abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I'm just not even going to read another meltdown manifesto by the resident racist.
Capitalism loses
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No where in there does it describe an actual vanguard dictator. What he meant very clearly was that the working class would have control of the state and economy.
You would know this if you read it instead of quote mining, fool.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he read all of his marx on stormfront through snippets and falsely attributed quotes.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
he declared that the VANGUARD of the intellectual elite who have already embraced "Scientific Marxism" would control "The State" and "educate" the proles in their theories.
but you cant wrap your head around that.
so now you want me to go through Marx's collected works and assemble his "Philosophy" into a bite sized predigested theory that fits onto a bumper sticker?
Karl laid it all out in his massive library of papers, he and Freddy explained it thoroughly (apparently too thoroughly, since you have TL;DR'ed the entirety of Marxist discourse)
that you cant follow their reasoning is not my problem, it's yours.
when asked to explain how Marxism works, Marxists invariably begin a long and tiresome diatribe about the evils of Capitalism, and entirely fail to discuss how their proposed system would work.
much as you do.
the explanation of how Marxism functions in reality is left to others, and as such, Marxists then claim that this is a distortion.
even when Marxists discuss Marxism's nuts N' bolts among themselves it always ends in a punch-up, since the entire "Philosophy" is so poorly defined.
YOU never explain how Marxism works since you dont understand it, instead you throw out woolly claims of utopia and then begin attacking the evils of capitalism.
Marxism exists solely as an antagonist to Capitalism, while Capitalism works quite nicely all by itself, thus Marxism is NOT a philosophy, by rather an anti-capitalist polemic.
but thats all so complicated.
why not try wikipedia? it has been established by you as the source authority for so many things, why not Marx' views on socialism?
Role of the state
In Marxist theory, the state is "the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule. Thus, it is only in a society which is divided between hostile social classes that the state exists."[11] The state is thus seen as a mechanism that is dominated by the interests of the ruling class and utilized to subjugate other classes in order to protect and legitimize the existing economic system.
After a workers' revolution, the state would initially become the instrument of the working class. Conquest of the state apparatus by the working class must take place to establish a socialist system. As socialism is built, the role and scope of the state changes as class distinctions (based on ownership of the means of production) gradually deteriorate due to the concentration of means of production in state hands. From the point where all means of production become state property, the nature and primary function of the state would change from one of political rule (via coercion) over men by the creation and enforcement of laws into a scientific administration of things and a direction of processes of production; that is the state would become a coordinating economic entity rather than a mechanism of class or political control, and would no longer be a state in the Marxian sense.
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism)
wow, thats pretty much what i said, but the Wikipedos forgot to include the part about how the "representatives" of the proles (the Vanguard) would make all the decisions and run everything, cuz the proles arent smart enough, nor sufficiently indoctrinated in "Scientific Marxism" to decide anything for themselves, thus ensuring that the evolution of the revolution into Communism will never take place.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
lol, another kynes meltdown.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
He's rewriting the entire manifesto.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Its amazing how he won't read anything that doesn't agree with his preconceived notions.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
but one would thing the Communist Manifesto would be highly relevant.
of course anyone who ever read it recognizes that it is in fact NOT a manifesto it's an anti-capitalist polemic.
Karl and Freddy spent so much time telling us how bad capitalism is, they never got around to detailing how their shit would actually work.
that info was all broken up in their various other books, pamphlets and letters.
anyone who actually goes through all that shit will eventually discover for themselves that it's all crap.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
wtf are you talking about?
I actually read that wikipedia page you never read after you copy pasted half of it.
I read them.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You could not be further from the meaning on Marx. It isn't like I really care, Marx was wrong in a lot of ways and in some of those ways you have named correctly. However, the rule of a "dictator" is not actually Marxian. You are completely wrong there. The problem is that you are talking out of your ass and quote mining, while mixing in some wikipedia but you haven't actually read a single fucking page of his works.
Dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't refer to the rule of a dictator. It means that the working class or 'proletariat' has control of the state and economy as opposed to the standard oligarchy of capitalism. Anyone who actually read some Karl Marx knows this and knows that it was Lenin who really went into dictator mode.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
If you had read it you wouldn't have copy/pasted half of it. Or maybe you're just dumb.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
did you actually take a stand????
ohh my.
Marx laid all this shit out in his extensive writings, particularly his collaborations with Freddy Engles
the stages of society in Marx's hypothesis (not really a theory, since it is unsupported by any evidence or observations) are as follows:
Barbarism
Feudalism
Mercantilism
Capitalism
Proletarian Revolution
The Socialist Authoritarian State
some mysterious unexplained societal transformation which has never been seen or documented in the entirety of human history (literally "????")
Utopian Communism
who runs the Authoritarian Socialist State?
A) The proletariat through direct democracy (nope, Marx had no faith in the people)
B) The smartest people as determined by a meritocracy (Market Forces??? NOOOOO!!!)
C) The Intellectual Vanguard of people who have demonstrated their commitment to "Scientific Marxism" (thats the Apparatchiks)
the answer is, according to Marx, C
thus the proles will simply have to exchange one oppressor for another, but Marx saw himself and his acolytes as the next step in the evolution of Plato's Philosopher Kings, who would do it all "For The Greater Good" and when the peoples were ready to embrace "Scientific Marxism" the Philosopher Kings would step aside, ushering in a new era of Global Utopian Communism
(this one is just for you Rob Roy.)
Last edited:
Wow, that 2 seconds of time it took for me to meet your challenge has your panties in such a wad that its going to take an excavating company to get them out.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The idea that you have done something successfully for the first time ever on this website is giving you delusions of grandeur but sadly, all you did was copy/paste half a wikipedia page that you didn't even read.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
And you read exactly zero pages of them.
Sounds to me like he read them. Jealous?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Okay, so Marxism was more of a rambling justification of dictatorship. Capitalism without checks and balances is equally destructive. Why does it have to be a 'pure' system? Some goods aren't really amenable to distribution by a capitalist model, like health care. No one goes shopping for the best hospital care in the state when they've broken their arm; they just call an ambulance.
I'm of the opinion that 'libertarianism' as espoused by the John Birch society is socially destructive, as it would lead us straight to classism.
I think that our nation should place a heavier tax burden on those who make vast sums, and any contrary suggestion reflects simple greed and selfishness. A fifty percent tax on ALL income earned in excess of the first million every year would go a long way to redressing the imbalance that has steadily grown wider since the Reagan administration.
I would eliminate taxation inequality based on the source of the income; all income would be taxed the same whether it's capital gains or day labor.
Taxes earned on income between zero and the first million would be progressive. Everyone gets their first twenty grand tax free, zillionaires too.
I'm of the opinion that 'libertarianism' as espoused by the John Birch society is socially destructive, as it would lead us straight to classism.
I think that our nation should place a heavier tax burden on those who make vast sums, and any contrary suggestion reflects simple greed and selfishness. A fifty percent tax on ALL income earned in excess of the first million every year would go a long way to redressing the imbalance that has steadily grown wider since the Reagan administration.
I would eliminate taxation inequality based on the source of the income; all income would be taxed the same whether it's capital gains or day labor.
Taxes earned on income between zero and the first million would be progressive. Everyone gets their first twenty grand tax free, zillionaires too.
Similar threads
