Marxism 101: Socialism and Communism

[Baruch]

I'd like to hear more about the bolded.

This is all about the restoration of monarchism and absolutism, as envisaged circa 1900.

The Papacy assigned half the world to Spain and the other half to Portugal, in 1498, at the Treaty of Tordesillas:
http://theageofdiscovery.wikispaces.com/The+Treaty+of+Tordesillas

Per the absolute monarchism the Catholic Church has called for absolute monarchy, under the Pope, who rules the Cardinals as a dictator, and who rules the secular rulers (who are also absolute monarchs) as a dictator.  Hence the Counter-Reformation, which continues until this day ... to undermine the Enlightenment, including all republics and all democracies.  The Popes since 1870, has implemented the final plan, because of the existential threat that France was to the Papal States in that year.  WW I was a plan by the Catholic countries to conquer the world, because the British and French empires were too powerful.  Germany/Austria/Italy were the Central Powers (Italy failed to carry out their role, and betrayed their allies).  In WW II; Portugal, Spain, Italy, Austria and Germany were allies again, with Italy staying in the group.  And side kicks in Latin America.  The Russian Revolution was another existential threat, that continues until this day (hence the attempt to use Ukraine to invade Russia).

[Gilgamesh]

[Baruch]

Political-economics has to take into account, how people actually are ... not because of Rousseau or Hegel or Marx (who stole from the other two) ... then you realize that people are shits anyway, and the only way to motivate them is with carrots and sticks, like the donkeys they are.

[etienne]

Well, there's never actually been a communist society in modern times, they've all been or are socialist.  Your 2nd pic describes dog eat dog capitalism perfectly.  But, I get it, you love yerself some capitalism--as long as you dont have to do the work. ;)  You really dont have to be on this thread, just a hint, ;)

[Gilgamesh]

Well, there's never actually been a communist society in modern times, they've all been or are socialist.  Your 2nd pic describes dog eat dog capitalism perfectly.  But, I get it, you love yerself some capitalism--as long as you dont have to do the work. ;)  You really dont have to be on this thread, just a hint, ;)

I'd rather be dead than red.

[etienne]

I'd rather be dead than red.

May happen sooner than you think.  Enjoy your day.

[etienne]

Well, if nothing else, this thread is proving what I suspected all along is that Western atheists are generally capitalists and are generally unable, like non atheists, to apply reason to socioeconomic issues.  Or, more precisely, they don't like or believe in the "equality" of which they preach all the time. 

If any of you think like Sam Harris, who is waiting for science to find the ""economic gene" or discover neuro pathways in the brain indicative of "inherent correct economics", you will die waiting, because it isnt' going to happen like that.  We already have socioeconomic science, it's called "Marxism". Socioeconomics are inventions of human beings in material relations to each other in the material world.  Historical Materialist theory IS, therefore, scientific.

Sam Harris, Dawkins, Krauss, etc, are all dyed in the wool capitalists anyway.  Why?  Because they are petit bourgeoisie, they dont do any of the "heavy lifting" in the world.  Never get their hands dirty.  They benefit from their cushy lives.  Dont have to pick their own tomatoes in the blazing sun, 14 hrs a day for 20 bucks.  Has Sam Harris ever worked a day in his life?  No.  He's Hollywood, his mom a movie producer and dad an actor. He went to Stanford and took some "time off" on a vision quest in India or something.  Now he writes atheism as if he" discovered" it. He's working the "intelligensia" circuit, waiting for the next 'big discovery' thats going to 'change the game' toward 'progress'.  Walmart, now there's some 'progress' for you.  If the electrical grid ever goes down, you'll see some "progress".  Thats all it would take to show that "Modern Man" is still basically a mammal.

Seth Andrews, now theres a petit bourgeois pc of work for ya.  Spent most of his life pumping Jesus on the circuit, then found the "No God" and now he's making the big $ on the atheist circuit.  Why?  Because he has a nice voice.  Also, never worked a day in his life.  Thinks food comes from grocery store shelves.

Hitchens was a Marxist for a time, until The Man bought him off.

[Gilgamesh]

Why is communism preferable to democratic capitalism with really good social policies?

Also why do you think violence is justified against non-violence?

[etienne]

Political-economics has to take into account, how people actually are ... not because of Rousseau or Hegel or Marx (who stole from the other two) ... then you realize that people are shits anyway, and the only way to motivate them is with carrots and sticks, like the donkeys they are.

Thats rather nihilistic.  Note:

Donkey


Humans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC2VEr_6Ivo

[etienne]

Why is communism preferable to democratic capitalism with really good social policies?

Also why do you think violence is justified against non-violence?

Capitalism is inherently unequal(owners v wage workers) and is sustained with massive amounts of violence.  Communism is the converse of that.  In 3-4 generations of socialism, communism would occur quite naturally.  It's the natural state.  P.S., there is no real functioning democracy in capitalism because it is inherently unequal.  The current oligarchy is one "small" pc of evidence.

Violence is just when it is used to eliminate injustice and attain justice--which is fairness, equality.  Power does not yield without a demand.  That demand, therefore, usually involves violence.  That is why socialists/communists are just in neutralizing or killing fascists, because fascists represent injustice and inequality sustained thru violence.  Fascists will kill you anyway in a heartbeat.   The struggle between fascists(capitalists) and so-comm is ongoing until the former is eliminated and or absorbed.  If there were no capitalists, fascists, there would be no violence.  But Life itself is a struggle just to stay alive, socialism is the best way to mitigate that struggle.

[Gilgamesh]

Capitalism is inherently unequal(owners v wage workers) and is sustained with massive amounts of violence.  Communism is the converse of that.  In 3-4 generations of socialism, communism would occur quite naturally.  It's the natural state.  P.S., there is no real functioning democracy in capitalism because it is inherently unequal.  The current oligarchy is one "small" pc of evidence.

Violence is just when it is used to eliminate injustice and attain justice--which is fairness, equality.  Power does not yield without a demand.  That demand, therefore, usually involves violence.  That is why socialists/communists are just in neutralizing or killing fascists, because fascists represent injustice and inequality sustained thru violence.  Fascists will kill you anyway in a heartbeat.   The struggle between fascists(capitalists) and so-comm is ongoing until the former is eliminated and or absorbed.  If there were no capitalists, fascists, there would be no violence.  But Life itself is a struggle just to stay alive, but socialism is the best way to mitigate that struggle.

>"Capitalism is inherently unequal(owners v wage workers)"

Yes, but inequality - that is; 'difference' - isn't inherently bad.

>"P.S., there is no real functioning democracy in capitalism because it is inherently unequal"

This is demonstrably false.

>"The struggle between fascists(capitalists)"

This is a false equivalence.

Also, how can communism survive groups of people who wish to reinstate capitalism? How will it quell them?

[etienne]

The Papacy assigned half the world to Spain and the other half to Portugal, in 1498, at the Treaty of Tordesillas:
http://theageofdiscovery.wikispaces.com/The+Treaty+of+Tordesillas

Per the absolute monarchism the Catholic Church has called for absolute monarchy, under the Pope, who rules the Cardinals as a dictator, and who rules the secular rulers (who are also absolute monarchs) as a dictator.  Hence the Counter-Reformation, which continues until this day ... to undermine the Enlightenment, including all republics and all democracies.  The Popes since 1870, has implemented the final plan, because of the existential threat that France was to the Papal States in that year.  WW I was a plan by the Catholic countries to conquer the world, because the British and French empires were too powerful.  Germany/Austria/Italy were the Central Powers (Italy failed to carry out their role, and betrayed their allies).  In WW II; Portugal, Spain, Italy, Austria and Germany were allies again, with Italy staying in the group.  And side kicks in Latin America.  The Russian Revolution was another existential threat, that continues until this day (hence the attempt to use Ukraine to invade Russia).

Hmm, thanks, I did not know these things, specifically.  Well, it makes sense and it is always interesting when a certain small group of people decide they want to dictate the rest of the world--and there are many such small enclaves.  What's amazing is that they are able to maintain this vast illusion of religious power in the context of the actuality of no God.  Such is power.  Money, like God, is a similar illusory control tactic.

[etienne]

>"Capitalism is inherently unequal(owners v wage workers)"

Yes, but inequality - that is; 'difference' - isn't inherently bad.

>"P.S., there is no real functioning democracy in capitalism because it is inherently unequal"

This is demonstrably false.

>"The struggle between fascists(capitalists)"

This is a false equivalence.

Also, how can communism survive groups of people who wish to reinstate capitalism? How will it quell them?

1)--It is not a matter of "difference", it is a matter of the material relationship of one class--the owners--to the other class--the workers.  To hoard wealth, as per the rules of capitalism, you have to become an owner--of the means of production.  Most rational human beings I know conclude that the hoarding of wealth by a relative few, and the subsequent unequal access to resources for survival, is "bad".

2)--Ok, demonstrate it.

3)--No, capitalism is authoritarian, or oligarchic, or plutocratic, and the merger of the corporate/State is the main aspect of the definition of fascism.  "Fascismo e il corporativismo"(Mussollini)

[Hydra009]

Sam Harris, Dawkins, Krauss, etc, are all dyed in the wool capitalists anyway.  Why?  Because they are petit bourgeoisie, they dont do any of the "heavy lifting" in the world.  Never get their hands dirty.  They benefit from their cushy lives.

I'm starting to see how intellectuals in Communist countries have had a strange habit of winding up dead.  For some, it's a great leap forward.  For others, it's being pushed down a ravine.

[etienne]

I'm starting to see how intellectuals in Communist countries have had a strange habit of winding up dead.  For some, it's a great leap forward.  For others, it's being pushed down a ravine.

Can you give some examples?