- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 4,168
- Reaction score
- 3,556
In my opinion you should stop making a fool of yourself, speaking on things you are ill informed on
In my opinion you should stop making a fool of yourself, speaking on things you are ill informed on"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." - Karl Marx
The difference between Marxism and neo-Marxism is simple:
Marxism is the study and belief in Marxist ideals (i.e., private property should be abolished).
Neo-Marxism does not involve any study in Marx's teachings, however it holds the same fundamental belief that all private property should be abolished.
In your opinion, which is worse?
I think you are confused on the true difference between the 2"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." - Karl Marx
The difference between Marxism and neo-Marxism is simple:
Marxism is the study and belief in Marxist ideals (i.e., private property should be abolished).
Neo-Marxism does not involve any study in Marx's teachings, however it holds the same fundamental belief that all private property should be abolished.
In your opinion, which is worse?
"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." - Karl Marx
The difference between Marxism and neo-Marxism is simple:
Marxism is the study and belief in Marxist ideals (i.e., private property should be abolished).
Neo-Marxism does not involve any study in Marx's teachings, however it holds the same fundamental belief that all private property should be abolished.
In your opinion, which is worse?
Marxism is responsible for the deaths of over 100 million innocent people. Neo-Marxism, thankfully, never made it out of the universities.
The unhinged belief that anything you don’t like is some sort of Marxism is the worst."The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." - Karl Marx
The difference between Marxism and neo-Marxism is simple:
Marxism is the study and belief in Marxist ideals (i.e., private property should be abolished).
Neo-Marxism does not involve any study in Marx's teachings, however it holds the same fundamental belief that all private property should be abolished.
In your opinion, which is worse?
Out of curiosity, how many deaths invalidate an ideology?
I don’t know, but 100 million feels like a strong candidate for disqualification.
since the time of the Russian Revolution, capitalist institutions as a whole have caused close to 158 million deaths by waging war alone
I don’t know, but 100 million feels like a strong candidate for disqualification.
Keep in mind that socialism consolidated under an authoritarian regime is inherently right-wing.
since the time of the Russian Revolution, capitalist institutions as a whole have caused close to 158 million deaths by waging war alone
If deaths caused by a Marxist country count against Marxism, do deaths caused by capitalist countries count against capitalism?I don’t know, but 100 million feels like a strong candidate for disqualification.
This question may be of interest to some academics but how is it relevant to debating politics in the real world?"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." - Karl Marx
The difference between Marxism and neo-Marxism is simple:
Marxism is the study and belief in Marxist ideals (i.e., private property should be abolished).
Neo-Marxism does not involve any study in Marx's teachings, however it holds the same fundamental belief that all private property should be abolished.
In your opinion, which is worse?
You mean like the Nazis?
Today I learned capitalism is when the government does stuff.
If deaths caused by a Marxist country count against Marxism, do deaths caused by capitalist countries count against capitalism?
The 100 million deaths is a reference to Mao's culture revolution of the early 60s. It was a direct result of putting young inexperienced radical youth in charge and expecting them to run a county already facing many difficult challenges. This is where theoretical meets practical. You may be a steadfast believer in your ideology but that's not going to motivate people to produce nor put food on the table.If deaths caused by a Marxist country count against Marxism, do deaths caused by capitalist countries count against capitalism?
It's like attributing deaths and atrocities by Muslim countries to Islam. By that standard deaths and atrocities by Christian countries have to be attributed to Christianity.
Does colonial exploitation count?Sure, as long as you can demonstrate causality. You can bring up that fire that happened over 100 years ago in NYC. Even the Bhopal disaster counts.
All those things have happened under capitalism. For profit. The slave trade was pure capitalism at work. The destruction of indigenous people and cultures was pure capitalism at work.However private ownership of productive assets is the backbone of most societies, and it creates wealth, jobs, and higher standards of living. The ability for individuals or firms to own and invest in land, factories, tools, along with largely free trade gives rise to competition, efficiency, low prices, and widespread prosperity everywhere it has been tried.
By contrast, in Marxist, collectivist countries where private ownership has been abolished, history shows a pattern of shortages, quotas, forced labor, famine, repression, widespread suffering, and death.
The 100 million deaths is a reference to Mao's culture revolution of the early 60s. It was a direct result of putting young inexperienced radical youth in charge and expecting them to run a county already facing many difficult challenges. This is where theoretical meets practical. You may be a steadfast believer in your ideology but that's not going to motivate people to produce nor put food on the table.
Hence slavery?The 100 million deaths is a reference to Mao's culture revolution of the early 60s. It was a direct result of putting young inexperienced radical youth in charge and expecting them to run a county already facing many difficult challenges. This is where theoretical meets practical. You may be a steadfast believer in your ideology but that's not going to motivate people to produce nor put food on the table.
That was hyper-capitalism + ethno-nationalism. But yeah, like the Nazis.
Hence you are a hyper-capitalist, anti-government extremist.
In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly
dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the
most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only
are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even
more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of
a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist
movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence
will be enormously reinforced thereby.
It's a textbook red herring. A red herring is a logical fallacy. A red herring may be 100% true, but it is not germane to the topic.No, not a red herring. Grand Mal makes a good point.
You're upset and you're not making any sense. this is your opinion about ME PERSONALLY, and has nothing to do with the topic. You ave no idea how much of Karl Marx's writings I've read. It doesn't even matter.What you quoted from marx is either a dishonest attempt to mine quote or an example of someone who has never read anything about marx except what the anti socialist crowd write.
What a dumb straw-man argument!And I really do doubt that you have ever read das kapital.
Karl Marx said "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property."What you quoted is misleading. It gives the impression that marx was against all private property which of course is not true.
https://www.counterfire.org/article/marx-and-the-meaning-of-private-property/
Your arguments are logical fallacies, ad hom nonsense, straw men, red herrings, etc..So thank you for once again demonstrating at best just how ignorant of marx's philosophy the anti socialists really are And at worst just how willingly they will raise false talking points and use the most insidious of fallacies, ie; quote mining to distort and lie to achieve their goal of misinforming people about marx and what he had to say.
The strongest believers are those who never had to test their ideology out and/or those with unlimited resources and power who can keep doubling down on a failed policy. The cultural revolution exposes both of these. Marxism is bad to begin with, but multiple that by 100x. That's what you got in China.So, per your post, you have established that it was not an issue of ideology, but rather execution.
I'm curious, though, how this response addresses the post you were refering to. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with what @Grand Mal said. Is the failure of ideologies due to the nature of the ideology, or is it the fact that all ideologies are built around utopian hopes, but fail with the introduction of the human element? Certainly it can be demonstrated that no ideology has produced a perfect report card, in terms of human cost.
Does colonial exploitation count?
All those things have happened under capitalism. For profit. The slave trade was pure capitalism at work.
The destruction of indigenous people and cultures was pure capitalism at work.
I'm not sure where your '100,000,000' number came from but I'm pretty sure that the victims of capitalism, of the profit motive, are uncountable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?