Originally posted by smw6869I stand corrected. Looking back I see that it was you making essentially the same joke back on page one. Everyone ignored you then, I fail to see why you thought you'd get big laughs the second time around. You need some new material or it's off to the gulag with you.
50th ? Care to name names ? I didn't think so.
GRANNY.
Edit: It was FabianFnas making the same lame joke in the other thread.
Originally posted by rwingett"Everyone ignored you "
I stand corrected. Looking back I see that it was you making essentially the same joke back on page one. Everyone ignored you then, I fail to see why you thought you'd get big laughs the second time around. You need some new material or it's off to the gulag with you.
Edit: It was FabianFnas making the same lame joke in the other thread.
Everyone except you......jit stick !
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869A selective quote on your part. I actually said, "Everyone ignored you then." I, too, ignored you the first time around. But enough is enough. If you feel you have license to regurgitate the same stale joke with impunity then you are sadly mistaken. ðŸ˜
"Everyone ignored you "
Everyone except you......jit stick !
GRANNY.
Originally posted by rwingettum, with one repeat, granny's got a long way to go before she reaches Stang-like proportions and gets banned.
A selective quote on your part. I actually said, "Everyone ignored you then." I, too, ignored you the first time around. But enough is enough. If you feel you have license to regurgitate the same stale joke with impunity then you are sadly mistaken. ðŸ˜
Originally posted by rwingettYes, but only you responded to my silly jokes. You're such a hero, really. You took it upon your heroic shoulders to insult me. I never, in this case, insulted anyone with my silliness. Not even your hero, Marx. If you take offence at such innocent jocularity you need to see a shrink. I know a good one. I shall continue to do what i please. If you are soooooooo upset simply report me to the mods you silly mung bucket. Sheesh ! Drink a lot ?
A selective quote on your part. I actually said, "Everyone ignored you then." I, too, ignored you the first time around. But enough is enough. If you feel you have license to regurgitate the same stale joke with impunity then you are sadly mistaken. ðŸ˜
GRANNY.
01 Mar 10
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
Marx never proposed the "abolition of property".
Originally posted by no1marauder
My statement remains correct no matter how many times you repeat post cut and pastes.
Originally posted by adam warlock
What about reading Marx and Trotsky from the direct sources: http://www.marxists.org/
Have fun!
MIA: Marxists: Marx & Engels: Library: 1848: Manifesto of the Communist Party: Chapter 2:
...
The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
...
Originally posted by smw6869And by the way, Groucho Marx WAS a Marxist:
Yes, but only you responded to my silly jokes. You're such a hero, really. You took it upon your heroic shoulders to insult me. I never, in this case, insulted anyone with my silliness. Not even your hero, Marx. If you take offence at such innocent jocularity you need to see a shrink. I know a good one. I shall continue to do what i please. If you are soooo ...[text shortened]... oo upset simply report me to the mods you silly mung bucket. Sheesh ! Drink a lot ?
GRANNY.
http://minniesboys.blogspot.com/2009/04/marxism.html
GRANNY.
Originally posted by zeeblebotDo you know the difference between the proposition of concept and the analysis of a given situation that allows for a concept to exist.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
MIA: Marxists: Marx & Engels: Library: 1848: Manifesto of the Communist Party: Chapter 2:
...
The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final ...[text shortened]... f the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
...
In everyday lingo: Marx didn't propose the abolition of property, he said that, according to his analysis of how societies evolve, in order for communism (the final stage of the evolution of human societies) to be achieved private property property has to be abolished. He isn't proposing anything he's stating the conditions that are necessary for communism to arise.
Kinda like me saying that for racism to exist there has to be the notion that some races are essentially inferior to others. I'm not advocating the notion that some races are inferior to others, I'm just stating that that notion is necessary for racism to come up.
Ok?
Originally posted by rwingettYes, it was. And it wasn't mine. I read it somewhere sometime.
Edit: It was FabianFnas making the same lame joke in the other thread.
But the serious part is this:
To know the core of the Marxism, we have to read "Das Kapital". Preferably in the original language. To discuss marxism without knowing the origin is like saying that Graucho was the best one of the marxist brothers.
Very few neonzists don't know what Hitler wrote in his "Mein Kampf". Yet they think they know everything about nazism and its ideology. I don't think they have no idea what Hitlers real ideology was. The "Mein Kampf" is a mess, hardly impossible to read.
"Das Kapital" on the other hand is much clearer. Perfectly to build a state upon. Which some tried. And failed.
Originally posted by adam warlockif he advocates an outcome, and declares that in order to achieve the outcome a certain action needs to take place, he is also advocating the action.
Do you know the difference between the proposition of concept and the analysis of a given situation that allows for a concept to exist.
In everyday lingo: Marx didn't propose the abolition of property, he said that, according to his analysis of how societies evolve, in order for communism (the final stage of the evolution of human societies) to be ac ...[text shortened]... ior to others, I'm just stating that that notion is necessary for racism to come up.
Ok?
Originally posted by adam warlockMarx must have had a Phd in the obvious, yes ?
Do you know the difference between the proposition of concept and the analysis of a given situation that allows for a concept to exist.
In everyday lingo: Marx didn't propose the abolition of property, he said that, according to his analysis of how societies evolve, in order for communism (the final stage of the evolution of human societies) to be ac ...[text shortened]... ior to others, I'm just stating that that notion is necessary for racism to come up.
Ok?
GRANNY.