"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (3 Viewers)

[Zeitgeist308]

Believing everything Marx did or said is a sign that you are part of that cult.

That is untrue. I am not a dogmatist who treats the works of Marx as holy writ and his every word as sacred and correct.

If I did so I would also support participation in parliament, support participation (by revolutionaries) in trade unions, support (some) national liberation struggles, support one or another faction of the bourgeoisie in inter-imperialist war and even be regarded as a Sexist and Homophobe by today's standards, all of which Marx was. The fact of the matter is however, I do not support any of the above, hence why it is inaccurate to call me a member of the "cult of Marx"

The unstated premise in the argumentation is something that all of his followers beleive in, that somehow Marx has the key to a progressive future that will benefit society.

This isn't answering the question. Where is your proof that "All of Marx's evidence is Enthymeme. This evidence is used to manipulate people into accepting his dogma. He cannot prove anything he claims."

This premise is false because it can clearly be demonstrated that people who took the lead from Marx have done far more evil than any other groups in the entire history of mankind.

This is really pathetic. So Marx's premises are false because of what those who were influenced by him did? According to this logic we could equally claim that Darwin's premises are false because of the acts of eugenicists, no?

Furthermore to prove this, people who Idolise Marx are like the proverbial ostrich with their heads in the sand.......or dorothy from the wizard of oz "theres no place like home theres no place like home". All of their responses are STANDARDISED,

Having responses that are "standardised" (how you can claim all Marxists give standardised responses given Marxists renowned sectarianism and differing interoretations of Marx) does not necessarily indicate dogmatism. What it may equally indicate is that the questions to which the answers have been given are standardised.

Your "true communism has never been implemented' claim is a giant fucking proof of this enthymeme.

Firstly, I have never claimed that "true communism has never been implemented". The phrase is a senseless one as I made clear some pages back.

Secondly, Elaborate on this claim. I still do not see as to how the claim "true communism has never been implemented" is "a giant fucking proof of this enthymeme".

You've been programmed into this behaviour by the rhetoric.

Slander me all you like but it's not going to win you the argument.

It's a little hard to understand if you haven't studied classical rhetoric, but I encourage you to think about it. over time....look at it this way, if you read some classical poltics and rhetoric, you'd widen your understandings.

Critiquing Marxism is also something very difficult to do effectively and without making yourself look like a fool if you haven't studied Marxism directly. I would advise you to actual read some Marx (and subsequent Marxists) as you will find it widens your understanding.

Sure, shrug off and ignore/deny the massive relation between Marxism and Violence. It just proves your delusion.

In the above quoted comment I was shaking off "the massive relation between Marxism and Violence" I was merely shaking off the stupidity of this comment due to it being devoid of any content:

PRODUCT PRODUCT PRODUCT of DOGMA. The basis of 'Historical Materialism' is to focus on aspects that are central to Marxist economic/class theory. Like you said it is a product. This is the product of the meek who are idealist and delusional and get taken advantage of. Baa Baa!

They are similiar to you, in the fact they think Marx is always right, and like you are staunch denialists. I never made the direct connection, I just said they are your kind. Like a suite of cards, you are the ace and they are the queen. Different, but the same.

You show how pathetic your argument really is here when you verge on an association fallacy.

If you are an atheist I suppose it would be ok to claim that you and Hilter or Stalin are "Like a suite of cards, you are the ace and they are the queen. Different, but the same".

Or again, If you are an "Australian" to claim that you and the Australian soldiers in Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq engaging in unspeakable atrocities are "Like a suite of cards, you are the ace and they are the queen. Different, but the same".

Give me a break and come up with a real argument against my positions.

How many bodies do we need to count?

Straw Men are not a substitute for hard argument.

Thing is, ALL socialist and communist movements are nationalistic. Even the beloved Paris Commune of 1871 was nationalist.

Either provide evidence or STFU.

I would love to hear you explain the "nationalism" of the Communist Left.

And for that matter, Fuck the working class if they think they can lord it over the best brightest and most cunning of our society, good fucking luck to em'. It's when they start to think they can engineer society, dictate liberty and slaughter is when I will be prepared to take a stand against them with force.

This is a fucking insult to every working man, woman and child. I refuse to respond to this type of insult with anything constructive. All that needs to be said is that you are a fucking pig.

You fail, the PKK always were 'nationalist', albeit not having a nation.

Did I claim otherwise?

I covered them. Historical Materialism is a pseudo science. The artisan class still exists everywhere. The proletariat hasn't taken over. So on and so forth......if you can't handle simple answers don't claim I did not respond to you.

Yes, yes you've said it all before. What I'm asking you for is a response to my reply in which I made comment on all your points. Stop playing dumb and either reply or admit you can not.

And finally:

All the evidence as to the nature of Marxists/Leninists/etc can be found in the suffering the Marx has ultimately been responsible for. Dodge all you want.

All you need to do to show virtue is to admit that Marx inspired many evils. Which is a proven fact.

Lets look at these two statements carefully. In one you claim Marx served as an inspiration for many "evils" (note I used inverted commas not to trivialise the acts in question but to highlight the haziness and moralism of the word) and in the other you claimed he is "ultimately responsible" for these same "evils". There is a big difference between the two.

I will not deny that many perpetrators of such "evils" throughout history have been influence by Marx or (more commonly) merely paid tribute to him (ie. wrapping themselves in the Red Flag for funding much like the PKK, ZANU-PF or the Khmer Rouge).

However, making the above acknowledgement does not make Marx ultimately responsible for the individuals or their acts. If we did we would also have to accept that Darwin is ultimately responsible for eugenics, Oppenheimer for the 200,000 dead in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or Jesus for the Crusades, or Nietzsche for Nazism. The list could go on.

I hope you will now not claim that I have dodged the question or am in any way a "denialist".

 

[Zeitgeist308]

that leads to the biggest criticism of communism - it is hardly a pragmatic form of social organization on a large, national scale.

Again this is a meaningless statement. What is the communist social organisation to which you are referring? Why is it not practical on a large scale (Marxist hold the opinion that is only practical on a world scale)? Even if it were a less pragmatic form of social organisation, what relevance does this have in light of the class struggle and it's inevitable tendency toward the realisation of communism?

humans, by nature, are lazy, greedy and self-centred. that is why communism, in strict sense of the term, has never and will never work.

This point has been covered 4 times in this thread already! To answer your question in detail, flip back through the thread, however I have provided at least the begins of an answer without wasting any more of my time, please refer to the follow excerpt from the 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts:

What constitutes the alienation of labour?
Firstly, the fact that labour is external to the worker – i.e., does not belong to his essential being; that he, therefore, does not confirm himself in his work, but denies himself, feels miserable and not happy, does not develop free mental and physical energy, but mortifies his flesh and ruins his mind. Hence, the worker feels himself only when he is not working; when he is working, he does not feel himself. He is at home when he is not working, and not at home when he is working. His labour is, therefore, not voluntary but forced, it is forced labour. It is, therefore, not the satisfaction of a need but a mere means to satisfy needs outside itself. Its alien character is clearly demonstrated by the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, it is shunned like the plague. External labour, labour in which man alienates himself, is a labour of self-sacrifice, of mortification. Finally, the external character of labour for the worker is demonstrated by the fact that it belongs not to him but to another, and that in it he belongs not to himself but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, the human brain, and the human heart, detaches itself from the individual and reappears as the alien activity of a god or of a devil, so the activity of the worker is not his own spontaneous activity. It belongs to another, it is a loss of his self.
The result is that man (the worker) feels that he is acting freely only in his animal functions – eating, drinking, and procreating, or at most in his dwelling and adornment – while in his human functions, he is nothing more than animal.
It is true that eating, drinking, and procreating, etc., are also genuine human functions. However, when abstracted from other aspects of human activity, and turned into final and exclusive ends, they are animal. - Marx, 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts

​

 

[zstar]

Yeah but the problem is even in your Marxist state labour is being used to get something. You said that those who worked more hours get more and you don't realise that you've created another form of money albeit one of these most inefficient systems ever. Instead of paper you've replace it with time. Somebody who does 5 hours of hardly anything gets priority of resources over somebody who does 2 hours of very hard work. The sort of society you're talking about is extremely inefficient and will lead to starvation and shortages in the long run. For example I would hardly do squat in a factory if I know that irrespective of whether I do something or not I will still get something for it. The motivation and incentive for labour has disappeared therefore people will not work hard.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Yeah but the problem is even in your Marxist state labour is being used to get something.

This sentence is incoherent. Aside from your terminology mistakes, what is "labour is being used to get something" meant to mean? In all human societies labour is necessary so as to produce and distribute articles of consumption necessary for human life. Labour will be still be necessary in a communist society like any other.

Further, assuming capitalist relations of production, doesn't the statement also hold. I go to work each day for 8 hours and at the end of the week I am paid a wage for the reproduction of my labour-power to be sold again the following week. In other words, I perform labour for my employer so as to acquire articles of consumption.

You said that those who worked more hours get more and you don't realise that you've created another form of money albeit one of these most inefficient systems ever. Instead of paper you've replace it with time.

We believe that during the period of transition a system of rationing will need to be in place. Marx believed that this system of rationing would be based on work performed (whether this is the case or not is hotly debated) and involve the use of labour-vouchers (modern socialists now see a system of digital labour-credit or energy accounting as more practical). This system of rationing is a form of wage system, however the token/vouchers/labour units are not themselves money. What distinguishes them from money is that they do not circulate and thus do not allow for the functioning of the circuit of capital (M-C-M'), rather they are token which entitles the holder to a particular quantity of goods, after which they have been withdrawn the token is destroyed rather than being appropriated by the owner of the establishment and being banked or spent again.

Somebody who does 5 hours of hardly anything gets priority of resources over somebody who does 2 hours of very hard work.

Issues such as these are contentions of the labour-voucher system.

For example I would hardly do squat in a factory if I know that irrespective of whether I do something or not I will still get something for it. The motivation and incentive for labour has disappeared therefore people will not work hard.

There's a couple of points to make here.

Firstly, a system of labour-vouchers does offer incentive. If you work for 8 hours in a day in a factory for example and your neighbour works 4, you are entitled by this system to withdraw from the "common pot" more than your neighbour since you have contributed more too it.

Secondly, your point that "I would hardly do squat in a factory if I know that irrespective of whether I do something or not I will still get something for it." is not an argument against a system of labour-vouchers but rather and argument against capitalist production itself. Maybe you've never worked in a factory or a kitchen or a construction site, either way, working harder does not secure for you a higher wage, rather it does the opposite, it rewards you will a smaller relative wage. This is because these wages are time based and not peice-meal (despite exploitation still existing even when a system of piece-meal wages is employed). As they are time based, being more productive within the given hour or day does not provide for the worker greater compensation but rather a smaller relative compensation.

So really, the question now is, where is the incentive for the factory worker or the kitchen hand or the construction worker to work harder or more efficiently when the same wage is paid for his labour-power at the end of the day irrelevant of his productivity?

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

So really, the question now is, where is the incentive for the factory worker or the kitchen hand or the construction worker to work harder or more efficiently when the same wage is paid for his labour-power at the end of the day irrelevant of his productivity?

That was exactly the biggest problem in most Socialist states. This resulted in many workers- particularly in the engineering and manufacturing fields- losing motivation and thus decreasing our own country's efficiency. Furthermore, the other problem is that the profits that were generated by one company or industry, were then used to finance enterprises that were experiencing losses or ha extreme negative gearing.
However, to run a proper socialist republic these steps had to be taken.

 

[jb_nc]

This thread is the ultimate no read zone * 10000.

Stopped reading on page 2.

 

[jb_nc]

hahaha.

ITT: Obvious points about communism get regurgitated over and over.

Yes but Marx said this:

THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO READ LOL​

And Engles said this:

WHO CARES WHAT THEY SAID WHO CARES WHAT THEY SAID WHO CARES WHAT THEY SAID WHO CARES WHAT THEY SAID WHO CARES WHAT THEY SAID WHO CARES WHAT THEY SAID WHO CARES WHAT THEY SAID WHO CARES WHAT THEY SAID WHO CARES WHAT THEY SAID WHO CARES WHAT THEY SAID WHO CARES WHAT THEY SAID WHO CARES WHAT THEY SAID​

So, you are wrong.

 

[44Ronin]

That is untrue. I am not a dogmatist who treats the works of Marx as holy writ and his every word as sacred and correct.

This isn't answering the question. Where is your proof that "All of Marx's evidence is Enthymeme. This evidence is used to manipulate people into accepting his dogma. He cannot prove anything he claims."

The logic when checked returns true. But since you are a cultist, you'll never bother checking. Go and check out how Marx is the master of making up bullshit.

So Marx's premises are false because of what those who were influenced by him did?

Winner. EXACTLY. Communism is a horrible system based on social class enslavement.

According to this logic we could equally claim that Darwin's premises are false because of the acts of eugenicists, no?

No, thats only according to your lack of understandings about eugenics.

Eugenics existed far beyond Darwin's theories. In fact eugenics has nothing to do with Darwinism. Eugenics is a form SOCIAL ENGINEERING that embraces superiority of racial blood (Hmm sound familiar?).

Infantcide in the ancient world was common, and mostly associated with expressions of cult.

One particular cult, the Lacedaemonians or the 'Spartans' as we call them, had a stringent campaign of eugenics to satisfy their sick fantasy and delusions of a pure race.
At the earliest point this meant that their warrior cult would pass judgement on what they considered defects or unworthiness. With the undesirable infants, they either threw em off Mt. Taygetos, or abandoned them to starve.

Of course, the Spartans weren't the first to do this, but they are the natural first western example that I, myself can illustrate.

So no - what I compare has a differing relationship to the two thinks of which you compare. You cannot proxy an argument like that, it's pathetic even when your example proves to be wrong.

I love your kind, the atypical Marxist follower. Yes claim yourself as a free and independant thinker all you want kid, then you turn around and jump straight back into the shoes of a mindless drone when you attempt to subjugate history itself (as does marx in historical materialism) by meddling with dialectical process , TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
Well if the shoes fit you, or you keep trying to put the shoes on, then I think I have every right to slander you as a similar cultist.

Having responses that are "standardised" (how you can claim all Marxists give standardised responses given Marxists renowned sectarianism and differing interoretations of Marx) does not necessarily indicate dogmatism. What it may equally indicate is that the questions to which the answers have been given are standardised.

And wow, now you're defending the actions of the ways of the cult. Is it because I'm hitting so close to home?

Firstly, I have never claimed that "true communism has never been implemented". The phrase is a senseless one as I made clear some pages back.

Oh sure you didn't kid........it is the same fucking denial whether you claim it pink,red,black,blue or green. This denial is disassociation rather than admittance. It's always the same with your kind.

"We can neither confirm nor deny"

Secondly, Elaborate on this claim. I still do not see as to how the claim "true communism has never been implemented" is "a giant fucking proof of this enthymeme".

I hope you find some value in the Iteration of what I've been saying post after post, .... the fact that Marx has created either consciously or non-consciously an enthymeme is apparent by examining people who latch on to his theories. In general, these people always have the same form of denial, and cannot accept evidence, logic or any kind of input other than what their cultism and Idolatry teaches them.

You and your cult are all the same, its just a matter of being in the same boat, some are fighting with others in the boat , some are laughing, some are trying to funnel water out of the sinking ship of fail and ignorance that Marx ultimately built. Good riddens to rotting garbage.

Slander me all you like but it's not going to win you the argument.

The only things are for you to lose is your ignorance, and gain other opinions. But you are incapable of accepting disagreement - not on the basis of what we are arguing about , but by the fact that you deny deny deny deny. Sounds like politics to me

Critiquing Marxism is also something very difficult to do effectively and without making yourself look like a fool if you haven't studied Marxism directly.

Er....no. That is elitist bullshit atypical of intellectuals who align themselves with the left, most of which will never know the meaning of true struggle. Fucking armchair generals like that can go get fucked.

I would advise you to actual read some Marx (and subsequent Marxists) as you will find it widens your understanding.

Kid, I've read Marx, Engels and Lenin. Then I took a look at the fucking realities. The reality is more fucking significant than their rhetoric.

In the above quoted comment I was shaking off "the massive relation between Marxism and Violence" I was merely shaking off the stupidity of this comment due to it being devoid of any content

I'm not writing disseration: I think it's more than clear that Marx endorsed violence.

You show how pathetic your argument really is here when you verge on an association fallacy.

You are exactly the same as other marx cultists in the fact that you are a delusional denialist. Therefore you are of the same disrepute.

Straw Men are not a substitute for hard argument.

Violence linked to Marxist-Leninist ideology has caused more human suffering than any other amount in human history. There's your fucking HARD ARGUMENT you refused to address, yet keep running away from

Either provide evidence or STFU.

Send me a cheque, I'll fly over to russia and expose some mass graves. I'll fly over to cuba and expose some mass graves, I'll fly to china and expose mass graves, I'll fly to tibet to expose mass graves, we will see in china what is common in ALL communist rules which is the evil corrupt and loathsome one party system. We will see organ farming (taking means of production to a new fucking level) we will see the state controlling and bullying the people over and over again and again. We will go to North Korea who are the ultimate epitome of what is particularly fucked up about your way of being self deluded and deceived. People willing to deny facts because they have been brainwashed.

All these things and more which are significant and a dark stain on the history of man, you are willing to so cheaply deny and mitigate all in your self righteous quest to defend your pathetic idol, because you somehow think the quality of Karl Marx's writings aare somehow of more value than all this suffering and injustice.

There's the fucking evidence. You and your kind have the amazing power of ostrich to disregard all guilt. Proof is in the pudding as to your selfish and egotistical leanings.

Think about Einstein; how distraught he was with his conscience after Pearl Harbour. Marx probably would of torn his eyes out if he had of known what the results of his theories being read were.

This is a fucking insult to every working man, woman and child. I refuse to respond to this type of insult with anything constructive. All that needs to be said is that you are a fucking pig.

Ha, that is the thing though.........if the working class can't handle reality that's their fucking problem. I've been poor all of my life but I will never becom a pathetic virtueless so called 'victim' nor will I glorify it.

Working class is a mere badge of association as worse as the burgouise label you aim at people infering they are inherently wrong or whatever bullshit you think.

The label means nothing implicit to me. I judge people through their actions, and it's their actions which cause me to make judgement. What you write leads people to conclusions that you have trouble crawling out of your adherisms.

You have no element of cynicism towards Marx at all on any aspect.

 

[bigboyjames]

 

[Trefoil]

I've come to the conclusion socialism is a piss-weak ideology like capitalism. I don't believe any of that "socialism is evil" nonsense, because socialism and democracy are not mutually exclusive, but I still feel it (democratic socialism) is as ineffective a solution as laissez faire capitalism.

Hooray for social democracy instead. It's not merely a compromise between capitalism and socialism; it's a third and unique direction in its own right. Although I think that it is somewhat distinct from the 'Third Way' which I see as potentially too capitalist (in the sense that there's not a strong enough emphasis on social justice, although I admire the Third Way's supposed focus on education and technological development).

 

[sam04u]

I've come to the conclusion socialism is a piss-weak ideology like capitalism. I don't believe any of that "socialism is evil" nonsense, because socialism and democracy are not mutually exclusive, but I still feel it (democratic socialism) is as ineffective a solution as laissez faire capitalism.

Hooray for social democracy instead. It's not merely a compromise between capitalism and socialism; it's a third and unique direction in its own right. Although I think that it is somewhat distinct from the 'Third Way' which I see as potentially too capitalist (in the sense that there's not a strong enough emphasis on social justice, although I admire the Third Way's supposed focus on education and technological development).

Socialist Republics aren't too bad.

 

[zstar]

This sentence is incoherent. Aside from your terminology mistakes, whatis "labour is being used to get something" meant to mean? In all humansocieties labour is necessary so as to produce and distribute articlesof consumption necessary for human life. Labour will be still benecessary in a communist society like any other.

Further, assuming capitalist relations of production, doesn't thestatement also hold. I go to work each day for 8 hours and at the endof the week I am paid a wage for the reproduction of my labour-power tobe sold again the following week. In other words, I perform labour formy employer so as to acquire articles of consumption.

Yeah but you keep talking about Labour being "exploitation" because it "forces" people to work for capital. If a Marxist state were to be implemented then those who work and Labour also have to have a reason to work or produce. He/She can't just produce simply because he has this notion of working for the common good right? When he/she works for profit or wages it empowers him/her. It's not as simple as saying "keep producing chairs non stop" That's a load of BS. You have things like quota's, You have things like resource management, You have things like warehouse space limitations. You can't just produce something endlessly and non stop without oversight or control.

We believe that during the period of transition a system of rationingwill need to be in place. Marx believed that this system of rationingwould be based on work performed (whether this is the case or not ishotly debated) and involve the use of labour-vouchers (modernsocialists now see a system of digital labour-credit or energyaccounting as more practical). This system of rationing is a form ofwage system, however the token/vouchers/labour units are not themselvesmoney. What distinguishes them from money is that they do not circulateand thus do not allow for the functioning of the circuit of capital(M-C-M'), rather they are token which entitles the holder to aparticular quantity of goods, after which they have been withdrawn thetoken is destroyed rather than being appropriated by the owner of theestablishment and being banked or spent again.

So in other words you want to limit and restrict the amount of goods somebody takes? Is that right? Does that not contradict what you said earlier about how in this wonderful system nobody can limit anything and that everyone can take as much as they want whenever they want or did I misread you?

Owner of an establishment? I thought you said this was all public property so there's no owner or did I misread you again?

Issues such as these are contentions of the labour-voucher system.[/quote

Yes and this sytem is the difference between mass starvation and having adequate resources to feed and clothe people. That's why Communist societies throughout history have failed because they could not provide enough or a credible alternative to the wage and profit society of Capitalist states.

There's a couple of points to make here.

Firstly, a system of labour-vouchers does offer incentive. If you workfor 8 hours in a day in a factory for example and your neighbour works4, you are entitled by this system to withdraw from the "common pot"more than your neighbour since you have contributed more too it.

I'm sorry but that is the most insane thing I've ever heard. You can't just "withdraw" from your work, That's when shortages happen and people start queing up hourse upon hours just to get a loaf of bread.

Secondly, your point that "I would hardly do squat in a factory if Iknow that irrespective of whether I do something or not I will stillget something for it." is not an argument against a system oflabour-vouchers but rather and argument against capitalist productionitself. Maybe you've never worked in a factory or a kitchen or aconstruction site, either way, working harder does not secure for you ahigher wage, rather it does the opposite, it rewards you will a smallerrelative wage. This is because these wages are time based and notpeice-meal (despite exploitation still existing even when a system ofpiece-meal wages is employed). As they are time based, being moreproductive within the given hour or day does not provide for the workergreater compensation but rather a smaller relative compensation.

There's a difference, The factory worker in a Capitalist system has to produce otherwise they don't get paid and face the sack. In your Marxist system people are producing for no reason except for this false notion of the common good and presumabely that person is always entitled to resources and a job no matter how much(or should I say how little) he/she works because you estanlished that it's their right to have one. That's the difference.

So really, the question now is, where is the incentive for the factoryworker or the kitchen hand or the construction worker to work harder ormore efficiently when the same wage is paid for his labour-power at theend of the day irrelevant of his productivity?

That worker gains more experience and knows that with the experience gained they can eventually accelerate their own wealth and maybe become factory owners too, Maybe if they feel that it's not paying them enough then they move to another factory that pays them better. The thing is though that worker has to work a certain level because he/she will loose their profit/income/job.

As I mentioned before this is radically different to your society where everyone from cradle to grave is guranteed work, a house, food irrespective of what they or how much they produce because there's no real consequence for laziness or slacking off. You don't realise how unrealistic and insance this system is until you've actually tried to put it into practice.

 

[Epistemophobia]

gah.. overstatement.

edit: laughs at this thread

 

[Zeitgeist308]

@ Ronin - I will not be replying to your post and addressing the 'points' you have made due to both time and energy constraints. I have gained nothing and have nothing to gain from our (continued) dialogue as such I see no reason in continuing to waste my time on an individual who chooses to shun rational argument in favour of insults, straw men and dodging of the question.

@ Zstar - As much as I want to reply to your post, time constraints are once again a factor. Adding to this desire not to respond is your continued attitude to the issue, refusing the actually take the argument seriously (sorry if this feeling is incorrect, but this is the gist I have gotten from your posts). The answers to all of your questions can be found in the above posts (many of your problems come from misunderstanding the terminology used.

@ jb_nc and Zimmerman, the smart ass remarks are totally unnecessary. I have quoted Marx, Engels and a host of other figures and articles where I thought it necessary to demonstrate/back up a point and also to prove wrong the incorrect caricatures of Marx and Engels. If you choose not the read the excerpts then don't, it's your lose, but don't go bitching about it once I have left the thread.

I have made my case and feel that it holds water. This debate is now of no value and not worth my time. Any posts addressed to me subsequently in this thread will go unanswered.


- Zeitgeist

 

[HNAKXR]

Karl Marx is back in fashion, says one German publisher, who attributes his new popularity to the economic crisis.

Publisher Karl-Dietz said it sold 1,500 copies of Das Kapital this year - up from the 200 it usually sells annually.


Written in 1867, sales of the tome rarely hit double digits but have been on the rise since 2005.


Marxist economic philosophy - and in particular its Russian Leninist version - fell out of favour with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s.
"It's definitely in vogue right now," said the publisher's director Joern Schuetrumpf.


"The financial crisis brought us a huge bump."
He suggested that it was younger Germans who were buying the book unhappy with the direction their elders had led the country.


"There's a younger generation of academics tackling hard questions and looking to Marx for answers," Mr Schuetrumpf said.


But he doubted their perseverance: "I doubt they will read it all the way to the end, because it's really arduous."


Other publishers also print Das Kapital, and German media have reported that bookstores nationwide have seen a 300% increase in sales of the book in recent months.


And suddenly too, some of the all-but-forgotten Marxist philosophers are having their say again, such as the historian Eric Hobsbawm.


"Globalisation, which is implicit in capitalism, not only destroys the heritage and tradition but it is incredibly unstable, it operates through a series of crises, and I think this has been recognised to be the end of this particular era," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

dunn dunn dunn

 

[CyanideChrist]

I have made my case and feel that it holds water. This debate is now of no value and not worth my time. Any posts addressed to me subsequently in this thread will go unanswered.

Grats on lasting this long. You obviously know your shit.

 

[moll.]

This thread has died since Zeitgeist left.
Guess he was the only one on BoS passionate enough to be bothered arguing that communism isn't the greatest evil unleashed on humanity.

 

[nikolas]

This thread has died since Zeitgeist left.
Guess he was the only one on BoS passionate enough to be bothered arguing that communism isn't the greatest evil unleashed on humanity.

Shame too, i enjoyed reading his posts.

 

[moll.]

Shame too, i enjoyed reading his posts.

At first i did too, but then i found it time-consuming and repetitive, due to the fact he would silence one critic just as another arose with the exact same queries.

 

[bshoc]

Generally speaking, the time for the potential socialist/communism revolution has long passed, the kind of highly labour intensive, demeaning industrial capitalism that existed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries simply doesn't exist anymore, it evolved into something else post-Great Depression, again post-WWII, and then again after the end of Breton Woods, into the modern mixed-economy hybrid we have today.

It's usually quite difficult to apply something if all its underlying assumptions no longer hold.