Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's what stopped communism in its tracks, the embourgeoisement of the working class. Which the greedy idiot Rich GOP is busy rolling back. Too much more of the raping of the middle and working classes and we might get back to Communism again, but it's beginning to be obvious enough that the Democrats will get back in. The GOP is a brainwashed disgrace.You are the second type, the bourgeois socialist.Like Wikipedia and every real history book you'll ever not read, I believe that there have been three evolving definitions of socialism. First the theoretical Marxist definition, secondly the USSR and it's supposed somewhat Democratic and capitalistic Outlook, revealed to be spurious in the twenties and thirties, and the modern definition of democratic socialism, that is fair capitalism with a good safety net that is the type of government and economy of the modern world. With the United States and it's GOP rip off of the non rich I would say just outside. The next time the Democrats get in with 60 votes in the Senate we will have universal Health Care and Democratic socialism. And shove your GOP BS fear-mongering about communism up your ass. GOP Dupe voters are the stupidest voters in the modern world. The GOP giveaway to the rich and screwing the country and the non Rich has given us the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever and in the modern world by far, dumbass chumps of the greedy idiot rich --change the channel.I'm afraid their meaning of socialism is confused like most Americans... It is the bastion of democracy and Cold War beliefs after all. And besides that now they have the GOP propaganda machine everywhere. A whole new set of facts LOL to confuse people with.
Oh, and what do you think the meaning of socialism is, Comrade?
All that is good?
24 —
How do communists differ from socialists?
The so-called socialists are divided into three categories.
[ Reactionary Socialists: ]
The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end.
This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons:
(i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible.
(ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests – a society which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution.
(iii) As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colors by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians.
[ Bourgeois Socialists: ]
The second category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.
To this end, some propose mere welfare measures – while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society.
Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow.
[ Democratic Socialists: ]
Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.
These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.
It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.
It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences.
The Principles of Communism
That's what stopped communism in its tracks, the embourgeoisement of the working class. Which the greedy idiot Rich GOP is busy rolling back. Too much more of the raping of the middle and working classes and we might get back to Communism again, but it's beginning to be obvious enough that the Democrats will get back in. The GOP is a brainwashed disgrace.You are the second type, the bourgeois socialist.Like Wikipedia and every real history book you'll ever not read, I believe that there have been three evolving definitions of socialism. First the theoretical Marxist definition, secondly the USSR and it's supposed somewhat Democratic and capitalistic Outlook, revealed to be spurious in the twenties and thirties, and the modern definition of democratic socialism, that is fair capitalism with a good safety net that is the type of government and economy of the modern world. With the United States and it's GOP rip off of the non rich I would say just outside. The next time the Democrats get in with 60 votes in the Senate we will have universal Health Care and Democratic socialism. And shove your GOP BS fear-mongering about communism up your ass. GOP Dupe voters are the stupidest voters in the modern world. The GOP giveaway to the rich and screwing the country and the non Rich has given us the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever and in the modern world by far, dumbass chumps of the greedy idiot rich --change the channel.I'm afraid their meaning of socialism is confused like most Americans... It is the bastion of democracy and Cold War beliefs after all. And besides that now they have the GOP propaganda machine everywhere. A whole new set of facts LOL to confuse people with.
Oh, and what do you think the meaning of socialism is, Comrade?
All that is good?
24 —
How do communists differ from socialists?
The so-called socialists are divided into three categories.
[ Reactionary Socialists: ]
The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end.
This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons:
(i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible.
(ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests – a society which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution.
(iii) As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colors by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians.
[ Bourgeois Socialists: ]
The second category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.
To this end, some propose mere welfare measures – while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society.
Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow.
[ Democratic Socialists: ]
Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.
These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.
It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.
It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences.
The Principles of Communism
And with the ebb and flow nothing is solved. You will have to fight capital for all eternity.That's what stopped communism in its tracks, the embourgeoisement of the working class. Which the greedy idiot Rich GOP is busy rolling back.
It seems you might no be incorrect. I found this piece by Bertrand Russell that I find interesting. Here is a quote that supports what you say.He was wrong, as events proved. The Bolsheviks were total assholes.He was there, were you?John Reed hoped...The Structure of the Soviet StateSo Lenin was a great hero of democracy LOL you're absolutely out of your mind, super duper. Everything you know is wrong LOL.It's sad that this traitor ignoramus was allowed to teach his filth to children.
Life is tough LOL. I prefer to call them greedy idiot right-wing rich assholes...That's what stopped communism in its tracks, the embourgeoisement of the working class. Which the greedy idiot Rich GOP is busy rolling back. Too much more of the raping of the middle and working classes and we might get back to Communism again, but it's beginning to be obvious enough that the Democrats will get back in. The GOP is a brainwashed disgrace.You are the second type, the bourgeois socialist.Like Wikipedia and every real history book you'll ever not read, I believe that there have been three evolving definitions of socialism. First the theoretical Marxist definition, secondly the USSR and it's supposed somewhat Democratic and capitalistic Outlook, revealed to be spurious in the twenties and thirties, and the modern definition of democratic socialism, that is fair capitalism with a good safety net that is the type of government and economy of the modern world. With the United States and it's GOP rip off of the non rich I would say just outside. The next time the Democrats get in with 60 votes in the Senate we will have universal Health Care and Democratic socialism. And shove your GOP BS fear-mongering about communism up your ass. GOP Dupe voters are the stupidest voters in the modern world. The GOP giveaway to the rich and screwing the country and the non Rich has given us the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever and in the modern world by far, dumbass chumps of the greedy idiot rich --change the channel.I'm afraid their meaning of socialism is confused like most Americans... It is the bastion of democracy and Cold War beliefs after all. And besides that now they have the GOP propaganda machine everywhere. A whole new set of facts LOL to confuse people with.
Oh, and what do you think the meaning of socialism is, Comrade?
All that is good?
24 —
How do communists differ from socialists?
The so-called socialists are divided into three categories.
[ Reactionary Socialists: ]
The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end.
This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons:
(i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible.
(ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests – a society which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution.
(iii) As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colors by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians.
[ Bourgeois Socialists: ]
The second category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.
To this end, some propose mere welfare measures – while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society.
Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow.
[ Democratic Socialists: ]
Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.
These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.
It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.
It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences.
The Principles of CommunismAnd with the ebb and flow nothing is solved. You will have to fight capital for all eternity.That's what stopped communism in its tracks, the embourgeoisement of the working class. Which the greedy idiot Rich GOP is busy rolling back.
Yep the mensheviks were more like modern socialists. Anytime you subvert democracy there is trouble lol. Democracy is the answer and will give you modern socialism, Democratic socialism that is. And the solution to any problem in democracy is simply more democracy, which Republicans fight against forever. The scumbags and their silly dupes...It seems you might no be incorrect. I found this piece by Bertrand Russell that I find interesting. Here is a quote that supports what you say.He was wrong, as events proved. The Bolsheviks were total assholes.He was there, were you?John Reed hoped...The Structure of the Soviet StateSo Lenin was a great hero of democracy LOL you're absolutely out of your mind, super duper. Everything you know is wrong LOL.
We were not able to make any such study, because the Soviet system is moribund.[4] No conceivable [73]system of free election would give majorities to the Communists, either in town or country. Various methods are therefore adopted for giving the victory [74]to Government candidates. In the first place, the voting is by show of hands, so that all who vote against the Government are marked men. In the second place, no candidate who is not a Communist can have any printing done, the printing works being all in the hands of the State. In the third place, he cannot address any meetings, because the halls all belong to the State. The whole of the press is, of course, official; no independent daily is permitted. In spite of all these obstacles, the Mensheviks have succeeded in winning about 40 seats out of 1,500 on the Moscow Soviet, by being known in certain large factories where the electoral campaign could be conducted by word of mouth. They won, in fact, every seat that they contested.
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, By Bertrand Russell.
Life is tough LOL. I prefer to call them greedy idiot right-wing rich assholes...That's what stopped communism in its tracks, the embourgeoisement of the working class. Which the greedy idiot Rich GOP is busy rolling back. Too much more of the raping of the middle and working classes and we might get back to Communism again, but it's beginning to be obvious enough that the Democrats will get back in. The GOP is a brainwashed disgrace.You are the second type, the bourgeois socialist.Like Wikipedia and every real history book you'll ever not read, I believe that there have been three evolving definitions of socialism. First the theoretical Marxist definition, secondly the USSR and it's supposed somewhat Democratic and capitalistic Outlook, revealed to be spurious in the twenties and thirties, and the modern definition of democratic socialism, that is fair capitalism with a good safety net that is the type of government and economy of the modern world. With the United States and it's GOP rip off of the non rich I would say just outside. The next time the Democrats get in with 60 votes in the Senate we will have universal Health Care and Democratic socialism. And shove your GOP BS fear-mongering about communism up your ass. GOP Dupe voters are the stupidest voters in the modern world. The GOP giveaway to the rich and screwing the country and the non Rich has given us the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever and in the modern world by far, dumbass chumps of the greedy idiot rich --change the channel.Oh, and what do you think the meaning of socialism is, Comrade?
All that is good?
24 —
How do communists differ from socialists?
The so-called socialists are divided into three categories.
[ Reactionary Socialists: ]
The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end.
This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons:
(i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible.
(ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests – a society which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution.
(iii) As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colors by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians.
[ Bourgeois Socialists: ]
The second category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.
To this end, some propose mere welfare measures – while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society.
Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow.
[ Democratic Socialists: ]
Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.
These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.
It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.
It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences.
The Principles of CommunismAnd with the ebb and flow nothing is solved. You will have to fight capital for all eternity.That's what stopped communism in its tracks, the embourgeoisement of the working class. Which the greedy idiot Rich GOP is busy rolling back.
but right wing assholes are the leaders of savage capitalism, as opposed to socialist capitalism....Life is tough LOL. I prefer to call them greedy idiot right-wing rich assholes...That's what stopped communism in its tracks, the embourgeoisement of the working class. Which the greedy idiot Rich GOP is busy rolling back. Too much more of the raping of the middle and working classes and we might get back to Communism again, but it's beginning to be obvious enough that the Democrats will get back in. The GOP is a brainwashed disgrace.You are the second type, the bourgeois socialist.Like Wikipedia and every real history book you'll ever not read, I believe that there have been three evolving definitions of socialism. First the theoretical Marxist definition, secondly the USSR and it's supposed somewhat Democratic and capitalistic Outlook, revealed to be spurious in the twenties and thirties, and the modern definition of democratic socialism, that is fair capitalism with a good safety net that is the type of government and economy of the modern world. With the United States and it's GOP rip off of the non rich I would say just outside. The next time the Democrats get in with 60 votes in the Senate we will have universal Health Care and Democratic socialism. And shove your GOP BS fear-mongering about communism up your ass. GOP Dupe voters are the stupidest voters in the modern world. The GOP giveaway to the rich and screwing the country and the non Rich has given us the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever and in the modern world by far, dumbass chumps of the greedy idiot rich --change the channel.
24 —
How do communists differ from socialists?
The so-called socialists are divided into three categories.
[ Reactionary Socialists: ]
The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end.
This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons:
(i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible.
(ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests – a society which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution.
(iii) As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colors by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians.
[ Bourgeois Socialists: ]
The second category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.
To this end, some propose mere welfare measures – while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society.
Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow.
[ Democratic Socialists: ]
Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.
These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.
It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.
It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences.
The Principles of CommunismAnd with the ebb and flow nothing is solved. You will have to fight capital for all eternity.That's what stopped communism in its tracks, the embourgeoisement of the working class. Which the greedy idiot Rich GOP is busy rolling back.
Capital is a man made commodity, not a right wing asshole.
He was wrong, as events proved. The Bolsheviks were total assholes.
but right wing assholes are the leaders of savage capitalism, as opposed to socialist capitalism....
Bologna. And what was that, dingbat?
you have no clue what I want obviously, brainwashed functional moron chump of the greedy idiot rich. I am a Democratic Socialist, which everywhere but brainwashed GOP Dupe world is a socialist in the modern sense. I want to be like France, which doesn't take any crap from scumbag right-wingers. Change the channel and stop listening to greedy Rich GOP scumbags and their bought off assholes....He was wrong, as events proved. The Bolsheviks were total assholes.
Yes, you are scumbag.
You recognize he was wrong yet demand we do it all again.
You are stupid, no question about that, but are you truly this evil to boot?
I admire and respect your opinion LOL. He appears to be stuck in 1919 in the mensheviks party, and you appear to be stuck in 19 51 McCarthyism.... Time to try the modern definition of socialism and catching up with the rest of the modern world. Why are we the only modern country, and the richest one for crying out loud, that doesn't have health care daycare paid parental leave living wage, good vacations and infrastructure, cheap college and training, and an ID card 2 end illegal immigration? Because we are the only one with a scumbag GOP and the rich paying less percentage wise than Many in the middle class in taxes, and with a garbage propaganda machine that produces silly fools like you....Bologna. And what was that, dingbat?
You know, I totally disagree with everything Tehon believes and stands for, yet I respect him.
I respect him because he is honest and actually knows what he's talking about.
You on the other hand...
Stupid insults and ridiculous GOP talking points, very impressive, brainwashed ignoramus functional moron LOL.but right wing assholes are the leaders of savage capitalism, as opposed to socialist capitalism....
Have you ever considered signing up for a night school class and taking and introduction to world history?
I don't mean community college, you lack the foundation for that, but remedial night school to teach you what you should have learned in 3rd grade?
you have no clue what I want obviously, brainwashed functional moron chump of the greedy idiot rich. I am a Democratic Socialist, which everywhere but brainwashed GOP Dupe world is a socialist in the modern sense. I want to be like France, which doesn't take any crap from scumbag right-wingers. Change the channel and stop listening to greedy Rich GOP scumbags and their bought off assholes....
Stupid insults and ridiculous GOP talking points, very impressive, brainwashed ignoramus functional moron LOL.but right wing assholes are the leaders of savage capitalism, as opposed to socialist capitalism....
Have you ever considered signing up for a night school class and taking and introduction to world history?
I don't mean community college, you lack the foundation for that, but remedial night school to teach you what you should have learned in 3rd grade?
The abolition of money is just a naive way of thinking that one could stop human brains from doing what they are wired to do, in order to survive, which is constantly attributing value and utility to the world around us. That’s actual science, and the fact that you rolled that thought out there shows how little science is behind this type of thinking. Attributing value and utility to things is what your subconscious brain never stops doing. Currency is nothing more than an efficient way of attributing value in a more quantifiable way. Currency is a human achievement, and it is a shortcut that allows the conscious brain to keep up with the subconscious brain and do a much better job of making decisions...in a way the rest of your “tribe” agreed upon. Currency has been a constant of humanity long before we’ve had recorded history, and way long before we put a numerical value to it thousands of years ago. It’s a part of nature that even insects participate in. It’s literally a system that is millions of years old, and there’s a pretty good reason why every civilization uses money since the invention of money.You have lots of misconceptions. The most glaring in this text is;I don’t have misconceptions. It is a top down, simple answer for thousands and thousands of very complex systems that are all commingling and constantly evolving in ways science doesn’t even understand yet. What you are suggesting is extremely non-creative and unadaptive system that offers a one or a few sizes fits all. It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power. It’s reactive, not proactive. And that’s when it is run optimally. It makes government too powerful and too tempting for self service for those in power. You could have Jesus running things but it’s only a matter of time for an asshole to take the reigns.My problem isn't with democracy. I think it is great and we need more of it.Oh so non-democratically. How’s that gonna work? Glorious revolution? Capitalism is just a shadowy oligarchy right? So to fix it let’s just put in an actual oligarchy with absolute control. Do what needs to be done with the people that don’t want that. That’s a lot of re-education, for many they’ll need a bullet in the head to help jog their learning. With “science” approved by the glorious leader? The same social sciences that approve articles designed to expose them where they plaguerize Mien Kampf and replace the word Jew with “whiteness”? That type of “science”?The problem with democratic socialism is the many dictating the policy for the few. Even in the countries with the best ran socialized medicine, it works fine and dandy when whatever ailment you have can be treated by a family practicioner, but you best hope to not need a specialist. Not only are their specialists sub par compared to the likes of the average US and Swiss specialist with way less options for treatment that are outdated, you’re going to be waiting for months to get that treatment. Hopefully your specialized ailment isn’t urgent or a deteriorating condition. If so, you best hope you have the money to afford treatment in Switzerland or the US. Perfect examples of this that went global were the Charlie guard and the most recent case a few months ago where the child was allowed to receive treatment elsewhere (after a long legal battle) and was able to saved (despite the NHS basically declaring him already dead).
Another issue with socialism is if government is offering positive rights to people, then you can’t say shit to me when I abuse those rights. If healthcare is a right, then you can’t say shit to me if I live off of a diet of pixie sticks, butter, soda, alcohol, and cigs. It’s a right, therefore paying for my health is not my responsibility, it’s societies. At least that’s philosophically the way it’s supposed to be in practice, but it isn’t. No, the government cannot let you be a drain on the system so it’s going to put into place policies to pressure you to stay healthy like sin taxes (which don’t work and are just taxes on the poor). Or they just say that’s it for you, there’s no more we can do, just like with Charlie guard.I agree.The problem with democratic socialism
I subscribe to the ideas found in scientific socialism, aka Marxism (communism).
Really, how many more millions of people need to starve to death or be lethally re-educated because of Marxism before y’all finally admit that you’re all just envious narcissist? Oh and that Marxism really does not work, unless you believe in making all the trees even by cutting them all down to the same level...which is really really low. Apparently some 100 million isn’t enough.
I don't agree with the idea that we can build a socialist society on the back of capitalism. That seems to be the idea that is associated with democratic socialism and I don't believe it is feasible.
Scientific socialism (Marxism) is the study of human social development and economics using the Hegelian dialectic method. Marxism works great at interpreting the world. I think you have a lot of misconceptions about it.
This ^ is the world of capitalism. Scientific socialism would abolish money and along with it power. You've never read Marx, have you?It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power.
Ah, but the scientific socialist understands this. That is why Marx began his magnum opus with the commodity, value, exchange value and the money form. I understand that there has to be an exchange of value, that doesn't mean it has to be in the form of circulating money that exists now. It can be a simple exchange of equal values.The abolition of money is just a naive way of thinking that one could stop human brains from doing what they are wired to do, in order to survive, which is constantly attributing value and utility to the world around us. That’s actual science, and the fact that you rolled that thought out there shows how little science is behind this type of thinking. Attributing value and utility to things is what your subconscious brain never stops doing. Currency is nothing more than an efficient way of attributing value in a more quantifiable way. Currency is a human achievement, and it is a shortcut that allows the conscious brain to keep up with the subconscious brain and do a much better job of making decisions...in a way the rest of your “tribe” agreed upon. Currency has been a constant of humanity long before we’ve had recorded history, and way long before we put a numerical value to it thousands of years ago. It’s a part of nature that even insects participate in. It’s literally a system that is millions of years old, and there’s a pretty good reason why every civilization uses money since the invention of money.You have lots of misconceptions. The most glaring in this text is;I don’t have misconceptions. It is a top down, simple answer for thousands and thousands of very complex systems that are all commingling and constantly evolving in ways science doesn’t even understand yet. What you are suggesting is extremely non-creative and unadaptive system that offers a one or a few sizes fits all. It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power. It’s reactive, not proactive. And that’s when it is run optimally. It makes government too powerful and too tempting for self service for those in power. You could have Jesus running things but it’s only a matter of time for an asshole to take the reigns.My problem isn't with democracy. I think it is great and we need more of it.Oh so non-democratically. How’s that gonna work? Glorious revolution? Capitalism is just a shadowy oligarchy right? So to fix it let’s just put in an actual oligarchy with absolute control. Do what needs to be done with the people that don’t want that. That’s a lot of re-education, for many they’ll need a bullet in the head to help jog their learning. With “science” approved by the glorious leader? The same social sciences that approve articles designed to expose them where they plaguerize Mien Kampf and replace the word Jew with “whiteness”? That type of “science”?I agree.
I subscribe to the ideas found in scientific socialism, aka Marxism (communism).
Really, how many more millions of people need to starve to death or be lethally re-educated because of Marxism before y’all finally admit that you’re all just envious narcissist? Oh and that Marxism really does not work, unless you believe in making all the trees even by cutting them all down to the same level...which is really really low. Apparently some 100 million isn’t enough.
I don't agree with the idea that we can build a socialist society on the back of capitalism. That seems to be the idea that is associated with democratic socialism and I don't believe it is feasible.
Scientific socialism (Marxism) is the study of human social development and economics using the Hegelian dialectic method. Marxism works great at interpreting the world. I think you have a lot of misconceptions about it.
This ^ is the world of capitalism. Scientific socialism would abolish money and along with it power. You've never read Marx, have you?It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power.
Saying that you could abolish currency is like saying you could abolish the thinking behind what makes Matthew Mcconaughey and Scarlet Johanessen hot. You’d have immensely better luck abolishing smartphones. It’s extremely naive and narcissistic thinking, but most importantly, has zero basis in actual science.
Ah, but the scientific socialist understands this. That is why Marx began his magnum opus with the commodity, value, exchange value and the money form. I understand that there has to be an exchange of value, that doesn't mean it has to be in the form of circulating money that exists now. It can be a simple exchange of equal values.The abolition of money is just a naive way of thinking that one could stop human brains from doing what they are wired to do, in order to survive, which is constantly attributing value and utility to the world around us. That’s actual science, and the fact that you rolled that thought out there shows how little science is behind this type of thinking. Attributing value and utility to things is what your subconscious brain never stops doing. Currency is nothing more than an efficient way of attributing value in a more quantifiable way. Currency is a human achievement, and it is a shortcut that allows the conscious brain to keep up with the subconscious brain and do a much better job of making decisions...in a way the rest of your “tribe” agreed upon. Currency has been a constant of humanity long before we’ve had recorded history, and way long before we put a numerical value to it thousands of years ago. It’s a part of nature that even insects participate in. It’s literally a system that is millions of years old, and there’s a pretty good reason why every civilization uses money since the invention of money.You have lots of misconceptions. The most glaring in this text is;I don’t have misconceptions. It is a top down, simple answer for thousands and thousands of very complex systems that are all commingling and constantly evolving in ways science doesn’t even understand yet. What you are suggesting is extremely non-creative and unadaptive system that offers a one or a few sizes fits all. It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power. It’s reactive, not proactive. And that’s when it is run optimally. It makes government too powerful and too tempting for self service for those in power. You could have Jesus running things but it’s only a matter of time for an asshole to take the reigns.My problem isn't with democracy. I think it is great and we need more of it.Oh so non-democratically. How’s that gonna work? Glorious revolution? Capitalism is just a shadowy oligarchy right? So to fix it let’s just put in an actual oligarchy with absolute control. Do what needs to be done with the people that don’t want that. That’s a lot of re-education, for many they’ll need a bullet in the head to help jog their learning. With “science” approved by the glorious leader? The same social sciences that approve articles designed to expose them where they plaguerize Mien Kampf and replace the word Jew with “whiteness”? That type of “science”?
Really, how many more millions of people need to starve to death or be lethally re-educated because of Marxism before y’all finally admit that you’re all just envious narcissist? Oh and that Marxism really does not work, unless you believe in making all the trees even by cutting them all down to the same level...which is really really low. Apparently some 100 million isn’t enough.
I don't agree with the idea that we can build a socialist society on the back of capitalism. That seems to be the idea that is associated with democratic socialism and I don't believe it is feasible.
Scientific socialism (Marxism) is the study of human social development and economics using the Hegelian dialectic method. Marxism works great at interpreting the world. I think you have a lot of misconceptions about it.
This ^ is the world of capitalism. Scientific socialism would abolish money and along with it power. You've never read Marx, have you?It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power.
Saying that you could abolish currency is like saying you could abolish the thinking behind what makes Matthew Mcconaughey and Scarlet Johanessen hot. You’d have immensely better luck abolishing smartphones. It’s extremely naive and narcissistic thinking, but most importantly, has zero basis in actual science.
How do you think it possible to argue against something you've never taken the time to understand? You might consider reading the link at the bottom of my post.
"Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it.[28] Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language. "
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One
IVE READ MARX AND HEGEL. He semi acknowledges it, and then suggests the right thing to do is to tear down that system, and essientially pretend like it doesn’t exist. Which is why Marxism needs so much “re-education” to be implemented. They’re trying to say the human brain doesn’t work right, and let’s completely ignore human nature and evolution and do this instead. Because these guys don’t understand basic human evolutionary/biological/sociological psychology (since they were alive over 100 years ago, and these are still virgining fields in science). They are narcissistic enough to think they (and/or) the “elite” are so great that they have the absolute answer for thousands of complex systems not even close to being scientifically understood by man. And surprise surprise, to get that system in place you have to jam in society back into the toothpaste tube, and obviously plenty of toothpaste is going to have to be “thrown out”. By thrown out I am obviously talking about the 100 million dead people we’ve seen die from communist oppression in the form of executions, purposeful starvation, and starvation due to extremely stubborn incompetence.Ah, but the scientific socialist understands this. That is why Marx began his magnum opus with the commodity, value, exchange value and the money form. I understand that there has to be an exchange of value, that doesn't mean it has to be in the form of circulating money that exists now. It can be a simple exchange of equal values.The abolition of money is just a naive way of thinking that one could stop human brains from doing what they are wired to do, in order to survive, which is constantly attributing value and utility to the world around us. That’s actual science, and the fact that you rolled that thought out there shows how little science is behind this type of thinking. Attributing value and utility to things is what your subconscious brain never stops doing. Currency is nothing more than an efficient way of attributing value in a more quantifiable way. Currency is a human achievement, and it is a shortcut that allows the conscious brain to keep up with the subconscious brain and do a much better job of making decisions...in a way the rest of your “tribe” agreed upon. Currency has been a constant of humanity long before we’ve had recorded history, and way long before we put a numerical value to it thousands of years ago. It’s a part of nature that even insects participate in. It’s literally a system that is millions of years old, and there’s a pretty good reason why every civilization uses money since the invention of money.You have lots of misconceptions. The most glaring in this text is;I don’t have misconceptions. It is a top down, simple answer for thousands and thousands of very complex systems that are all commingling and constantly evolving in ways science doesn’t even understand yet. What you are suggesting is extremely non-creative and unadaptive system that offers a one or a few sizes fits all. It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power. It’s reactive, not proactive. And that’s when it is run optimally. It makes government too powerful and too tempting for self service for those in power. You could have Jesus running things but it’s only a matter of time for an asshole to take the reigns.My problem isn't with democracy. I think it is great and we need more of it.Oh so non-democratically. How’s that gonna work? Glorious revolution? Capitalism is just a shadowy oligarchy right? So to fix it let’s just put in an actual oligarchy with absolute control. Do what needs to be done with the people that don’t want that. That’s a lot of re-education, for many they’ll need a bullet in the head to help jog their learning. With “science” approved by the glorious leader? The same social sciences that approve articles designed to expose them where they plaguerize Mien Kampf and replace the word Jew with “whiteness”? That type of “science”?
Really, how many more millions of people need to starve to death or be lethally re-educated because of Marxism before y’all finally admit that you’re all just envious narcissist? Oh and that Marxism really does not work, unless you believe in making all the trees even by cutting them all down to the same level...which is really really low. Apparently some 100 million isn’t enough.
I don't agree with the idea that we can build a socialist society on the back of capitalism. That seems to be the idea that is associated with democratic socialism and I don't believe it is feasible.
Scientific socialism (Marxism) is the study of human social development and economics using the Hegelian dialectic method. Marxism works great at interpreting the world. I think you have a lot of misconceptions about it.
This ^ is the world of capitalism. Scientific socialism would abolish money and along with it power. You've never read Marx, have you?It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power.
Saying that you could abolish currency is like saying you could abolish the thinking behind what makes Matthew Mcconaughey and Scarlet Johanessen hot. You’d have immensely better luck abolishing smartphones. It’s extremely naive and narcissistic thinking, but most importantly, has zero basis in actual science.
How do you think it possible to argue against something you've never taken the time to understand? You might consider reading the link at the bottom of my post.
"Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it.[28] Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language. "
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One
Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston
"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.
"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.
"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.
"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."
Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.
"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.
Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.
