Late Stage Socialism: Venezuela Kidnaps Chevron Execs

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

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.

Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.

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.

Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?

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.

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.

Well, you see nothing "confirming socialist contributions, because you want to see nothing - just as you cannot see the misery caused by capitalism. America is the richest country in the history of mankind, and capitalism has created a few rich and misery for millions in the form of poor schools, poor healthcare, and poor nutrition, and for far too many it means being pushed into being a "debt slave."

Yet again, do not confuse technological advancement with capitalism. Capitalism does not like tech changes. Just look at how hard it is to change from our seventeen century energy system, and to add seatbelts and airbags to cars. You should look at how the drug industry spends more on advertising than research on new drugs, and on and on it goes.

It is simple, technology boomed with the application of the scientific method. You know; that thing conservatives do not believe in when it comes to climate change.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

You mean that Marxist institution that is supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?

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

Let's ask for a line of credit from the World Bank.

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!

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

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!!!!!!!!!!!

You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.

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.

HE has in fact and understands it better than you do.

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.

About "There is no such thing as unearned income as extracted from the price of a product." This comment is just dumb! Wikipedia says this, and you can find the same in many other places.

(Quote)

Unearned income is a term coined by Henry George to refer to income gained through ownership of land and other monopoly. Today the term often refers to income received by virtue of owning property (known as property income), inheritance, pensions and payments received from public welfare. The three major forms of unearned income based on property ownership are rent, received from the ownership of natural resources; interest, received by virtue of owning financial assets; and profit, received from the ownership of capital equipment.[1] As such, unearned income is often categorized as "passive income".

Unearned income can be discussed from either an economic or accounting perspective, but is more commonly used in economics.

(End quote)

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

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!!!!!!!!!!!

You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.

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 was never about freedom and democracy he was about totalitarianism and that is FACT.

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)

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.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.

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.

Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?

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.

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.

Well, you see nothing "confirming socialist contributions, because you want to see nothing - just as you cannot see the misery caused by capitalism. America is the richest country in the history of mankind, and capitalism has created a few rich and misery for millions in the form of poor schools, poor healthcare, and poor nutrition, and for far too many it means being pushed into being a "debt slave."

Yet again, do not confuse technological advancement with capitalism. Capitalism does not like tech changes. Just look at how hard it is to change from our seventeen century energy system, and to add seatbelts and airbags to cars. You should look at how the drug industry spends more on advertising than research on new drugs, and on and on it goes.

It is simple, technology boomed with the application of the scientific method. You know; that thing conservatives do not believe in when it comes to climate change.

How did I know you could not list one contribution to civilization from a socialist nation?

Yes, socialism is just a parasite on capitalism that always eventually collapses.
Hilarious you post BS about the miseries of living in America in a thread about Venezuela. Talk about tone deaf.
Poor in America is owning an iPhone 4, your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray and your car is an 98 Toyota. Millions flood into America for the chance to be poor in America.

Poor in Venezuela is after eating all of your pets your next meal is what you find in the dump if the hoards of gangs let you even look.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You mean that Marxist institution that is supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?

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

Let's ask for a line of credit from the World Bank.

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?

 

[danielpalos]

Where is management on this?

 

[Soupnazi630]

You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.

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 was never about freedom and democracy he was about totalitarianism and that is FACT.

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)

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.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Venezuela malaria cases jump by 69 percent.

At least they have socialized healthcare!

WHO: Venezuela malaria cases jump by 69 percent

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

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.

Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?

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.

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.

Well, you see nothing "confirming socialist contributions, because you want to see nothing - just as you cannot see the misery caused by capitalism. America is the richest country in the history of mankind, and capitalism has created a few rich and misery for millions in the form of poor schools, poor healthcare, and poor nutrition, and for far too many it means being pushed into being a "debt slave."

Yet again, do not confuse technological advancement with capitalism. Capitalism does not like tech changes. Just look at how hard it is to change from our seventeen century energy system, and to add seatbelts and airbags to cars. You should look at how the drug industry spends more on advertising than research on new drugs, and on and on it goes.

It is simple, technology boomed with the application of the scientific method. You know; that thing conservatives do not believe in when it comes to climate change.

How did I know you could not list one contribution to civilization from a socialist nation?

Yes, socialism is just a parasite on capitalism that always eventually collapses.
Hilarious you post BS about the miseries of living in America in a thread about Venezuela. Talk about tone deaf.
Poor in America is owning an iPhone 4, your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray and your car is an 98 Toyota. Millions flood into America for the chance to be poor in America.

Poor in Venezuela is after eating all of your pets your next meal is what you find in the dump if the hoards of gangs let you even look.

About the contributions of a socialist nation, I wrote that the Scandinavian countries have contributed much. However, if you want a list, I would offer this list of 10 ideas which are beliefs found in democratic socialism and found in America.

1. Social Security
2. Public education
3. Women voters
4. Civil rights
5. Progressive income taxes (the fairest system)
6. The ban on child labor
7. Public housing as opposed to homeless people
8. Medicare
9. America’s highway system
10. Worker owned businesses such as farmer cooperatives.

About "socialism is just a parasite on capitalism that always eventually collapses", well, I disagree. Yet, capitalism is a parasite on the workers and environment. The world is currently at the end-stage of capitalism and we see massive poverty and massive wealth for a few. We see the planet being destroyed from oceans that are dying to the poisoning of people and the world they live in. In fact, you should look around. It is capitalism that is collapsing.

And this is sad! If you think "Poor in America is owning an iPhone 4" and etc, you do not know about the poor in America. It starts with going hungry or feeding yourself and feeding your children the poor quality food that results in obesity and diabetes.

Plus, you need to catch up! Even people in third world countries have smart phones now. In fact, the planet now has roughly 95 smart phones for every 100 people. This speaks to what we can produce with our technology. Yet, because of capitalism and its need for constants scarcity and an army of the desperate, many Americans continue to suffer.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

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.

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!

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

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 was never about freedom and democracy he was about totalitarianism and that is FACT.

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)

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.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

Venezuela malaria cases jump by 69 percent.

At least they have socialized healthcare!

WHO: Venezuela malaria cases jump by 69 percent

About "Venezuela malaria cases jump by 69 percent", and America does nothing to help! That is because the people who run America - the rich - want to make sure any socialism on the planet is discredited, and they are willing to let people suffer and die to make sure they maintain their control.

 

[danielpalos]

Venezuela malaria cases jump by 69 percent.

At least they have socialized healthcare!

WHO: Venezuela malaria cases jump by 69 percent

Hostess management blamed Labor.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Marx was never about freedom and democracy he was about totalitarianism and that is FACT.

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)

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.

 

[depotoo]

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

You mean that Marxist institution that is supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?

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!

 

[danielpalos]

It is not a failure of socialism, but a failure of government. Not socialists' fault, government is a form of socialism.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

It is not a failure of socialism, but a failure of government. Not socialists' fault, government is a form of socialism.

Show us a "success" of Socialism.......

Tried and couldn't?

 

[danielpalos]

It is not a failure of socialism, but a failure of government. Not socialists' fault, government is a form of socialism.

Show us a "success" of Socialism.......

Tried and couldn't?

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

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

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.