Bologna. From each etc is communism.
I know what it is.
But Marx's ideology for salvation was built on Hagel's foundation.
Ironically, like so many of the social justice warriors in modern society who really don't understand Marxism but think they do, Marx himself never did explain how communism would rise after the destruction of so-called capitalism. Nor did Marx ever explain how the State would wither away after the dictatorship of the proletariat began. Marx, like so many modern social justice warriors, just assumed that increasing government power was the path to liberating society or humanity itself.
Did that stop Lenin from decreeing that liberty was so precious that it should be rationed? Heh heh. Please. Of course not.
Of course, all of that goes back to what Black Sand was saying about having to literally reverse everything the other poster believes, their very religion, in order that they begin to understand the fatal error in subjugating society to petty government officials in the name of ending so-called class struggle.
There's much to be said about this. And it's directly germane to the topic at hand. But I think that to actually have that discussion in any fruitful manner requires a completely different thread. It's an intellectual discussion. And not one of those 'official Marxism thread because I say it's the official Marxism thread and, oh, btw, here are the terms of controversy, also because I say so'
Discussion like that demands an unbiased, historical basis, germane to modern politics, except thoroughly, not just premised on and limited to promoting the means of making pet social issues applicable while demonizing any notion of ever touching on the ends and subsequent consequence.
And that's not even taking into consideration the fact that there is such a major shortcoming in society with definitions and understandings of what kinds of policies we actually have in America.
In fact, it's almost as laughable as it is disturbing to see so many arguments over capitalism versus socialism. The argument itself is completely irrelevant to the kinds of policies we actually have. We're Keynesians. Thoroughly. What we have is central economic planning by a central bank. We have economic interventionism. We have a planned economy. We have a welfare state. We have inflationism. A belief in deficit finance.
That entire system is completely removed from any semblance of free-market capitalism. Yet...we see arguments over socialism versus capitalism. Do you not understand how stupid that is?
The only purpose it serves is to say, disingenuously I might add, that, oh, look, capitalism is so bad that what we surely must need is socialism.
The entire argument is rigged and meant to keep people stupid to what kinds of policies we actually do have while the Keynesians, with their close ties to government, and who keep it going, get all of that freshly printed currency first and get to insert it into the economy in a way tha tonly benefits them before it is ever affected by inflation, and they're laughing all the way to the central bank.
That right there is where all of the so-called 'class struggle' comes from. But it won't be until people actually grasp proper definitions and understanding of what kinds of policies we actually have until serious, fruitful discussion can be had. I, for one, am not holding my breath.
