Time to Rid the World of Marxists and neo-Conservatives

[atlantabiolab]

2 Thick, ok I won`t ask anything unless I am polite. But quite frankly I find your misunderstoof view of Marxism rude in itself.

Now I will say it again, and this is not rude, this is simply a fact. You do not appear to understand Marxism. End of discusion.

True Marxism (that as proposed by Marx) does not have a ruling class elite of intelectuals, but rather a dictatorship of the people.

Marxists are not there to trick anyone. Maybe you are confusing some bastard child of communism like what we say in the USSR as what Marx intended. Do you really think that Marxists want people to be content by having everyone poor?

Yes relative poverty is bad, that is why despite living conditions for most people being better today, the difference between rich and poor is greater than ever.

Marx proposed an equality of power and resources for all, not an elite of intellectuals. There is some mention of a leading group that will lead the revolution, and fall when power and resources are shared among all.

Marxism is all about being aloud to express ones dreams and desires and it allows this by the equality of power and resources that communism allows. Only by this can all people be in a position to do so.

2Thick I apologise for my rude comments whole heartedly.I really was quite rude. But I will stress again that you do not appear to understand Marxism. I am happy to have an open debate with your on the matter.

Marxism, as an ideology, is irrational, for it denies reason. It denies man as a rational animal, and a controller of his world. The earlier "Utopic Socialists" never attained the status of Marx, because their ideas were destroyed by men of reason. How does the denial of liberty, i.e. to obtain personal property and the productive industry, ever equate to "freedom"? Not to mention, economists such as von Mises and F.A. Hayek, showed how true "socialism" is logically impossible. The idea of central planning by a few cannot exist for an economy is created by billions of decisions and computations occuring simultaneously to optimally exist. Communist countries have proved the failure of this idea and validated the reasoning of capitalist thinkers.

To counter critics, Marx's Dialectical Materialism states that man is a pawn of economic determinism, and that socialism is inevitable. He argued this in the attempt to discredit those who would tear his ideology apart using scientific and rational debate. Reason, by Marx, was a social construct of the "bourgousie" and therefore anyone who argued against his creation was obviously of the "elite", and was arguing against the inevitable.

Unthinking individuals accept the idea of socialism for it provides them the fantasy realm of security without effort, revenge against the "haves" and life without thought.

Marxism is all about being aloud to express ones dreams and desires and it allows this by the equality of power and resources that communism allows. Only by this can all people be in a position to do so.

Ridiculous. By Marxism's own ideology, you are not free to obtain anything which is not agreed upon by the masses. "To each according to his ability, for each according to his needs"

Learn about the ideology you profess to accept, before you attempt to debate it.

 

[Krazykat]

Classic mistaken critism of Marxism above, ladies and gents.

What you are proposing is one of the most common argument against Marxism, economic determinism. Determinism is reducing something to a single factor. For example in this case Marx is being accused of economic determism by atlantabiolab, or in other words everything being due to economic reasons.

Marx frequently argued that

`man makes his own history`.

`It is no history which uses men as a means of acheiving - as if it were an individual person - its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends`.

Now can you seriously say that this Marx, although stressing the importance of economics denies man as a rational animal.

He stressed that although conditions, including that which is economic would be necessary for revolution, only with man`s initative would it occur.

Communism is not about the masses having to agree on everything before one can have something. You are mistaken with what Marx means by needs. Needs can be anything. Marxism and communism is not about not wanting goods, or having nice things. In fact this `want` is part of what is necessary for the working class to revolt.

And lastly, I was happy to read your post, until the last unpleasant, snidey point.

It is you that need to learn about Marxism before you critise it.

 

[3Vandoo]

Hey I am a commie I am red my blood is red!!!!!!!

 

[manny78]

Hey I am a commie I am red my blood is red!!!!!!!

Mon ti tabarnak....

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

Why does anyone give a shit whether the toilet paper is produced for 'dictatorship of the proletariat' or a paycheck. All I know is that I work a filthy, boring job. So here come the communists that devalue my currency and essentially want me to work for cabbage stew and a bug infested bed. I'm still at that filthy, boring job. How have the communists improved my living conditions? All of the communists I have met are rich kids or college professors, never anyone who produces any material goods.

 

[Krazykat]

Jack fair last point, a lot of supposed Marxists are rich but in `true` Karl Marx communism you do not work for cabbage stew. Where do you live? A dictatorship of the proletariat really means equality for all, not what you are talking about.

Clearly the `communists` you talk about are not communists at all.

 

[Krazykat]

hey this thread is cool,

how about some more replies, 2thick perhaps?

 

[atlantabiolab]

Classic mistaken critism of Marxism above, ladies and gents.

What you are proposing is one of the most common argument against Marxism, economic determinism. Determinism is reducing something to a single factor. For example in this case Marx is being accused of economic determism by atlantabiolab, or in other words everything being due to economic reasons.

Marx frequently argued that

`man makes his own history`.

`It is no history which uses men as a means of acheiving - as if it were an individual person - its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends`.

Now can you seriously say that this Marx, although stressing the importance of economics denies man as a rational animal.

He stressed that although conditions, including that which is economic would be necessary for revolution, only with man`s initative would it occur.

Read more of Marx and Engels' writing. They claim the "inevitability" of socialism, which is determinism. Marx's "scientific historicism" does not look at man as individuals, but as classes and their struggles. This is the basis of the idea of communism, being that the "commune" of the proletariat is the successor to a socialist society.

Socialism denies the individuality of man and gives primacy to the collective, in ideology and practicality, for it is logically impossible to remove the desire of man for personal property, without forcing him to deny this goal. Thus a Communism system cannot be logically called "free".

Communism is not about the masses having to agree on everything before one can have something. You are mistaken with what Marx means by needs. Needs can be anything. Marxism and communism is not about not wanting goods, or having nice things. In fact this `want` is part of what is necessary for the working class to revolt.

Again, this is against reason, for man will not relinquish his right to personal property, and empirically, as shown by the application of Communism, is doomed to failure. A central planning system cannot delegate production as efficiently as a free market. Because production is delegated by others, the consumer is left out of the picture, so "needs" are determined by others, which is a reason why attempted Communist societies have been enormously inefficient. In a free market society, the consumer is the one who decides what resources and products are desired, for his purchase of items determines what and how much should be made, the industrialist only calculates the demand and provides for it. Numerous economists have elaborated on the failings of the economics of socialism and have been validated by the empirical evidence.

You have fallen into the emotional trap of socialism, which is the wish of personal security and Utopia. Marx's writings are nothing more than irrational rhetoric, with a plan of dictatorship, for all of the planks of Communism, by reason, require force to accomplish: heavy income taxation, inheritance tax, nationalized education, communal housing, delegation of production by a planning community, etc. Man will not obediently work for equal wages, since all job functions are not equal, nor will he willfully relinquish his earnings for the altruistic benefit of those he does not care for, nor will he accept a mandate of who must educate his children, and where he will live and on and on.

It is you that need to learn about Marxism before you critise it.

Think past his writings and decide if it is within reason. Marxism is rationally impossible.

 

[Krazykat]

I refer you back to my previous quotes,

`man makes his own history`.

`It is no history which uses men as a means of acheiving - as if it were an individual person - its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends`.

Yes communism is seen an inevitable, which is cannot be proved nor deemed a scientific notion.


quote (excuse this being a quick reply!)

Socialism denies the individuality of man and gives primacy to the collective, in ideology and practicality, for it is logically impossible to remove the desire of man for personal property, without forcing him to deny this goal. Thus a Communism system cannot be logically called "free".

Socialism does not give primacy to the collective. A dictatorship of the people, and a residing concept of each individual.

As you quoted

"To each according to his ability, for each according to his needs"

does this stress the collective, over the individual?

Your notion that private property is intrinsic to man is ethnocentric, and unfounded.

quote

In a free market society, the consumer is the one who decides what resources and products are desired, for his purchase of items determines what and how much should be made, the industrialist only calculates the demand and provides for it. Numerous economists have elaborated on the failings of the economics of socialism and have been validated by the empirical evidence.

To think that the consumer is at the heart of a free market, is so ridicolously, I am sorry to say ignorant is beyond belief. Where do consumer`s needs come from? Whilst not a one process by any means, they come a great deal from the producers. People are made to want things, they are almost brainwashed into doing so. I suggest you read about the media and the political economy. The everyday layman is quite aware about how say pop stars are shoved down their throats, almost until they are forced to like them. This is in effect a forcing of need.

In a communist society it is the needs of the consumer (a redundant concept in a communism) would create needs, I refer you to your quote again!

"To each according to his ability, for each according to his needs"

Communism is about an equality of power and resources.

As for your last paragraph of points, Marx never mentions these things, and you have interpreted, or read or been told by someone else or have interpreted them as being so.

I can only think that you are seeing Marxism as the so called `communist` societies that the world has seen. USSR, Cuba etc.

Your writings make me quite sad, for you write with a mistaken rationality.

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

Most of the communists I have met are Maoist or members of The Spartacus Movement. In a dictatorship of the proletariat, who is the dictator? Communists regimes have been built and always fail at the first stage. They never leave the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and unfortunately the proletariat are subjected to intense poverty and at times starvation. Krazykat, you still have not derailed the argument about the means of production. Communists blame the industrialists for the woes of mankind, yet they maintain the industrialists' means of production. How do the communists make the life of the proletariat any better if the proletariat live under the same conditions as before the revolution?