Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Make America Great Again

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

  • Darth Holliday
    replied
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post

    Simple minds require simple clichés. It's a common trend.
    Your right, so you are able to understand them....

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    Letter from Marx to Proudhon :

    Without slavery, North America, the most progressive of countries,would be transformed in a patriarchal country .Wipe out North America from the map of the world,and you will have anarchy,the complete decay of modern commerce,and civilisation .Abolish slavery and you will have wiped America off the map of nations .

    And Marx called Lasalle 'that Jewish n... of Lasalle '.

    Marx was also an anti-semite : he wrote 'World without Jews '.
    And, let's not talk about his views about Slaves, Asians, Africans,....

    And, Engels was not better .
    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...
    Last edited by pamak; 15 Jul 18, 15:32.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post
    The bizarrely misplaced attack word "Marxist/neo-marxist" is relatively new in its widespread usage; I start seeing it en mass during the great recession and as an attack word for Obama and leftists from solely right wing inflammatory sources.

    The vast majority of people using it have never even read Marx or have any faculty with political science at all, they merely copy the use in a second-hand way because they have been brainwashed by ideologues to do so.

    In the typical right wing ideologues way, I will now call the Nazi Party, SA and the SS ...Marxist organizations!!!!!

    Hitler was a Marxist! Or "Neo-Marxist!?" is that what's trendy these days??
    Simple minds require simple clichés. It's a common trend.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    This mentions the Communists, not the intellectuals that you mentioned before. The communists are part of the working class. Again, it was only Lenin who believed in an intellectual vanguard!





    We must save this for eternity: Pamak admits that communists are not intellectuals .

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    This mentions the Communists, not the intellectuals that you mentioned before. The communists are part of the working class. Again, it was only Lenin who believed in an intellectual vanguard!



    Read it here from his script with comments

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...d/what-itd.pdf

    Page i

    The proletariat of its own can achieve only ”trade-union con- sciousness.” Accordingly, it was necessary to institute a ”party of a new type” capable of imbuing the working-class with revolutionary consciousness. This is the origin of Lenin’s famous theory of the Party as ”vanguard of the proletariat”. He conceived of the vanguard as a highly centralized body organized around a core of experienced professional revolu- tionaries. Only such a party could succeed in the conditions of illegality prevailing in tsarist Russia at the time.




    PS I saw later your claim that Marx defended slavery. Now, feel free to show the evidence...

    In the meantime

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...oln-letter.htm
    ddress of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America

    Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
    January 28, 1865 [A]




    Written: by Marx between November 22 & 29, 1864
    First Published: The Bee-Hive Newspaper, No. 169, November 7, 1865;
    Transcription/Markup: Zodiac/Brian Baggins;
    Online Version: Marx & Engels Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000.



    Sir:

    We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery...
    Letter from Marx to Proudhon :

    Without slavery, North America, the most progressive of countries,would be transformed in a patriarchal country .Wipe out North America from the map of the world,and you will have anarchy,the complete decay of modern commerce,and civilisation .Abolish slavery and you will have wiped America off the map of nations .

    And Marx called Lasalle 'that Jewish n... of Lasalle '.

    Marx was also an anti-semite : he wrote 'World without Jews '.
    And, let's not talk about his views about Slaves, Asians, Africans,....

    And, Engels was not better .

    Leave a comment:


  • Cult Icon
    replied
    The bizarrely misplaced attack word "Marxist/neo-marxist" is relatively new in its widespread usage; I start seeing it en mass during the great recession and as an attack word for Obama and leftists from solely right wing inflammatory sources.

    The vast majority of people using it have never even read Marx or have any faculty with political science at all, they merely copy the use in a second-hand way because they have been brainwashed by ideologues to do so.

    In the typical right wing ideologues way, I will now call the Nazi Party, SA and the SS ...Marxist organizations!!!!!

    Hitler was a Marxist! Or "Neo-Marxist!?" is that what's trendy these days??

    Leave a comment:


  • Cult Icon
    replied
    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
    Geez, TAG. It's just that damned easy, isn't it?
    you capable of thinking for yourself or do you mindlessly follow everything right wing like he does?

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    Comrade, you are guilty of deviationism, and comrade Emtos will expel you from the marxists international movement .

    Chapter II of The Communist Manifesto , which is the Marxist Bible .
    'The Communists are the most advanced and resolute SECTION of the working-class parties of every country, that section that PUSHES forward all the others '.

    What is the mission of a vanguard ? It is to lead the others and to push them forward .

    Besides, it is obvious that some one who supported and defended slavery had nothing than despise for the workers .

    As most communist leaders, Marx was a bourgeois intellectual, who never worked and who had only contempt for those who used their hands to work .
    This mentions the Communists, not the intellectuals that you mentioned before. The communists are part of the working class. Again, it was only Lenin who believed in an intellectual vanguard!



    Read it here from his script with comments

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...d/what-itd.pdf

    Page i

    The proletariat of its own can achieve only ”trade-union con- sciousness.” Accordingly, it was necessary to institute a ”party of a new type” capable of imbuing the working-class with revolutionary consciousness. This is the origin of Lenin’s famous theory of the Party as ”vanguard of the proletariat”. He conceived of the vanguard as a highly centralized body organized around a core of experienced professional revolu- tionaries. Only such a party could succeed in the conditions of illegality prevailing in tsarist Russia at the time.




    PS I saw later your claim that Marx defended slavery. Now, feel free to show the evidence...

    In the meantime

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...oln-letter.htm
    ddress of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America

    Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
    January 28, 1865 [A]




    Written: by Marx between November 22 & 29, 1864
    First Published: The Bee-Hive Newspaper, No. 169, November 7, 1865;
    Transcription/Markup: Zodiac/Brian Baggins;
    Online Version: Marx & Engels Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000.



    Sir:

    We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery...

    Last edited by pamak; 15 Jul 18, 12:06.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Before you make such claims, it is better if you double check first your beliefs...

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...1867/rules.htm


    Excerpts

    "
    Source: The General Council of the First International 1866-1868. Minutes; Progress Publishers, Moscow, for the Centenary of the First International in 1964, pp. 265-270;
    First published: as a pamphlet Rules of the International Working Men’s Association, London, 1867.

    The Rules and Administrative Regulations of the International Working Men’s Association were approved by the Geneva Congress at its sittings on September 5 and 8, 1866. The Rules were based on the Provisional Rules drawn up by Marx in October 1864, into which some changes and additions were inserted.
    ...

    RULES


    Considering,

    That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves; that, the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule;

    ...


    3. The General Council shall consist of working men belonging to the different countries represented in the International Association. It shall from its own members elect the officers necessary for the transaction of business, such as a president, a treasurer, a general secretary, corresponding secretaries for the different countries, &c.

    "

    You confuse Marx with Lenin, The latter did believe in some intellectual leadership (vanguard) that will guide the revolution since Russia was not a developed capitalist nation and lacked the body of proletariat workers who could lead the way...
    Comrade, you are guilty of deviationism, and comrade Emtos will expel you from the marxists international movement .

    Chapter II of The Communist Manifesto , which is the Marxist Bible .
    'The Communists are the most advanced and resolute SECTION of the working-class parties of every country, that section that PUSHES forward all the others '.

    What is the mission of a vanguard ? It is to lead the others and to push them forward .

    Besides, it is obvious that some one who supported and defended slavery had nothing than despise for the workers .

    As most communist leaders, Marx was a bourgeois intellectual, who never worked and who had only contempt for those who used their hands to work .

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    Geez, TAG. It's just that damned easy, isn't it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cult Icon
    replied
    The roots of conservatism/libertarianism is largely in childhood mental conditioning from organized religion (see theory of constructed emotions), which equips their followers with cognitive biases based on the superiority of their religious doctrine and the need to expand the nuclear family in order to generate growth in the religious business and 10% of their income donated to support the religious institution. The patterns of thought are set in place, and then the person thinks based on them on autopilot. A lot of political beliefs are, at the deepest level, intelligence-free packets of emotion and their subsequent rationalizations.

    The mental attitude of the nazis of hating or demeaning everyone who isn't part of the preferred group shows in conservatism as well.

    the Nazis sought the death of handicapped people and later, the homosexuals, expulsion of "foreign" races, women safely in the breeding pen and the kitchen, and the extermination of the Jews. They also attacked those whose cultural activities opposed their ideology and once in power, sought to ban or imprison them.

    The modern, fanatical elements of conservatism like to denigrate with pretend rhetoric (under the guise of objectivity) groups outside that of the white nuclear family.

    1. minority movements as being inherently parasitic and supporting mentally inferior races ( blacks, hispanics, native americans, etc.) 2. exaggerating the danger and the fear of illegal immigrants 3. paranoid hate and fear of muslims 4. far left and left wing subcultures as being degenerate and destructive to society 5. minorities as being secret operatives for their home countries (although interestingly enough, we have a sudden turn as of late with the left engaging this as well with the russians in their war against trump) 6. Attacking the academics/intellectuals as all left wing propagandists; thus their work is useless or worse than useless.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cult Icon
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Correct! It was the nation (defined in racial terms for the Nazi ideology- fascism did not have such racial overtones) that only mattered. Germany above anything else. By contrast, the communist ideology saw the community in economic and not national terms. If anything they challenged the concept of the nation (Workers of the world unite).
    tbh there's not much use arguing with the politically brainwashed; scholarship and knowledge doesn't matter, only the effort to craft short-term, bogus rhetoric

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    Marxism never wanted equality,Marx despised the working-class, in his ideal world, society would be ruled by the intellectual vanguard, not by the workers .
    Ironically, Marxism has disappeared/is disappearing in the countries where it ruled, where it is ruling :Eastern Europe, Russia, China, NK,..but it is becoming stronger where it never had the opportunity to rule :Sweden where cultural Marxism is ruling, Britain (Corbyn ),Germany where the socialist president was praising Marx and where no one objected ,but where the hell would break loose if the AfD would praise Houston Chamberlain ., US (Sanders ),the Vatican,...
    Before you make such claims, it is better if you double check first your beliefs...

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...1867/rules.htm


    Excerpts

    "
    Source: The General Council of the First International 1866-1868. Minutes; Progress Publishers, Moscow, for the Centenary of the First International in 1964, pp. 265-270;
    First published: as a pamphlet Rules of the International Working Men’s Association, London, 1867.

    The Rules and Administrative Regulations of the International Working Men’s Association were approved by the Geneva Congress at its sittings on September 5 and 8, 1866. The Rules were based on the Provisional Rules drawn up by Marx in October 1864, into which some changes and additions were inserted.
    ...

    RULES


    Considering,

    That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves; that, the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule;

    ...


    3. The General Council shall consist of working men belonging to the different countries represented in the International Association. It shall from its own members elect the officers necessary for the transaction of business, such as a president, a treasurer, a general secretary, corresponding secretaries for the different countries, &c.

    "

    You confuse Marx with Lenin, The latter did believe in some intellectual leadership (vanguard) that will guide the revolution since Russia was not a developed capitalist nation and lacked the body of proletariat workers who could lead the way...
    Last edited by pamak; 15 Jul 18, 04:04.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Let's see:



    But, the Communists never achieved equality in actuality. The USSR was full of class structures, and racial divides. China too. So, the argument made in that paragraph is simply, and completely, wrong.
    Marxism never wanted equality,Marx despised the working-class, in his ideal world, society would be ruled by the intellectual vanguard, not by the workers .
    Ironically, Marxism has disappeared/is disappearing in the countries where it ruled, where it is ruling :Eastern Europe, Russia, China, NK,..but it is becoming stronger where it never had the opportunity to rule :Sweden where cultural Marxism is ruling, Britain (Corbyn ),Germany where the socialist president was praising Marx and where no one objected ,but where the hell would break loose if the AfD would praise Houston Chamberlain ., US (Sanders ),the Vatican,...

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post
    "people's community" (based on race with the "best blood" "most racially valuable" rising to the top (like social darwinist/libertarian thinking)). The subhumans were not part of the people's community.

    Correct! It was the nation (defined in racial terms for the Nazi ideology- fascism did not have such racial overtones) that only mattered. Germany above anything else. By contrast, the communist ideology saw the community in economic and not national terms. If anything they challenged the concept of the nation (Workers of the world unite).

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X