship governed by a group of 100 million. There is no social science person on the planet that would accept your definition.

By your definition, America is a despotic dictatorship, not "of the proletariat" but "of the voting citizens."

That is not my definition and you are wrong yes a million can be a dictatorship.

It is not my definition it is the derfinition given by your god karl marx

About "not my definition", it must be fun to be able to make up your own definitions - despite what the world may think!

About "a million can be a dictatorship", no one calls this issue a dictatorship. The most you will get is "tyranny of the majority", which happens even in the US.

Here is a quote from the article "Democracy in America, Then and Now, a Struggle Against Majority Tyranny."

(Quote)

During the War of 1812, an angry mob smashed the printing presses of a Baltimore newspaper that dared to come out against the war. When the mob surrounded the paper's editors, and the state militia refused to protect them, the journalists were taken to prison for their own protection. That night, the mob broke into the prison, killed one journalist and left the others for dead. When the mob leaders were brought before a jury, they were acquitted.

Alexis de Tocqueville tells this chilling story in "Democracy in America," and warns that the greatest threat the United States faces is the tyranny of the majority, a phrase he is credited with coining. His account of his travels through America in the 1830's, which is often called the greatest book ever written about America, is both an appreciation of American democracy, and a cautionary tale about its fragility.



(End quote)

Wrong sensible intelligent people DO call a group a tyranny and dictatorship regardless of the size.

It was marx who defined it as such and gave you the definition,.

you were defeated and proven wrong from my first post and are now just grinding your gears and denying fact

Well, again, you are making up stuff so that you can continue to believe what you want to believe. I have already supplied quotes showing that Marx and Engels both supported democracy. Seriously, be it government by the proletariat or government by the working class, no one, but you, would call that a dictatorship.

But more to demonstrate that you are making up a definition that will fit what you want to think. Over at Wikipedia you find this, "A Dictatorship is an authoritarian form of government, characterized by a single leader or group of leaders with either no party or a weak party, little mass mobilization, and limited political pluralism."

Rule by the proletariat or the working class, would involve both "mass mobilization, and political pluralism!!!"

Over at Merrian-Webster.com, you find this definition, "a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique!"

Again, rule by the proletariat or the working class would not qualify because the proletariat could not be considered "a small clique."

And over at Dictionary.com, you have this definition, "a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator." Notice dictator is singular!!!!!!!

So face it, even though I know you cannot, Karl Marx did not want rule by the capitalist - that is, rule by the rich - which could be called a dictatorship, but is more often called an oligarchy. Karl Marx wanted rule by the working class, and, any way you cut it, rule by the working class is much closer to the definition of democracy than any other form of government currently seen on this planet.

Oh wait, I forgot! You make up your own definitions. So you will dismiss all of the above definitions, and continue to think what you want to think.