Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Make America Great Again

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • They aren't Left. They're just another version of the Right.
    There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post
      Death of a Nation trailer, complete with "Leftist "nazis and Trump as the future Lincoln

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXPhLXuJ90I

      "Not since 1860 have the Democrats so fanatically refused to accept the result of a free election. That year, their target was Lincoln. They smeared him. They went to war to defeat him. In the end, they assassinated him."
      You realize, Lincoln did not campaign in any southern state. His victory demonstrated that the North combined with the West would dominate the government and isolate the South.
      Last edited by R.N. Armstrong; 16 Jul 18, 06:28.
      Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pamak View Post

        Apparently, you just revealed that you either deliberately try to misrepresent what Marx said about slavery, or that you did not actually bother to find the document from which you brought this partial quote to make the misleading claim that Marx supported slavery.
        So here is the actual link of the letter and the quote which shows that Marx in this case describes PROUDHON's position with which Marx disagrees.


        https://marxists.catbull.com/archive...s/46_05_05.htm

        Bold mine for emphasis

        "...For him, M. Proudhon, every economic category has two sides – one good, the other bad. He looks upon these categories as the petty bourgeois looks upon the great men of history: Napoleon was a great man; he did a lot of good; he also did a lot of harm.

        The good side and the bad side, the advantages and drawbacks, taken together form for M. Proudhon the contradiction in every economic category.

        The problem to be solved: to keep the good side, while eliminating the bad.

        Slavery is an economic category like any other. Thus it also has its two sides. Let us leave alone the bad side and talk about the good side of slavery. Needless to say, we are dealing only with direct slavery, with Negro slavery in Surinam, in Brazil, in the Southern States of North America.

        Direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc. Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that gave the colonies their value; it is the colonies that created world trade, and it is world trade that is the precondition of large-scale industry. Thus slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance.

        Without slavery North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe North America off the map of the world, and you will have anarchy – the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.[*1]

        Thus slavery, because it is an economic category, has always existed among the institutions of the peoples. Modern nations have been able only to disguise slavery in their own countries, but they have imposed it without disguise upon the New World.

        What would M. Proudhon do to save slavery? He would formulate the problem thus: preserve the good side of this economic category, eliminate the bad..."




        Also, what does Marx's antisemitism has to do with what you originally claimed? At that time, most people were antisemites. Heck, you could hear antisemitic statements from US presidents and Evangelicals in the 20th century !
        The point about Marx started when after I described the difference between Fascism/Nazism and Socialism/Communism you made an unsupported claim that Marxism does not support equality because Marx hated the working class. THIS is what I addressed. Apparently, after I used evidence from Marx's writings to refute your claim, you felt the need to start a new discussion regarding if Marx was an antisemite.


        I guess now we approach the point when you will bring quotes to show that Marx was a Muslim...
        You have been proved wrong about the vanguard: your excuse that Communists are not intellectuals is riudiculous .

        The fact that Marx said that the working-classes should be LED by the communists,means that for Marx the working-classes were to stupid to do it themselves, that they needed the intervention of their 'betters ',thus Marx hated the working-classes and had only contempt for them .For Marx, the Lumpenproletariat was only a parasitical group .

        I have given enough proofs for the opinion of Marx about slavery .PS : his claim that capitalism and slavery were inseparable ,is totally wrong .
        It is obvious that someone who labelled a friend 'Jewish n....',because he refused to give him money, is a racist , and one knows the opinion of racists about slavery .
        The racism of Marx was not confined to blacks, but embraced also Mexicans, Asians, Jews,Irish, Slaves, ..only a few people were accepted by Marx as equals .
        This racism and anti-semitism of the Marxists continues even today : one has only to look at the statements of Che Guevara, Hillary Clinton,Sanders jr,....

        He was also a hypocrite : he, the enemy of capitalism, had a servant ,with whom he had also a child .

        Comment


        • Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post

          You realize, Lincoln did not campaign in any southern state. His victory demonstrated that the North combined with the West would dominate the government and isolate the South.


          At the time of his election, candidates did not campaign, they let others do that for them.
          Lincoln wasn't even at the Republican convention where he was nominated.

          Mr. Lincoln tracked the campaign without actually campaigning.
          In most of the South, Lincoln’s name was not even on the ballot so not a single vote could be cast on his behalf in their states.
          http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom....ction-of-1860/

          Lincoln may have won because the North and West could be enough to win the election, but the South was isolated because the 2 candidates that might have been acceptable to them split the vote allowing Lincoln to win in the electoral college.
          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



            At the time of his election, candidates did not campaign, they let others do that for them.
            Lincoln wasn't even at the Republican convention where he was nominated.

            Mr. Lincoln tracked the campaign without actually campaigning.
            In most of the South, Lincoln’s name was not even on the ballot so not a single vote could be cast on his behalf in their states.
            http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom....ction-of-1860/

            Lincoln may have won because the North and West could be enough to win the election, but the South was isolated because the 2 candidates that might have been acceptable to them split the vote allowing Lincoln to win in the electoral college.
            In a standard college-level textbook [which I used in my history classes], notes "One of the consequences of the separate campaigns was that each section gained a false impression of the other. ... The one man who attempted to penetrate the veil that was falling between the North and the South was Douglas, who tried to mount the first nation-wide campaign tour."

            Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post

              TA is in his own bizarro-verse/right wing propaganda land.

              considering that a core enemy of the Nazis were also academics and liberals (also the current enemies of modern conservatives...). When Hitler came to power, he purged and Nazified academia & went after the "liberals" in other spheres of society, including Art.
              Wholesale purges of academia are common to communist movements, as well as fascist. Given that fact, I fail to see how National Socialism's "anti-intellectualism" proves it a rightist movement.

              Unless you're arguing that Leninism's and Stalinism's and Maoism's anti-intellectualism renders those movements rightist as well.
              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

              Comment


              • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                Unless you're arguing that Leninism's and Stalinism's and Maoism's anti-intellectualism renders those movements rightist as well.
                What anti-intellectualism renders are you talking about ?
                There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                  What anti-intellectualism renders are you talking about ?
                  It's not all that hard to find -- just so long as you're looking for it.

                  https://www.nysun.com/arts/lenins-first-purge/60999/
                  https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...921/sep/20.htm
                  https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknF...andurists.html
                  https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-bi...y_2234683.html

                  Let me guess: they didn't teach any of that stuff in Komsomol, did they.
                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                    You have been proved wrong about the vanguard: your excuse that Communists are not intellectuals is riudiculous .

                    The fact that Marx said that the working-classes should be LED by the communists,means that for Marx the working-classes were to stupid to do it themselves, that they needed the intervention of their 'betters ',thus Marx hated the working-classes and had only contempt for them .For Marx, the Lumpenproletariat was only a parasitical group .

                    I have given enough proofs for the opinion of Marx about slavery .PS : his claim that capitalism and slavery were inseparable ,is totally wrong .
                    It is obvious that someone who labelled a friend 'Jewish n....',because he refused to give him money, is a racist , and one knows the opinion of racists about slavery .
                    The racism of Marx was not confined to blacks, but embraced also Mexicans, Asians, Jews,Irish, Slaves, ..only a few people were accepted by Marx as equals .
                    This racism and anti-semitism of the Marxists continues even today : one has only to look at the statements of Che Guevara, Hillary Clinton,Sanders jr,....

                    He was also a hypocrite : he, the enemy of capitalism, had a servant ,with whom he had also a child .
                    Actually, you have been proven wrong about the INTELLECTUAL vanguard you tried to argue that existed in Marx's ideology You failed to show the evidence to support your claim, after I showed you that it was actually Lenin who believed in such intellectual vanguard, , and now you try to change you originalr claim by discarding the "intellectual" part, in order to argue that Marx too believed in some vanguard.
                    The fact that Marx said that the working class should be led by a vanguard of communists AMONG the working class does not indicate in any way that he believe that the working class were too stupid. You just make things up as usual.

                    I also detect your attempt to change your claim from Marx supported slavery, when once more you were caught using misleading quotes which within the context of the paragraph do not support your claim, to Marx was racist, including antisemite. Once again, bypassing the fact that racism was a staple of western societies back then (and apparently even today), and even capitalist English and American gentlemen were racists and continued to be racist even during the 20th century, I fail to see the point you try to make.

                    Because our conversation here was not about Marx; It was about the Marxists-leftist ideologies and how they differ from fascist/nazi ideologies and right wing ideologies in general. And you tried to question my claim that unlike right wing ideologies (including fascism and racism), Marxist theories believed in the objective of classless societies. You did this by claiming instead that Marx supported slavery which was proven wrong when I found the whole paragraph to see the context of the quote you used to advance your fantasies. I also posted Marx's congratulatory letter to Lincoln to farther discredit your point. So once more, you changed the argument to claim that Marx supported racism Even if one makes successfully the argument that Marx was racist , this does not show that his theory supported the existence of classes which was the starting point of our discussion and does not change the fact that the same theory wanted the workers of all the world to unite. At best, one can say that Marx was similar to Jefferson. He preached a theory which he did not sincerely believe. But the does not change the content of the Marxist theory which was the point of our discussion when we compared it to fascism...
                    Last edited by pamak; 16 Jul 18, 13:53.

                    Comment


                    • What does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?
                      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                      Comment


                      • Pamak Pamakovitch was reciting his usual marxist propaganda.He is not replying on the fact that the creator of Marxism , Karl himself, who was lying about a classless society and who said that working for someone else was slavery , was himself paying someone to serve him and to be ready when he had sexual desires .
                        The motto of Marx was : listen to what I am saying, but don't look at what I am doing .

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                          Pamak Pamakovitch was reciting his usual marxist propaganda.He is not replying on the fact that the creator of Marxism , Karl himself, who was lying about a classless society and who said that working for someone else was slavery , was himself paying someone to serve him and to be ready when he had sexual desires .
                          The motto of Marx was : listen to what I am saying, but don't look at what I am doing .
                          My point is to put in the right place basic historical knowledge, and push back against people like you who come to a history forum with partial and misleading quotes to push their agenda. . And I do it by finding evidence and the context of such quotes. I just do not want certain members to feel that they can come here and claim whatever crazy claim comes to their mind without being challenged. On the other hand, I do understand MM's point that my conversation with ljadw is not related to the topic.

                          And yes, Marx believed that working for someone else is slavery. The fact that you do not understand it, is because you cannot grasp the core basis of his philosophy. One of the main questions all philosophers since Socrates tried to answer is what it means to be a human. Different schools gave different answers to what the human nature is and as a result developed a different basis for their theory. Marx believed that what separates us from other forms of lives is our ability to create things through our work and make our thoughts part of the material world. Thus, for him, work is a sacred process and one who loses his ability to be creative through his work losses his humanity. So in his view one could not rent his human nature to a third person.
                          Last edited by pamak; 16 Jul 18, 14:19.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                            Pamak Pamakovitch was reciting his usual marxist propaganda.He is not replying on the fact that the creator of Marxism , Karl himself, who was lying about a classless society and who said that working for someone else was slavery , was himself paying someone to serve him and to be ready when he had sexual desires .
                            The motto of Marx was : listen to what I am saying, but don't look at what I am doing .
                            AH...thank you for that clear and cogent explanation.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                              My point is to put in the right place basic historical knowledge, and push back against people like you who come to a history forum with partial and misleading quotes to push their agenda. . And I do it by finding evidence and the context of such quotes. I just do not want certain members to feel that they can come here and claim whatever crazy claim comes to their mind without being challenged. On the other hand, I do understand MM's point that my conversation with ljadw is not related to the topic.

                              And yes, Marx believed that working for someone else is slavery. The fact that you do not understand it, is because you cannot grasp the core basis of his philosophy. One of the main questions all philosophers since Socrates tried to answer is what it means to be a human. Different schools gave different answers to what the human nature is and as a result developed a different basis for their theory. Marx believed that what separates us from other forms of lives is our ability to create things through our work and make our thoughts part of the material world. Thus, for him, work is a sacred process and one who loses his ability to be creative through his work losses his humanity. So in his view one could not rent his human nature to a third person.
                              Marx's "philosophy" was that of a parasite. He never toiled on farm or in factory, etc. had had the view developed by one whom started supported by family and later his writing and teaching, etc. He did not come from working class nor was a part of it, so had a distorted view.

                              His grasp of history seems to have resulted in some misconceptions as history shows that once civilization starts, humans sift into classes and specialized tasks. Once out of the "hunter-gatherer" stage the class distinction increases. Even in hunter-gatherer tribes there is a bit stratification in their society and they are often more a case of might equal right rather a democracy of sorts. Humans break out in a bell curve when it comes to skills and abilities, not all being equal in that sense, so some are more limited in "creativity" than others, and only in some cases will "creativity" pay and put food on the table. For the bulk of humanity it has been toil and drudge and often under the direction of others.

                              Karl Marx, via Wiki;
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
                              Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                              Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                                Marx's "philosophy" was that of a parasite. He never toiled on farm or in factory, etc. had had the view developed by one whom started supported by family and later his writing and teaching, etc. He did not come from working class nor was a part of it, so had a distorted view.

                                His grasp of history seems to have resulted in some misconceptions as history shows that once civilization starts, humans sift into classes and specialized tasks. Once out of the "hunter-gatherer" stage the class distinction increases. Even in hunter-gatherer tribes there is a bit stratification in their society and they are often more a case of might equal right rather a democracy of sorts. Humans break out in a bell curve when it comes to skills and abilities, not all being equal in that sense, so some are more limited in "creativity" than others, and only in some cases will "creativity" pay and put food on the table. For the bulk of humanity it has been toil and drudge and often under the direction of others.

                                Karl Marx, via Wiki;
                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
                                You can believe whatever you want about Marx and his philosophy. My objective was not to persuade people to accept his philosophy or to believe that Marx was a saint or even a good guy. My point was to show that those who claim that the Marxist philosophy does not espouse a classless society, and those who believe that Marx supported slavery, express views that cannot be backed-up by anything that Marx wrote. This is why I challenged the quotes that appeared in this thread out of context by going to the original source to cite the whole paragraph, and this is why I found additional evidence from Marx's writing to show that he actually hated slavery. The fact that he was against people selling their labor to others does not make him a supporter of pro-slavery. His view was that everybody should be a master of his own labor and creativity and the mere act of selling an important characteristic of human nature creates a corrupt culture in which humans become "things." I do not know if Marx was a romantic fool or a good guy or a lazy intellectual, but I do know the basic tenets of his philosophy, and support of slavery or express hate or contempt for the working class is not part of his writing.

                                PS By the way, many philosophers were "parasites" who often rejected material wealth and depended on their followers for assistance so that they can concentrate in their work. Even Socrates was philosophizing during his feasts with his wealthy friends. His relation to the aristocrat Plato was not that different to the relationship Marx had with Engels.
                                Last edited by pamak; 16 Jul 18, 19:58.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X