Karl Marx (1818-1883)

[HexHammer]

Here in Denmark we have the concept of "curling kids", they are very lazy, ungreatful, sickly narcissistic, agressive, etc, all due to this overly understanding way of approaching the concept of upbringing and social interaction.

This really has nothing to do with Marxism but with bad parenting and a failure of it. The "curling kids" were spoiled and not taught the work ethic.

It has, Marxism speaks against leaders, and we all should be equal, thus the "student rebillion" back in the 60'ies did away with the old ways, the good upbringing, the adults could go straight to Hell, etc and the attitude of old the "jante law".

It IS the weak echoes that rings it's destructiveness, in irrational thinking.

[the Hessian]

Why do people only read philosophers in terms of the punch-line?

[Conde Lucanor]

Once we did away with the false notion that Marxism had to do with utopias, we might also get rid of some other false notions, such as the idea that Marx had devised closed, rigid systems. Very unlikely from a known Hegelian and founder of Dialectical Materialism, which focused on historical movement and the transformations of society by labour in succesive generations. Marx's dialectical approach to history made him acknowledge the dynamic forces that shape society. He actually praised the revolutionary transformations carried on by the bourgeoisie, which revealed to the proletiarat the possibilities of its own revolution:

Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind. (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848)

In his letter against Proudhon, short after his death, Marx also acknowedleges that emancipation is the result of dynamic historical forces, and not the application of rigid a priori formulas:

he and the utopians are hunting for a so-called “science” by means of which a formula for the “solution of the social question” is to be devised a priori, instead of deriving science from a critical knowledge of the historical movement, a movement which itself produces the material conditions of emancipation. (On Proudhon, 1865)

[HexHammer]

Once we did away with the false notion that Marxism had to do with utopias, we might also get rid of some other false notions, such as the idea that Marx had devised closed, rigid systems. Very unlikely from a known Hegelian and founder of Dialectical Materialism, which focused on historical movement and the transformations of society by labour in succesive generations. Marx's dialectical approach to history made him acknowledge the dynamic forces that shape society. He actually praised the revolutionary transformations carried on by the bourgeoisie, which revealed to the proletiarat the possibilities of its own revolution:

Sounds more like you did away with reality.

[uwot]

Sounds more like you did away with reality.

To be fair, Mr Hammer, Conde Lucanor has provided quotes that support the point he is making. What quotes from Marx can you cite that lead you to suppose the ones chosen by Conde Lucanor are unreal?

[HexHammer]

Sounds more like you did away with reality.

To be fair, Mr Hammer, Conde Lucanor has provided quotes that support the point he is making. What quotes from Marx can you cite that lead you to suppose the ones chosen by Conde Lucanor are unreal?

we did away with the false notion that Marxism had to do with utopias
Anyone reasonbale intelligent, would know that Marx made nothing but naive fairytale statements, that can never exist well in real life. How can anyone be equal? Who in the right mind wold say that a retard should be equal to a genious? Why would anyone workd hard if there's no benefit compared to lazy people who then should get more for less work.

With equallity, no one wants the responsibility, but everybody would have their fair say and demand that they'r views and voice must be applied.

we might also get rid of some other false notions, such as the idea that Marx had devised closed, rigid systems
Plane economy was a freggin closed system that choked everything, no one could be oppotunistic, thus choked any motivation (again).

Conde Lucanor displays the same naive approach as religious people only selectivly deals with their loved ideals, and disregarding how it really is.

[spike]

Once we did away with the false notion that Marxism had to do with utopias, we might also get rid of some other false notions, such as the idea that Marx had devised closed, rigid systems.

Good point CL. Nevertheless, the movement he sparked became a rigid system. Those who implemented his ideas of communism had to design the system from the ground up since it wasn't something that would evolve naturally, like capitalism. In doing so the designers had to resort to force to implement Marx's Communist Manifesto. That could only be done by deliberately creating a closed and rigid system. A rigid and closed system is what occurs when a governance is engineered from the top down as Marxism/Communism was.

The rigidity of communism was noticed by the Frankfurt School. One of its disciples, Horkheimer, wondered who would replace the proletariat as the agent of the revolution once they grew complacent and old. His colleague Marcuse answered that a coalition of student, blacks feminists homosexuals and other socially marginal elements would. But for that coalition to act as Marcus envisioned you have to have an open system, which communism did not become.

[uwot]

Anyone reasonbale intelligent, would know that Marx made nothing but naive fairytale statements,

Then quoting such a statement should be a piece of cake, Mr Hammer.

that can never exist well in real life. How can anyone be equal? Who in the right mind wold say that a retard should be equal to a genious? Why would anyone workd hard if there's no benefit compared to lazy people who then should get more for less work.

Can you cite the passages where Marx made any of these 'naïve fairy tale statements'? How hard do you suppose Queen Margrethe II has to work?

With equallity, no one wants the responsibility, but everybody would have their fair say and demand that they'r views and voice must be applied.

What exactly did Marx say about equality? Do you think people should be denied "their fair say"?

[uwot]

Good point CL. Nevertheless, the movement he sparked became a rigid system.

Indeed, but powerful people tend towards conservatism, it is after all, their position they wish to conserve.

[HexHammer]

Anyone reasonbale intelligent, would know that Marx made nothing but naive fairytale statements,

Then quoting such a statement should be a piece of cake, Mr Hammer.

that can never exist well in real life. How can anyone be equal? Who in the right mind wold say that a retard should be equal to a genious? Why would anyone workd hard if there's no benefit compared to lazy people who then should get more for less work.

Can you cite the passages where Marx made any of these 'naïve fairy tale statements'? How hard do you suppose Queen Margrethe II has to work?

With equallity, no one wants the responsibility, but everybody would have their fair say and demand that they'r views and voice must be applied.

What exactly did Marx say about equality? Do you think people should be denied "their fair say"?

"Plane Economy" is totally backwards, creating low moral for farmers, which caused server famine, factory workers got lazy, and in the end it all destroyed society that the infrastructure didn't work.
Boris Jeltsin was so astrounded by an american supermarket he visited, over the abundance, how could that be possible? Russians would stand in que for hours to get some meager meat scraps.

In "Class conflict" he advocate struggle between the classes of society, which is destructive and counter productive. Such thing is utter idiocy, when they should work together to form a strong nation.

It's a very long list of backward things, but I won't tell all of them for your mere entertaintment.

The Queen are obliged to appear in public doing all kinds of weird things, and hold speeches. Have dinners with heads of states, there's a lot of preparation for such things, you are haunted by the press 24/7. These are things that she can't refuse like a normal person, she's duty bound and can't run away.


Complete moronism!!!

Marxism seeks and enforces equality in situations where equality does not exist, demanding legal enforcement of equal societal outcomes including those related to economics, religion and human sexuality. This ideology even extends to international relationships whereby no nation is allowed to "excessively" prosper or achieve greatness, i.e.: all nations must be "equal".

..so, as I said, that CL did away with reality.

[uwot]

"Plane Economy" is totally backwards,

You are making things up, Mr Hammer. What is "Plane Economy"?

In "Class conflict" he advocate struggle between the classes of society, which is destructive and counter productive. Such thing is utter idiocy, when they should work together to form a strong nation.

I am no Marxist scholar, but I can find no reference to any work published by him called "Class conflict".

It's a very long list of backward things, but I won't tell all of them for your mere entertaintment.

You haven't actually made any reference to the works of Karl Marx yet. Can you provide some evidence that you know what you are talking about?

Marxism seeks and enforces equality in situations where equality does not exist, demanding legal enforcement of equal societal outcomes including those related to economics, religion and human sexuality. This ideology even extends to international relationships whereby no nation is allowed to "excessively" prosper or achieve greatness, i.e.: all nations must be "equal".

Can you point me to where Marx actually said any of this?

..so, as I said, that CL did away with reality, and I'm amazed how uwot didn't agree with me, either you are VERY ignorent, or just trolling as usual.

I'm still not clear what trolling is, Mr Hammer. Put it down to ignorance.

[HexHammer]

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009072319 ... ality.html

At its heart Marxism, the core ideology of Socialism, contains an irrational, utopian and coercive perversion of human equality. Marxism seeks and enforces equality in situations where equality does not exist, demanding legal enforcement of equal societal outcomes including those related to economics, religion and human sexuality. This ideology even extends to international relationships whereby no nation is allowed to "excessively" prosper or achieve greatness, i.e.: all nations must be "equal".

Read the last part of my former post again, I really tryed to be nice and delete all the condesending stuff. I'm sure you can't help youself.

[uwot]

Thanks for the link, Mr Hammer. It appears to have been written by a right wing nut called Ronald R. Cherry for a fringe publication called Right Side News. Do you seriously think that is the place to discover what Marx actually said?

Read the last part of my former post again, I really tryed to be nice and delete all the condesending stuff. I'm sure you can't help youself.

That's very considerate of you, Mr Hammer, but don't feel you need to on my account. If it bothers you that you write things you later feel you need to edit, couldn't you save yourself the bother of deleting "all the condescending stuff" by not writing it in the first place?

[Conde Lucanor]

Anyone reasonbale intelligent, would know that Marx made nothing but naive fairytale statements, that can never exist well in real life.

Perhaps you mean anyone with the clumsy ideas obtained from mass media hearsay and other third-hand, unreliable sources.

It would reasonable for someone to argue that Marx got this or that wrong, but to put him on the side of naive idealism is itself an incredible naive statement. It is naive when referring to the man who is supposed to have founded the "philosophy of praxis" and Historical Materialism, tools with which he fought against anyone suspicious of idealism, even Proudhon himself, who was a conspicuous socialist. He dealt extensively with the subject in his critique of German Philosophy and there are plenty of references in Marx's work (the letters to his father, the Theses on Feuerbach, the German Ideology, etc.) about the nature of his project in terms of its foundation on reality and consciousness without the veil of ideology.

How can anyone be equal? Who in the right mind wold say that a retard should be equal to a genious? Why would anyone workd hard if there's no benefit compared to lazy people who then should get more for less work...
...Plane economy was a freggin closed system that choked everything, no one could be oppotunistic, thus choked any motivation (again).

I thought we were talking about what Marx's thought and his work, but you must be talking about a different subject, unless you can provide a particular reference from Marx stating something close to what you claim he said. It is more likely that this is what you learned from hearsay, clueless journalists and outright propaganda against Marxism.

In "Class conflict" he advocate struggle between the classes of society, which is destructive and counter productive. Such thing is utter idiocy, when they should work together to form a strong nation.

Is that an unknown manuscript from Marx? Never heard of it.

I think you are confused, Marx didn't "advocate struggle between the classes", he said that the driving force in history has been labour and the conflict of classes, a conflict which could be hardly resolved under the previous material conditions of society. But Capitalism revolutionized productive forces and now for the first time there were the means to sustain a society without one class exploiting the other. It was, however, the task of the proletariat class to lead that revolution.

[HexHammer]

Thanks for the link, Mr Hammer. It appears to have been written by a right wing nut called Ronald R. Cherry for a fringe publication called Right Side News. Do you seriously think that is the place to discover what Marx actually said?

Read the last part of my former post again, I really tryed to be nice and delete all the condesending stuff. I'm sure you can't help youself.

That's very considerate of you, Mr Hammer, but don't feel you need to on my account. If it bothers you that you write things you later feel you need to edit, couldn't you save yourself the bother of deleting "all the condescending stuff" by not writing it in the first place?

Then it should be easy to disprove, if I am so wrong about it.