Mao was a devout Marxist — NOS4A2
But mostly I’m speaking about the concept of one class appropriating the land of another, the euphemism “nationalization”, which always brings about the contrary to Marx’s predictions. — NOS4A2
Do you mean George Washington or David Ben Gurion (I guess)?I'm not sure what you mean by "perversion" here. What violent overthrow of authority leaves in its wake is a violent regime. — whollyrolling
As a description of what happened in China before and during the revolution I find it a bit simplistic and confusing.You can't peaceably murder authority, peaceably rob a hundred million people of home and livelihood, and then peaceably persuade them into productivity on behalf of a state which just murdered their leaders and robbed them of all their possessions. — whollyrolling
NOS4A2
3.6k
↪JerseyFlight
Mao was a devout Marxist who sought to bring about communism. It’s right there in everything he wrote. No need for the revisionism. He and his revolutionaries stole land, often by murder, struggle session or by sending them to labor camps, for this stated purpose: “to eliminate feudal, exploitative land ownership by landlords and implement peasant land ownership, so as to free the rural labor force, develop agricultural production, and open the way for the industrialization of New China.”. What is this but one example of “the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions”? the “violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie”?
But mostly I’m speaking about the concept of one class appropriating the land of another, the euphemism “nationalization”, which always brings about the contrary to Marx’s predictions. — NOS4A2
I wouldn't be so sure. "He claimed to be a Marxist", it would be more correct.
About forcing something out of the bourgeoisie I would see no problem if what is taken out of it is its greed and power to exploit, its control of the instruments of justice and the perversion of democracy for the benefit of a minority.
an economy that can only be held in place by threats and in turn acts of violence. — whollyrolling
Both of these can easily be avoided by not stealing or illegally occupying someone else's property. — whollyrolling
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
All of these exchanges are optional — whollyrolling
anyone can become wealthy based on merit, popularity, hard work and good fortune — whollyrolling
What you're calling extortion is feeding and clothing a large portion of the world — whollyrolling
That's the world you're promoting — whollyrolling
Where in the West do police kill someone for not paying rent — whollyrolling
or for not going to work — whollyrolling
Mao was a devout Marxist who sought to bring about communism. — NOS4A2
but the alternative seems to me to be socialism or barbarism. Or worse, socialism or extinction. That's where we're going, I'm afraid. — David Mo
Answer my questions. All you are doing is asserting the same narrative over and over again. Please provide citations to back up your assertions. Please stop blaming Marx for Right Wing dictators and totalitarian political parties.
Bother, if I don't soon find intelligent life on this Forum I am departing to greener shores.
NOS4A2 — NOS4A2
Oh, how about starting with the theories of Marx that makes him different from social democrats?Can you tell me what this has to do with Marx? — JerseyFlight
And how does that dictatorship work then? Seems historically that it has gone to one man to decide what the proletariat thinks.. When Marx speaks of nationalizing land, he is not speaking of putting it in the hands of a dictator, but in the democratic hands of the workers, not in the hands of a political party, but in the hands of the workers. — JerseyFlight
And how does that dictatorship work then? — ssu
Unto whom was the land nationalized in the examples you cite? Were these democratic nationalizations?
Please give a citation where Marx's political theory validates the actions of Mao?
And when has that democracy happened in reality?It is a democratic system of workers. — JerseyFlight
Well, a lot of us who don't believe in communism and before didn't believe in marxism-leninism have had this as the genuine problem in the whole endeavour. NIce idea on paper, too bad you have human beings implementing these things. Once you give power of a dictatorship to anyone, the outcome is really bad. It simply changes people. In the end, killing your fellow human beings comes so easy.Sadly, we have never had this kind of system in the history of the world. — JerseyFlight
Once you give power of a dictatorship to anyone, the outcome is really bad. It simply changes people. In the end, killing your fellow human beings comes so easy. — ssu
The rentier likes to claim the virtue of the entrepreneur who provides a service of distribution, and the entrepreneur likes to claim the virtue of the innovator/producer — unenlightened
Like I already said, it was given to the peasantry. — NOS4A2
Since we’re asking for citations, whereabouts did Marx speak of “democratic nationalizations”? — NOS4A2
“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.” — NOS4A2
“ The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.