YES! It's totally false analysis.
Love the data that shows this is fact instead of fiction and opinion.
Marxism - Wikipedia
quote:
According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between highly productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership and private appropriation of the surplus product in the form of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat, social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies, culminating in a social revolution. ...
Is that or is that not what we are seeing with increasing income inequality and increasing unrest in the US? Be honest ... replace bourgeoisie with 1%ers and proletariat with 99%ers.
Well, there you are again with the Marxist party line, "never has been a real Marxist communist government." Oh sure there has, ...
Where? From wiki again:
quote:
... The eventual long-term outcome of this revolution would be the establishment of socialism — a socioeconomic system based on cooperative ownership of the means of production, distribution based on one's contribution, and production organized directly for use. Karl Marx hypothesized that, as the productive forces and technology continued to advance, socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development. Communism would be a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
So where did this happen? Where was there a "socioeconomic system based on cooperative ownership of the means of production" and where did it evolve into "a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of lFrom each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'..." ... what country was that?
... it just didn't turn out the way utopian Marxism said it would so they rationalize that it was never really tried. They fail to grasp that Marxism is false and that's why it doesn't work, it unleashes violent forces in society that destroy all law and order, it puts the worst of the worst in power and it promotes the murder of all those who dissent from its policies. That IS Marxism, that is where Marxism ALWAYS leads, and it's just blind adherence to a crazy unrealistic theory based on pernicious false classism that denies it.
No, it didn't turn out that way because it was usurped by totalitarianism, run by an oligarchy. It was used as a promise for the oligarchs to fool the gullible into allowing them to take over.
... it puts the worst of the worst in power and it promotes the murder of all those who dissent from its policies. ...
Unlike our current corrupt government run by the greedy money hoarders that bribe officials and write the laws for them to pass? Like the treatment of Snoden, Asange, Manning and other whistleblowers ...
Czarism could not possibly have been anywhere near as bad as the Marxist Revolution that overthrew it, but I'm not defending Czarist practices, I'm condemning Marxism as evil.
Czarism was feudal with serf as virtual slaves starving in the streets propping up extravagant palaces (I've seen the palace in Petersburg with one huge ballroom trimmed in gold and a second one trimmed in silver) ... not much different from Versailles and similar.
Sure, as long as you deny that Marxism HAS been tried, you'll never see the destruction it has caused. ...
As long as you cannot provide actual documented evidence of any state actually being run on pure Karl Marx principles (ie -- real marxism) I will continue to say that there have been none. You have a chance to prove me wrong, can you do it?
... The destruction of the nations of the Soviet Union, their economic failure that had people standing in lines for minimal rations and often nothing, their murders galore of dissidents and in fact anybody who could be construed as a threat to the power elite, the destruction of China where dissidents are harassed and murdered to keep their version going too, I'm thinking of Christians being persecuted now but when it first started they murdered intellectuals and everybody else that opposed them. IT DOESN'T WORK. You cannot change human nature as Marxism thinks you can, all you do is unleash the violence that is in all of us, and you always put the least worthy people in charge, the criminal mentality.
And those were not marxist states. Look up Leninism and Stalinism, look up Maoism, and others (Castro?) ... they are totalitarian governments, not a "socioeconomic system based on cooperative ownership of the means of production" nor did they evolve into "a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of lFrom each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'..."
They were usurped by the new totalitarian oligarchs. This is the usual result of revolution: replace one group of totalitarian leaders with another. Rarely does it result in a progressive change in governments. We got lucky, France not so much, South America and Africa less.
True progress is not achieved by revolution but by evolution of government. That is how democracies arise, and the best examples are from the use of non-violent protests (aka Ghandi, Dr Martin Luther King and the like). The abolition movement in Europe and then in the US, womens suffrage in the US, the Civil Rights amendment -- these were accomplished by non-violent protests (the violence was on the side of the oppressors).
The US Constitution may not be perfect, but it does provide means for changing it where it needs changing, and it was based on a realistic assessment of fallen human nature that they saw needed to be constantly opposed, such as by the idea of checks and balances in government. There is NO human class that is immune to the misuse of power, so you have to prevent letting power accumulate in the hands of any particular group. ...
Agreed (though I would have said suppressed instead of oppressed). It evolved out of their several colonies with local democracies, the example of native indian councils (yes I have factual data on that influencing Ben Franklin among others) and the regrouping after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. But they did not foresee one thing: the economic power of large national and international corporations and their ability to corrupt politics.
... That was always the danger in monarchies and it took Constitutional efforts like the Magna Carta to restrain it, and the US Constitution was meant to be the kind of Law that would restrain the accumulation of power. ...
Umm, the "Magna Carta" was England, 1215 CE. We inherited that and the tradition of English law in the English colonies (not so much in the Dutch colonies like New York).
So power in the hands of the 1% rich corporate oligarchs is now corrupting the system unchecked.
Maybe a 3rd time will be more successful ... (3rd times the charm eh?)
... Marxism PROMOTES the accumulation of power in the hands of murderous barbarians. ...
Show me where. That "murderous barbarians" took over after revolutions in Russia, France, China, Cuba, South America, Africa, etc is not disputed -- what is disputed is that this necessarily follows from Marxist theory rather than being the result of a totalitarian system filling the vacuum of government created by revolution by a bunch of "murderous barbarians" taking advantage of the turmoil and instability.
... There could at least be benevolent kings, but the barbarian mentality unleashed by Marxism promotes nothing but murder. ...
Benevolent kings (or generals etc) is a relative term, they still lived in palaces surrounded by serfs ... they just kept the poorest from starving (and why is the
starvation of poor in the US so high?).
Is that because we are a non- benevolent democracy?
... "Marxism hasn't been tried." Give me a break.
And yet you have not provided a single example where it was tried, just a bunch of totalitarian opportunists filling the vacuums following the revolutions ... somehow I am not surprised.
COULD be in some circumstances but that test and Marxist thinking in general doesn't improve such situations, it just points the finger, blames people who are not to blame, ...
Not people, it is the economic system that stratifies the population and always will. Even with minimum living wages, mandatory overtime and unions there will still be a rich class, a poor class and a middle class, it is the nature of capitalism, built in via the "profit motive" to ensure that people will try to steal value from workers if they can enhance their wealth by doing so, as long as wealth is valued above other social attributes.
Jesus understood this and threw out the money changers yes?
... it just points the finger, blames people who are not to blame, ...
Actually that would be the poor, born and kept in stifling oppressive economic ghettos.
... You act as if the civil rights movement never happened. ...
Curiously I was there in the 60's and got tear-gassed for it. Sadly most of the gains we realized have recently been taken back by the Supreme Court (one of those checks and balances built into the constitution) because of judges owned by the corporations?
... There are more opportunities now for all races and classes than there ever were before, but you want to restructure society in a direction that can only destroy those gains. ...
No Faith, I want them restored to the people: the right to petition, to assemble ... the right to form unions and the right to a living wage for an honest 40 hours of work, the right to overtime pay when it exceeds 40 hours and the right to just and equitable treatment by the law.
... First make sure you are talking about people who WANT to have productive jobs. ...
Someone who works two jobs at minimum wage because that is what is available to them and that is what they need to do to provide a living income for their families. The majority of people on food stamps are working parents, the vast majority of people working at minimum wage are parents with children. Or elderly retired people trying to scrape by in this economy, or disabled, or vets.
Who are you thinking about?
... If the community promotes a criminal mentality that justifies stealing and a lack of respect for work and for education you aren't going to get improvement, ...
Again I agree, but I stipulate the media and the socio-economic system for "community." Parents in these economic social ghettos actually
want the laws enforced.
... and a lack of respect for work ...
That would be the people paying less than a living wage for minimum wage workers.
... and for education ...
That would be the system ensuring that education in the socio-economic ghettos was suppressed because of the way it is (under)funded.
... you aren't going to get improvement, ...
Again I agree -- without access to a job that pays a living wage and without access to an education that allows one to get a higher paying job you will not get improvement.
... you're going to get what Marxism always promotes, the triumph of barbarianism and thuggery over the best any society has to offer.
No, you get what power always promotes, which is corruption and the triumph of barbarianism and thuggery over the rest any society, the corporate fascism, with private security forces for the rich, with militarized police serving the status quo of corporate dominance over all aspects of society.
You mix up Marxism with totalitarianism and terrorism of the population for control. Curiously I don't blame you for mixing this up, this demagoguery has been employed by the right wing for decades (McCarthy rode the wave after the second world war). The rich and powerful had to denigrate the social and community base of Marx's theories in order to remain rich and powerful. Look at what the Roosevelts had to deal with.
There is nothing innately evil in cooperative ventures, and in fact there are many successful coop corporations that are owned by the workers and which thrive even in the current economy. There is nothing innately evil in communes, such as the Israeli Kibbutzes.
There is something innately evil in worshiping the accumulation and hoarding of vast wealth at the expense of others. From each according to their vulnerability to each according to their greed ...
But this is all off-topic for this thread.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.
Edited by RAZD, : subt
™ Version 4.2
(1)
