- Dec 9, 2013
- 16,805
- 4,771
- 265
We are doing it to penalize them for their human rights violations and in fact the burden is on you to prove the list.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Late Stage Socialism: Venezuela Kidnaps Chevron Execs
- Thread starter Weatherman2020
- Start date
We are doing it to penalize them for their human rights violations and in fact the burden is on you to prove the list.
- Dec 9, 2013
- 16,805
- 4,771
- 265
Wrong it is made possible by capitalism.So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.Wrong.
It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx. By Marx's definition, they are socialist. Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
Frankly, you are clueless! Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace. As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this. You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism. This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America. Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
(Quote from Prof. Wolff)
Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
(End quote)
That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism. That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method. Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research. Your iPhone is an example! Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research. Capitalism got them for free!
And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new. He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
The Scientific method works unless it is NOT FUNDED.
Science and aerodynamics never made a plane fly FUNDING did.
Sorry but you are wrong capitalism benefits humanity socialism destroys it as marx advocated.
- Dec 9, 2013
- 16,805
- 4,771
- 265
While libs caused the deaths of many by banning DDT, and pushed worthless recycling, and fought against GMOs which could have helped end famine and lately are pushing an idea of a gender spectrum which is counter to science.Steve jobs was a Democrat.Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this. You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism. This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America. Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
(Quote from Prof. Wolff)
Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
(End quote)
That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism. That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method. Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research. Your iPhone is an example! Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research. Capitalism got them for free!
And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new. He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.
As far as anti-science, cons deny evolution and climate change.
IF you are gonna make it a conservative vs liberals thing the left is MORE anti science than the right.
Unlike the right the left actually has casualties from it's war on science.
- Dec 9, 2013
- 16,805
- 4,771
- 265
Very true.You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx. By Marx's definition, they are socialist. Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
Frankly, you are clueless! Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace. As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this. You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism. This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America. Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
(Quote from Prof. Wolff)
Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
(End quote)
That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat pig Marx and what he wrote.
Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "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 of democracy."
Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place. Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit." It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system. Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism. This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
(Quote)
Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
(End quote)
Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious.
Nobody takes it seriously other than other dyed in the wool Marxists.
He throws a bunch of math at the question in order to try and convince the reader that he knew what he was talking about.
IF you work it out however you find it is not math at all.
HE also throws around the word science without ever applying the scientific method or even demonstrating comprehension of the scientific method.
No matter how hard he tries he cannot get around the fact that value is strictly SUBJECTIVE and cannot be objectively measured. He needed it to be objectively measured in order to apply his worthless theories of central planning and forced economics.
It is high among his many massive failures.
T.E.C. - Iowa
Active Member
- Apr 7, 2018
- 132
- 7
- 31
Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx. By Marx's definition, they are socialist. Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
Frankly, you are clueless! Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace. As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this. You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism. This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America. Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
(Quote from Prof. Wolff)
Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
(End quote)
That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism. That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method. Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research. Your iPhone is an example! Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research. Capitalism got them for free!
And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new. He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.
This statement assumes, wrongly, that humans are only motivated by the "profit motive" found in capitalism. The statement is, "So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation." Again, the technology we enjoy comes from the invention of the scientific method, and most science is cooperation, not competition.
- Thread starter
- #146
Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this. You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism. This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America. Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
(Quote from Prof. Wolff)
Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
(End quote)
That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism. That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method. Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research. Your iPhone is an example! Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research. Capitalism got them for free!
And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new. He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.
This statement assumes, wrongly, that humans are only motivated by the "profit motive" found in capitalism. The statement is, "So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation." Again, the technology we enjoy comes from the invention of the scientific method, and most science is cooperation, not competition.
Color me shocked.
T.E.C. - Iowa
Active Member
- Apr 7, 2018
- 132
- 7
- 31
Thousands of Venezuelan children in Cucuta are not going to school, spending their days alone, following their parents, selling items on the streets or begging.
Every day more arrive. About 40,000 Venezuelans were legally entering Colombia each month at the end of 2017, according to Colombian authorities, with thousands more thought to enter illegally.
All along the Venezuelan border, towns are struggling to cope. Last week, leaders of Brazil’s state of Roraima asked the Supreme Court for permission to close its border temporarily to halt the mass arrival.
While many Venezuelans with the means to migrate legally fled years ago, those leaving today are often seeking jobs to send money to families back home. Few seek political asylum.
Aid groups and authorities warn poverty plus lack of schooling or daily supervision will push children into the ranks of Colombia’s organized crime groups.
“If you don’t educate a child, you can’t correct that. You totally change the trajectory of their life,” said Yadira Galeano, Norwegian Refugee Council manager for Colombia’s border areas.
“Many kids end up being easy subjects for criminal or armed groups.”
First, if it is so bad in Venezuela, why is America trying to make things worse with sanctions and the CIA, rather than helping. What kind of jerk is America to kick them when they are down?
About "40,000 Venezuelans were legally entering Colombia", the US had more migrants than this after the 2008 crash of their capitalist system - albeit inside the country.
The compartmentalization in this comment is astounding, "If you don’t educate a child, you can’t correct that. You totally change the trajectory of their life." Look at America's disastrous education system - buildings are crumbling, teachers are underpaid and must use their own money for supplies. When it comes to education, America is far richer and certainly, by comparison, we do a worse job of educating our children. Yet, part of the reason for that is capitalism and the constant need for tax cuts.
T.E.C. - Iowa
Active Member
- Apr 7, 2018
- 132
- 7
- 31
Your problem if you think every registered Democrat is a socialist.Steve jobs was a Democrat.Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this. You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism. This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America. Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
(Quote from Prof. Wolff)
Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
(End quote)
That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism. That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method. Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research. Your iPhone is an example! Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research. Capitalism got them for free!
And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new. He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.
As far as anti-science, cons deny evolution and climate change.
And yes, my leftist scientific superiors believe humans can change sex upon a whim and there is no difference between male and female.
About "no difference between male and female", you may think that, but science people know about hormones.
T.E.C. - Iowa
Active Member
- Apr 7, 2018
- 132
- 7
- 31
You mean that Marxist institution that is supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?Let's ask for a line of credit from the World Bank.Capitalism is essentially
-- Mass Production to fill the needs of the Masses --
But Marx always labored under the deceptive conception that the workers are toiling for the sole benefit of an upper class of idle parasites.
He did not see that the workers themselves consume by far the greater part of all the consumers' goods turned out.
The millionaires consume an almost negligible part of what is called the national product.
All branches of big business cater directly or indirectly to the needs of the common man.
The luxury industries never develop beyond small-scale or medium-size units.
The evolution of big business is in itself proof of the fact that the masses and not the nabobs are the main consumers.
Those who deal with the phenomenon of big business under the rubric "concentration of economic power" fail to realize that economic power is vested in the buying public on whose patronage the prosperity of the factories depends.
In his capacity as buyer,
-- the wage earner is the customer who is "always right." --
But Marx [incorrectly] declares that the bourgeoisie "is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery."
The whole chain of this reasoning is exploded by the establishment of the fact that the progress of capitalism does not pauperize the wage earners increasingly but on the contrary improves their standard of living
-- Ludwig von Mises
The corollary of the alleged progressive impoverishment of the wage earners is the concentration of all riches in the hands of a class of capitalist exploiters whose membership is continually shrinking.
In dealing with this issue Marx failed to take into account the fact that the evolution of big business units does not necessarily involve the concentration of wealth in a few hands. The big business enterprises are almost without exception corporations, precisely because they are too big for single individuals to own them entirely.
The growth of business units has far outstripped the growth of individual fortunes.
...the common stock of a corporation is as a rule not concentrated in the hands of one man.
The bigger the corporation, as a rule, the more widely its shares are distributed.
-- Ludwig von Mises
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!"
T.E.C. - Iowa
Active Member
- Apr 7, 2018
- 132
- 7
- 31
You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx. By Marx's definition, they are socialist. Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
Frankly, you are clueless! Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace. As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this. You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism. This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America. Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
(Quote from Prof. Wolff)
Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
(End quote)
That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat pig Marx and what he wrote.
Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "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 of democracy."
Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place. Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit." It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system. Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism. This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
(Quote)
Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
(End quote)
Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious.
Nobody takes it seriously other than other dyed in the wool Marxists.
Again, you demonstrate you have not read Marx - or much else of the classical economists with this comment, "Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious." Try reading John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, and more. They all talk about it, because they are interested in how much "unearned income" is extracted from the price of a product.
T.E.C. - Iowa
Active Member
- Apr 7, 2018
- 132
- 7
- 31
Marx was never about freedom and democracy he was about totalitarianism and that is FACT.You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx. By Marx's definition, they are socialist. Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
Frankly, you are clueless! Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace. As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this. You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism. This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America. Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
(Quote from Prof. Wolff)
Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
(End quote)
That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat pig Marx and what he wrote.
Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "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 of democracy."
Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place. Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit." It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system. Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism. This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
(Quote)
Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
(End quote)
The irony here is that you actually helped to prove that fact with the quote you cited.
" we have seen above, that th first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of RULING class to win the battle of democracy".
Read it again SLOWLY as you clearly missed what he was advocating. HE was advocating a RULING class which is not democracy and never democratically elected and never free.
He was preaching TOTALITARIANISM and this is proven by the very quote YOU provided. He never advocated democracy for anyone.
Marx's quote about labor and the fuedal system vs capitalism is garbage. His babbling incoherent claim about workers toiling 3 days a week for themselves and then for others is crap.
Marx never worked at a job a day in his life and was 100 % ignorant about how peopled work to make a living. He was a bum who begged and panhandled his whole life like the sick bastard he was and by definition had no knowledge whatsoever about workers or the working class who he wished to enslave.
Communism is about universal slavery and despotism according to Marx and you are proving that correct. He never understood anything about workers or the working class and preach enslavement of all to society which means SOCIALISM.
Socialism ( or communism ) = " From each according to his ability and to each according to his need "
Slavery = " from each according to his ability and to each according to his need, "
Simple fact slaves have nothing to be stolen except their labor which is forced from them. Furthermore since slaves are individuals they each have talents and skills different from each other. This is why some harvest cotton while others are the seamstresses and blacksmiths and butlers. IN other words their ABILITY is what is stolen from them. FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY.
On the other hand all slave owners make sure and give a slave everything the slave NEEDS to basically stay alive and continue to work. They do you no good if they starve or die of exposure. SO you make sure they have food water clothing and shelter even if it is disgusting scraps, rags, and a bare bones shack. TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED.
You are dreadfully ill informed wrong and ignorant about Marx he was an evil piece of filth who preached exactly what nations world wide practiced when using his ideas. Slavery genocide and poverty.
He never advocated democracy
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)
T.E.C. - Iowa
Active Member
- Apr 7, 2018
- 132
- 7
- 31
Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned.
A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.About, "Venezuela has already collapsed, and it is definitely time for regime change", if it is time, the problem is America will not let the people of Venezuela decide for themselves. Why, because America wants American corporations to control the oil in that country. The people of Venezuela want public ownership of the oil so that the benefits can go to the country as a whole. America's capitalism finds that abhorrent!
And about, "Venezuelan citizens who have not yet starved to death", if they are starving, you should explain why we are adding to their misery with sanctions against the country. You should explain how the "Christian nation" that America calls itself has decided to kick these people when they are down.
Wrong.
The US has no opposition to the people of Venezuela choosing their own government. It is strictly the current regime which will not allow such democracy which is typical for socialism
If you believe that US foreign policy is interested in the people of Venezuela choosing their own government, you know nothing of what the US has done in the last 50 years and more.
The following list is instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s; Albania 1949-53; East Germany 1950s; Iran 1953 *; Guatemala 1954 *; Costa Rica mid-1950s; Syria 1956-7; Egypt 1957; Indonesia 1957-8; British Guiana 1953-64 *; Iraq 1963 *; North Vietnam 1945-73; Cambodia 1955-70 *; Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *; Ecuador 1960-63 *; Congo 1960 *; France 1965; Brazil 1962-64 *; Dominican Republic 1963 *; Cuba 1959 to present; Bolivia 1964 *; Indonesia 1965 *; Ghana 1966 *; Chile 1964-73 *; Greece 1967 *; Costa Rica 1970-71; Bolivia 1971 *; Australia 1973-75 *; Angola 1975, 1980s; Zaire 1975; Portugal 1974-76 *; Jamaica 1976-80 *; Seychelles 1979-81; Chad 1981-82 *; Grenada 1983 *; South Yemen 1982-84; Suriname 1982-84; Fiji 1987 *; Libya 1980s; Nicaragua 1981-90 *; Panama 1989 *; Bulgaria 1990 *; Albania 1991 *' Iraq 1991; Afghanistan 1980s *; Somalia 1993; Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *; Ecuador 2000 *; Afghanistan 2001 *; Venezuela 2002 *; Iraq 2003 *; Haiti 2004 *; Somalia 2007 to present; Honduras 2009 *; Libya 2011 *; Syria 2012; Ukraine 2014 *
Massive fail as you provide no evidence that the US trying to thwart the people of Venezuela from choosing their own government.
The socialist dictatorship of Venezuela is the one preventing it.
your list is largely fiction and irrelevant to the discussion. Stating something happens in the past does not prove it is happening now so provide evidence or shut up and leave.
This is desperation, "your list is largely fiction and irrelevant to the discussion." Yet, not a single example of anything on the long list that is fiction! Plus the US government openly has sanctions against Venezuela, why are we doing that if not to bring down the government.
We are doing it to penalize them for their human rights violations and in fact the burden is on you to prove the list.
This comment would be funny, if it were not so tragic, "We are doing it to penalize them for their human rights violations." And what about America's human rights violations? Who punishes America!
Venezuela’s new high tech strategy - kidnap Apple executives!
You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this. You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism. This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America. Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
(Quote from Prof. Wolff)
Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
(End quote)
That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat pig Marx and what he wrote.
Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "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 of democracy."
Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place. Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit." It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system. Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism. This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
(Quote)
Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
(End quote)
Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious.
Nobody takes it seriously other than other dyed in the wool Marxists.
Again, you demonstrate you have not read Marx - or much else of the classical economists with this comment, "Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious." Try reading John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, and more. They all talk about it, because they are interested in how much "unearned income" is extracted from the price of a product.
I have. I studied the history of economic thought - Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Say, Walras, Marshall, Keynes, etc.
It’s garbage.
T.E.C. - Iowa
Active Member
- Apr 7, 2018
- 132
- 7
- 31
Wrong it is made possible by capitalism.So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx. By Marx's definition, they are socialist. Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
Frankly, you are clueless! Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace. As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this. You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism. This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America. Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
(Quote from Prof. Wolff)
Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
(End quote)
That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism. That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method. Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research. Your iPhone is an example! Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research. Capitalism got them for free!
And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new. He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
The Scientific method works unless it is NOT FUNDED.
Science and aerodynamics never made a plane fly FUNDING did.
Sorry but you are wrong capitalism benefits humanity socialism destroys it as marx advocated.
The argument that capitalism creates technology is "correlation" not "causation." Capitalism and the scientific method came about at the same time. Thus, people get caught in the fallacy called "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" This is a logical fallacy that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to "post hoc fallacy."
Yet, a causal link can be seen from the scientific method to technology. And again, your iPhone is really a product of government money being applied to the scientific method.
T.E.C. - Iowa
Active Member
- Apr 7, 2018
- 132
- 7
- 31
Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this. You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism. This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America. Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
(Quote from Prof. Wolff)
Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
(End quote)
That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism. That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method. Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research. Your iPhone is an example! Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research. Capitalism got them for free!
And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new. He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.
This statement assumes, wrongly, that humans are only motivated by the "profit motive" found in capitalism. The statement is, "So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation." Again, the technology we enjoy comes from the invention of the scientific method, and most science is cooperation, not competition.
Color me shocked.
About "Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?" Depends on you definition of socialist nation. The Scandinavian countries are doing fine - given the current world situation, and the contributions of their scientists are on par with their population.
- Thread starter
- #157
Thanks for confirming socialist nations contribute nothing to civilization and are just parasites that feed off of what capitalism provides as their socialist system whithers away.Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism. That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method. Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research. Your iPhone is an example! Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research. Capitalism got them for free!
And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new. He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.
This statement assumes, wrongly, that humans are only motivated by the "profit motive" found in capitalism. The statement is, "So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation." Again, the technology we enjoy comes from the invention of the scientific method, and most science is cooperation, not competition.
Color me shocked.
About "Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?" Depends on you definition of socialist nation. The Scandinavian countries are doing fine - given the current world situation, and the contributions of their scientists are on par with their population.
- Thread starter
- #158
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.You mean that Marxist institution that is supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?Let's ask for a line of credit from the World Bank.Capitalism is essentially
-- Mass Production to fill the needs of the Masses --
But Marx always labored under the deceptive conception that the workers are toiling for the sole benefit of an upper class of idle parasites.
He did not see that the workers themselves consume by far the greater part of all the consumers' goods turned out.
The millionaires consume an almost negligible part of what is called the national product.
All branches of big business cater directly or indirectly to the needs of the common man.
The luxury industries never develop beyond small-scale or medium-size units.
The evolution of big business is in itself proof of the fact that the masses and not the nabobs are the main consumers.
Those who deal with the phenomenon of big business under the rubric "concentration of economic power" fail to realize that economic power is vested in the buying public on whose patronage the prosperity of the factories depends.
In his capacity as buyer,
-- the wage earner is the customer who is "always right." --
But Marx [incorrectly] declares that the bourgeoisie "is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery."
The whole chain of this reasoning is exploded by the establishment of the fact that the progress of capitalism does not pauperize the wage earners increasingly but on the contrary improves their standard of living
-- Ludwig von Mises
The corollary of the alleged progressive impoverishment of the wage earners is the concentration of all riches in the hands of a class of capitalist exploiters whose membership is continually shrinking.
In dealing with this issue Marx failed to take into account the fact that the evolution of big business units does not necessarily involve the concentration of wealth in a few hands. The big business enterprises are almost without exception corporations, precisely because they are too big for single individuals to own them entirely.
The growth of business units has far outstripped the growth of individual fortunes.
...the common stock of a corporation is as a rule not concentrated in the hands of one man.
The bigger the corporation, as a rule, the more widely its shares are distributed.
-- Ludwig von Mises
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!"
Tell us, what pathetic slave nation to America do you live in?
- Dec 9, 2013
- 16,805
- 4,771
- 265
HE has in fact and understands it better than you do.You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this. You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism. This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America. Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
(Quote from Prof. Wolff)
Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
(End quote)
That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat pig Marx and what he wrote.
Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "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 of democracy."
Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place. Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit." It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system. Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism. This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
(Quote)
Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
(End quote)
Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious.
Nobody takes it seriously other than other dyed in the wool Marxists.
Again, you demonstrate you have not read Marx - or much else of the classical economists with this comment, "Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious." Try reading John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, and more. They all talk about it, because they are interested in how much "unearned income" is extracted from the price of a product.
There is no such thing as unearned income as extracted from the price of a product.
Marx's surplus value of labor IS hilariously stupid as he ignores the basic fact that the value of labor is strictly subjective.
- Dec 9, 2013
- 16,805
- 4,771
- 265
Wrong.Marx was never about freedom and democracy he was about totalitarianism and that is FACT.You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this. You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism. This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America. Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
(Quote from Prof. Wolff)
Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
(End quote)
That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat pig Marx and what he wrote.
Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "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 of democracy."
Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place. Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit." It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system. Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism. This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
(Quote)
Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
(End quote)
The irony here is that you actually helped to prove that fact with the quote you cited.
" we have seen above, that th first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of RULING class to win the battle of democracy".
Read it again SLOWLY as you clearly missed what he was advocating. HE was advocating a RULING class which is not democracy and never democratically elected and never free.
He was preaching TOTALITARIANISM and this is proven by the very quote YOU provided. He never advocated democracy for anyone.
Marx's quote about labor and the fuedal system vs capitalism is garbage. His babbling incoherent claim about workers toiling 3 days a week for themselves and then for others is crap.
Marx never worked at a job a day in his life and was 100 % ignorant about how peopled work to make a living. He was a bum who begged and panhandled his whole life like the sick bastard he was and by definition had no knowledge whatsoever about workers or the working class who he wished to enslave.
Communism is about universal slavery and despotism according to Marx and you are proving that correct. He never understood anything about workers or the working class and preach enslavement of all to society which means SOCIALISM.
Socialism ( or communism ) = " From each according to his ability and to each according to his need "
Slavery = " from each according to his ability and to each according to his need, "
Simple fact slaves have nothing to be stolen except their labor which is forced from them. Furthermore since slaves are individuals they each have talents and skills different from each other. This is why some harvest cotton while others are the seamstresses and blacksmiths and butlers. IN other words their ABILITY is what is stolen from them. FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY.
On the other hand all slave owners make sure and give a slave everything the slave NEEDS to basically stay alive and continue to work. They do you no good if they starve or die of exposure. SO you make sure they have food water clothing and shelter even if it is disgusting scraps, rags, and a bare bones shack. TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED.
You are dreadfully ill informed wrong and ignorant about Marx he was an evil piece of filth who preached exactly what nations world wide practiced when using his ideas. Slavery genocide and poverty.
He never advocated democracy
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)
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.
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 137
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 50
- Replies
- 44
- Views
- 266
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8037
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-