[Virgil]

BartSimpson wrote:

Virgil wrote:

This is a form of socialisme, but I wouldn't call it communisme. Material isn't collected by the government and then equally redistributed as it would be ideally in a communist system.

You need to read Marx again. Ideally, there is no government in a 'perfect' Communist system.

Lenin bemoaned the necessity of a central economy that defied true Marxism.

I was referring to a more contemporary definition of communisme, my mistake.

[Mustang1]

Tman1 wrote:

toothpick wrote:

Marx is the opiate of the stupid.

I wouldn't say that. Just because the western hemisphere considers his ideas the epitome of evil, doesn't make his works *stupid*. Stupid is stupid but ignorance is another thing.

I agree. I guess simple subjective remarks are sufficient for a few here. I’d like to know why “he is/was an opiate of the stupid”?

[TheFoundersIntent]

Mustang1 wrote:

TheFoundersIntent wrote:

Marx was an asshole.

Why?

Millions died based on his foolish philosophy. BTW, Marx was a left winger who was against the establishment (like the 60's crowd), who thought the problem with the current basis of society (his time) was that it was based on religious tenets. Communism fails because of the nature of people. It's stupid to its core.

[Mustang1]

TheFoundersIntent wrote:

Mustang1 wrote:

TheFoundersIntent wrote:

Marx was an asshole.

Why?

Millions died based on his foolish philosophy.

Nope. Millions died based on individual’s and state’s interpretation and incomplete application of Marxism. Lenin certainly didn’t implement full Marxism and where exactly does Marxism advocate the actions of Stalin – both, by the way, ideologically differ from Marx, hence the concepts of Leninism, Stalinism and Trotskyism and Maoism, for that matter. In fact, totalitarianism was the culprit in the USSR’s case as was Stalin’s paranoia and cruelty.

Besides, why is it “foolish”?

Quote:

“BTW, Marx was a left winger who was against the establishment (like the 60's crowd), who thought the problem with the current basis of society (his time) was that it was based on religious tenets”

BTW, Marx was a Left Hegelian (originally) who was against the free market system of the Industrial Age. He actually thought the problem wasn’t religion (it was a façade) but alienation, which was compounded by the market system through its reversal of human priorities.

Quote:

“Communism fails because of the nature of people”

Communism failed because cotemporary social and political changes altered its revolutionary aspect moot. Its transitional measures, however, do exist today – examples include a heavy progressive or graduated income tax, centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank, the centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state and free education for all children.

It’s hardly a failure.

Quote:

“It's stupid to its core”

That’s just your opinion – care to elaborate?

[stratos]

" Marx was a Left Hegelian"

What is/was a Hegelian?

[sandorski]

TheFoundersIntent wrote:

Mustang1 wrote:

TheFoundersIntent wrote:

Marx was an asshole.

Why?

Millions died based on his foolish philosophy. BTW, Marx was a left winger who was against the establishment (like the 60's crowd), who thought the problem with the current basis of society (his time) was that it was based on religious tenets. Communism fails because of the nature of people. It's stupid to its core.

Millions have died for a number of Philosophies. Christianity, Islam, and even Capitalism being amongst some of the other Philosophies that have killed Millions.

That doesn't make Marx an "asshole" anymore than it makes Jesus an "asshole".

[stratos]

sandorski wrote:

TheFoundersIntent wrote:

Mustang1 wrote:

TheFoundersIntent wrote:

Marx was an asshole.

Why?

Millions died based on his foolish philosophy. BTW, Marx was a left winger who was against the establishment (like the 60's crowd), who thought the problem with the current basis of society (his time) was that it was based on religious tenets. Communism fails because of the nature of people. It's stupid to its core.

Millions have died for a number of Philosophies. Christianity, Islam, and even Capitalism being amongst some of the other Philosophies that have killed Millions.

That doesn't make Marx an "asshole" anymore than it makes Jesus an "asshole".

Ok thats it someone spiked my drinks with drugs.... Sandorski just made sense to me and OMG I agree with his above statement.

[BartSimpson]

Religion may be the opiate of the masses, but Marxism is the opiate of the asses.

[sandorski]

stratos wrote:

sandorski wrote:

TheFoundersIntent wrote:

Mustang1 wrote:

TheFoundersIntent wrote:

Marx was an asshole.

Why?

Millions died based on his foolish philosophy. BTW, Marx was a left winger who was against the establishment (like the 60's crowd), who thought the problem with the current basis of society (his time) was that it was based on religious tenets. Communism fails because of the nature of people. It's stupid to its core.

Millions have died for a number of Philosophies. Christianity, Islam, and even Capitalism being amongst some of the other Philosophies that have killed Millions.

That doesn't make Marx an "asshole" anymore than it makes Jesus an "asshole".

Ok thats it someone spiked my drinks with drugs.... Sandorski just made sense to me and OMG I agree with his above statement.

tosses vial behind the couch

uhh, what?

[BartSimpson]

Mustang1 wrote:

Communism.. (is) hardly a failure.

Let's see, an estimated 100 million people in Communist countires died from causes other than war during the 20th Century. Several hundred thousand more, perhaps up to five million more, have died from government induced famine in North Korea since the turn of the century. Currently, China is openly and forcibly aborting millions of children every year.

From the point of view of someone who supports zero-population growth I would suppose that Communism is a raging success.

[ShepherdsDog]

Seeing as Communism has never been effectively applied in any society, as of yet, we can't really know. Marx hoped that altruism would be enough to make communism work as a system. Sort of a secular Christianity.

However, seeing that altruism is not enough of a motivating factor for most people (currently) we'll never see the proper implementation of a communist system.

Right now WIIFM (what's in it for me?), to use a term coined by Warren Buffet, is the best motivating factor for human behavior. That is why free market capitalism is currently the best system going. It does the most good for the most people. If Karl Marx had of read Adam Smith he may have come up with a better system for the time.

[Dayseed]

BartSimpson wrote:

Does it bother you that both of Orwell's books directly denounced Communism and socialism?

BartSimpson you failed intellectual. Where does EITHER of those two books directly denounce communism?

Remember, you're talking about George Orwell here.

Here's a quote from his essay, "Why I write"

George Orwell wrote:

“The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.”

This is the very same George Orwell that was shot during the Spanish Civil War fighting AGAINST Fransisco Franco's Nationalist armies.

If you believe that Animal Farm or 1984 are denounciations of Communism, I say you are wrong and you haven't read or understood the books. Somewhere, the ghost of Eric Blair is taking a cosmic piss on your head for your ignorance.

[Virgil]

BartSimpson wrote:

Mustang1 wrote:

Communism.. (is) hardly a failure.

Let's see, an estimated 100 million people in Communist countires died from causes other than war during the 20th Century. Several hundred thousand more, perhaps up to five million more, have died from government induced famine in North Korea since the turn of the century. Currently, China is openly and forcibly aborting millions of children every year.

From the point of view of someone who supports zero-population growth I would suppose that Communism is a raging success.

He spoke of communisme in terms of Marxisme and it's effect on modern society, if you'd read his entire post.

Quote:

Posted: 2007-04-04, 15:56:24 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seeing as Communism has never been effectively applied in any society, as of yet, we can't really know.

-Shepherd's dog,

I disagree. The Inka were essentially communist, and they completely eliminated hunger and poverty in their society.

Quote:

However, seeing that altruism is not enough of a motivating factor for most people (currently) we'll never see the proper implementation of a communist system.

Right now WIIFM (what's in it for me?), to use a term coined by Warren Buffet, is the best motivating factor for human behavior. That is why free market capitalism is currently the best system going. It does the most good for the most people. If Karl Marx had of read Adam Smith he may have come up with a better system for the time.

How interesting, you state that what makes an effective economic system is how it applies to the mentality of the people, if I interpret correctly.

[ShepherdsDog]

There is a big difference between having a communal society and a communist system. A kibbutz follows a communal system, as do Hutterites and the Amish, yet I would have to say that none of these follow Marxist idealology.