Left is trying again and again to rely on Marx in their thinking.
The costume changes, but the substance remains the same - totally groundless believe that dogmas of Marxism will make them victorious.

They do not heed the reality, that the Marxism is an idiotic belief, not a science as it claimes to be.

ES

Is it possible that the left believes these things because they believe it's right and not necessarily because they believe it will get them elected?

Dont bite! Extrasense is a troll. I suggest locking the thread because theres no point to it.

I don't think the liberals are Marxist. Calling liberal communist is like calling conservatives fascist.

Second Marxism is not a science: is a set of political and moral ideologies, just like Liberalism, Conservatism, Technocratism, ect, are.

no reasoning has been reported to me to lock this thread or any other made by our extremely anti-Marxist comrade. :D

well, it was worth a try.....

Is it possible that the left believes these things because they believe it's right and not necessarily because they believe it will get them elected? My friend, Marxism is a fraud. It is high time to get over it.

I don't think the liberals are Marxist. Calling liberal communist is like calling conservatives fascist.That is true in substance.
But, explain to me this. Communists often call themself "liberals" as a way to hide between liberals. Why liberals do not protest and uncover these pigs in sheep skin?

Marxism is not a science: is a set of political and moral ideologies, just like Liberalism, Conservatism, Technocratism, ect, are. Congratulations! This is the point. But, the idiots on the left claim it is a science.


ES

The political spectrum goes like this
Communist----Liberal----Moderate----Conservative----Fascist.

Liberals are usually sympathetic to communist even though liberals do not believe in disbanding capitalism or in the plausibility of a successful communist state (history has shown that it leads to authoritarian rule.)

This can be liken to how Conservatives are sympathetic to the KKK and neonazis, racist are usually able to hid in the ranks of conservatives. Analogist to liberals and communists.

Also don't be so blatant to call your opponents idiots, except the truth that there is always the possibility that your wrong and that to you opponents your the idiot. Be willing to doubt your self and be open to respecting the difference of opinions of others.

It's possible the left didn't lose, and the election was rigged using electronic voting machines designed by private corporations loyal to the right.

I'm a Marxist ... in more of a Groucho sort of way.

The political spectrum goes like this
Communist----Liberal----Moderate----Conservative----Fascist...
That is not true, there is no one line political spectrum.

no there isn't a one line spectra, there a many dimensions but for the political ideologies that have any power in this country that line basically maps it. Libertarian, Technocrat, Theocracy, ect, if you wanted my to list these and more political ideologies I sure can but be willing to plot things out in more then 3 dimensions.

no there isn't a one line spectra, there a many dimensions but for the political ideologies that have any power in this country that line basically maps it. Libertarian, Technocrat, Theocracy, ect, if you wanted my to list these and more political ideologies I sure can but be willing to plot things out in more then 3 dimensions.

A two axis graph with a clear left and right, and then up and down being authoritarian (more government power and involvement) vs. libertarian (Less government involvement and power) actually does a lot to enhance traditional ideas of left and right politics.


I sense that you are delusional, in a sense that you fancy you know more than me. Get real, baby.

Putting aside your own arrogance in the face of a blindingly stupid assessment of the Democratic party in the US, I don't intend to imply that you are stupid or that I know more about you. However it does seem that you're rather out of touch when it comes to the nature of political thinking on the left. So in that regard I believe it's safe to assume that most people (at least those who make some reasonable attempt at staying informed) have you beat.

Mystech,

There are many more axes you can add if you want.

....
Do you agree that Marxism is not a science?
Do you agree that Marx was certifiable complete idiot?

ES

1. Yes, it not a science
2. No, a delusional dreamer maybe, but idiot... no.

I don't think the liberals are Marxist. Calling liberal communist is like calling conservatives fascist.

And no one on this site would ever call a conservative a fascist! :eek:

madanthonywayne,

perahaps you haven't reviewed as many threads and post here as I have but I have seen it said, more then ones, sorry. :p

The funny thing is, communism works really well with small groups of individuals. However, there is a stipulation. The individuals must either be related, or close enough to consider themselves 'related.'

Take for instance marriage. Most marriages are far more communist than captialist.

Do you agree that Marxism is not a science?

Sure it's not science. Equally as conservatism is not science/terminal truth.


Do you agree that Marx was certifiable complete idiot? ES

Marx was infinitely smarter than you are. He's not perfect human, that's true. So far, in your posts, you've produced nothing except countless repetition "Marx is an idiot". It's the only your argument, the only your fact, ... You are following the conservative paradigm "Repeat BS" as frequently as possible until it will appear as truth. Man you are pathetic. I listen libertarian radio, there are many drone like that in the USA. Drones which has little clue about the idea but who are certain that's wrong and ridiculous. Bring some substance into your stupid flaming posts.

Most marriages are far more communist than captialist.

Not true. >50% marriages fall appart. You have no idea how greedy, nasty, malevolent, hateful people, who loved each other at some point, may become. Those marriages which remains frequently have prenups, separate finances, etc., etc., etc.

/Marx/ a delusional dreamer maybe, but idiot... no. I guess it is my discovery and contribution :)
I have discovered, that anything Marx wrote was a plagiarism, a political hackery or a plainly wrong stuff.
A person that is not mentally ill, and makes an effort of such volume, must get right at least something. He was an idiot in a clinical sense.

ES

communism works really well with small groups of individuals. Take for instance marriage. Most marriages are far more communist than captialist.
Lets assume for a second, that you are right. The attempt to equate the society and a family is absolutely retarded. Idea of economy without money is absolutely retarded. And so on...

A lot of people plagiaries and form ideas that are not original, that does not make them idiots. Since your not the first to propose such things of Marx, does that make you an idiot?

I guess it is my discovery and contribution :)
I have discovered, that anything Marx wrote was a plagiarism, a political hackery or a plainly wrong stuff.

Details please. "Anything" is good proof for mental ward patients. Raise yourself to the next level.


A person that is not mentally ill, and makes an effort of such volume, must get right at least something. He was an idiot in a clinical sense.

Proof please. Somehow, I do not hold your word as the ultimate truth.

extrasense,

Your terminology is highly exaggerative. Idiots aren’t capable of even understand the concepts of communism and capitalism let alone write books on it. Retarded is not being able to put your shoes on the right feet, masturbating in public and a intellect slightly above a chimpanzee! It would be impossible for a retard to propose a similar between family social behavior and social government structure, nor to be able to propose a non-monetary based society, let alone be able to write on a internet forum.

Lets assume for a second, that you are right. The attempt to equate the society and a family is absolutely retarded. [/QUOTE
How so? Please, bring more substance into accusation.
[QOUTE]
Idea of economy without money is absolutely retarded. And so on...

So far you appear as a retarded drone repeating same BS without any kind of proof or even justification. Aren't your fingers tired? Press Ctr-Alt-Del to reload brain, it seems it's hanged up. Or, ask Rush for a job, you'll be an excellent sidekick.

Man, do you have the slightest clue about history? People lived without money much longer than with money.

Do you agree that Marx was certifiable complete idiot?
-- Marx was infinitely smarter than you are --

What a baseless atatement! You want to believe a sick and perverted crook, because he promises you power and importence, that you've never had or will have :D

Do you agree that Marx was certifiable complete idiot?
-- Marx was infinitely smarter than you are --

What a baseless atatement! You want to believe a sick and perverted crook, because he promises you power and importence, that you've never had or will have :D

Sorry, Marx in his writings did not go in circles, endlessly repeating "capitalism is evil, capitalism is evil...." He's tried to prove his point. He managed to produce thousans of pages of coherent writing. Therefore, he's infinetely smarter than some drone endlessly repeating "Marx is an idiot". Ctr-Alt-Del, man.

I don't think anyone of us here believe in Marx, that does not mean we can call him a Idiot. Hitler was not an idiot even though we all very much disagree with is fascist polices, Stalin and Lenin were not idiots (they had there weird quirks though) even though we disagree with communism.

Dixonmassey–
Agreed, >50% of marriages end. However, I'd say they end because marriage is pretty easy to end these days, and mostly stigma free. Shucks, I was hoping to do this without using "ideal," but that's impossible to do when describing any society. Ideally, a marriage would operate communally; and they do, mostly, regardless whether they fall apart or stay together. Actually, I think the ideal behind marriage is in fact communist.
"From each according to his ability, to each according their need."
In a marriage, both partners have roles to preform. Typically the woman bears and rears children, typically the man provides. Biologically, women are more suited to childrearing than men, and men are better suited to hunting. That's the old ideal, anyhow.

Yes, but in these modern days both man and women are equally suited to getting jobs.

Extrasense:


The attempt to equate the society and a family is absolutely retarded.

Not retarded at all. Religion, especially Christianity, is just that– an attempt to relate non-related individuals. Since you don't provide rationale, I don't think I shall either.

Bush is a FACIST DICATOR!!

A lot of people plagiaries and form ideas that are not original, that does not make them idiots. Since your not the first to propose such things of Marx, does that make you an idiot?

Not many people come up with wrong ideas and expand them into a "teaching". Plagiarism and political hackery by Marx are normal. His inabilty to come up with any reasonable concept, while claiming that he has solved every problem of humanity - is idiotic.

ES

Hideki Matsumoto,

I would not go that far with the accusations yet.

extrasense,

Where have you been that for the last 2 centuries, most of what is published out side of the sciences is crap! So many BS ideas that are unreasonable, impratical, illogical have been printed I don't know were to start!

Yes, but in these modern days both man and women are equally suited to getting jobs.

So modern days "overrode" biological differences?

Religion, especially Christianity, is just that– an attempt to relate non-related individuals. Please, do not introject ideas of your own, we have enough on our plate of Marx's :)

ES

dixonmassey,

yes. Human have been very good at overriding their hideously underpowered bodies with technology and social structures.

Hideki Matsumoto, I would not go that far with the accusations yet. and yet is the key word :)
Do you need better proof that Marxism is a refuge of nutcakes and idiots still. :cool:
ES

Dixonmassey–
Agreed, >50% of marriages end. However, I'd say they end because marriage is pretty easy to end these days, and mostly stigma free. Shucks, I was hoping to do this without using "ideal," but that's impossible to do when describing any society. Ideally, a marriage would operate communally; and they do, mostly, regardless whether they fall apart or stay together. Actually, I think the ideal behind marriage is in fact communist.
"From each according to his ability, to each according their need."
In a marriage, both partners have roles to preform. Typically the woman bears and rears children, typically the man provides. Biologically, women are more suited to childrearing than men, and men are better suited to hunting. That's the old ideal, anyhow.

We live in the weird age. Some women may wake their husbands up (it does not matter if he needs to go to work in 3 hrs) just to see that their husbands share the "right amount" of childbearing loads (by staying awake when women are awake). Arguments/silent discontent about task/roles to perform poison majority of the surviving marriages.

extrasense,

I don't see any proof, all you have done is make claims.

and yet is the key word :)
Do you need better proof that Marxism is a refuge of nutcakes and idiots still. :cool:
ES
Did you give any proof? Well, we did not notice. Try again (after Ctr-Alt-Del).

Women DO make .67cents to every man's dollar in America. That tells me that women aren't equal.

Haha, just kidding. But just because you can overcome biology doesn't mean you should. For instance:

Arguments/silent discontent about task/roles to perform poison majority of the surviving marriages.

If men and women had clearer gender/relationship roles, and didn't have to adhere to an absurd idea that everyone's created equal, then there would be a hell of a lot less of this stuff.

It is kind of funny. Women demand equal pay, but they always want the man to pay for EVERYTHING. Men need to make more in order to pay for all the crap they have to buy for women. Moreover, most women want a man who makes more than they do. Being a good provider is part of being a man. Boys play with trucks, girls play with dolls. The sexes are different. This is true from the earliest days of infancy. I know, I've got four kids. Biology is destiny.

Yeah, but have you been on the dating cicuit?
Women be fierce. I hear it used to be the men that were looking for one night stands.

I don't see any proof, all you have done is make claims. My proof is in the fact, that nobody can bring up any Marx quotation with volume, chapter and page, that is not patently wrong, is not a plagiarism or triviality, and is not a political hackery either :)

ES

My proof is in the fact, that nobody can bring up any Marx quotation with volume, chapter and page, that is not patently wrong, is not a plagiarism or triviality, and is not a political hackery either :)

ES

It's not proof, it's BULL SHIT. You are prooving that Marx is an idiot, therefore, YOU should find volume, chapter, page supporting your claim. It's YOUR fucking job. PLUS, give reasons why you think so (simple quoting and telling it's BS is not enough).

So, get to work.

I think it's impossible for a man to be able to type and be so stupid. Therefore, I just think you are purpusefully stirring "Marx is an idiot" circular BS. I don't know why. But whatever the reason is, it's not healthy.

.

I think it's impossible for a man to be able to type and be so stupid. Therefore, .

Hi MasonDixon:
I'm not so sure about that buddy. No offense, but some of that stuff you type up here is pretty damn wacky. But at least you're usually succinct. Not like Tiassa. That boy goes on and on and on and on. Oh my God.

My writing/grammar/spelling suck, no doubt about that, but, at least, I am not going in circles and repeating "Cons sucks", "Cons suck". Give me any text written by cons that is not a patently wrong, is not a plagiarism or triviality. if text is given, I do not say "you see it's stupid, it's no doubt stupid, it's ridiculous, only idiot could write this" as the only my argument.

And, I'm just curious, what stuff I've typed is "pretty damn wacky"?

You are prooving that Marx is an idiot, therefore, YOU should find volume, chapter, page supporting your claim. This statement, if it where from Marx, whold qualify :cool:

I will concede that since Marx's analysis was conceived in a post-feudal nineteenth-century Germany, it has decreasing relevance in the twenty-first century global culture. I will also concede that the use of Marxian theory to create a long list of mostly failed states doesn't do much for the reputation of Marxist theory. That doesn't necessarily indict the theory, however, so much as to illustrate how common it is for totalitarianism to sprout in post-feudal societies.

I must take exception, however, to extrasense's sweeping generality.

One of the components of Marxian theory is the Labor Theory of Value. This theory states that the laborer does not receive full compensation for the value he adds to a product, because the owner of the means of production (and distribution, and marketing, etc) takes part of this value for himself. This constitutes an exploitation of the workers.

I would like to know if anyone, including extrasense, would reasonably disagree with this.

Where Marxian theory begins to stray from a pure scientific analysis, however, is his injection of morality and questionable economic assumptions into his (I think) correct core contribution. To use the example of Labor Theory of Value, Marx implies that any exploitation of the worker is morally indefensible. This sets up any means of redressing this wrong as by definintion acceptable and morally right. He then goes on to provide a series of mathematical equations to bolster his theory (which, I might add, are riddled with very questionable assumptions and sweeping generalities of their own), and a series of social prescriptions to resolve the injustice.

extrasense: do you discriminate between

1. the core statements of Marxist theory
2. Marx's attempts at scientific analysis
3. the programme of social changes Marx recommended
4. the mostly bungled attempts by various societies to implement those changes

or is your sweeping condemnation of Marxist theory simply a mechanism for denigrating anyone on this forum who alludes to the core injustices that gave rise to his work in the first place?

I prefer rugged individualism: you can do what ever you want (within legal limits) men and women should not be suppressed to jobs because of biological factors, if they wish to exceed them they should be allowed. For example if a men or women does not want to have kids and has none suddenly their sexual biology is worthless in any economical and social sense.

extrasense,

He's right: the burden of proof is on you not the other way around.

Also just because we can't produce quotes of Marx doesn't me he is stupid, I could just mean we are ignorant or apathetic.

te yen,

Thanks for very thoughtful message.

I will answer the issues you have raised shortly.

But first, let me state what the incurable problems with Marxism are.
Marxism's claim for being a science is bogus one. Rather it is a ******** bait.

<*> As an economist, Marx did not understand relationships between consumer value, production costs and prices - a blind spot that has destroyed economy of every country that tried his 'theory'.

<*> As a philosopher, Marx did not understand freedom - a blind spot that converted into tyranny every country that tried his 'theory'.

<*> Marx's "materialism" did not understand spirituality - a blind spot that made for the misunderstanding and opression of religion, literature and art in every country that tried his 'theory'.

<*> Marx's "method" of using dialectics to arrive with any arbitrary conclusions he wanted, made inevitable the cult of personality as a substitution for the proof and a way of avoiding scrutiny of the dogma, in every country that tried his 'theory'.

<*> As a political economist , Marx did not understand that intelligencia will not always have huge educational advantage over "working class" - - a blind spot that made his followers to lose that parasitic prominent role they are after.

Conclusion:
Marxists fool themselfs, when they hope this nutty staff is a good
political investment. As Marcin Krol noted, "The mere claim of it being a method does not make it adequate for anything. Marxism is not adequate for anything worthwile; the only thing it is good for is political weapon of mass destruction usable in times of turmoil."


OK, now let me address directly the issues you have raised.

A. "Labor Theory of Value"

Marx's "Labor Theory of Value" is an example of his inability to think straight, and of the propension for making up for that with political hackery.

Capital: "A use-value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it."
This is politically convenient, but absolutely not true. The marxist regimes fail economically because they fail in price regulation area. They total the production cost, add some percentage, and set price this way without _consumer_value_ being reflected in the price thru market demand.

B. Do you discriminate between...

1. the core statements of Marxist theory
2. Marx's attempts at scientific analysis
3. the programme of social changes Marx recommended
4. the mostly bungled attempts by various societies to implement those changes

Whichever way you slice it, the "core statements of Marxist theory" and "Marx's attempts at scientific analysis" where and are pseudoscience that does not meet even minimal standards of logic and thinking.
The "programme of social changes Marx recommended" was totally bogus political hackery, which he fraudulently tried to justify by above pseudoscience.
The "bungled attempts by various societies to implement those changes" miserably failed precizely because the proposal was perverted and wrong, not because it was not implemented well.
In fact, the more precize is implementation, the worse are the results.

ES

Marxism's claim for being a science is bogus one. Rather it is a ******** bait.
If creation and Christian apologetics are "science", everything is science then.

<*> As an economist, Marx did not understand relationships between consumer value, production costs and prices - a blind spot that has destroyed economy of every country that tried his 'theory'.
How exactly he did not understand it? Are you sure that YOU understand it? How so? "Consumer value" sounds as totally absurd meaningless tautology. It does not matter how valuable a good is for a consumer, any consumer (except showing off pricks) would choose to pay as little as possible for the item of the satisfactory quality. That's why Wal-Mart rules. So, according to you, if consumer wants something baaadly, given the choise of 2 identical items, consumer will chose the most expensive item in order to show how valuable the item is for him? There is negligible % of the mentally sick pricks doing so.

<*> As a philosopher, Marx did not understand freedom - a blind spot that converted into tyranny every country that tried his 'theory'.
Countries that have tried his tyranny had bunch of the home grown theorists of the bright future+ horse doses of nationalism (not Marx's dish). Well, democratic governments and "free people" do not understand freedom in the times of war and calamities too. They do not get it completely then. Even in the case of light threats, "Patriot acts" appear. Obviously, Marx wanted to build communism by means of revolution and class war. There is little space for freedom during war, including a "war" to build a bright future. How free were the people who had disagreed with 18th century American separatists a.k.a. founding fathers? Guess and try your invective again.

<*> Marx's "materialism" did not understand spirituality - a blind spot that made for the misunderstanding and opression of religion, literature and art in every country that tried his 'theory'.
Well, the most absurd statement of yours. What is spirituality? Who "understands" it and who can prove that it exists, in the first place? Maybe you? You'll be the first one. Congrats.

Desire of people to fall into sweet delusions should not be mixed with reality (unless some prooves that delusions are real). Considering that religion of children "MIRACULOUSLY" mimic the religion of their parents (in USA, Germany, Israel or Pakistan, it does not matter), Marx reasonably assumed that "spirituality" has earthly origins and serves well to the ruling classes as a mean of opression and "anger management". Marx assumed that children grown without peer pressure to accept Jesus or whomever will most likely not accept Jesus on their own accord. Which came to be true in USSR.

It's parents and environment who opress/indoctrinate young souls into spirituality stuff. How sweet is to be "free" preprogrammed drone. Yeah, right.

Secondly, assumtion that religious spirituallity is a necessary ingridient for being a good writer or artist is quite absurd too. You read very little, it seems.

<*> Marx's "method" of using dialectics to arrive with any arbitrary conclusions he wanted, made inevitable the cult of personality as a substitution for the proof and a way of avoiding scrutiny of the dogma, in every country that tried his 'theory'.
Cult of personality was WELL developed long time before Marx. No convoluted theories were needed except "God's will" and ruthlessness. Secondly, this sentence of yours is absolutely free of logic. So, Marx was born with imprinted set of ideas he wrote bunch of stuff to justify those ideas??? How so? How did conclusions come to his mind? Aliens? Have you been sleeping in Marx's brain to resolve chicken - egg dilemma?

Thirdly, cult of personality was always "unofficial" policy in USSR. No theoretical background of it was created. Officially, equality was always taught even though reality was not quite equal. After death of Stalin, Marxism - Leninism was used (for short time) to denounce Stalin's cult. As any theory or holy book (like Bible), one may use it to justify just about anything.


<*> As a political economist , Marx did not understand that intelligencia will not always have huge educational advantage over "working class" - - a blind spot that made his followers to lose that parasitic prominent role they are after.

Only after intelegentia will invent replicator and warp drive, you may say that "intelligencia" is superior to working class. So far, working class may live (life will be tough but possible) without intelligencia. Intelligencia is not able to exist without working class for long time. Secondly, Marx lived in 19th century. We live in 21st. Things have changed slightly since then. What do you consider intelligencia? College graduates? Well, there are hundreds of thousands of worthless dumbfucks with college diploma. In Marx times, technologies/machines were developed mostly by self-taught experienced workers.
Even today, in Texas, one may become a professional engineer without college diploma. If you consider literators, art folks as intellectia without which working class is doomed, it's total BS. Unfortunately, common Joe may live/create very well without art or culture inspirations.

Conclusion:
Marxists fool themselfs, when they hope this nutty staff is a good
political investment. As Marcin Krol noted, "The mere claim of it being a method does not make it adequate for anything. Marxism is not adequate for anything worthwile; the only thing it is good for is political weapon of mass destruction usable in times of turmoil."
I will paraphrase you: your "method" of using preconcieved ideas to arrive with an arbitrary conclusion you want is a substitution for the proof and a way of avoiding scrutiny of the dogma. Try again. Your Diatribe will not convince anyone except already converted into your faith.

A. "Labor Theory of Value"
Marx's "Labor Theory of Value" is an example of his inability to think straight, and of the propension for making up for that with political hackery.
Invective without arguments = BULL SHIT

This is politically convenient, but absolutely not true. The marxist regimes fail economically because they fail in price regulation area. They total the production cost, add some percentage, and set price this way without _consumer_value_ being reflected in the price thru market demand.
Ignorant Bull shit again. You should change bible reading class.

First, there were not a SINGLE regime operating according to Marx (it does not mean that such a regime would have succeeded though). USSR, China, you name it were dictatorships of bureaucracy (does Marx says something about it in his books?). Working man was totally powerless or even treated as a slave (weird proletarian dictatorship, isn't it?). Power belonged to bureaucracy. Any bureaucracy with near absolute power starts to rot, slow down any progress, eliminates any honest, freethinking troublemakers, etc., etc. Add to the bureaucracy's decay, zero power/initiative coming from working/intellectia class, and you'll get doomed (independently of the economics systems) state.

No mechanisms were found to keep bureaucracy honest, smart, efficient, fresh. Even Stalin's terror did not work well on bureaucracy. Basically, USSR has repeated destiny of tzarist Russia notorious for its inefficient bureaucracy and powerless underclass.

Consumer value, as I've said before, is a meaningless tautological BS. ANY consumer would choose goods of acceptable quality with minimal price. You may delude yourself that "charging whatever market bears" keeps capitalism working. It's just classical rip off (even western consumers dislike it BIG TIME). For some reason almost every more or less livable county has a department fighting "price gouging" a.k.a increase in the consumer value. I wonder why such marxist pigs are allowed to operate in the USA? The answer is simple: profit is a king for a capitalist. How profit is made is of the secondary concern. Creating a shortage + boosting price=increased "consumer value" = increased profit (see Californian energy crisis, Enron, etc.).

The same was in USSR. there was fucking shortage of goods. Not because the price of those goods was not right BUT because 60% of soviet citizens worked in defence plants making tanks, missiles, etc. If you have a shortage and no means to satisfy that shortage, you may boost "consumer value" to the sky, it would not create extra goods.

I think deep down you mean "soviets had no mechanisms to decide what consumer wants". Yes, they did not. Also, they did not give shit what consumers want as long as minimal needs of society were satisfied more or less. How terrible, soviets could not stuff their houses with tonnes of useless junk as their "free" American fellows do.

In two words your consumer value "catastrophe" is just BS. Some industries in the USA operate on the production cost + fixed percentage basis (dairy industry, for example). Have you seen shortage of milk recently?

Whichever way you slice it, the "core statements of Marxist theory" and "Marx's attempts at scientific analysis" where and are pseudoscience that does not meet even minimal standards of logic and thinking.

Invective without arguments = BULL SHIT

dixon..,

I get that you did not understand a word in what I've wrote.
It happens although :D

ES

I get that you don't quite understand what you are writing. It happens although.

extrasense:

My point was that despite your regard for Marxist theory, you undercut your own credibility right off the bat... can't you acknowledge that Marx's asssessment of social and economic conditions in capitalist societies is accurate? You can do this and still make convincing arguments as to the validity of the theory itself and the success or failure of its real-world implementation.

I think you choose to equate the left-wing, liberal, anti-globalization, whatever other label you want to paste on it, with Marxism because it makes for an easier target and can be used to appeal to the western reflexive horror of communism.

What "regard of marxist theory"? You miss the whole point. I do not talk about marxism interpretations or extentions or its role in contemporary world.

I am stating that Marx himself was a complete idiot, as a person.
The "theory" that he articulated, was bogus in every possible respect from the very beginning. It was used by charlatanes to fool innosent victims.

-- can't you acknowledge that Marx's asssessment of social and economic conditions in capitalist societies is accurate? --

So, you want me to lie along?
Nothing can be farther from reality. Marx was wrong in everything, which is consistent with his mental deficiency. This is the simple truth of the matter.

ES

I think for anyone to propose a system as complex as government and social structure, be it right or wrong, likely means s/he is not an idiot. An idiot would not even attempt to comprehend such things let alone write books on it. So extrasense you can say Marx was dead wrong, but you can't say he was a idoit.

Extrasense is the most idiotic troll I have ever seen in the history of Sciforums. You just make flat-out groundless repeat-BS about Marx that you cannot even back up with facts from his works.

So far, you have failed to take these arguments onto a higher level, and thus you fail to grow a brain.

Dixonmassey is right.

I think for anyone to propose a system as complex as government and social structure, be it right or wrong, likely means s/he is not an idiot. An idiot would not even attempt to comprehend such things let alone write books on it.

Look,
about 15 or something, most people feel desire to save the humanity. Normally, after couple of days person finds better things to do, and forgets about it. It is a sign of a mental disorder, if a person can not get over an impossible task.
Mars continued on it whole life, unable to comprehend that his abilities are dismal mismatch to the task.
Calling this idiotism, or inventing special medical terminology, does not change the fact. And why bother. I believe it is a specific case of idiotism after all.

Being a very weak thinker, Marx could not get anything right.
The economy and politics were far above his head.

It is like me writing books about playing chess :)

ES

I think your spend your time questioning his comprehension rather the his arguments. the argument if Marx is a idiot or not is not a valid one, it one of personal opinion, it does not change the truth or falsehood of his claims.

I think your spend your time questioning his comprehension rather the his arguments.

OK,
but if one does not make judgement about the person, one has to refute every argument made by that person separately.
If it is concluded that person is not capable of creating a reasonable concept,
we just reject everything on arrival.

ES

First, I don't think you can get anyone to agree to your belief on Marx, and thus allow you the negate all his arguments.
Second, no matter how stupid or idiotic a person is does not automatically disqualify their claims. If an idiot tells you to not jump off a cliff, I guess the idiot is wrong and you should! Even if a Chimpanzee were to write out the “The Communist Manifesto” you would still have to argue with the points of the manifesto rather then question the intellect of the chimp.

The point is that left is losing and will be losing, as long as it is attached to that rotten, dismal creep Karl Marx.

I don't think the left is attach to Karl Marx.

I don't think the left is attached to Karl Marx.
Let me see... Have you heard left ever denonced Marx? And they were certainly fond of him before Soviet Union demise... And marxism is actually only ideology that has anything nice to say about left...
If left will severe its ties to marxism, it will have nothing by the way of ideas.

This is a conundrum of the left: left can not rely on the discredited marxism, and left can not politically exist without it.

ES

First, just because they don't denounce Marx does not mean they accepting him.
Second, the liberals were not exactly for communism before and after the fall of USSR. American liberals (or democrats) though more socialist then the conservatives still back capitalism, this is why liberals are not Communist/Marxist. If you want a Marxist liberal you need to look at the Communist Party USA or the Socialist Workers Party, the democrats are to conservative even to fall under the title "Marxist" or to accept any of his original unmodified ideologies.

First, just because they don't denounce Marx does not mean they accepting him... American liberals (or democrats) though more socialist then the conservatives still back capitalism, this is why liberals are not Communist... Last is true to the extent. On the theoretical side "liberals" nevertheless just repackage Marxist nonsense. This is why they do not denounce Marx. This is why marxist nonsense is being taught in the Universities... Marxism is dead. The truth is, that it has never been alive in the first place.

ES

I'm a university student for 3 years now and I have never been taught Marxism. True Marx is dead and his complete concept have never managed to be implemented: communism seems to end up with some form of totalitarian bureaucracy rather then socialist utopia, mainly because human greed is to powerful and power corrupts.

But I would not say Liberals repackage Marxism. If you want to say that then it could be equally said that neoconservatives repackage fascism.

-- complete / Marx's/ concept have never managed to be implemented --

There is no such "concept", just a pile of nonsense.
As I said, attempts to implement nonsense doomed to fail.

ES

"There is no such "concept", just a pile of nonsense."

Go on, prove it, you know you want to.

extrasense,

Ok ok I think I see the root of the problem here, you could not give Marx any respect of any sort could you? At the very lest a general term like "concepts" can be used to apply to anything no matter how stupid it is, But to you the semantics must bent to the most insulting and demaning when speaking of Marx.

"There is no such "concept", just a pile of nonsense."
Go on, prove it, you know you want to.
Why, I have already proven "it":
NOBODY IS ABLE TO QUOTE ANYTHING FROM MARX, THAT MAKES ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER :D

ES

have you even read any marx? everything marx says makes sense if you ignore the fact that the average person is highly unreasonable and is extremely irrational. also i dont think you have any understanding of the reasoning behind the welfare state. that is a drastic difference between that and marxism. i suggest you read up a good bit then come back and try to give a little more substance to your arguments besides "marx is an idiot and a crook."

everything marx says makes sense .../vs/... "marx is an idiot and a crook."
Can you bring up an actual quote that " makes sense" ?
No, you can not. Because none exists :D

ES

Can you bring up an actual quote that " makes sense" ?
No, you can not. Because none exists :D

ES

"The worker becomes all the the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an even cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion the devaluation of the world of men. Labour produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity--and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally" Karl Marx "Estranged Labour" (1844)

so tell me where the idiocy is in this one paragraph? I think anyone who you discuss economics with will tell you that this is true. if it wasnt true we wouldnt see the outsourcing of jobs in the US. so now it is your turn. find me something that proves he is an idiot. by the way, when you make it claim it is your obligation to prove it, not every one elses to disprove you. you would make a very poor scientist, lawyer, or anything that takes reasoning skills.

Why, I have already proven "it":
NOBODY IS ABLE TO QUOTE ANYTHING FROM MARX, THAT MAKES ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER :D

ES

We already explained why that not proof. The burden of proof lies on you not us.

... Thanks for providing a quotation! But you've missed all importent first sentence. Here is the actual thing with sentences numbered by me

Marx "Estranged Labour" (1844) :

(1)We shall start out from an actual economic fact.

(2)The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and extent.
(3)The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he produces.
(4)The devaluation of the human world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of things.
(5)Labour not only produces commodities; it also produces itself and the workers as a commodity and it does so in the same proportion in which it produces commodities in general.

***

Everyone of Marx sentences is glaringly incorrect, here is why:

[1] Wrong, since 2 through 5 are not "fact", instead all they are simply not true

[2] Wrong, instead the worker becomes more valuable and is being paid better the more he is productive

[3] Wrong, the price of workforce actually increases, because of the growing need for better educated and skilled labour

[4] Wrong, there is no "devaluation of human world", considering that the 3 is incorrect.

[5] Wrong, the rate of the human reproduction of workforce has no connection to the "proportion in which it produces commodities in general".

CONCLUSION:

This example perfectly confirms my point: ALL Marx's writings are pure demagogery and nonsense :D


ES

Why, I have already proven "it":
NOBODY IS ABLE TO QUOTE ANYTHING FROM MARX, THAT MAKES ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER :D

ES

"Extrasense," guess what? You should have presented an argument first because you made those objectionable statements in the first fucking place.

But now it's been done anyways. And you cannot argue against the validity of the excerpt.

It is apparently senseless to get involved in any kind of debate with extrasense over Marx. He has a bloody great axe to grind, and is not interested in rational discussion.

I tried earlier in this thread. I tried to get extrasense to acknowledge that there were some points that Marx was correct on - while AGREEING with (him/her) on the overall validity of Marxist theory. No go. extrasense would not or could not do anything except make sweeping condemnations. This is not calculated to produce rational discussion, only meant to beat down opposition with a storm of abuse, unsubstantiated claims and incomprehensible statements. I, for one, have no interest in playing that game.

Wow. I didn't really think that this meaningless flame thread would grow that long.
Anyway is there any big sociological/ecological theory for anything that was inequivocally proven correct? I doubt that.
Darn, now I fed the troll. Stupid me.

I understand, some do not like to lose argument, or election for that matter :)

I'm a university student for 3 years now and I have never been taught Marxism... So, how did you manage to get know it?

So, how did you manage to get know it?
being aware of the world?

being aware of the world? Which usually means watching TV :)

no not really, I think I first learn of Marx from the Prologue of "Animal Farm" back in oh 6th grade.

here are some Marx quotes though:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.html

Thanks for providing a quotation! But you've missed all importent first sentence. Here is the actual thing with sentences numbered by me

Marx "Estranged Labour" (1844) :

(1)We shall start out from an actual economic fact.

(2)The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and extent.
(3)The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he produces.
(4)The devaluation of the human world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of things.
(5)Labour not only produces commodities; it also produces itself and the workers as a commodity and it does so in the same proportion in which it produces commodities in general.

***

Everyone of Marx sentences is glaringly incorrect, here is why:

[1] Wrong, since 2 through 5 are not "fact", instead all they are simply not true

[2] Wrong, instead the worker becomes more valuable and is being paid better the more he is productive

[3] Wrong, the price of workforce actually increases, because of the growing need for better educated and skilled labour

[4] Wrong, there is no "devaluation of human world", considering that the 3 is incorrect.

[5] Wrong, the rate of the human reproduction of workforce has no connection to the "proportion in which it produces commodities in general".

CONCLUSION:

This example perfectly confirms my point: ALL Marx's writings are pure demagogery and nonsense :D


ES

you are incorrect in your assertions. the worker does not become more valuable. you dont seem to understand that comparatively to the goods the worker produces and the money he makes for the employer, his value becomes. it is basically saying that tthe gap in wealth becomes larger and larger between the owners and the workers. this is undeniably true.

comparatively to the goods the worker produces and the money he makes for the employer..

Did Marx said "comparatively"? NO. You are trying to correct him.

Your assertion is also not true, but it is an another issue.

The Marx quote you've suggested is a bogus and nonsense.

Try another one, or admit that I've correctly diagnosed the twit :D

ES

So extrasense are you saying that any quote of Marx that we cite would be idiot?

Why, I have already proven "it":
NOBODY IS ABLE TO QUOTE ANYTHING FROM MARX, THAT MAKES ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER :D


Ahhh, so you do live in your own little world. People have quoted Marx at you for a while, but all you can do is disagree without giving any reason why, and when they start arguing with you, you ignore them.

Read this, about marxist fraud:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041105.shtml

e :D s

extra sense, regardless if the word comparatively is there or not, the statement still holds true. it is the same thing as inflation. you would agree taht inflation is something that is true wouldnt you? you havent proved anything. if there is one thing that marx is guilty of it is being too much of an idealist and thinking too highly of mankind's ability to think beyond their own immediate greed and gratification.

People are asking me to move this to the cesspool, convince me otherwise extrasense.

i agree, this thing needs scrapped. there is definitely trolling going on

People are asking me to move this to the cesspool, convince me otherwise extrasense. "People" can not handle fair discussion, so they want the issue go away. It will not disappear in life, and left will just go ahead and self destruct even more, as it is unable to handle the truth.

ES

I hardly think an argument that revolves around calling Marx an idiot is fair discussion. A argument against Marxism would be better. An argument against liberalism would be best if that is your ultimate objective. A argument attacking Marx to attack Marxism to attack liberals is convoluted and illogical.

Also I see no proof here to discuss. If we state quotes you will make up some logic as to why those quotes are wrong and a sign of idiocy, and a endless loop will occur. Neither side would be able to argee or learn.

Cesspool, please.

But then all my posts here will go away, and I'll be so many posts farther from 1000!
::sad face::

Hey, I'm around your count, so it's not too bad.

The fact is that most of us don't want irrational trolls around Sciforums.

I hardly think an argument that revolves around calling Marx an idiot is fair discussion. A argument against Marxism would be better. An argument against liberalism would be best if that is your ultimate objective. A argument attacking Marx to attack Marxism to attack liberals is convoluted and illogical.

Well, what I do not get yet, why this discussion attracts marx defenders, and no marx detractors :D .
What % of the population have positive opinion of Marx?

I did not touch on the liberals at all. Use of Marxism is one streak of their bad karma. Whould you like to hear, what I have to say about liberals?

Liberals are cowardly control freaks and aspiring parasites, misrepresenting themself instead as caring about freedom and the little guy

A fat chance liberals will agree with this truth!

ES

Conservatives are cowardly control freaks and aspiring parasites, misrepresenting themself instead as caring about freedom and the little guy

A fat chance conservative will agree with this truth!

Conservatives are cowardly control freaks and aspiring parasites, misrepresenting themself instead as caring about freedom and the little guy A fat chance conservative will agree with this truth!

See, you are trying to parasite on my message. A good guess you are a lib :D

I’m not a Marx supporter; I just don’t think it’s a very intellectual argument to say Marx was an idiot. A argument is constructed with evidence, and the more evidence the strong the claim, you would have to prove a lot for this claims. Almost nothing in the world is definitive and when you make definitive claims you are almost always wrong.

So let me teach you how the make a damming logical argument: Lesson 1:

See, you are trying to parasite on my message. A good guess you are a lib
This is an ad hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html), rather then counter his claims you simple attacked him. This does not prove you or him right and will likely lead to a flaming contest of two members spiting on each other. Instead make a counter argument on why conservatives are not those things. It would have bee best to have made a argument on why liberals were those things.

..It would have been best to have made a argument on why liberals were those things.. OK,
Liberals are cowardly control freaks and aspiring parasites, misrepresenting themself instead as caring about freedom and the little guy

Liberals support dictatorships, because they are afraid of people thinking for themself and acting free.

Liberals support big media domination, because they are afraid of people thinking for themself and want to control everybody's thinking.

Liberals support Marxism, because they like its promise of ability for them to parasite, under disguise of the caring for the small guy.

e :) s

wow, I did not know liberal support dictators, or big media or Marxism, can you show how they support these things?

Well, as to support of dictators, look at their attitudes to Castro, or Sandinistas, or Stalin in the past.

Really? JFK was not supportive of Castor, nor were democrats supportive of Stalin or Sandinistas. Republcains were quite supportive of Saddam Hussian in the early 1980's and of the Saudi royals to this day.


As to big media ABCNBCCBCCNN, it is simply run by the liberals and the rest of the left. and FOX News and Sinclair? the 1996 Telecom Act was approve of more by republicans then by democrats, this act allowed for the mass media merging seen today.


As to liberal support for Marxism, you do not need to go any further than this thread itself :) I don't see any proof of Liberals in general supporting Marx, we may not beleive he is a idiot but that not support.

Troll threads are so entertaining.