//http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10356298/Memo-to-Ed-Miliband-My-Marxist-father-was-wrong-too.html
QuoteI saw that his concern for the fate of humanity in general was inconsistent with his contempt for the actual people by whom he was surrounded, and his inability to support relations of equality with others. I concluded that the humanitarian protestations of Marxists were a mask for an urge to domination.
QuoteI concluded that the humanitarian protestations of Marxists were a mask for an urge to domination.
Sounds like the Tea Party and Eve for the same reason. :roll: Solitary
I think he should just extend that criticism to include 95% of political movements everywhere.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"//http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10356298/Memo-to-Ed-Miliband-My-Marxist-father-was-wrong-too.html
QuoteI saw that his concern for the fate of humanity in general was inconsistent with his contempt for the actual people by whom he was surrounded, and his inability to support relations of equality with others. I concluded that the humanitarian protestations of Marxists were a mask for an urge to domination.
I don't think for a moment that Karl Marx's intent was domination. By and large the whole idea of the philosophy was to ensure that everyone got what they needed and make the society as a whole responsible to ensure that end. Marx concluded that individual goals were selfserving and a detriment to others, not directly but indirectly. He surmized that wealth is accumilated into the hands of the very few and denied even sustainable existence for the masses, even though the wealth accumilated was obtained by the efforts of the masses.
Emotion was of no consequence as it did not produce anything and actually reduced production and therefore should be excluded from the equation.
Now I have no idea about your father or your real world existance but Marxism is a philosophy that has never ever been practiced and is probably impossible to do so.
Marxism was explicitly about increasing the centralization of control of the economy, on that central point it was quite faithfully executed.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Marxism was explicitly about increasing the centralization of control of the economy, on that central point it was quite faithfully executed.
Source please.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Marxism was explicitly about increasing the centralization of control of the economy, on that central point it was quite faithfully executed.
Not exactly.
It wasn't about centralizing control of the economy. The ideal was to make sure that all benefitted from the efforts of all. A key componate was centralize control. The centralized control was achieved but the ideal of benefiting the masses was vacated.
My dad was a car carrying communist. Marx wanted a democratic (the word means "rule of the people" in Greek) society run by ordinary people and where everything is shared equally. He wanted workers to unite across national and religious boundaries in order to bring this about ("Workers of the World Unite"). The only way he saw of bringing a socialist society into being would be to overthrow capitalism.
The working class is the force in society which can do this, as we make all the money for the bosses - therefore we have to be organized into political parties and trade unions so that we can fight back. As you can see now how the wealth is distributed Marx was correct in theory. Solitary
From the 2nd fucking chapter of the Manifesto:
QuoteThe proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
The problem is, if "the state" could turn against the Bourgeoisie and the monarchs, then obviously it could just as easily turn against the proletariat. Which it ended up doing.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"From the 2nd fucking chapter of the Manifesto:
QuoteThe proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
The problem is, if "the state" could turn against the Bourgeoisie and the monarchs, then obviously it could just as easily turn against the proletariat. Which it ended up doing.
Nice cherry picking. You didn't include why they would centralize control and or how and to whom they would distribute the wealth. So you left out the most important part of the philosophy.
And the moment they turned against the proletariat they left marxism and communism.
Workers of the world unite!
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "zarus tathra"From the 2nd fucking chapter of the Manifesto:
QuoteThe proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
The problem is, if "the state" could turn against the Bourgeoisie and the monarchs, then obviously it could just as easily turn against the proletariat. Which it ended up doing.
Nice cherry picking. You didn't include why they would centralize control and or how and to whom they would distribute the wealth. So you left out the most important part of the philosophy.
And the moment they turned against the proletariat they left marxism and communism.
I'm pretty sure that Marx was never really that clear on what the state would do, either. And if the workers were that good at keeping the Communists in line, I doubt that Stalin would have been able to ban worker democracy the way he did.
Marxism means "Anything that right-wingnuts don't like".
Marxism and "everything that right-wingers don't like" are a lot more connected than your glibness would imply. (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory#In_social_theory)
I nver got to discuss these things with my father because Marxists murdered him.
Quote from: "sab"I nver got to discuss these things with my father because Marxists murdered him.
Are you serious? Are you sure they weren't Marxist in name only? Anyway, sorry to hear that, if true, no matter who did it. :evil: Solitary
No true [s:19257ept]Scotsman[/s:19257ept] Marxist would have killed people so arbitrarily!
Quote from: "Solitary"Quote from: "sab"I nver got to discuss these things with my father because Marxists murdered him.
Are you serious? Are you sure they weren't Marxist in name only? Anyway, sorry to hear that, if true, no matter who did it. :evil: Solitary
I have no interest in people who claim they weren't 'real Marxists'. they were the Soviet Back Marxists who took over my country and butchered our people. The called themselves the Workers party. They ruled until 1991 and their evil bastard leader still lives in Zimbabwe. The Man who killed my father and 3 of his brothers still lives because Robert Mugabe is the friend of tyrants.
Now it isn;'t Communists who butcher my people -it is Islamists.
Quote from: "sab"I have no interest in people who claim they weren't 'real Marxists'. they were the Soviet Back Marxists who took over my country and butchered our people. The called themselves the Workers party. They ruled until 1991 and their evil bastard leader still lives in Zimbabwe. The Man who killed my father and 3 of his brothers still lives because Robert Mugabe is the friend of tyrants.
Now it isn;'t Communists who butcher my people -it is Islamists.
Dogmatists seem to be behind most atrocities.
Marxism is a religion. When you don't have trade to serve as a way for people to interact, you basically default to religion.
Quote from: "Mister Agenda"Dogmatists seem to be behind most atrocities.
=D>
In the old days it could just be about money- slavery and the Congo come to mind. Now it is almost always about idealism.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Marxism is a religion. When you don't have trade to serve as a way for people to interact, you basically default to religion.
Ill agree with that. Marxists behave just like the religious. they lie, refuse to see anything that doesn't fit with their world view, call people out as 'heretics', have purges of the impure, holy books etc etc etc.
Quote from: "sab"Quote from: "zarus tathra"Marxism is a religion. When you don't have trade to serve as a way for people to interact, you basically default to religion.
Ill agree with that. Marxists behave just like the religious. they lie, refuse to see anything that doesn't fit with their world view, call people out as 'heretics', have purges of the impure, holy books etc etc etc.
6,000+ years of recorded history and humanity is still the same with their inhumanity and superstitious nonsense. :cry: :roll: :evil: Solitary
I'm starting to think that trade is the only thing that reliably engenders peace between people. An ideology based on uniformity will generally lead to competition to see who is equallest. And a system based on legalistic social designation leads to war and Game of Thrones BS.
Trade is a very important part of promoting world peace.
And I know that class conflict sucks and is retarded, but is there a way to actually get rid of it? One of the main selling points for both fascism and communism is the idea that their system will resolve class conflict, which I think is ultimately unfeasible. It also explains why they used so much violence, it puts a lot of stress on the system walking against the wind.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"And I know that class conflict sucks and is retarded, but is there a way to actually get rid of it? One of the main selling points for both fascism and communism is the idea that their system will resolve class conflict, which I think is ultimately unfeasible. It also explains why they used so much violence, it puts a lot of stress on the system walking against the wind.
My FAther was murdered because he owned a farm by the facking marxists and their 'class consciousness'. Marxists are the most evil force in the world. Western academics who support Marxism should be kicked out of their tenured posts.
Any economic system which requires a GULag to stay in power is probably pretty good at fucking the masses in other ways, too.
I'm a leftist, not a Marxist, but I completely disagree with the premise of the quote in the OP. Just because you have contempt for people in general does NOT render your positive wishes for them moot. I just can't even fathom how stupid you would have to be to think that. If I have a sense of morality that is based on equal well-being and reduction in harm for all, and I dislike people, it simply means that I value their well-being in the sense that I logically understand that I possess the same recollection of well-being and would want the same support passed on to myself. Right-wingers are fucking delusional to try and twist such a concept into a motive of control. It's funny because leftists KNOW how right-wingers think, but right-wingers only think they know how leftists think. It's not about control, it's about analyzing needs and wants logically, without any attachment or bias. I'll take the advice of someone detached, cold, and calculated rather than someone who has firsthand experience. Firsthand experience correlates with emotional bias, not a tendency towards correctness.
Really, how much brain power does it take to know what you don't want done to you shouldn't be done to other sentient creatures? You don't need religion for that, just empathy that all higher forms of animals posses accept people of faith that are zealots. :roll: Solitary
Quote from: "sab"Trade is a very important part of promoting world peace.
Fair trade.