Only good thing about marxism taking over is how all of these useful idiots will be shot. Everyone we argue with, civil rights leaders etc

[Mac1958]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

The OP by mentioning Marxism just shows us how stupid he is a nothing else....

He obviously doesn't know Marxism from a rock...

What it does show is the failing US educational system. Some public teacher must have spent time trying to teach this rock something and look at the failure...

Just remember where they get their "news" and "information". It's all binary, insulated, hyperbolic paranoia. It takes precedence over anything they were taught in school.

To them, this stuff doesn't exist along a continuum, as it does in real life. If you're not an obedient Trumpster, you're a Marxist Hitler Chinese socialist commie, and that's that. There is no in between, because that's just too damn complicated to fathom.

 

[Rigby5]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

He's former KGB. Are you buying into this crap?

What, do you mean? Research what he is referring to in regards to marxist take overs everywhere.

Cuba
Nicaragua
China
Vietnam
Russia
East Germany

Don't believe it? Think it is all robin hood fairy land unicorns and rainbows?
No American has tried to ESCAPE the "tyranny" of the horrific free market that has 7 Elevens and Burger Kings.
Sure as hell the other way around. Boy, marxism must be just great.
Just great. Be ready to starve. That's how they will elminate most of us.
Cow farts global warmjng. Get ready. You and all of us will get what we all deserve.
Get ready. Be ready for gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Wrong.
All the countries you list, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Vietnam, Russia, and East Germany were never remotely Marxist.
Russia started a revolution in 1917 with some Marxist ideology, but Stalin took over and wiped out any Marxists.
So no country has ever been remotely Marxist.
We have no idea if Marxism could work, because it has never been tried.
What Stalin created was State Capitalism.
There was nothing remotely collective, cooperative, or communal about Stalinism.
For any government to be collective, cooperative, or communal, it has to be democratic, local, and with equality.
What Stalin installed was authoritarian, central, and with a wealthy ruling elite.
That is the exact opposite.

Yes they were marxist.

Marxism has been repeatedly tried and always succeeded in estasblishing dictatorships of the proletariate which is what Stalin did they only failed to reach the utopian stateless period of development which Marx predicted.

There is nothing remotely collective cooperative or communal about marxism either.

Wrong.
Stalin was an anti-Marxist and killed all the Marxists like Trotsky.
Why else would he kill Marxists unless he was anti-Marxist?

Marx promoted an ideology that would require no state.
For that to happen, everyone would have to be satisfied with it and want to support it willingly.
Has anyone ever suggested a state anything remotely like that?
Of course not.
So then no one has ever remotely supported or suggested a Marxist state except some Russian idealists who were killed before they could start implementing anything.
If you don't think Marxism requires things to be collective, cooperative, and communal, then you know nothing about Marx, communism, socialism, Anarchism, or just about any political theory.

Like the socialists of the time----different factions within the communist party vying for power and money---infighting one another. Think of it as the primaries but where open murder and locking up your opponents was better tolerated and expected. Like what Hilliary does now--just hides it more.

A real Marxist would not be trying to just benefit themselves, so then would not be needing or using force.
Marxism is about attempting to end coercive methods, so would not need or use coercive methods.

SUre they would as marxism requires notrhing altruistic.

MArxism is rooted in and demands coercion and force.

Nonsense.
The whole point of Marxism was to figure out how to stop the economic slavery caused by the industrial revolution ending cottage industries.
Marxism is ONLY altruistic.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

It's what the Nazi head ups did as well------socialists do tend to kill one off within a few years as they grasp for power and money.

The Nazis were not socialist nor were they liberals, nor were they communist nor were they Republicans..

We've explained this to you little children repeatedly, Moon. The nazis were the German SOCIALIST PARTY---its in their name. They rose to power promising free chit and using street thugs to terrorize the citizens while burning down cities too.

They did coopt the name but were nothing like socialist, Marxist, etc, they never promised anyone anything for free, you had to work and were required to work...

Thats a lie--------------they offered free school, free food, guaranteed jobs, free entertainment, welfare and much more.

Yah, the capitalists always promised the Blacks in Africa free school, free food, guaranteed jobs, and welfare when loaded them onto the slave ships to southern plantations.

Capitalists? Try CATHOLICS and apparently Jews and oh yeah mostly Muslims involved.. but regardless, what point are you trying to make? Oh that all capitalists are evil despite capitalism being the only long term proven system to get people out of poverty.

Capitalism is about profits, not getting people out of poverty.
Capitalism deliberately wants to create as much poverty as possible, by taking from as many people as possible, and concentrating the wealth in the hands of the ruling elite.

Religion was not the cause of slavery, greed was.
And that is the root of capitalism.

Capitalism can produce some benefits, like technology, but is negative in the long run.
This planet could have supported a happy primitive life style indefinitely.
But by getting greedy, we destroy the happy primitive life style, force everyone to become employed by strangers, so that they can afford the basics like rent, that should normally be free to primitives.
The level of technology we are producing will destroy the planet for human habitation in less than a thousand years.
We are using ancient fossilized solar energy and will run out of that in less than 300 years.
What will be left will be massively polluted and barren.

Yes capitalism is about profits and strangely enough has gotten more people out of poverty than any other systems

Capitalism does not want to create poverty it simply wants people left to their own devices to make a profit. Despite this more people have been lifted out of poverty than any government plan or ideology has ever done.

Capitalismm is an overall positive in the long run.

There is no happy primitive lifestyle

All primitive life styles are relatively happy.
If they were not, then they all would have jumped at the chance to join the invading capitalist and technological society.
But instead they not only always fight it, but hide from it or try to escape it.
It has always brought negative results, and the primitive were always happier without it.
The American natives for example.
But also true in Hawaii, Polynesia, Australia, Africa, China, etc.
There are still people willing to go to hotile and remote places like Alaska, just to get away from the capitalist rat race.
All normal people prefer primitive over hostile capitalist technology.

No primitive lifestyle is happy.

If they were you would be throwing away the computer you are using and walking out into the woods or desert naked to fend for yourself.

It has always brought positive results.

No one prefers the primitive and capitalism is anything but hostile. Those going to Alaska are dmeanding capitalism and technology go with them. No one fought against capitalism they fought against invaders and then embraced capitalism whole heartedly even if resenting being conquered.

 

[Turtlesoup]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

He's former KGB. Are you buying into this crap?

What, do you mean? Research what he is referring to in regards to marxist take overs everywhere.

Cuba
Nicaragua
China
Vietnam
Russia
East Germany

Don't believe it? Think it is all robin hood fairy land unicorns and rainbows?
No American has tried to ESCAPE the "tyranny" of the horrific free market that has 7 Elevens and Burger Kings.
Sure as hell the other way around. Boy, marxism must be just great.
Just great. Be ready to starve. That's how they will elminate most of us.
Cow farts global warmjng. Get ready. You and all of us will get what we all deserve.
Get ready. Be ready for gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Wrong.
All the countries you list, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Vietnam, Russia, and East Germany were never remotely Marxist.
Russia started a revolution in 1917 with some Marxist ideology, but Stalin took over and wiped out any Marxists.
So no country has ever been remotely Marxist.
We have no idea if Marxism could work, because it has never been tried.
What Stalin created was State Capitalism.
There was nothing remotely collective, cooperative, or communal about Stalinism.
For any government to be collective, cooperative, or communal, it has to be democratic, local, and with equality.
What Stalin installed was authoritarian, central, and with a wealthy ruling elite.
That is the exact opposite.

Yes they were marxist.

Marxism has been repeatedly tried and always succeeded in estasblishing dictatorships of the proletariate which is what Stalin did they only failed to reach the utopian stateless period of development which Marx predicted.

There is nothing remotely collective cooperative or communal about marxism either.

Wrong.
Stalin was an anti-Marxist and killed all the Marxists like Trotsky.
Why else would he kill Marxists unless he was anti-Marxist?

Marx promoted an ideology that would require no state.
For that to happen, everyone would have to be satisfied with it and want to support it willingly.
Has anyone ever suggested a state anything remotely like that?
Of course not.
So then no one has ever remotely supported or suggested a Marxist state except some Russian idealists who were killed before they could start implementing anything.
If you don't think Marxism requires things to be collective, cooperative, and communal, then you know nothing about Marx, communism, socialism, Anarchism, or just about any political theory.

Like the socialists of the time----different factions within the communist party vying for power and money---infighting one another. Think of it as the primaries but where open murder and locking up your opponents was better tolerated and expected. Like what Hilliary does now--just hides it more.

A real Marxist would not be trying to just benefit themselves, so then would not be needing or using force.
Marxism is about attempting to end coercive methods, so would not need or use coercive methods.

WHAT THE FUCK type of claim is this---BABYCAKES---marxists/communists/socialist leaders are ALL in it for themselves and always have been.

 

[Rigby5]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

It's what the Nazi head ups did as well------socialists do tend to kill one off within a few years as they grasp for power and money.

The Nazis were not socialist nor were they liberals, nor were they communist nor were they Republicans..

We've explained this to you little children repeatedly, Moon. The nazis were the German SOCIALIST PARTY---its in their name. They rose to power promising free chit and using street thugs to terrorize the citizens while burning down cities too.

They did coopt the name but were nothing like socialist, Marxist, etc, they never promised anyone anything for free, you had to work and were required to work...

Thats a lie--------------they offered free school, free food, guaranteed jobs, free entertainment, welfare and much more.

Yah, the capitalists always promised the Blacks in Africa free school, free food, guaranteed jobs, and welfare when loaded them onto the slave ships to southern plantations.

Capitalists? Try CATHOLICS and apparently Jews and oh yeah mostly Muslims involved.. but regardless, what point are you trying to make? Oh that all capitalists are evil despite capitalism being the only long term proven system to get people out of poverty.

Capitalism is about profits, not getting people out of poverty.
Capitalism deliberately wants to create as much poverty as possible, by taking from as many people as possible, and concentrating the wealth in the hands of the ruling elite.

Religion was not the cause of slavery, greed was.
And that is the root of capitalism.

Capitalism can produce some benefits, like technology, but is negative in the long run.
This planet could have supported a happy primitive life style indefinitely.
But by getting greedy, we destroy the happy primitive life style, force everyone to become employed by strangers, so that they can afford the basics like rent, that should normally be free to primitives.
The level of technology we are producing will destroy the planet for human habitation in less than a thousand years.
We are using ancient fossilized solar energy and will run out of that in less than 300 years.
What will be left will be massively polluted and barren.

CAPITALISM GETS PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY--there has never been a better form of government at doing so baby. THIS IS A FACT. And yet you want to blow smoke? Really?

I am all for leaving primitive people in their primitive worlds..........without innoculations AND modern inventions as the world is overpopulated and enable ignorant people only encourages more and more children that they don't take care of.

Capitalism is NOT a form of government.
It is an economic belief based on greed.
And if any capitalist gets his way, the means of maximizing profits for greed is total dictatorship.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

He's former KGB. Are you buying into this crap?

What, do you mean? Research what he is referring to in regards to marxist take overs everywhere.

Cuba
Nicaragua
China
Vietnam
Russia
East Germany

Don't believe it? Think it is all robin hood fairy land unicorns and rainbows?
No American has tried to ESCAPE the "tyranny" of the horrific free market that has 7 Elevens and Burger Kings.
Sure as hell the other way around. Boy, marxism must be just great.
Just great. Be ready to starve. That's how they will elminate most of us.
Cow farts global warmjng. Get ready. You and all of us will get what we all deserve.
Get ready. Be ready for gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Wrong.
All the countries you list, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Vietnam, Russia, and East Germany were never remotely Marxist.
Russia started a revolution in 1917 with some Marxist ideology, but Stalin took over and wiped out any Marxists.
So no country has ever been remotely Marxist.
We have no idea if Marxism could work, because it has never been tried.
What Stalin created was State Capitalism.
There was nothing remotely collective, cooperative, or communal about Stalinism.
For any government to be collective, cooperative, or communal, it has to be democratic, local, and with equality.
What Stalin installed was authoritarian, central, and with a wealthy ruling elite.
That is the exact opposite.

Yes they were marxist.

Marxism has been repeatedly tried and always succeeded in estasblishing dictatorships of the proletariate which is what Stalin did they only failed to reach the utopian stateless period of development which Marx predicted.

There is nothing remotely collective cooperative or communal about marxism either.

Wrong.
Stalin was an anti-Marxist and killed all the Marxists like Trotsky.
Why else would he kill Marxists unless he was anti-Marxist?

Marx promoted an ideology that would require no state.
For that to happen, everyone would have to be satisfied with it and want to support it willingly.
Has anyone ever suggested a state anything remotely like that?
Of course not.
So then no one has ever remotely supported or suggested a Marxist state except some Russian idealists who were killed before they could start implementing anything.
If you don't think Marxism requires things to be collective, cooperative, and communal, then you know nothing about Marx, communism, socialism, Anarchism, or just about any political theory.

Like the socialists of the time----different factions within the communist party vying for power and money---infighting one another. Think of it as the primaries but where open murder and locking up your opponents was better tolerated and expected. Like what Hilliary does now--just hides it more.

A real Marxist would not be trying to just benefit themselves, so then would not be needing or using force.
Marxism is about attempting to end coercive methods, so would not need or use coercive methods.

SUre they would as marxism requires notrhing altruistic.

MArxism is rooted in and demands coercion and force.

Nonsense.
The whole point of Marxism was to figure out how to stop the economic slavery caused by the industrial revolution ending cottage industries.
Marxism is ONLY altruistic.

Wrong there is no form os slavery caused by the industrial revolution. It was capitalism which endede slavery by making people realize that slavery is innefficient and not a sound way to utilize labor.

Marxism is rooted in slavery for the entire human race it is the ultimate goal of communioosm. As you pointed out however this cannot be achieved without a state which only proves MArx was a fool because it is precisely what his ideology was about.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

It's what the Nazi head ups did as well------socialists do tend to kill one off within a few years as they grasp for power and money.

The Nazis were not socialist nor were they liberals, nor were they communist nor were they Republicans..

We've explained this to you little children repeatedly, Moon. The nazis were the German SOCIALIST PARTY---its in their name. They rose to power promising free chit and using street thugs to terrorize the citizens while burning down cities too.

They did coopt the name but were nothing like socialist, Marxist, etc, they never promised anyone anything for free, you had to work and were required to work...

Thats a lie--------------they offered free school, free food, guaranteed jobs, free entertainment, welfare and much more.

Yah, the capitalists always promised the Blacks in Africa free school, free food, guaranteed jobs, and welfare when loaded them onto the slave ships to southern plantations.

Capitalists? Try CATHOLICS and apparently Jews and oh yeah mostly Muslims involved.. but regardless, what point are you trying to make? Oh that all capitalists are evil despite capitalism being the only long term proven system to get people out of poverty.

Capitalism is about profits, not getting people out of poverty.
Capitalism deliberately wants to create as much poverty as possible, by taking from as many people as possible, and concentrating the wealth in the hands of the ruling elite.

Religion was not the cause of slavery, greed was.
And that is the root of capitalism.

Capitalism can produce some benefits, like technology, but is negative in the long run.
This planet could have supported a happy primitive life style indefinitely.
But by getting greedy, we destroy the happy primitive life style, force everyone to become employed by strangers, so that they can afford the basics like rent, that should normally be free to primitives.
The level of technology we are producing will destroy the planet for human habitation in less than a thousand years.
We are using ancient fossilized solar energy and will run out of that in less than 300 years.
What will be left will be massively polluted and barren.

CAPITALISM GETS PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY--there has never been a better form of government at doing so baby. THIS IS A FACT. And yet you want to blow smoke? Really?

I am all for leaving primitive people in their primitive worlds..........without innoculations AND modern inventions as the world is overpopulated and enable ignorant people only encourages more and more children that they don't take care of.

Capitalism is NOT a form of government.
It is an economic belief based on greed.
And if any capitalist gets his way, the means of maximizing profits for greed is total dictatorship.

Yes that is true except it is not based on greed it is based on individual liberty.

Capitalism would not accept total dictatorship as that would by definition reduce profits.

 

[Rigby5]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

It's what the Nazi head ups did as well------socialists do tend to kill one off within a few years as they grasp for power and money.

The Nazis were not socialist nor were they liberals, nor were they communist nor were they Republicans..

We've explained this to you little children repeatedly, Moon. The nazis were the German SOCIALIST PARTY---its in their name. They rose to power promising free chit and using street thugs to terrorize the citizens while burning down cities too.

They did coopt the name but were nothing like socialist, Marxist, etc, they never promised anyone anything for free, you had to work and were required to work...

Thats a lie--------------they offered free school, free food, guaranteed jobs, free entertainment, welfare and much more.

Yah, the capitalists always promised the Blacks in Africa free school, free food, guaranteed jobs, and welfare when loaded them onto the slave ships to southern plantations.

Capitalists? Try CATHOLICS and apparently Jews and oh yeah mostly Muslims involved.. but regardless, what point are you trying to make? Oh that all capitalists are evil despite capitalism being the only long term proven system to get people out of poverty.

Capitalism is about profits, not getting people out of poverty.
Capitalism deliberately wants to create as much poverty as possible, by taking from as many people as possible, and concentrating the wealth in the hands of the ruling elite.

Religion was not the cause of slavery, greed was.
And that is the root of capitalism.

Capitalism can produce some benefits, like technology, but is negative in the long run.
This planet could have supported a happy primitive life style indefinitely.
But by getting greedy, we destroy the happy primitive life style, force everyone to become employed by strangers, so that they can afford the basics like rent, that should normally be free to primitives.
The level of technology we are producing will destroy the planet for human habitation in less than a thousand years.
We are using ancient fossilized solar energy and will run out of that in less than 300 years.
What will be left will be massively polluted and barren.

Yes capitalism is about profits and strangely enough has gotten more people out of poverty than any other systems

Capitalism does not want to create poverty it simply wants people left to their own devices to make a profit. Despite this more people have been lifted out of poverty than any government plan or ideology has ever done.

Capitalismm is an overall positive in the long run.

There is no happy primitive lifestyle

All primitive life styles are relatively happy.
If they were not, then they all would have jumped at the chance to join the invading capitalist and technological society.
But instead they not only always fight it, but hide from it or try to escape it.
It has always brought negative results, and the primitive were always happier without it.
The American natives for example.
But also true in Hawaii, Polynesia, Australia, Africa, China, etc.
There are still people willing to go to hotile and remote places like Alaska, just to get away from the capitalist rat race.
All normal people prefer primitive over hostile capitalist technology.

No primitive lifestyle is happy.

If they were you would be throwing away the computer you are using and walking out into the woods or desert naked to fend for yourself.

It has always brought positive results.

No one prefers the primitive and capitalism is anything but hostile. Those going to Alaska are dmeanding capitalism and technology go with them. No one fought against capitalism they fought against invaders and then embraced capitalism whole heartedly even if resenting being conquered.

Nonsense.
Everyone prefers primitivism, but capitalists have made it so no one can afford primitivism any more.
Do you know how much it costs for a wooded area or a deserted island?
Almost no one can afford even the taxes on that any more.

No going Alaska is demanding capitalism or technology go with them.
They are trying to get away from both.
They want to rely on the natural resource of the primitive there, like lots of animals for food and wood for heat.

 

[Rigby5]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

He's former KGB. Are you buying into this crap?

What, do you mean? Research what he is referring to in regards to marxist take overs everywhere.

Cuba
Nicaragua
China
Vietnam
Russia
East Germany

Don't believe it? Think it is all robin hood fairy land unicorns and rainbows?
No American has tried to ESCAPE the "tyranny" of the horrific free market that has 7 Elevens and Burger Kings.
Sure as hell the other way around. Boy, marxism must be just great.
Just great. Be ready to starve. That's how they will elminate most of us.
Cow farts global warmjng. Get ready. You and all of us will get what we all deserve.
Get ready. Be ready for gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Wrong.
All the countries you list, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Vietnam, Russia, and East Germany were never remotely Marxist.
Russia started a revolution in 1917 with some Marxist ideology, but Stalin took over and wiped out any Marxists.
So no country has ever been remotely Marxist.
We have no idea if Marxism could work, because it has never been tried.
What Stalin created was State Capitalism.
There was nothing remotely collective, cooperative, or communal about Stalinism.
For any government to be collective, cooperative, or communal, it has to be democratic, local, and with equality.
What Stalin installed was authoritarian, central, and with a wealthy ruling elite.
That is the exact opposite.

Yes they were marxist.

Marxism has been repeatedly tried and always succeeded in estasblishing dictatorships of the proletariate which is what Stalin did they only failed to reach the utopian stateless period of development which Marx predicted.

There is nothing remotely collective cooperative or communal about marxism either.

Wrong.
Stalin was an anti-Marxist and killed all the Marxists like Trotsky.
Why else would he kill Marxists unless he was anti-Marxist?

Marx promoted an ideology that would require no state.
For that to happen, everyone would have to be satisfied with it and want to support it willingly.
Has anyone ever suggested a state anything remotely like that?
Of course not.
So then no one has ever remotely supported or suggested a Marxist state except some Russian idealists who were killed before they could start implementing anything.
If you don't think Marxism requires things to be collective, cooperative, and communal, then you know nothing about Marx, communism, socialism, Anarchism, or just about any political theory.

Like the socialists of the time----different factions within the communist party vying for power and money---infighting one another. Think of it as the primaries but where open murder and locking up your opponents was better tolerated and expected. Like what Hilliary does now--just hides it more.

A real Marxist would not be trying to just benefit themselves, so then would not be needing or using force.
Marxism is about attempting to end coercive methods, so would not need or use coercive methods.

WHAT THE FUCK type of claim is this---BABYCAKES---marxists/communists/socialist leaders are ALL in it for themselves and always have been.

Wrong.
When one is out for themselves, that is capitalism.
Like Stalin, an uber capitalist.
His goal was to end the competition by force, which is pure capitalism.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

He's former KGB. Are you buying into this crap?

What, do you mean? Research what he is referring to in regards to marxist take overs everywhere.

Cuba
Nicaragua
China
Vietnam
Russia
East Germany

Don't believe it? Think it is all robin hood fairy land unicorns and rainbows?
No American has tried to ESCAPE the "tyranny" of the horrific free market that has 7 Elevens and Burger Kings.
Sure as hell the other way around. Boy, marxism must be just great.
Just great. Be ready to starve. That's how they will elminate most of us.
Cow farts global warmjng. Get ready. You and all of us will get what we all deserve.
Get ready. Be ready for gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Wrong.
All the countries you list, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Vietnam, Russia, and East Germany were never remotely Marxist.
Russia started a revolution in 1917 with some Marxist ideology, but Stalin took over and wiped out any Marxists.
So no country has ever been remotely Marxist.
We have no idea if Marxism could work, because it has never been tried.
What Stalin created was State Capitalism.
There was nothing remotely collective, cooperative, or communal about Stalinism.
For any government to be collective, cooperative, or communal, it has to be democratic, local, and with equality.
What Stalin installed was authoritarian, central, and with a wealthy ruling elite.
That is the exact opposite.

Yes they were marxist.

Marxism has been repeatedly tried and always succeeded in estasblishing dictatorships of the proletariate which is what Stalin did they only failed to reach the utopian stateless period of development which Marx predicted.

There is nothing remotely collective cooperative or communal about marxism either.

Wrong.
Stalin was an anti-Marxist and killed all the Marxists like Trotsky.
Why else would he kill Marxists unless he was anti-Marxist?

Marx promoted an ideology that would require no state.
For that to happen, everyone would have to be satisfied with it and want to support it willingly.
Has anyone ever suggested a state anything remotely like that?
Of course not.
So then no one has ever remotely supported or suggested a Marxist state except some Russian idealists who were killed before they could start implementing anything.
If you don't think Marxism requires things to be collective, cooperative, and communal, then you know nothing about Marx, communism, socialism, Anarchism, or just about any political theory.

Like the socialists of the time----different factions within the communist party vying for power and money---infighting one another. Think of it as the primaries but where open murder and locking up your opponents was better tolerated and expected. Like what Hilliary does now--just hides it more.

A real Marxist would not be trying to just benefit themselves, so then would not be needing or using force.
Marxism is about attempting to end coercive methods, so would not need or use coercive methods.

WHAT THE FUCK type of claim is this---BABYCAKES---marxists/communists/socialist leaders are ALL in it for themselves and always have been.

Wrong.
When one is out for themselves, that is capitalism.
Like Stalin, an uber capitalist.
His goal was to end the competition by force, which is pure capitalism.

Wrong.

Everyone is always out for themselves under capitalims or communism. Stalins goal was to establish world wide communism which is marxism.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

It's what the Nazi head ups did as well------socialists do tend to kill one off within a few years as they grasp for power and money.

The Nazis were not socialist nor were they liberals, nor were they communist nor were they Republicans..

We've explained this to you little children repeatedly, Moon. The nazis were the German SOCIALIST PARTY---its in their name. They rose to power promising free chit and using street thugs to terrorize the citizens while burning down cities too.

They did coopt the name but were nothing like socialist, Marxist, etc, they never promised anyone anything for free, you had to work and were required to work...

Thats a lie--------------they offered free school, free food, guaranteed jobs, free entertainment, welfare and much more.

Yah, the capitalists always promised the Blacks in Africa free school, free food, guaranteed jobs, and welfare when loaded them onto the slave ships to southern plantations.

Capitalists? Try CATHOLICS and apparently Jews and oh yeah mostly Muslims involved.. but regardless, what point are you trying to make? Oh that all capitalists are evil despite capitalism being the only long term proven system to get people out of poverty.

Capitalism is about profits, not getting people out of poverty.
Capitalism deliberately wants to create as much poverty as possible, by taking from as many people as possible, and concentrating the wealth in the hands of the ruling elite.

Religion was not the cause of slavery, greed was.
And that is the root of capitalism.

Capitalism can produce some benefits, like technology, but is negative in the long run.
This planet could have supported a happy primitive life style indefinitely.
But by getting greedy, we destroy the happy primitive life style, force everyone to become employed by strangers, so that they can afford the basics like rent, that should normally be free to primitives.
The level of technology we are producing will destroy the planet for human habitation in less than a thousand years.
We are using ancient fossilized solar energy and will run out of that in less than 300 years.
What will be left will be massively polluted and barren.

Yes capitalism is about profits and strangely enough has gotten more people out of poverty than any other systems

Capitalism does not want to create poverty it simply wants people left to their own devices to make a profit. Despite this more people have been lifted out of poverty than any government plan or ideology has ever done.

Capitalismm is an overall positive in the long run.

There is no happy primitive lifestyle

All primitive life styles are relatively happy.
If they were not, then they all would have jumped at the chance to join the invading capitalist and technological society.
But instead they not only always fight it, but hide from it or try to escape it.
It has always brought negative results, and the primitive were always happier without it.
The American natives for example.
But also true in Hawaii, Polynesia, Australia, Africa, China, etc.
There are still people willing to go to hotile and remote places like Alaska, just to get away from the capitalist rat race.
All normal people prefer primitive over hostile capitalist technology.

No primitive lifestyle is happy.

If they were you would be throwing away the computer you are using and walking out into the woods or desert naked to fend for yourself.

It has always brought positive results.

No one prefers the primitive and capitalism is anything but hostile. Those going to Alaska are dmeanding capitalism and technology go with them. No one fought against capitalism they fought against invaders and then embraced capitalism whole heartedly even if resenting being conquered.

Nonsense.
Everyone prefers primitivism, but capitalists have made it so no one can afford primitivism any more.
Do you know how much it costs for a wooded area or a deserted island?
Almost no one can afford even the taxes on that any more.

No going Alaska is demanding capitalism or technology go with them.
They are trying to get away from both.
They want to rely on the natural resource of the primitive there, like lots of animals for food and wood for heat.

Horseshit. No one prefers primitivism and those who claim to want it are proven liars because they never embrace it.

you do not want it or you would not be on the internet and anyone can afford it as it requires NOTHING. a primitive owns nothing and buys no land.

All going to Alaska demand technology and capitalism go with them they demand grocery stores and heated homes and running water in their homes etc.

No one is going there to simply live off of the land

 

[Turtlesoup]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

He's former KGB. Are you buying into this crap?

What, do you mean? Research what he is referring to in regards to marxist take overs everywhere.

Cuba
Nicaragua
China
Vietnam
Russia
East Germany

Don't believe it? Think it is all robin hood fairy land unicorns and rainbows?
No American has tried to ESCAPE the "tyranny" of the horrific free market that has 7 Elevens and Burger Kings.
Sure as hell the other way around. Boy, marxism must be just great.
Just great. Be ready to starve. That's how they will elminate most of us.
Cow farts global warmjng. Get ready. You and all of us will get what we all deserve.
Get ready. Be ready for gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Wrong.
All the countries you list, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Vietnam, Russia, and East Germany were never remotely Marxist.
Russia started a revolution in 1917 with some Marxist ideology, but Stalin took over and wiped out any Marxists.
So no country has ever been remotely Marxist.
We have no idea if Marxism could work, because it has never been tried.
What Stalin created was State Capitalism.
There was nothing remotely collective, cooperative, or communal about Stalinism.
For any government to be collective, cooperative, or communal, it has to be democratic, local, and with equality.
What Stalin installed was authoritarian, central, and with a wealthy ruling elite.
That is the exact opposite.

Yes they were marxist.

Marxism has been repeatedly tried and always succeeded in estasblishing dictatorships of the proletariate which is what Stalin did they only failed to reach the utopian stateless period of development which Marx predicted.

There is nothing remotely collective cooperative or communal about marxism either.

Wrong.
Stalin was an anti-Marxist and killed all the Marxists like Trotsky.
Why else would he kill Marxists unless he was anti-Marxist?

Marx promoted an ideology that would require no state.
For that to happen, everyone would have to be satisfied with it and want to support it willingly.
Has anyone ever suggested a state anything remotely like that?
Of course not.
So then no one has ever remotely supported or suggested a Marxist state except some Russian idealists who were killed before they could start implementing anything.
If you don't think Marxism requires things to be collective, cooperative, and communal, then you know nothing about Marx, communism, socialism, Anarchism, or just about any political theory.

Like the socialists of the time----different factions within the communist party vying for power and money---infighting one another. Think of it as the primaries but where open murder and locking up your opponents was better tolerated and expected. Like what Hilliary does now--just hides it more.

A real Marxist would not be trying to just benefit themselves, so then would not be needing or using force.
Marxism is about attempting to end coercive methods, so would not need or use coercive methods.

SUre they would as marxism requires notrhing altruistic.

MArxism is rooted in and demands coercion and force.

Nonsense.
The whole point of Marxism was to figure out how to stop the economic slavery caused by the industrial revolution ending cottage industries.
Marxism is ONLY altruistic.

No..the whole point of marxism to cause chaos which allows more of a power grab for those leading the marxist/communist/socialist groups..they promise free chit to those on the bottom aka useful idiots (everyone needs minions if they want to rise in power), take from those working lower, middle, higher level in order to offer some free shit aka rewards to the useful idiots, given the heads more more and more money as they take the lion share for themselves and their masters which work tills the workers/producers refuse to produce anymore creating shortages for everyone below the leaders as the leaders always make sure they get theirs first...this has been true since forever----French revolution, Venzuela, Jamestown starving 1607-1611, Jonestown, Russia, etc...always the same chit.

 

[Rigby5]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

He's former KGB. Are you buying into this crap?

What, do you mean? Research what he is referring to in regards to marxist take overs everywhere.

Cuba
Nicaragua
China
Vietnam
Russia
East Germany

Don't believe it? Think it is all robin hood fairy land unicorns and rainbows?
No American has tried to ESCAPE the "tyranny" of the horrific free market that has 7 Elevens and Burger Kings.
Sure as hell the other way around. Boy, marxism must be just great.
Just great. Be ready to starve. That's how they will elminate most of us.
Cow farts global warmjng. Get ready. You and all of us will get what we all deserve.
Get ready. Be ready for gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Wrong.
All the countries you list, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Vietnam, Russia, and East Germany were never remotely Marxist.
Russia started a revolution in 1917 with some Marxist ideology, but Stalin took over and wiped out any Marxists.
So no country has ever been remotely Marxist.
We have no idea if Marxism could work, because it has never been tried.
What Stalin created was State Capitalism.
There was nothing remotely collective, cooperative, or communal about Stalinism.
For any government to be collective, cooperative, or communal, it has to be democratic, local, and with equality.
What Stalin installed was authoritarian, central, and with a wealthy ruling elite.
That is the exact opposite.

Yes they were marxist.

Marxism has been repeatedly tried and always succeeded in estasblishing dictatorships of the proletariate which is what Stalin did they only failed to reach the utopian stateless period of development which Marx predicted.

There is nothing remotely collective cooperative or communal about marxism either.

Wrong.
Stalin was an anti-Marxist and killed all the Marxists like Trotsky.
Why else would he kill Marxists unless he was anti-Marxist?

Marx promoted an ideology that would require no state.
For that to happen, everyone would have to be satisfied with it and want to support it willingly.
Has anyone ever suggested a state anything remotely like that?
Of course not.
So then no one has ever remotely supported or suggested a Marxist state except some Russian idealists who were killed before they could start implementing anything.
If you don't think Marxism requires things to be collective, cooperative, and communal, then you know nothing about Marx, communism, socialism, Anarchism, or just about any political theory.

Like the socialists of the time----different factions within the communist party vying for power and money---infighting one another. Think of it as the primaries but where open murder and locking up your opponents was better tolerated and expected. Like what Hilliary does now--just hides it more.

A real Marxist would not be trying to just benefit themselves, so then would not be needing or using force.
Marxism is about attempting to end coercive methods, so would not need or use coercive methods.

SUre they would as marxism requires notrhing altruistic.

MArxism is rooted in and demands coercion and force.

Nonsense.
The whole point of Marxism was to figure out how to stop the economic slavery caused by the industrial revolution ending cottage industries.
Marxism is ONLY altruistic.

Wrong there is no form os slavery caused by the industrial revolution. It was capitalism which endede slavery by making people realize that slavery is innefficient and not a sound way to utilize labor.

Marxism is rooted in slavery for the entire human race it is the ultimate goal of communioosm. As you pointed out however this cannot be achieved without a state which only proves MArx was a fool because it is precisely what his ideology was about.

Wrong.
Up until the Industrial Revolution, anyone could make a good living working for themselves.
But after the industrial revolution, you had to beg someone else for a job because you could not afford the competitive machinery it took to be competitive.
The industrial revolution ended the freedom and liberty of being self employed.

And you are totally wrong about communism.
Real communism can NEVER be achieved with a state and any state automatically prevents communism.
Marx did not want a state and only wrote about the advantages of being stateless.
The only time Marx writes about a state is as a temporary means of stopping the capitalists from enslaving everyone.

 

[Rigby5]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

It's what the Nazi head ups did as well------socialists do tend to kill one off within a few years as they grasp for power and money.

The Nazis were not socialist nor were they liberals, nor were they communist nor were they Republicans..

We've explained this to you little children repeatedly, Moon. The nazis were the German SOCIALIST PARTY---its in their name. They rose to power promising free chit and using street thugs to terrorize the citizens while burning down cities too.

They did coopt the name but were nothing like socialist, Marxist, etc, they never promised anyone anything for free, you had to work and were required to work...

Thats a lie--------------they offered free school, free food, guaranteed jobs, free entertainment, welfare and much more.

Yah, the capitalists always promised the Blacks in Africa free school, free food, guaranteed jobs, and welfare when loaded them onto the slave ships to southern plantations.

Capitalists? Try CATHOLICS and apparently Jews and oh yeah mostly Muslims involved.. but regardless, what point are you trying to make? Oh that all capitalists are evil despite capitalism being the only long term proven system to get people out of poverty.

Capitalism is about profits, not getting people out of poverty.
Capitalism deliberately wants to create as much poverty as possible, by taking from as many people as possible, and concentrating the wealth in the hands of the ruling elite.

Religion was not the cause of slavery, greed was.
And that is the root of capitalism.

Capitalism can produce some benefits, like technology, but is negative in the long run.
This planet could have supported a happy primitive life style indefinitely.
But by getting greedy, we destroy the happy primitive life style, force everyone to become employed by strangers, so that they can afford the basics like rent, that should normally be free to primitives.
The level of technology we are producing will destroy the planet for human habitation in less than a thousand years.
We are using ancient fossilized solar energy and will run out of that in less than 300 years.
What will be left will be massively polluted and barren.

Yes capitalism is about profits and strangely enough has gotten more people out of poverty than any other systems

Capitalism does not want to create poverty it simply wants people left to their own devices to make a profit. Despite this more people have been lifted out of poverty than any government plan or ideology has ever done.

Capitalismm is an overall positive in the long run.

There is no happy primitive lifestyle

All primitive life styles are relatively happy.
If they were not, then they all would have jumped at the chance to join the invading capitalist and technological society.
But instead they not only always fight it, but hide from it or try to escape it.
It has always brought negative results, and the primitive were always happier without it.
The American natives for example.
But also true in Hawaii, Polynesia, Australia, Africa, China, etc.
There are still people willing to go to hotile and remote places like Alaska, just to get away from the capitalist rat race.
All normal people prefer primitive over hostile capitalist technology.

No primitive lifestyle is happy.

If they were you would be throwing away the computer you are using and walking out into the woods or desert naked to fend for yourself.

It has always brought positive results.

No one prefers the primitive and capitalism is anything but hostile. Those going to Alaska are dmeanding capitalism and technology go with them. No one fought against capitalism they fought against invaders and then embraced capitalism whole heartedly even if resenting being conquered.

Nonsense.
Everyone prefers primitivism, but capitalists have made it so no one can afford primitivism any more.
Do you know how much it costs for a wooded area or a deserted island?
Almost no one can afford even the taxes on that any more.

No going Alaska is demanding capitalism or technology go with them.
They are trying to get away from both.
They want to rely on the natural resource of the primitive there, like lots of animals for food and wood for heat.

Horseshit. No one prefers primitivism and those who claim to want it are proven liars because they never embrace it.

you do not want it or you would not be on the internet and anyone can afford it as it requires NOTHING. a primitive owns nothing and buys no land.

All going to Alaska demand technology and capitalism go with them they demand grocery stores and heated homes and running water in their homes etc.

No one is going there to simply live off of the land

Wrong.
Everyone would vastly prefer to live off the land, but that requires a lot of space, which is much more expensive that most people can afford.
Lots of people to to Alaska to live off the land.
Watch the TV shows that concentrate on just that.
There are also cities in AL, but that is besides the point.

 

[Rigby5]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

He's former KGB. Are you buying into this crap?

What, do you mean? Research what he is referring to in regards to marxist take overs everywhere.

Cuba
Nicaragua
China
Vietnam
Russia
East Germany

Don't believe it? Think it is all robin hood fairy land unicorns and rainbows?
No American has tried to ESCAPE the "tyranny" of the horrific free market that has 7 Elevens and Burger Kings.
Sure as hell the other way around. Boy, marxism must be just great.
Just great. Be ready to starve. That's how they will elminate most of us.
Cow farts global warmjng. Get ready. You and all of us will get what we all deserve.
Get ready. Be ready for gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Wrong.
All the countries you list, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Vietnam, Russia, and East Germany were never remotely Marxist.
Russia started a revolution in 1917 with some Marxist ideology, but Stalin took over and wiped out any Marxists.
So no country has ever been remotely Marxist.
We have no idea if Marxism could work, because it has never been tried.
What Stalin created was State Capitalism.
There was nothing remotely collective, cooperative, or communal about Stalinism.
For any government to be collective, cooperative, or communal, it has to be democratic, local, and with equality.
What Stalin installed was authoritarian, central, and with a wealthy ruling elite.
That is the exact opposite.

Yes they were marxist.

Marxism has been repeatedly tried and always succeeded in estasblishing dictatorships of the proletariate which is what Stalin did they only failed to reach the utopian stateless period of development which Marx predicted.

There is nothing remotely collective cooperative or communal about marxism either.

Wrong.
Stalin was an anti-Marxist and killed all the Marxists like Trotsky.
Why else would he kill Marxists unless he was anti-Marxist?

Marx promoted an ideology that would require no state.
For that to happen, everyone would have to be satisfied with it and want to support it willingly.
Has anyone ever suggested a state anything remotely like that?
Of course not.
So then no one has ever remotely supported or suggested a Marxist state except some Russian idealists who were killed before they could start implementing anything.
If you don't think Marxism requires things to be collective, cooperative, and communal, then you know nothing about Marx, communism, socialism, Anarchism, or just about any political theory.

Like the socialists of the time----different factions within the communist party vying for power and money---infighting one another. Think of it as the primaries but where open murder and locking up your opponents was better tolerated and expected. Like what Hilliary does now--just hides it more.

A real Marxist would not be trying to just benefit themselves, so then would not be needing or using force.
Marxism is about attempting to end coercive methods, so would not need or use coercive methods.

SUre they would as marxism requires notrhing altruistic.

MArxism is rooted in and demands coercion and force.

Nonsense.
The whole point of Marxism was to figure out how to stop the economic slavery caused by the industrial revolution ending cottage industries.
Marxism is ONLY altruistic.

No..the whole point of marxism to cause chaos which allows more of a power grab for those leading the marxist/communist/socialist groups..they promise free chit to those on the bottom aka useful idiots (everyone needs minions if they want to rise in power), take from those working lower, middle, higher level in order to offer some free shit aka rewards to the useful idiots, given the heads more more and more money as they take the lion share for themselves and their masters which work tills the workers/producers refuse to produce anymore creating shortages for everyone below the leaders as the leaders always make sure they get theirs first...this has been true since forever----French revolution, Venzuela, Jamestown starving 1607-1611, Jonestown, Russia, etc...always the same chit.

That is just silly.
Now you are saying Marx was just a con man.
There is no basis for that, since he clearly never tried to make any money off his idealism.
The starvation in Jamestown was because they were wealthy elite and did not know how to be primitive.
They went to the New World out of greed, not to get away from over bearing technology.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

He's former KGB. Are you buying into this crap?

What, do you mean? Research what he is referring to in regards to marxist take overs everywhere.

Cuba
Nicaragua
China
Vietnam
Russia
East Germany

Don't believe it? Think it is all robin hood fairy land unicorns and rainbows?
No American has tried to ESCAPE the "tyranny" of the horrific free market that has 7 Elevens and Burger Kings.
Sure as hell the other way around. Boy, marxism must be just great.
Just great. Be ready to starve. That's how they will elminate most of us.
Cow farts global warmjng. Get ready. You and all of us will get what we all deserve.
Get ready. Be ready for gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Wrong.
All the countries you list, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Vietnam, Russia, and East Germany were never remotely Marxist.
Russia started a revolution in 1917 with some Marxist ideology, but Stalin took over and wiped out any Marxists.
So no country has ever been remotely Marxist.
We have no idea if Marxism could work, because it has never been tried.
What Stalin created was State Capitalism.
There was nothing remotely collective, cooperative, or communal about Stalinism.
For any government to be collective, cooperative, or communal, it has to be democratic, local, and with equality.
What Stalin installed was authoritarian, central, and with a wealthy ruling elite.
That is the exact opposite.

Yes they were marxist.

Marxism has been repeatedly tried and always succeeded in estasblishing dictatorships of the proletariate which is what Stalin did they only failed to reach the utopian stateless period of development which Marx predicted.

There is nothing remotely collective cooperative or communal about marxism either.

Wrong.
Stalin was an anti-Marxist and killed all the Marxists like Trotsky.
Why else would he kill Marxists unless he was anti-Marxist?

Marx promoted an ideology that would require no state.
For that to happen, everyone would have to be satisfied with it and want to support it willingly.
Has anyone ever suggested a state anything remotely like that?
Of course not.
So then no one has ever remotely supported or suggested a Marxist state except some Russian idealists who were killed before they could start implementing anything.
If you don't think Marxism requires things to be collective, cooperative, and communal, then you know nothing about Marx, communism, socialism, Anarchism, or just about any political theory.

Like the socialists of the time----different factions within the communist party vying for power and money---infighting one another. Think of it as the primaries but where open murder and locking up your opponents was better tolerated and expected. Like what Hilliary does now--just hides it more.

A real Marxist would not be trying to just benefit themselves, so then would not be needing or using force.
Marxism is about attempting to end coercive methods, so would not need or use coercive methods.

SUre they would as marxism requires notrhing altruistic.

MArxism is rooted in and demands coercion and force.

Nonsense.
The whole point of Marxism was to figure out how to stop the economic slavery caused by the industrial revolution ending cottage industries.
Marxism is ONLY altruistic.

Wrong there is no form os slavery caused by the industrial revolution. It was capitalism which endede slavery by making people realize that slavery is innefficient and not a sound way to utilize labor.

Marxism is rooted in slavery for the entire human race it is the ultimate goal of communioosm. As you pointed out however this cannot be achieved without a state which only proves MArx was a fool because it is precisely what his ideology was about.

Wrong.
Up until the Industrial Revolution, anyone could make a good living working for themselves.
But after the industrial revolution, you had to beg someone else for a job because you could not afford the competitive machinery it took to be competitive.
The industrial revolution ended the freedom and liberty of being self employed.

And you are totally wrong about communism.
Real communism can NEVER be achieved with a state and any state automatically prevents communism.
Marx did not want a state and only wrote about the advantages of being stateless.
The only time Marx writes about a state is as a temporary means of stopping the capitalists from enslaving everyone.

Only some could make a good living for themselves before the industrial revolution more can and do make a better living for themselves after it.

Competition for a job is far superior than tennant farming or competing with mother nature.

More are self employed thanks to the industrial revolution than ever before proving you wrong.

I am correct about communsim and like all who are warm to the ideas of marxism you think only you have bothered to study it when ibn fact you have only a cursory idea of what the pig marx wrote

Marx wrote a lot about the state and wanted a state to evolve until it was no longer needed. How long did he say that would take? he did not Making it perfectly in accordance with his ideas to establish a disctatorship of the proletariate which lasts thousands of years.

Once again capitalism ended slavery and does not support slavery as slavery is economically innefficient. Capitalism taught the world that it is cheaper to hire workers than to keep slaves.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

It's what the Nazi head ups did as well------socialists do tend to kill one off within a few years as they grasp for power and money.

The Nazis were not socialist nor were they liberals, nor were they communist nor were they Republicans..

We've explained this to you little children repeatedly, Moon. The nazis were the German SOCIALIST PARTY---its in their name. They rose to power promising free chit and using street thugs to terrorize the citizens while burning down cities too.

They did coopt the name but were nothing like socialist, Marxist, etc, they never promised anyone anything for free, you had to work and were required to work...

Thats a lie--------------they offered free school, free food, guaranteed jobs, free entertainment, welfare and much more.

Yah, the capitalists always promised the Blacks in Africa free school, free food, guaranteed jobs, and welfare when loaded them onto the slave ships to southern plantations.

Capitalists? Try CATHOLICS and apparently Jews and oh yeah mostly Muslims involved.. but regardless, what point are you trying to make? Oh that all capitalists are evil despite capitalism being the only long term proven system to get people out of poverty.

Capitalism is about profits, not getting people out of poverty.
Capitalism deliberately wants to create as much poverty as possible, by taking from as many people as possible, and concentrating the wealth in the hands of the ruling elite.

Religion was not the cause of slavery, greed was.
And that is the root of capitalism.

Capitalism can produce some benefits, like technology, but is negative in the long run.
This planet could have supported a happy primitive life style indefinitely.
But by getting greedy, we destroy the happy primitive life style, force everyone to become employed by strangers, so that they can afford the basics like rent, that should normally be free to primitives.
The level of technology we are producing will destroy the planet for human habitation in less than a thousand years.
We are using ancient fossilized solar energy and will run out of that in less than 300 years.
What will be left will be massively polluted and barren.

Yes capitalism is about profits and strangely enough has gotten more people out of poverty than any other systems

Capitalism does not want to create poverty it simply wants people left to their own devices to make a profit. Despite this more people have been lifted out of poverty than any government plan or ideology has ever done.

Capitalismm is an overall positive in the long run.

There is no happy primitive lifestyle

All primitive life styles are relatively happy.
If they were not, then they all would have jumped at the chance to join the invading capitalist and technological society.
But instead they not only always fight it, but hide from it or try to escape it.
It has always brought negative results, and the primitive were always happier without it.
The American natives for example.
But also true in Hawaii, Polynesia, Australia, Africa, China, etc.
There are still people willing to go to hotile and remote places like Alaska, just to get away from the capitalist rat race.
All normal people prefer primitive over hostile capitalist technology.

No primitive lifestyle is happy.

If they were you would be throwing away the computer you are using and walking out into the woods or desert naked to fend for yourself.

It has always brought positive results.

No one prefers the primitive and capitalism is anything but hostile. Those going to Alaska are dmeanding capitalism and technology go with them. No one fought against capitalism they fought against invaders and then embraced capitalism whole heartedly even if resenting being conquered.

Nonsense.
Everyone prefers primitivism, but capitalists have made it so no one can afford primitivism any more.
Do you know how much it costs for a wooded area or a deserted island?
Almost no one can afford even the taxes on that any more.

No going Alaska is demanding capitalism or technology go with them.
They are trying to get away from both.
They want to rely on the natural resource of the primitive there, like lots of animals for food and wood for heat.

Horseshit. No one prefers primitivism and those who claim to want it are proven liars because they never embrace it.

you do not want it or you would not be on the internet and anyone can afford it as it requires NOTHING. a primitive owns nothing and buys no land.

All going to Alaska demand technology and capitalism go with them they demand grocery stores and heated homes and running water in their homes etc.

No one is going there to simply live off of the land

Wrong.
Everyone would vastly prefer to live off the land, but that requires a lot of space, which is much more expensive that most people can afford.
Lots of people to to Alaska to live off the land.
Watch the TV shows that concentrate on just that.
There are also cities in AL, but that is besides the point.

Wrong. No one would prefer that or you would be doing it. One does not need to own land to live off of it.

No one in alaska lives off of the land they all demand the benefits of modern living such as modern dentistry and health care and food being shipped to them;

 

[Turtlesoup]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

He's former KGB. Are you buying into this crap?

What, do you mean? Research what he is referring to in regards to marxist take overs everywhere.

Cuba
Nicaragua
China
Vietnam
Russia
East Germany

Don't believe it? Think it is all robin hood fairy land unicorns and rainbows?
No American has tried to ESCAPE the "tyranny" of the horrific free market that has 7 Elevens and Burger Kings.
Sure as hell the other way around. Boy, marxism must be just great.
Just great. Be ready to starve. That's how they will elminate most of us.
Cow farts global warmjng. Get ready. You and all of us will get what we all deserve.
Get ready. Be ready for gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Wrong.
All the countries you list, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Vietnam, Russia, and East Germany were never remotely Marxist.
Russia started a revolution in 1917 with some Marxist ideology, but Stalin took over and wiped out any Marxists.
So no country has ever been remotely Marxist.
We have no idea if Marxism could work, because it has never been tried.
What Stalin created was State Capitalism.
There was nothing remotely collective, cooperative, or communal about Stalinism.
For any government to be collective, cooperative, or communal, it has to be democratic, local, and with equality.
What Stalin installed was authoritarian, central, and with a wealthy ruling elite.
That is the exact opposite.

Yes they were marxist.

Marxism has been repeatedly tried and always succeeded in estasblishing dictatorships of the proletariate which is what Stalin did they only failed to reach the utopian stateless period of development which Marx predicted.

There is nothing remotely collective cooperative or communal about marxism either.

Wrong.
Stalin was an anti-Marxist and killed all the Marxists like Trotsky.
Why else would he kill Marxists unless he was anti-Marxist?

Marx promoted an ideology that would require no state.
For that to happen, everyone would have to be satisfied with it and want to support it willingly.
Has anyone ever suggested a state anything remotely like that?
Of course not.
So then no one has ever remotely supported or suggested a Marxist state except some Russian idealists who were killed before they could start implementing anything.
If you don't think Marxism requires things to be collective, cooperative, and communal, then you know nothing about Marx, communism, socialism, Anarchism, or just about any political theory.

Like the socialists of the time----different factions within the communist party vying for power and money---infighting one another. Think of it as the primaries but where open murder and locking up your opponents was better tolerated and expected. Like what Hilliary does now--just hides it more.

A real Marxist would not be trying to just benefit themselves, so then would not be needing or using force.
Marxism is about attempting to end coercive methods, so would not need or use coercive methods.

WHAT THE FUCK type of claim is this---BABYCAKES---marxists/communists/socialist leaders are ALL in it for themselves and always have been.

Wrong.
When one is out for themselves, that is capitalism.
Like Stalin, an uber capitalist.
His goal was to end the competition by force, which is pure capitalism.

Wrong.

Everyone is always out for themselves under capitalims or communism. Stalins goal was to establish world wide communism which is marxism.

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

It's what the Nazi head ups did as well------socialists do tend to kill one off within a few years as they grasp for power and money.

The Nazis were not socialist nor were they liberals, nor were they communist nor were they Republicans..

We've explained this to you little children repeatedly, Moon. The nazis were the German SOCIALIST PARTY---its in their name. They rose to power promising free chit and using street thugs to terrorize the citizens while burning down cities too.

They did coopt the name but were nothing like socialist, Marxist, etc, they never promised anyone anything for free, you had to work and were required to work...

Thats a lie--------------they offered free school, free food, guaranteed jobs, free entertainment, welfare and much more.

Yah, the capitalists always promised the Blacks in Africa free school, free food, guaranteed jobs, and welfare when loaded them onto the slave ships to southern plantations.

Capitalists? Try CATHOLICS and apparently Jews and oh yeah mostly Muslims involved.. but regardless, what point are you trying to make? Oh that all capitalists are evil despite capitalism being the only long term proven system to get people out of poverty.

Capitalism is about profits, not getting people out of poverty.
Capitalism deliberately wants to create as much poverty as possible, by taking from as many people as possible, and concentrating the wealth in the hands of the ruling elite.

Religion was not the cause of slavery, greed was.
And that is the root of capitalism.

Capitalism can produce some benefits, like technology, but is negative in the long run.
This planet could have supported a happy primitive life style indefinitely.
But by getting greedy, we destroy the happy primitive life style, force everyone to become employed by strangers, so that they can afford the basics like rent, that should normally be free to primitives.
The level of technology we are producing will destroy the planet for human habitation in less than a thousand years.
We are using ancient fossilized solar energy and will run out of that in less than 300 years.
What will be left will be massively polluted and barren.

CAPITALISM GETS PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY--there has never been a better form of government at doing so baby. THIS IS A FACT. And yet you want to blow smoke? Really?

I am all for leaving primitive people in their primitive worlds..........without innoculations AND modern inventions as the world is overpopulated and enable ignorant people only encourages more and more children that they don't take care of.

Capitalism is NOT a form of government.
It is an economic belief based on greed.
And if any capitalist gets his way, the means of maximizing profits for greed is total dictatorship.

Gawd you are ignorant------------under capitalism, those that work harder or smarter are rewarded which encourages more production and more spending which necessarily gets spread around as people find nitches to enrich themselves. This is how the most people in the history of the world have gotten out of poverty and into the middle and upper classes. Under communism, marxism, socialism-------------the poor classes GROW.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

He's former KGB. Are you buying into this crap?

What, do you mean? Research what he is referring to in regards to marxist take overs everywhere.

Cuba
Nicaragua
China
Vietnam
Russia
East Germany

Don't believe it? Think it is all robin hood fairy land unicorns and rainbows?
No American has tried to ESCAPE the "tyranny" of the horrific free market that has 7 Elevens and Burger Kings.
Sure as hell the other way around. Boy, marxism must be just great.
Just great. Be ready to starve. That's how they will elminate most of us.
Cow farts global warmjng. Get ready. You and all of us will get what we all deserve.
Get ready. Be ready for gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Wrong.
All the countries you list, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Vietnam, Russia, and East Germany were never remotely Marxist.
Russia started a revolution in 1917 with some Marxist ideology, but Stalin took over and wiped out any Marxists.
So no country has ever been remotely Marxist.
We have no idea if Marxism could work, because it has never been tried.
What Stalin created was State Capitalism.
There was nothing remotely collective, cooperative, or communal about Stalinism.
For any government to be collective, cooperative, or communal, it has to be democratic, local, and with equality.
What Stalin installed was authoritarian, central, and with a wealthy ruling elite.
That is the exact opposite.

Yes they were marxist.

Marxism has been repeatedly tried and always succeeded in estasblishing dictatorships of the proletariate which is what Stalin did they only failed to reach the utopian stateless period of development which Marx predicted.

There is nothing remotely collective cooperative or communal about marxism either.

Wrong.
Stalin was an anti-Marxist and killed all the Marxists like Trotsky.
Why else would he kill Marxists unless he was anti-Marxist?

Marx promoted an ideology that would require no state.
For that to happen, everyone would have to be satisfied with it and want to support it willingly.
Has anyone ever suggested a state anything remotely like that?
Of course not.
So then no one has ever remotely supported or suggested a Marxist state except some Russian idealists who were killed before they could start implementing anything.
If you don't think Marxism requires things to be collective, cooperative, and communal, then you know nothing about Marx, communism, socialism, Anarchism, or just about any political theory.

Like the socialists of the time----different factions within the communist party vying for power and money---infighting one another. Think of it as the primaries but where open murder and locking up your opponents was better tolerated and expected. Like what Hilliary does now--just hides it more.

A real Marxist would not be trying to just benefit themselves, so then would not be needing or using force.
Marxism is about attempting to end coercive methods, so would not need or use coercive methods.

SUre they would as marxism requires notrhing altruistic.

MArxism is rooted in and demands coercion and force.

Nonsense.
The whole point of Marxism was to figure out how to stop the economic slavery caused by the industrial revolution ending cottage industries.
Marxism is ONLY altruistic.

No..the whole point of marxism to cause chaos which allows more of a power grab for those leading the marxist/communist/socialist groups..they promise free chit to those on the bottom aka useful idiots (everyone needs minions if they want to rise in power), take from those working lower, middle, higher level in order to offer some free shit aka rewards to the useful idiots, given the heads more more and more money as they take the lion share for themselves and their masters which work tills the workers/producers refuse to produce anymore creating shortages for everyone below the leaders as the leaders always make sure they get theirs first...this has been true since forever----French revolution, Venzuela, Jamestown starving 1607-1611, Jonestown, Russia, etc...always the same chit.

That is just silly.
Now you are saying Marx was just a con man.
There is no basis for that, since he clearly never tried to make any money off his idealism.
The starvation in Jamestown was because they were wealthy elite and did not know how to be primitive.
They went to the New World out of greed, not to get away from over bearing technology.

Marx was either the biggest conman who ever lived or the biggest fool

Yes he did try to make money off of it but failed. He spent most of his life begging for charity because he was a failure as many modern marxists are which is no coincidence or surprise.

The starvation of natives on a yearly ongoing basis was because they for whatever reason never bothered to capitalize and exploit technology. They apparently understood the wheel but never applied it to working machinery nor did they explore metalurgy.

They did in fact starve on a yearly basis when food became scarce as it always does.

You are basically proving my point that no one wants to abandon modern technology and starve.

 

[22lcidw]

It's gonna happen. The 0nly good news.

He's former KGB. Are you buying into this crap?

What, do you mean? Research what he is referring to in regards to marxist take overs everywhere.

Cuba
Nicaragua
China
Vietnam
Russia
East Germany

Don't believe it? Think it is all robin hood fairy land unicorns and rainbows?
No American has tried to ESCAPE the "tyranny" of the horrific free market that has 7 Elevens and Burger Kings.
Sure as hell the other way around. Boy, marxism must be just great.
Just great. Be ready to starve. That's how they will elminate most of us.
Cow farts global warmjng. Get ready. You and all of us will get what we all deserve.
Get ready. Be ready for gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Wrong.
All the countries you list, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Vietnam, Russia, and East Germany were never remotely Marxist.
Russia started a revolution in 1917 with some Marxist ideology, but Stalin took over and wiped out any Marxists.
So no country has ever been remotely Marxist.
We have no idea if Marxism could work, because it has never been tried.
What Stalin created was State Capitalism.
There was nothing remotely collective, cooperative, or communal about Stalinism.
For any government to be collective, cooperative, or communal, it has to be democratic, local, and with equality.
What Stalin installed was authoritarian, central, and with a wealthy ruling elite.
That is the exact opposite.

Yes they were marxist.

Marxism has been repeatedly tried and always succeeded in estasblishing dictatorships of the proletariate which is what Stalin did they only failed to reach the utopian stateless period of development which Marx predicted.

There is nothing remotely collective cooperative or communal about marxism either.

Wrong.
Stalin was an anti-Marxist and killed all the Marxists like Trotsky.
Why else would he kill Marxists unless he was anti-Marxist?

Marx promoted an ideology that would require no state.
For that to happen, everyone would have to be satisfied with it and want to support it willingly.
Has anyone ever suggested a state anything remotely like that?
Of course not.
So then no one has ever remotely supported or suggested a Marxist state except some Russian idealists who were killed before they could start implementing anything.
If you don't think Marxism requires things to be collective, cooperative, and communal, then you know nothing about Marx, communism, socialism, Anarchism, or just about any political theory.

Like the socialists of the time----different factions within the communist party vying for power and money---infighting one another. Think of it as the primaries but where open murder and locking up your opponents was better tolerated and expected. Like what Hilliary does now--just hides it more.

A real Marxist would not be trying to just benefit themselves, so then would not be needing or using force.
Marxism is about attempting to end coercive methods, so would not need or use coercive methods.

SUre they would as marxism requires notrhing altruistic.

MArxism is rooted in and demands coercion and force.

Nonsense.
The whole point of Marxism was to figure out how to stop the economic slavery caused by the industrial revolution ending cottage industries.
Marxism is ONLY altruistic.

No..the whole point of marxism to cause chaos which allows more of a power grab for those leading the marxist/communist/socialist groups..they promise free chit to those on the bottom aka useful idiots (everyone needs minions if they want to rise in power), take from those working lower, middle, higher level in order to offer some free shit aka rewards to the useful idiots, given the heads more more and more money as they take the lion share for themselves and their masters which work tills the workers/producers refuse to produce anymore creating shortages for everyone below the leaders as the leaders always make sure they get theirs first...this has been true since forever----French revolution, Venzuela, Jamestown starving 1607-1611, Jonestown, Russia, etc...always the same chit.

That is just silly.
Now you are saying Marx was just a con man.
There is no basis for that, since he clearly never tried to make any money off his idealism.
The starvation in Jamestown was because they were wealthy elite and did not know how to be primitive.
They went to the New World out of greed, not to get away from over bearing technology.

Give up your wealth to the poor. no nothing from the government or anyone. This self hate is perplexing. You are eating Lobster and drinking expensive champagne while you type.