Moved from D1 forum

[FireIceTalon]

Too bad neither the USSR nor China were ever truly communist, but rather, totalitarian. A true communist society, in the context of Marx's theory, has never been seen before. So to say that Marxism has produced much blood shed is, technically, incorrect. It's so funny that people love to say Marxists are these evil people that want to kill everyone and control the world, yet if you read Marx's theories you would see there is a huge difference between Marxism and Stalinism or Maoism. Marx would have turned over in his grave if he knew the actions of either dictator.

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, 5 January 1879 Marx was asked, "Well, then, to carry out the principles of socialism do its believers advocate assassination and bloodshed?” Karl Marx answered, “No great movement, has ever been inaugurated without bloodshed."

In a letter to William Blos, 21 February 1874, Friedrich Engels wrote, "The man is too wise. And on top of that, such offensive, vulgar, democratic arguments! To denigrate violence as something to be rejected, when we all know that in the end nothing can be achieved without violence!"

The communist revolution in the Soviet Union began directly according to Marxist theory. It deviated once power had been established in the government (by Stalin). And, while China had its own Confucian influence, their Marxism was fairly pure until Deng came to power (who was one of the "democracy roaders"). Marx and Engels in their writing, both in letters and published works seem to advocate the types to bloody purges exemplified by the democide in the USSR and China.[/quote kandrathe]

Once again, you are twisting history around to try and demonize Marx's theory. Marx's so-called bloody revolution that you speak of was to come from the bottom up, but in the USSR it did not, it came from the top down. This is supposedly because Lenin had no confidence in the peasants of who had no education from the Tsar era when the Bolshevik Revolution took place. Lenin's intention though wasnt to produce mass equality for the people but rather so he himself could maintain his own power and interests. And unfortunetly, this has created a stigma among Americans (who are practically taught from birth to despise Marxists) that thing all Marxists must be evil controlling people (lmao). And like most, you buy into it all the hype cause you are programmed to do so. So I guess im an evil elite controlling bastard that wants to make your life miserable, right?? ROFL...get real man.

You guys may not agree with Marx, but the guy, right or wrong, was a genius and his theory represents, more than anyone else's, the central struggle of humankind. You can criticize him all you want, but at the end of the day, everyone on this board, including myself, is an intellectual peon compared to him

"We're not worthy!" Yeah, right. I've read all his works just this last year for an economics course I needed. Succinctly, Marx and Engels work is justified through dependence upon Hegelian dialectics, which fail miserably when applied to a *real* world where there are shades of gray.

And... Let me quote one of a series of anti-Semitic Marxism's... "So in Jewry we recognize a contemporary universal anti-social phenomenon, which has reached its present pitch through a process of, historical development in which the Jews have zealously co-operated. And this evil anti-social aspect of Jewry has grown to a stage at which: it must necessarily collapse." -Karl Marx-

Yeah, he's a friggin genius. Inspirational for at least one madman.

Ad hominem attacks wont get you very far with me. You're last statement is wrong on so many levels, where do I begin? I suppose if it were up to you, we would go back to the Mccarthy era where it was banned to even teach Marx's readings in school, yet somehow im the dictator and madman. Way to put your foot in your mouth, genius. As for Marx's anti semetic comments, he isnt necessarily attacking Jews themselves (afterall, Marx himself was Jewish and likely would have been put to death had he lived during the 1940's in Germany) so much as he was the Jewish bankers and factory owners of the Industrial Revolution. This isnt a race or religion issue, this is a CLASS issue. LOL again at me being a madman, and lol even more at me being the only one that appreciates Marx's theories. You my friend, are hypocritical, and delusional. Its easy to denounce someone who is a greater thinker than you are that you dislike Afterall 20 years from now, Marx will no longer be taught and instead we will study the works of the great kandrathe right? Rofl!

And as for the Tea Party, that's just their problem, they dont get it: big government isn't the problem, but rather big business is the problem, and that's what they fail to see. Transnationals have far more power and control in both the business world and our daily lives than so-called big government does.

Big business has no power over me, unless it is lent by big government. Only government has the police, the courts, and the army, and can coerce me to do things against my will. There will always be someone with enough cash to offer coercion, but it is benign as long as the government stands to defend my rights. If not, then the government becomes a tool of coercion by the wealthy.

Big business has all the power in the world over you, you just dont realize it. Minute you turn on the TV and see an advertisment for a product and you go out and buy it, thats power. Minute you step into your job and have to submit to the will of whatever corporation it is, that is power. And do you think the government will protect your rights over those of a corporation? Dont be so sure. Corporations are considered individuals too and thus have the same rights, but WITHOUT the responsibility of a single person. So, keep thinking big business has no power of you.....lmao!

We have constitutional amendments to protect us from "big government", but no such amendments to protect us from corporations. Yea, I have some problems with big government too, but most of that ties into the fact they act as an executive for carrying out the agendas of Wall Street banksters and CEO's who have far more political power than the common citizen. If big government is the problem, its only because of the symbiosis they have with big business, everyone else be damned.

If by symbiosis you mean graft, corruption, pay offs, kick backs, and a trampling of the Bill of Rights that you believe protects you.

Indeed.

As I said before, capitalism is not just merely bad for the economic inequality it creates between social classes as how Marx pointed out, but its evils go far beyond that: for what it PROMOTES: materialism, consumerism, anti-intellectualism, and "false consciousness".

In the Marxist states, everyone gets to be equally poor, and hopeless. And, then, how does Marxism cure the aspiration of people to own things? By making it impossible? How does Marxism promote intellectualism other than what is being practiced in every civilized nation? Marxist "false consciousness" is just another elitist way of declaring the masses too ignorant to understand their situation.

Funny how you claim Marxists are elitists, when you want one select group of people to be wealthy and another select group to be poor which is what happens in a capitalistic system. Is that not elitist? And lol at Marxists suffering from false consciousness!! No, Marxists are much more intellectual and deep thinkers than working class Tea Baggers, who sip on that capitalism kool-aid at the drop of a dime, even though it is that very system which holds them back and they dont even realize it. Marx's theory seek to promote what he wanted people to see their full potential of being a "Species Being"....which has two tenants: 1. life needs, such as food, shelter, clothing, and everything else on the lowest level of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs pyramid. 2. All labor is done for the sake of itself, as the ends, and not the means to an ends. This is to eliminate alienation concept of workers only working to get their basic needs met and nothing more and make full realization of class consciousness. Marxism doesnt promote equal misery and poorness for all, but this occurs in any system because jackass who want power for themselves make it this way. But in capitalism, this happens regardless because the system defeats itself from the very beginning. The idea of course is to make a profit and create competition, but you see, these little things called monopolies get formed which ironically enough, destroy the competition that capitalism seeks to create. Thus the system guarantees the failure of some individuals no matter how diligent they may be.

Americans in general are pretty stupid compared to their European counterparts when it comes to politics, and thus they take part less in the political process which is why our political culture here is so weak. Because were too busy worrying about buying that 3 million dollar mansion, filling up that Mercedes SUV and get raped at the pump while the oil companies laugh all the way to the bank, chatting on FaceBook and twitter, to the exclusion of almost everything else...

These are your self hating delusions of what America is about. You only see the world as stereotypes. Europe is better? Oil companies control price? 3 million dollar mansions? Get real. You should get out more and actually talk to people in the grocery store for a change.

You cannot deny the facts. Europeans are far more educated, less materialistic and more intellectual than the average American. This is a fact, and has nothing to do with "self hating delusions" that you use an excuse to justify our weak political culture and anti-intellectualism, lol. I need to get out more? No, you need to stop sipping on that patriotic kool-aid and take a look around you. Almost 1/3 of Americans dont even know who the vice president is, and roughly half cannot even name the 3 branches of government, lmao! If this makes me elitist sounding, so be it. I call it as it is Truth hurts I suppose. But its part of the reason the rest of the world thinks we are a complete joke.

...meanwhile the Republican Party and the Tea Party want to cut every social service in the book so civil society itself collapses, give tax breaks to the wealthy, all in the name of making oil and weapons contract companies richer by use of counter-terrorism. And no, im not bashing capitalism because its fashionable to do so, but rather because, it sucks.

On the other hand, the democrats (who are also in the pockets of big oil, and the defense contractors) just want to continue to borrow trillions of dollars until the people are unable to repay their debts. Again, you degenerate your argument to stereotypes and cliches.

Indeed, I dislike both parties, just the Republicans more so, naturally I have lots of problems with Obama, though not for the same reasons the right wingers do, but this is another matter.

Socialism > capitalism. For without equality, you cannot have freedom or democracy, not the other way around. Anyway, thats my perspective. But then again, im just a young naive, political science/sociology major in his 30's that thinks people can (and should) put their self interest aside for the greater good - nothing more, nothing less. Heh.

And, your problem is that you believe we should "put their self interest aside for the greater good" by force. Because, you cannot get there by free will.

You say, "For without equality, you cannot have freedom or democracy, not the other way around." But, you didn't define what you mean by equality. My neighbors house has 100 sq ft. more than mine, should we add onto mine or tear his down? I've spent 30+ years in my profession building up my skills and experience, so should I be paid at a higher rate than the person who started yesterday? My profession is quite demanding in both education, mental acuity and skill, so should the local grocery store clerk earn the same wage as I do? When Marx and Engels, and the colonial Americans, and the revolutionary French talked about equality, they meant that your station at birth was not a limitation to your ability to succeed. While there still tends to be an invisible class system (Havard / Yale etc), it is possible for people with meager beginnings to excel to great achievement as evidenced by people like Steve Jobs, Barrak Obama, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet.

In fact, it is directly because of this equality that social mobility is possible. And... due to this social mobility, everyone in the US has the opportunity to aspire to improve the situation for themselves and their children. Hence, this is directly why Marx and Engels prediction of the proletariat in the US and Europe leading the revolutionary banner never came to pass. Why should we denounce those who achieve success, because if we are lucky and determined then we might be the success story. Only in the backward impoverished semi-feudal agrarian societies has Marxism gained a tenuous and brief foothold, until it consumes itself in the despotism, corruption and tyranny that ultimately spawns from those who do the central planning.

LMAO......more capitalism folklore. And that is just it, our birth station DOES greatly determine where we will end up in life, all the available empirical evidence points to this. There is little economic and social mobility in the US, and the mobility that does occur does so only modestly most of the time (if you are poor, you have a chance to become working class, a smaller chance to become middle class, and almost no chance to become affluent), usually within one class bracket in either direction. So mobility, while somewhat possible, is not PROBABLE. You perfectly demonstrated my point when you said that Obama, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates can make it. Thats Horatio-Alger myth nonsense. These individuals you named, among several others, are the exception, NOT the rule. Due to the fact there are invisible socially constructed barriers that prevent such mobility from occuring in most circumstances. If we were in person, could you sit here and tell me with an honest straight face that everyone here has an equal opportunity for success? Do you really think someone who grows up in Harlem has the same opportunities to achieve the American Dream (just that, a dream for most, a reality for only a few, though I guess this depends on what your version of the American Dream is but lets use sterotypical example of a nice house in the burbs, a family, a dog, backyard, and a good job/car) as someone who grew up in the Hamptons or even a more modestly nice area like San Diego? Do African Americans have the same opportunities as whites? Hispanics? Does a kid from a working class background have the same resources and thus opportunity to get a good education compared to a trust fund Wall Street baby? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are completely shaded from reality. Even women, who have come a long way, still only earn 70 cents on the dollar compared to what men make. If we have such an equal opportunity for success here, then explain to me why top 400 wealthiest individuals in the country have more than the bottom 150 MILLION combined (yes, that is a real statistic). Equality of opportunity my ass. I think you should put the economics down and take a sociology class, then we will continue this discussion when you are more informed (or maybe less misinformed)