Originally posted by zeeblebotI just hope that Marx realizes that this is plagiarism. I mean, to steal the dictates of the DNC and Obama is pure plagiarism. 😛
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto
10 point program
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of c ...[text shortened]... talism to communism, but Marx and Engels later expressed a desire to modernize this passage.[9]
Originally posted by shavixmirThe point is not what you call it, as you rightly say, but how you get there. In Marxist thought the transition from a the capitalist state to the communist stage (which is to be classless) is to be done by means of government, while in anarchist thought the stage of classless society is to be achieved directly and by means of direct action workers control, workers free association.
How would you describe the ultimate society without dialectic conflict between boss and worker?
In essence, the outcome is a form of anarchism, no matter what you call it.
But what about the other questions I made you?
Ps: Don't ask me questions that use the term dialectics since I don't have the flimsiest idea of what it means.
Originally posted by zeeblebotIt's one thing to think and talk things, another to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto
10 point program
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of c ...[text shortened]... talism to communism, but Marx and Engels later expressed a desire to modernize this passage.[9]
Coming up with a theory is not evil. Maybe Marx thought most everyone would live "better" under these conditions.
But putting into practice the abolition of property is something most humans (and many animals species as well) would view or perceive as an inherently evil action because we rely on ownership as a guarantee of our own survival.
Originally posted by spruce112358Marx never proposed the "abolition of property".
It's one thing to think and talk things, another to do.
Coming up with a theory is not evil. Maybe Marx thought most everyone would live "better" under these conditions.
But putting into practice the abolition of property is something most humans (and many animals species as well) would view or perceive as an inherently evil action because we rely on ownership as a guarantee of our own survival.
Originally posted by no1marauderOriginally posted by zeeblebot
Marx never proposed the "abolition of property".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto
10 point program
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[8]
According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism, but Marx and Engels later expressed a desire to modernize this passage.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat
Lumpenproletariat (a German word literally meaning "rag proletariat" ) is a term first defined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The German Ideology (1845) and later elaborated on in other works by Marx. The term was originally coined by Marx to describe that segment of the working class that would never achieve class consciousness, and was therefore worthless in the context of revolutionary struggle.
...
According to Marx, the lumpenproletariat had no special motive for participating in revolution, and might in fact have an interest in preserving the current class structure, because the members of the lumpenproletariat usually depend on the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy for their day-to-day existence. In that sense, Marx saw the lumpenproletariat as a counter-revolutionary force[6].
Leon Trotsky elaborated this view, perceiving the lumpenproletariat as especially vulnerable to reactionary thought. In his collection of essays Fascism: What it is and how to fight it, he describes Benito Mussolini's capture of power: "Through the fascist agency, capitalism sets in motion the masses of the crazed petty bourgeoisie and the bands of declassed and demoralized lumpenproletariat -- all the countless human beings whom finance capital itself has brought to desperation and frenzy."[7]
Marx's definition has influenced contemporary sociologists, who are concerned with many of the marginalized elements of society characterized by Marx under this label. Marxian and even some non-Marxist sociologists now use the term to refer to those they see as the "victims" of modern society, who exist outside the wage-labor system, such as beggars, or people who make their living through disreputable means: prostitutes and pimps, swindlers, drug dealers, bootleggers, and bookmakers, but depend on the formal economy for their day-to-day existence.
The concept is similar to the more modern term, underclass.
Originally posted by zeeblebotWhat about reading Marx and Trotsky from the direct sources: http://www.marxists.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat
Lumpenproletariat (a German word literally meaning "rag proletariat" ) is a term first defined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The German Ideology (1845) and later elaborated on in other works by Marx. The term was originally coined by Marx to describe that segment of the working class that would never ...[text shortened]... eir day-to-day existence.
The concept is similar to the more modern term, underclass.
Have fun!
Originally posted by zeeblebotMy statement remains correct no matter how many times you repeat post cut and pastes.
Originally posted by zeeblebot
[b]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto
10 point program
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigra ...[text shortened]... sm to communism, but Marx and Engels later expressed a desire to modernize this passage.[9][/b]
Originally posted by sh76I think Marx would say, it's not that his ideas don't work in real life, it's that his predictions have not come true in real life (yet!)
I don't think his philosophy was evil. It was just... well... wrong; or, more precisely, his idea simply don't work in real life.
There are people on this website who post completely opposite viewpoints of the world and accordingly completely different solutions.
I don't think either have an evil intent, but if all the site's propositions could be worked out in the real world I'm positive some would eventually have "evil" results. But that doesn't make scherzo evil 🙂
Originally posted by The Dude 84The only thing i ever heard Mr Marx say was, " Say the secret woid and a duck will fly down and give you 100 bucks"
There are people on this website who post completely opposite viewpoints of the world and accordingly completely different solutions.
I don't think either have an evil intent, but if all the site's propositions could be worked out in the real world I'm positive some would eventually have "evil" results. But that doesn't make scherzo evil 🙂
GRANNY.
Originally posted by The Dude 84So if we then look at the propositions and not who propose them, do you consider the economic theory that Marx proposed to be evil ?
There are people on this website who post completely opposite viewpoints of the world and accordingly completely different solutions.
I don't think either have an evil intent, but if all the site's propositions could be worked out in the real world I'm positive some would eventually have "evil" results. But that doesn't make scherzo evil 🙂
Originally posted by smw6869You're about the 50th person between the two Marx threads to crack the well traveled Groucho joke. We've all heard it a million times. Give it a rest.
The only thing i ever heard Mr Marx say was, " Say the secret woid and a duck will fly down and give you 100 bucks"
GRANNY.