One thing i do like about Marx is he believed every citizen should be well armed. I believe one of several possible solutions for America is automated or semi-automated factories and they are collectively owned by the government. The People manage the government through their ownership of Assault rifles.

Got AR-15? Ammo is optional. Shotguns with blanks.....

.

Modern Combat is very often about publicity and propaganda. Notice how we haven't had a Civil War yet in the US. I agree quite abit with BLM but People aren't simple or atleast simple enough to use a Nuke. Most solutions don't completely solve a problem. If we can't have nuclear weapons that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any weapons. Actually if the government does have nuclear weapons that might be a reason for Liberals and Conservatives to have assault rifles. Alot of ethnic groups favor the public having Assault rifles. Marx agrees with me.

Again another quote you don't understand, seriously taken out of context! — JerseyFlight

Counterrevolution deaths are attributable to Marx too because he started it! :lol:

Notice how we haven't had a Civil War yet in the US — turkeyMan

:brow:

I'm referring to the Communist Manifesto and the inhumanity which Marx, if he had even the sense of a goldfish, must have foreseen. — whollyrolling

I don't understand why Marx should have predicted Pol Pot. Is preaching the the struggle against the exploitation of man by man leading straightforwardly to Stalinism? I don't see why.

I’ll take him at his word. — NOS4A2

How naive of you!

I think it’s better to bring people up than to pull people down. — NOS4A2

This doesn't always work. What does " bring up Hitler" mean?

Perhaps it’s not the bourgeoisie that needs our attention. — NOS4A2

Given that the bourgeoisie controls the economy, culture and the capitalist state apparatus, and given that capitalism is primarily responsible for how bad things are for many people, this is what matters.

Unless you care more about watching the herons fly over the lake in the fall.
But that's another order of things.

No, what I'm talking about is armed military personnel fire a gun into your coworker's head so that you will get back to work. What I'm talking about is you're removed from your home at gunpoint, all your possessions are seized by a government of wealthy elitists, and you end up living in a ghetto, or in a gulag. — whollyrolling

Are you talking about the Palestinians? Or Pinochet? Or about...

You describe a Dantean scene as if it happened in a Superman cartoon or a B series cold war movie. Why don't you talk about reality, which is bad enough without turning it into a comic book?

To see how things happened in Stalinism I suggest Life and Fate by Vassily Grossman or Kira Georgievna by Viktor Nekrassov. A "little" more serious than your comics.

If communism adheres to those tenets, then why does the state take everything for itself and leave common people destitute, and why are the state and its closest affiliates, for example organized crime syndicates and puppet CEO's, the only ones who benefit, and only as long as they are in total ideological alignment with the regime. — whollyrolling

If you employ this aggressive pamphlet tone it cannot be discussed. I don't know who you're trying to convince with that. Perhaps yourself.

Capital owners can easily avoid the violence of communist revolutionaries — Pfhorrest

Go out to the countries of the Third World and the suburbs and you will see the violence of capitalism. Ask yourself how much they paid the people who made your shirt. Who pays the elites who keep the scarce money from the extraction of raw materials at a bargain price?
Etc., etc.
Capitalist violence exists, but on the fringes of the system.
This is not addressed to you, really, but at those who believe that they live in a brave new world.

:up:

:clap:

You misunderstand the way democracy works. — JerseyFlight

What has Marx to do with democracy?

Marx isn't talking about democracy, especially not as an safety valve for society, but as a means for proletarian dictatorship in the class struggle. Proletarian dictatorship is a way to eradicate private property, the final goal for Marx. Marx doesn't give a shit about democracy, only if it furthers the exact cause of the proletariat:

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat.

(From The Principles of Communism)

How this happens Marx gives a very detailed map or theory and makes very specific how the prolertariat differs from slaves, serfs or handicraftsmen. And in the 20th Century Marxists followed his ideas slavishly. And it should be totally obvious to everybody that when Marx talks about class struggle, of the need of the Proletarian dictatorship, he obviously sees that not everybody will go along with the Proletariat, hence it really isn't about democracy and the rights of minorities that Marx is interested about.

I don't understand why Marx should have predicted Pol Pot. Is preaching the the struggle against the exploitation of man by man leading straightforwardly to Stalinism? I don't see why. — David Mo

It's very easy to predict this outcome.

It is as simple as when thinking to implement into reality Plato's ideal society, where people are divided into workers, soldiers and philosophy kings. You really are so naive to think that the class of the "philosopher kings" will be the most wise, virtuous and selfless and corruption can be rooted away by them living communally and modestly? What typically would happen that anybody having criticism about the "philosopher kings" will be put to the "worker" class while the friends and children of the "philosopher kings" will end up in the ruling class. Without any safety valves this will happen. And Karl Popper is quite right on blaming Plato on the rise of totalitarianism.

With Marx, we just simply start from the fact that many people are actually OK with the idea of private property / capitalism, so the reason for totalitarianism is obvious.

Hence it's absolutely no wonder at all that communist revolutions have collapsed into totalitarianism and one man rule. It is simply an intrinsic aspect of Marxism (and Marxism-Leninism). Marx starts from the belief that the change will extremely likely be violent, the change has to be done by force, so imagine how that comes out with actual people.

.

hence it really isn't about democracy and the rights of minorities that Marx is interested about. — ssu

Right. He wasn't interested in minorities who exploit others. For him, a democracy that does not solve the problem of inequality, misery and hunger is not a true democracy. So is Athenian democracy, for example. The Marxists I knew spoke of "formal democracies". I don't know if the term is Marx's.

It is as simple as when thinking to implement into reality Plato's ideal society, where people are divided into workers, soldiers and philosophy kings. You really are so naive to think that the class of the "philosopher kings" will be the most wise, virtuous and selfless and corruption can be rooted away by them living communally and modestly? — ssu

No, but Marx believed that if the working class provided itself with a system of internal democracy it could control its leaders. This was the theory of the workers' and soldiers' soviets that Lenin preached before he abandoned orthodox Marxism.
With the experience that history gives us, we know that didn't work. We may even have some explanation as to why.
But Marx did not have that experience and could afford to be somewhat more idealistic than we are.
The Republic of Plato's philosophers was something totally different. It didn't establish any elite control mechanism, because the wise were supposed to be good by nature. That doesn't hold up unless you look around.

Ah. We're not all as smart as you who can predict history very easily. Patent the method. You'll get rich.

To which territories or circumstances are you directing our attention? — whollyrolling

I think I've already mentioned two examples. A very simple one is to ask yourself how much of the price of the T-shirt you have bought Made in East or America (South) reaches the worker who made it. Another is who makes peasant leaders disappear in Colombia.There are many examples like these that I have not taken from any anti-capitalist pamphlet. They are in the daily press.

The West has used human nature to curb some of humanity's barbarism, to bring about a state of relative peace and order, as well as individual wealth and autonomy--and not exclusively in the West. — whollyrolling

This is the lesson taught by the media that produce bourgeois propaganda. There's another way of looking at it:

We don't know what human nature is. But we do know that 1% of humanity controls 82% of the World''s wealth. We know that this minority and those who work for them control the major media and use politicians who are sympathetic to their bourgeois ideology to control the various political systems and their servants (pseudo-democracy included). (In jargon they are called lobbies or, straightforwardly, corruption). And we know that when there is some part of the planet that wants to get out of the script they organize a little war or a coup d'etat and depose the unruly.

This corrupt system provokes an abyss of daily violence that doesn't usually appear on Fox Channel, etc. There remains hunger, poverty, police repression and the deaths from our bombings. These are also consequences of the fact that 1% of humanity controls 82% of the world's wealth. Pass the translator through this news (don't be afraid it doesn't come from a dangerous communist pamphlet, but from a Christian NGO): https://www.europapress.es/internacional/noticia-ciento-poblacion-mundial-acapara-82-ciento-riqueza-20180122154309.html https://www.europapress.es/internacional/noticia-ciento-poblacion-mundial-acapara-82-ciento-riqueza-20180122154309.html

I'll tell you for your information that I haven't read the Communist press since I was a kid. Now I read all kinds of press (little TV), especially on the web, because that's where you can find alternative visions to the official one. The human rights NGOs that I collaborate with usually provide me with good information to untangle the neurons. I especially recommend the reports of Amnesty International. They are somewhat shy and do not say everything but they do put the facts on the table. Then you can think about them. If you want.

Well, if you can't translate, here's an English version. Don't run away, it's the BBC!: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42745853

You don't see why. I've never spoken to someone who defends or promotes Marxism and also "sees why". — whollyrolling

Make no mistake. I do not defend or promote Marxism.
Firstly because I'm not talking about Marxism but about Marx.
Second, because I haven't read one of his books in a long time. More than you can boast, I suppose, but not enough to analyze an author in depth.
Thirdly because I do not defend Marx, but attack the assumptions of reactionaries and bourgeoisie from which you do. It's not Marx I'm worried about. It's a thing of the past. It is you and those like you that concern me because you are driving the planet into the abyss in the name of a class ideology that condemns the majority of humanity to a life of submission, subsistence, or worse.

I understand myself criticizing Marx with a heterodox Marxist, a socialist, an anarchist or a left-wing liberal. Not with you.

I don't know if I've made myself clear. English is not my language. But I think I'm understood.

.

I don't trust or rely upon polarized news sources of any kind. — whollyrolling

Wow. You must get up very early in the morning to gather all your own news, well done. Stirling effort.

.

Hence it's absolutely no wonder at all that communist revolutions have collapsed into totalitarianism and one man rule. It is simply an intrinsic aspect of Marxism (and Marxism-Leninism). Marx starts from the belief that the change will extremely likely be violent, the change has to be done by force, so imagine how that comes out with actual people. — ssu

Marx of course believed (or at least seemed to believe) that he didn't need to imagine possible outcomes or rank their probability. According to Marx, history has a fixed goal, the classless society, and it reaches that goal through stages which follow rationally from another. So, Marx did not believe any outcome other than the dictatorship of the proletariat leading to the classless society was possible.

There is so much error and confusion here I do not think I can address all of it. This is the tragic fate of our time. Misinformation cannot be countered because it's easier and swifter to assert distortions than it is to refute them.

The land was controlled by the party and the supreme leader in every case you have cited. These were not democratic movements. The workers were neither free or in power. This is a serious point because it refutes your false, straw man, poisoning of the well, example. You are of course, free to deny it and believe what you want, but this will not make your belief accurate.

I never said it was a democratic movement. In fact I said the opposite. My point was that the nationalization of property didn’t result in the conditions Marx predicted, that it often, even necessarily resulted in murder and plunder.

With all due respect, the fact that you would even ask such a question can only prove that you haven't read Marx. His entire program was about the worker's emancipating themselves from a class system of oppression. This had nothing to do with dictators or new ruling class parties.

With all due respect, in the following quotes you cited nothing about “democratic nationalizations”, which was obviously a phrase you made up. There is no such thing as “democratic nationalizations” when it comes to appropriating someone’s property, and no amount of glittering generalities will change that.

You have here cited a quote you don't even comprehend. Marx was specifically asked about violence, I can't remember where exactly, there are 50 volumes, but his reply was, (paraphrase) "of course, we don't advocate violence, but the ruling class will not let us have democracy." And this is indeed the tragic truth of revolution. The rulers are desperate to hold onto power and will use violence to crush dissent. They will not allow democracy!

The communist revolutions have led to despotism and terror, and have themselves crushed dissent with violence. The Velvet Revolution, on the other hand, was a revolution for democracy against communist rule, which was rightfully dismantled in favor of a parliamentary republic wherein they could hold their first democratic elections in half a century.

I never said it was a democratic movement. In fact I said the opposite. My point was that the nationalization of property didn’t result in the conditions Marx predicted — NOS4A2

Responding to your error is exceedingly unpleasant. I only do it because I'm aware that many readers will not be able to discern your contradiction.

1) Admits his examples were not democratic movements. 2) Then goes on to use examples to blame Marx for these movements. Totally inconsistent, ignorant, contradiction.

With all due respect, in the following quotes you cited nothing about “democratic nationalizations”, which was obviously a phrase you made up. — NOS4A2

In what does democracy consist? In dictatorships? In ruling class minority parties? Last time I checked democracy is where the people rule themselves, not where they are ruled. Not sure why you assume that Marx must specifically make use of the term "Democratic Nationalism," in order to put forth this concept (which the quotes I provided demonstrate)? Your objection is one of mere formality and not even worthy of a reply. If you are claiming that Marx's idea of Nationalism is the same as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. I have clearly provided citations that show Marx talking about the workers liberating themselves from the State. You must answer the question with some kind of proof: what was Marx's idea of Nationalism?

Your ignorance here is off the charts, it is also unforgivable, it is the result of the most desperate attempt at confirmation bias.

If I had the power, I would in fact, ban you from this thread, you have been caught red handed, cherry picking, citing Marx out of context in total distortion, your entire contribution here is error, misinformation, mischaracterization and fallacy (guilt by association). Which merely proves that you are neither a serious thinker or a skilled thinker.

The communist revolutions have led to despotism and terror, and have themselves crushed dissent with violence. — NOS4A2

This is correct, even if the revolutions started out as communist revolutions, which is very doubtful given the fact they were not spurred by advanced capitalist societies, they morphed into fascist movements. As I have repeatedly said, I do not believe that a workers revolution will bring about a utopia, I believe it will lead to more of the same violence. Nevertheless, when it comes to the next stage of social progress Marx cannot be ignored, his contribution, power and clarity of thought are simply too relevant.

Clearly we have a serious problem here: I agree and reject every Marxist dictator you have mention, I also reject the idea of a workers revolution, and yet I am not an anti-Marxist. Why? What's the difference between us? Am I just ignorant and deluded? Well, there is one serious difference, I HAVE ACTUALLY STUDIED THE IDEAS OF MARX, you clearly have not.

What has Marx to do with democracy? Marx isn't talking about democracy, especially not as an safety valve for society, but as a means for proletarian dictatorship in the class struggle. — ssu

What class makes up the majority of society?

SUMMARIZING THE POVERTY OF REPLIES ON THIS THREAD: So far there has not been a single educated critique of Marx's position. Those who have attempted to reply in the negative have simply tried to search online for a quote that would support their biased position against Marx. It's the juvenile technique of trying to find something that will stick, and every time these attempts are refuted, there is not an alteration in the belief structure, because it is held in place by a preset bias. The critic simply searches for something else to prove what he already believes. This is not the way critical thinking works. Further, every negative reply seems to be motivation by the fallacy of guilt by association. This position comes with sweeping assumptions: all Marxists are Maoists, Stalinsts etc.// Marx taught a totalitarian political system. But the bottom line, the premise which drives all of these objections, is the premise that Marx and Marxism are dangerous. The replies are generated by a very rational emotional response to the atrocities of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. What the objectors don't comprehend is that these were all Right Wing movements! Right Wing totalitarianism is the result of dictators coming into power without democratic checks on that power. None of these movements were Marxist movements, and more importantly, Marx would have been against them. (However, a qualification is necessary here: power corrupts and we cannot say for sure that it would not have been the same in the case with Marx). Nevertheless, Marx is not a savior, he was a very powerful and relevant economic and political thinker. The shallow attempts that have been offered here haven't even made contact with his position.

No, but Marx believed that if the working class provided itself with a system of internal democracy it could control its leaders. — David Mo

Yet democracy was only a tool for the proletariat, to get power. Others classes have to fall under the lead of the proletariat. This shows clearly how Marx isn't at all a democrat or believes in democracy. Marx or his followers do not believe that (liberal) democracy could be self correcting and fix many of the injustices. Neither was it acceptable to be a socialist who attempts to work within the system.

This can be seen from his views about how true communists differ from basically from other socialists. Marx divides them into the "Reactionary Socialists", who "for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists ", then the "Bourgeois Socialists", those who want "to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it" and the "Democratic Socialists", who "favor some of the same measures the communists advocate", but not as part of the transition to communism, but "as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society".

The first type of socialists Marx rejects because of many reasons, the second type Marx sees that "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." The third class are OK, if they "do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie".

How Marx views other socialists shows in my view clearly just how much Marx values "democracy".

So, Marx did not believe any outcome other than the dictatorship of the proletariat leading to the classless society was possible. — Echarmion

And neither did the Communists that took up arms and were eager to kill the class enemy.

The replies are generated by a very rational emotional response — JerseyFlight

:chin: