|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 12:02:12 GMT
Is transportation to Australia or the American colonies for enforced hard labour over the theft of a loaf of bread really that different from Gulags? The separation between the two is in the practical - overly harsh penalties for theft have one set of results and harsh penalties for trying to grow your own food have another, far more dismal, result. One is vaguely acting (though brutally) somewhat in favour of civilisation and the other is unambiguously tearing it down. Name a Marxist state where harsh penalties were applied for trying to grow food. Also, explain how someone who doesn't own any land, not even the room that he shares with 10 others in a slum tenement, is supposed to grow food. Not many mill workers had that option. They could send their children up chimneys, though, or send their wives out to sell themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 4, 2023 12:11:46 GMT
Where was Marxism imposed? Marxism would have to be imposed..Communism was imposed. Marxism is a form of communism. You are merely trying to peddle a form of communism. Communism always fails. USSR,China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Cuba all failed because precisely they didn’t follow Marx’s blueprint? 😆 Communism isn't meant to be the outcome. Communism is meant to be a temporary measure leading to the ultimate goal of socialism and rule by and for the people. That's the Marxist blueprint. Communism fails every time because once in power the leaders refuse to let go of that power. It's just a different boot on the worker's neck. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 4, 2023 12:22:06 GMT
I think you would have to be careful to separate between the advantages (extra options) provided by the modern world and any benefits that come, regardless of this, from social change itself. having given the issue some thought i have decided on a vague metaphoric metric. My view is, if the benefits of technology and infrastructure created after 1865 were now suddenly removed from us now, our society would fall apart entirely and not function as a society at all. This is ignoring obvious practical issues like skill sets, urbanisation and population levels. Even if we had the skills to provide for survival, our society would have to change entirely to prevent everything falling into chaos. I don't doubt he would say that the Russian system had achieved more. Now, consider that the Russian system wasn't even Marxism. It was a cruel, murderous distortion of it, yet it still came out ahead. Imagine what a real Marxist state would have achieved by that time. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. Let's go back to the list i put in one of my earlier posts because i think it helps There seems to be broadly three workable options 1) Capitalistic social organisation 2) Authoritarian social organisation 3) living in the woods The soviet union seems to me to be (mostly) an example of two. There is no actual Marxist option, just as there is no real option to fly like Peter Pan. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 12:32:37 GMT
I don't doubt he would say that the Russian system had achieved more. Now, consider that the Russian system wasn't even Marxism. It was a cruel, murderous distortion of it, yet it still came out ahead. Imagine what a real Marxist state would have achieved by that time. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. Let's go back to the list i put in one of my earlier posts because i think it helps There seems to be broadly three workable options 1) Capitalistic social organisation 2) Authoritarian social organisation 3) living in the woods The soviet union seems to me to be (mostly) an example of two. There is no actual Marxist option, just as there is no real option to fly like Peter Pan. Can you explain why you think early capitalism wasn't authoritarian. The gammons keep saying that 'communism' is imposed. Were the conditions of early capitalism imposed, or did the people choose to live that way. I'm finding it very hard to believe that people freely chose to live in squalor, work 14 hour days, sell themselves on the streets, die of starvation, etc. Anyone who knows what happened at Peterloo could reasonably conclude that early capitalism was authoritarian. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on May 4, 2023 12:35:40 GMT
And how about those killed by capitalism? How about the millions of people who died of starvation all around the world because food prices were kept artificially high by capitalism? What about the millions of people who died of starvation in the UK? What about turning millions of Chinese people into drug addicts? Imperialist wars fought for markets? Thousands of people hanged for minor offenses against property? What about the widespread prostitution in the UK? The slums, whole families living in a single room, or worse still, separated in workhouses? Explain how early capitalism was any more humane than early communism. Whataboutery . Find me an example of a successful communist country. Find me an example of advanced country adopting communism and flourishing. You can’t . So you obfuscate and wriggle. And he always will flounder. The funny thing is though, he supports the EU, an organisation dedicated to sending Europe the same anarcho capitalist way as the USA. You cannot get a more juxtaposed position. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 12:39:36 GMT
Whataboutery . Find me an example of a successful communist country. Find me an example of advanced country adopting communism and flourishing. You can’t . So you obfuscate and wriggle. And he always will flounder. The funny thing is though, he supports the EU, an organisation dedicated to sending Europe the same anarcho capitalist way as the USA. You cannot get a more juxtaposed position. Can someone be more cowardly than to put someone on block so as to avoid actual debate, while simultaneously posting freely about that person? I wouldn't be at all surprised if that same person took a ghoulish interest in what is happening in Ukraine from the safety of his living room thousands of miles away. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 4, 2023 12:44:10 GMT
The separation between the two is in the practical - overly harsh penalties for theft have one set of results and harsh penalties for trying to grow your own food have another, far more dismal, result. One is vaguely acting (though brutally) somewhat in favour of civilisation and the other is unambiguously tearing it down. Name a Marxist state where harsh penalties were applied for trying to grow food. Also, explain how someone who doesn't own any land, not even the room that he shares with 10 others in a slum tenement, is supposed to grow food. Not many mill workers had that option. They could send their children up chimneys, though, or send their wives out to sell themselves. It's a colourful counter-example to draw attention to the contrast. However, you can see that in the soviet union this is not far from what literally happened. People kept on attempting to grow food with the primary aim to feed their families etc etc and the soviet union resorted to harsher and harsher measures to prevent this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union someone who doesn't own land can't grow food independently in a capitalistic system, they would have to work with / for a landowner to do so. However, in a capitalist system the government is not going to punish such an arrangement - hence the distinction |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 12:52:27 GMT
Name a Marxist state where harsh penalties were applied for trying to grow food. Also, explain how someone who doesn't own any land, not even the room that he shares with 10 others in a slum tenement, is supposed to grow food. Not many mill workers had that option. They could send their children up chimneys, though, or send their wives out to sell themselves. It's a colourful counter-example to draw attention to the contrast. However, you can see that in the soviet union this is not far from what literally happened. People kept on attempting to grow food with the primary aim to feed their families etc etc and the soviet union resorted to harsher and harsher measures to prevent this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union someone who doesn't own land can't grow food independently in a capitalistic system, they would have to work with / for a landowner to do so. However, in a capitalist system the government is not going to punish such an arrangement - hence the distinction The soviet union wasn't Marxism. And early capitalism was just as bad when it came to starving people. Many argue that even late capitalism is responsible for a lot of hunger in the world. You can choose Russia as your example of 'communism' if you like. But we're entitled to point out that early capitalism was just as bad, or even use similar tactics to make the napalming of villagers in Vietnam or the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo examples of capitalism. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 4, 2023 12:53:14 GMT
The separation between the two is in the practical - overly harsh penalties for theft have one set of results and harsh penalties for trying to grow your own food have another, far more dismal, result. One is vaguely acting (though brutally) somewhat in favour of civilisation and the other is unambiguously tearing it down. Name a Marxist state where harsh penalties were applied for trying to grow food. Also, explain how someone who doesn't own any land, not even the room that he shares with 10 others in a slum tenement, is supposed to grow food. Not many mill workers had that option. They could send their children up chimneys, though, or send their wives out to sell themselves. Name a Marxist state. Name a communist state that has passed on power to the people once it has seized the means of production? Every state that has tried has failed to achieve socialism because it stuck at the communist stage and refused to move on. Every state that has tried is still ruled by an elite. It's just a different boot on the worker's neck. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 12:59:55 GMT
Name a Marxist state where harsh penalties were applied for trying to grow food. Also, explain how someone who doesn't own any land, not even the room that he shares with 10 others in a slum tenement, is supposed to grow food. Not many mill workers had that option. They could send their children up chimneys, though, or send their wives out to sell themselves. Name a Marxist state. Precisely. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 4, 2023 13:04:16 GMT
Name a Marxist state where harsh penalties were applied for trying to grow food. Also, explain how someone who doesn't own any land, not even the room that he shares with 10 others in a slum tenement, is supposed to grow food. Not many mill workers had that option. They could send their children up chimneys, though, or send their wives out to sell themselves. Name a Marxist state. Name a communist state that has passed on power to the people once it has seized the means of production? Every state that has tried has failed to achieve socialism because it stuck at the communist stage and refused to move on. Every state that has tried is still ruled by an elite. It's just a different boot on the worker's neck. If such a state were to hand power to 'the people', it would go through a short chaotic period, fall apart and then things would be seized by another elite who attempted to restore order. I feel you are barely an inch from enlightenment now lol |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 4, 2023 13:45:38 GMT
Pol Pot is described as a Marxist-Leninist, now you have included Imperialism. Why? What idiot described Pol Pot as a Marxist? Did he introduce democracy into Cambodia? Well is that not the problem. Marxism as a system is only recognised when you say it is Marxism. Capitalism is only that when there is competition, if the Competition is emasculated then it is not Capitalism. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 4, 2023 13:45:53 GMT
Name a Marxist state. Name a communist state that has passed on power to the people once it has seized the means of production? Every state that has tried has failed to achieve socialism because it stuck at the communist stage and refused to move on. Every state that has tried is still ruled by an elite. It's just a different boot on the worker's neck. If such a state were to hand power to 'the people', it would go through a short chaotic period, fall apart and then things would be seized by another elite who attempted to restore order. I feel you are barely an inch from enlightenment now lol Which is why the best system is a mixed capitalist/socialist state such as those practiced in the Nordic countries and to a lesser degree right here in the UK. I'm not a Marxist, I'm merely pointing out communism was not Marx's ultimate goal. Communism was the means to an end and that end is meant to be a democratic socialism. My opinion is that a pure socialism where everybody is paid the same wage for a day's work is a disincentive which works against society. Why would anyone spend years working to be a doctor when they can earn the same as a bin man? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 4, 2023 13:51:13 GMT
Marxism would have to be imposed..Communism was imposed. Marxism is a form of communism. You are merely trying to peddle a form of communism. Communism always fails. USSR,China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Cuba all failed because precisely they didn’t follow Marx’s blueprint? 😆 Communism isn't meant to be the outcome. Communism is meant to be a temporary measure leading to the ultimate goal of socialism and rule by and for the people. That's the Marxist blueprint. Communism fails every time because once in power the leaders refuse to let go of that power. It's just a different boot on the worker's neck. So I am correct. It has to be imposed and always fails. Thanks for confirming it. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 4, 2023 14:30:36 GMT
Whataboutery . Find me an example of a successful communist country. Find me an example of advanced country adopting communism and flourishing. You can’t . So you obfuscate and wriggle. And he always will flounder. The funny thing is though, he supports the EU, an organisation dedicated to sending Europe the same anarcho capitalist way as the USA. You cannot get a more juxtaposed position. I get it now. Every time the lefties tried to impose communism in the past they took over the post offices, councils, military, etc etc by force . They told the public lies and made dissidents enemies that they destroyed. The former didn’t work but the latter did work. The Lefties know that they don’t have a chance to impose communism by force but they think they have a chance at imposing it by stealth. Hence the attack on establishments like the church , the concept of patriotism, nuclear family etc. They want to break down identities, any identities ….racial, gender, sexuality until they get a homogenous collectivist compliant society. They will do it by lies ( men are women because linguistic theory says they are , white privilege, communists weren’t Marxists chaps.Marxism is going to work) and will destroy dissidents by excluding them from society. I did call them Nazi lite but they are more Stalin/ Mao lite. |
|
