Again another quote you don't understand, seriously taken out of context! — JerseyFlight
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'm referring to the Communist Manifesto and the inhumanity which Marx, if he had even the sense of a goldfish, must have foreseen. — whollyrolling
How naive of you!I’ll take him at his word. — NOS4A2
This doesn't always work. What does " bring up Hitler" mean?I think it’s better to bring people up than to pull people down. — 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.Perhaps it’s not the bourgeoisie that needs our attention. — NOS4A2
Are you talking about the Palestinians? Or Pinochet? Or about...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
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
Capital owners can easily avoid the violence of communist revolutionaries — Pfhorrest
What has Marx to do with democracy?You misunderstand the way democracy works. — JerseyFlight
(From The Principles of Communism)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.
It's very easy to predict this outcome.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
hence it really isn't about democracy and the rights of minorities that Marx is interested about. — ssu
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
To which territories or circumstances are you directing our attention? — whollyrolling
This is the lesson taught by the media that produce bourgeois propaganda. There's another way of looking at it: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
You don't see why. I've never spoken to someone who defends or promotes Marxism and also "sees why". — whollyrolling
I don't trust or rely upon polarized news sources of any kind. — whollyrolling
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
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.
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.
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!
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
With all due respect, in the following quotes you cited nothing about “democratic nationalizations”, which was obviously a phrase you made up. — NOS4A2
The communist revolutions have led to despotism and terror, and have themselves crushed dissent with violence. — NOS4A2
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
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.No, but Marx believed that if the working class provided itself with a system of internal democracy it could control its leaders. — David Mo
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.