This is a slight unmeritable man, meet to be sent on errands: And, though others lay labours on this man, to ease ourselves of divers slanderous loads, he shall but bear them as the ass bears gold, to groan and sweat under the business, either led or driven, as they point him the way; and having brought their treasure where they will, then take they down his load and turn him off, like to the empty ass, to shake his ears and graze in commons.
Thank you for your sharing! saved for my playlist Much appreciated
Kind Regards, MP friends
Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism, 1997. Some neglected questions about fascism, communism, capitalism, and the continuing relevance of class analysis. A challenging analysis of recent political history. — by Michael Parenti
@noblowbama your obtuse/pompous reasoning is almost repulsive. I agree with a lot of Marx's theories but its not feasible in modern time, nations have developed many forms of indoctrination that prevents actual change from taking place this impedes real grass roots revolutions to gain momentum and impact society.
maybe a Marx world will come about when a new industrial revolution dawns not so long away when nanotechnology takes us into a whole new world of global abundance..eventually making most jobs obsolete or very low hours and give everyone the opportunity to reap all the new luxuries.. need to wake the people up first from there conformed state of what can only be described for the majority as depression due to no education and starvation
@anandanaga999 atheism & communism is 2 different things. Dictature is not what Karl Marx ideology was about...Rich ppl used religion to explain why poor ppl couldn't get any jobs or succes, it was because "God wanted so", that's what Marx theory was about. You can find Marxists who are against communism.
But i guess your poor head can't understand because in US the main ideology is to protect the elite (rich ppl) & forget about social communities.
Capitalism the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically manipulated market mechanism of artificial scarcity to perpetuate poverty and exploiation in the interest of the ruling class. A monetary web of control and suppression of the working class in the employment system of commodity production for profit, a template of war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty, a reality of fear,insecurity,dehumanisation. We need to create a world of cooperation for our common needs and wellbeing
The notes on Feuerbach signify Marx's break with Hegelianism, but don't constitute a fully coherent argument. Marx's great insight here is on the importance of praxis to human politics, as opposed to mere Left-Hegelian argumentation and critique. The danger, though (as Hannah Arendt pointed out) lay in the use of practice as an epistemic criterion, the subordination of theory to practice.
There is an element of recklessness in such a stance, a kind of mentality of "Just do it!" Marx, of course, had no way of knowing what the practical consequences of his theory would be; we, from our present vantage point, cannot justifiably ignore them. Although Communism as practiced in the 2nd world was not without successes, and capitalism certainly not without failures, I think nonetheless that it may be time for something new.
Dudtz is absolutely correct. it's extremely distasteful to juxtapose images of state-capitalist tyrants like Stalin and Mao with the words of classical Marxism. Stalin and Mao are only socialists if you completely flip Marx and Lenin on their heads.
One last thing...thanks for proving me right in respect to you. If anyone has a real discussion topic I'm really open. I have certain reservations about Marx to entertain myself but I need someone who is read enough to carry on a debate, or atleast support their assumptions. I look forward to it when that someone gets here. Till then...take care.
That's it, I gave you "one last chance" and you failed, AGAIN.I offered topics from the get go and you ignored them.I opened it up to oyu to say something and you evade.If I continue to bang my head against the wall I'll start to sound like you.Say what you will, thinking your smart doesn't mean shit, nor will it get you anything.
To anyone:
If someone goes back through this dialogue I'd love a third opinion.Sorry this bs interrupted the real convos.
So who does this really show the gutless one to be. I challanged you to back up what you were saying and you say that I challenged you so I need to make a point...so I offer up a dozen and you have nothing to say...so I give you leeway to pick a topic and you have nothing to say. Apparently you have nothing to say cause you are a dipshit. Calling people Chiwahwahs isn't a point, its pretty sad. The only thing i criticised about you is your so called "intellect" and it seems I was right.
I've yet to hear anything intelligent from you to respond to..so yes, you're an idiot. If you have something to say, say it and I will rebutt. If you think that continually evading and stalemating a debate counts as justification then sink back into your world of delusion and enjoy the win..the rest of us will go on without you..I promise. So what's your criticism of Marx? If you don't have one then don't fill up the blog with nonsense. I'm going out..write something relevant for Saturday.
It's a clear waste of time to keep explaining the most obvious points.
But clearly, the "idiot" is the one accusing someone else of not knowing anything about a topic & challenging them to a debate -- & when the other person accepts, suddenly wringing hands & acting as if it had nothing to do with you.
YOU are the supposed EXPERT; YOU challenged ME; YOU backed off immediately when I accepted.
Ergo, YOU are the COWARDLY, HYPOCRITICAL, FRAUD. Even a child could understand that.
Not at all. I asked you to make a point that showed you knew what you were talking about and I'd debate it with you, or to stop mouthing off...you didn't. I'm not backing off or wringing hands? I'm here...what's your point? Got anything to say? Apparently not going by all this bs. What do you want to debate about Marxism...obviously I'm not going to write a defense for his life's work...say something, that's what I've been asking for over and over and over....but your just a dumbass. Shame.
If you don't know what you are talking about than just shut up...I wanted to debate it because it is interesting...you haven't said anything pertinent so I assume your just blowing hot air...I'm here whenever you think of a point...till then go read...or whatever...I don't care. If anyone else would like to seriously debate this I'll take the Marx side..I suggest challenging the materialist outlook given this vid is on the Theses...but I'm flexible. ttys, not you NoBlowhard, someone brighter.
You are a liar. Anyone can go back & read the record. You called someone out, got it thrown back in your face, peed your pants & left. What a ridiculous joke of a "Marxist".
Pathetic...I've never even found anyone willing to debate Marxism, because it's too intellectually indefensible. And then you show up to teach me a lesson in a debate to prove how unlettered I am. Hahaha!!!
Of course, a trembling-kneed cheewahwah like you, in all his dissembling minutia, is not going to change the paradigm.
So that's it then? You've got nothing? Your saying its so indefensible that its not even worth your time eh? Well thanks for your insightful contributions...it makes me feel good when people I don't see eye to eye with turn out to be stupid...little ego boost you know? But seriously, aside from calling people chiwahwah (you spelt it wrong by the way) do you have anything relevant to say? Last chance...then I'm not responding to you anymore, I'll find someone who can discuss it.
CW, you know about philosophy? Then you've been exposed to some debates. Yet it seems it's totally beyond your knowledge that when one person challenges another, claiming they are unread, it's up to the challenger to bring on the proof. Yet that's totally beyond your abilities. How is that possible?
The fact is, when you challenged me & tried to embarrass, you had no idea I'd accept your debate.
Here are the things I offered to defend from a Marxist view which you evaded, pussy: -any criticism -Theses -materialist outlook -a point that showed you knew what you were talking about -Marx ini general -"failed communism" -M. Smith, S. Sayers, E. Mandel -morality, dialectics, materialism vs dualism/idealism, analyzing the condition of knowledge, environment, economic trends through a Marxist lens -Capital or Gundrisse -applied to modern economics
You never accepted so stop acting like some hero.I called you out because you were picking on people who had a diff viewspoint than you and who were trying to learn about an interesting body of knowledge.You were the bully, and now a hypocrit because you don't measure up to your own standards.Where are your points, insights, let alone proofs?If you are embarassed its not because I didn't allow you several opportunities to make a case, its because you can't(despite the chances/points to dispute).
Even better, if you think I'm a hypocrit then come up with something to debate...I'm defending, you need to support your position before I can respond dipshit. If I'm the idiot then you have nothing to worry about...what's your interpretation of the Thesis...what's your objection? This is eassy its like 2 pages. Or if you feel ambitious come up with something yourself...tic toc dipshit
Do you have something to say or not, because I picked up where you were being critical without any valid support for your points and asked you to say "Where are you coming from", and that "I'd love to debate a point that shows you are familiar with the writings of Marx". Since then you haven't made a remark...I ask, what am I defending Marx from, white space?
If you don't have something worth while to say in the next 2 minutes I'm going to bed. I can try to defend Marx, but I'm not staying up until 2am to indulge idiocy.
I can't get my comment to post. But You call ME out & then claim it's ME whose up to "idiocy" because you can't come through with even a single point? You have a lot of gall & not much else, pal.
Yes, I am calling you out to give a good criticism of Marx that we can debate. I don't know what kind of point you're looking for...I am going to try to defend it from whatever claim is made. Got one? Guess not! And I even gave you atleast half a dozen topics to start it off or something. What am I going to say before a know what your criticism is...uh Marx is good. It's a wide ranging theory...I would need a life time and several books if I have to defend it all. What's the prob?
You pathetic BLOWHARD. I KNEW it's was too good to be true. You act like a real intellectual toughguy, making snide & insulting comments, claiming others "don't know Marx" simply because they disagree with you.
And you brag you'd "love a debate" to show the other guy what a fraud he is & how he doesn't know any Marx. But when the gauntlet is picked up & your offer accepted? The debate suddenly becomes the other guy's responsibility. LMFAO!!!
Yes goof, if we are debating and I am defending that presumes the existence of an agressor. I cannot defend something if there is nothing to defend it from. I'll check this tomorrow to see if you've got that through your head. I'd love to hear someone else's interpretation hear...or just talk to someone who has something to say...anyone? I'm interested in this stuff. Goodnight
"Idiot", YOU challenged ME to a debate. YOU bragged you were going to prove I didn't know any of Marx's writings. It is therefore contingent upon you to show that.
But in the guise of a typical liberal -- it's always somebody else's responsibility & fault.
I can't write an all encompassing enorsement or defense to a non-existent argument. Not to mention this thing only allows for like 5 sentences at a time. You;ve gotta give me a point to respond to, otherwise this is pointless.
I'm afraid you have it completely turned around, friend. It was YOU who challenged me to debate: I'd love to debate a point
showing you're familiar with Marx's writings
(but you don't seem to be)
This is your call-out, your party, a toss of your glove. It's up to YOU to put out your brilliant dismembering. Don't tell me there was nothing backing up the haughty chastisement & high-handed offer to debate?!!
Marx, expecially from the rather amateurish shots about "failed communism". It is not especially simplistic, unless you just skim the surface. I'd probably say my views are influenced by M. Smith, S. Sayers, E. Mandel, and so forth. I have especial interest in philosophical and theoretical debates if you care to entertain...for instance, morality, dialectics, materialism vs dualism/idealism, analyzing the condition of knowledge, environment, economic trends through a Marxist lens...
What I'd really care for is what you originally promised, a doctrinaire defense of classic Marxism. Why view something "through the lens" of a worldview you have not yet established?!!
Think about what you just said...I'm not 'establishing' a Marxist perspective, he did that in the late 19th century. It is a perspective that has already been used to analyze those topics and many more...you still don't seem to know what you're talking about...are you stalling to read or something? What am I defending Marxism from, your evasions?
CW8824 What am I defending Marxism from, your evasions?
I'M EVADING? This is one of the weirdest things I have ever witnessed on YouTube. YOU call me out & when I accept your challenge & your offer to show I know nothing of Marxism, you dry up like a slug under a pinch of salt.
This is a great piece of text. He says so much in such little text. However i dont understand why the hell these Mao and Stalin pictures where shown. They are a discrease to Marx and marxism.
You Marxists are so deluded, you think there is a pure, Platonic Marxism that never hurt anyone, floating out in space. But how many did the REAL Marxists kill last century? 150+ million. What a sad travesty.
The "REAL Marxists" and by that I assume you mean those who followed a dialectical historical materialist method, such as Trotsky, Ted Grant, Alan Woods etc. erm Well trotsky was head of the red army when The French, English, USA and old murdering Tzarsist invaded so probably quite a few. But then does that make any leader during was a killer? Especially since it was a war of defence
No it is a refernce to the Militant struggles of the working cass of my nation and internationaly. That is strikes, the support of fellow workers in danger and all the actions taken to give us the working rights we have now.
The worst excesses of Government? By this I assume you mean stalinism and maoism; check the history Stalin's theories have no resembalance to Marxism at all; he mearly attatched himself t a beourocracy and Mao was a nationalist for most of his life
You Marxists are so deluded, you think there is a pure, Platonic Marxism that never hurt anyone, floating out in space. But how many did the REAL Marxists kill last century? 150+ million. What a sad travesty.
By that I assume you mean stalinist's; even though they were not Marxists I will argue that the figures given include everyone killed by the russians and germans in WW2 during the war. The invasion of the soviet union by america, UK, france etc
An educated Marxist, like yourself, is certainly aware that Marx left behind no firm system.
So for anyone to argue that "real Marxism has never been tried", to defend the horrific record of real-world Marxism, that is a specious argument to the nth degree.
There have been three major attempts to systematize Marxist thought since he died; each a more spectacular failure than the last.
First of all, most Communist countries have succeeded. I dont know where people keep getting the opposite from, it must be the intellectual Death Squads in America who makes sure everybody can only repeat that same old mantra.
Second, would you claim that America resembles Adam Smith's thinking in any way?
Call me what you will. You're the one chastizing a theory before giving it due consideration. That seems quite arrogant to me. I'd love to debate a point that shows you are familiar with the writings of Marx (but you don't seem to be)...I too have reservations. Don't regurgitate facts about so called 'socialist' countries or their death toll(minor next to capitalism). C'mon, dig into your Marxist conceptual arsenal...if you have one? I can recommend some literature if you are truly interested...
I'm arrogant, but your the one peremptorily calling me a know-nothing fraud? Uhhh, yeah, right.
Your idea of ignorance is someone who does not agree with you, since to know the "facts" would mean capitulating to your position & grandiose glossing of the field. Correct? lmao
Give it your best shot, uber-Marxist. I am here & waiting, mr modesty.
No, I read your comments and they show no indication that you are acquainted with Marxist theory. I appologize if I am wrong, am I? And no, if you re-read my post you'll see I did not call you ignorant for disagreeing: "I'd love to debate a point that shows you are familiar with the writings of Marx (but you don't seem to be)...I too have reservations." You don't even know my position..? Basically, what is your objection to Marxism in the context of the theory itself is what I asked you?
Ok, but I'm not quite sure to begin since I am trying, in a sense, to defend it. Uh lets see...what are your ontological and epistimological views?...do you take objection to any major from Capital or Gundrisse?...I mean I personally think many of Marx' insights are still quite relevant but I'd concede that he did not explore every caveat to exhaustion. Of course it has to be applied to modern economics but that is less daunting than being an capitalist apologist. Where are you coming from?
Marxism is not a terribly sophisticated theory. But you ought to at least indicate if you are defending him, Engels, or many of the further refiners & satelitic defenders.
Ubderstand hegel? Is that a dog-German pun? Honestly, my German should be much better, so what do I know. Honestly, my enthusiasm for Feuerbach and Hegel and Walter Benjamin are all mediated through translators. So I ask, not ridiculing you, and in all humility:
What the fck do you mean? Is that "uber und under" ..."udded tugutther?"
Now I'm just making fun of German because I'm uncomfortable with my own ignorance...
Ubderstand hegel? Is that a dog-German pun? Honestly, my German should be much better, so what do I know. Honestly, my enthusiasm for Feuerbach and Hegel and Walter Benjamin are all mediated through translators. So I ask, not ridiculing you, and in all humility:
What the fck do you mean? Is that "uber und under" ..."udded tugutther?"
Now I'm just making fun of German because I'm uncomfortable with my own ignorance...
This is a slight unmeritable man, meet to be sent on errands: And, though others lay labours on this man, to ease ourselves of divers slanderous loads, he shall but bear them as the ass bears gold, to groan and sweat under the business, either led or driven, as they point him the way; and having brought their treasure where they will, then take they down his load and turn him off, like to the empty ass, to shake his ears and graze in commons.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 5 months ago
why all the all communist iconography? Marxism is very distinct. Read some Leszek Kolakowski
Dilliboy63 7 months ago
Thank you for your sharing! saved for my playlist Much appreciated
Kind Regards, MP friends
Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism, 1997. Some neglected questions about fascism, communism, capitalism, and the continuing relevance of class analysis. A challenging analysis of recent political history. — by Michael Parenti
MichaelParentiOrg 9 months ago
@noblowbama your obtuse/pompous reasoning is almost repulsive. I agree with a lot of Marx's theories but its not feasible in modern time, nations have developed many forms of indoctrination that prevents actual change from taking place this impedes real grass roots revolutions to gain momentum and impact society.
GoDiglet 9 months ago
maybe a Marx world will come about when a new industrial revolution dawns not so long away when nanotechnology takes us into a whole new world of global abundance..eventually making most jobs obsolete or very low hours and give everyone the opportunity to reap all the new luxuries.. need to wake the people up first from there conformed state of what can only be described for the majority as depression due to no education and starvation
SkengRudebwoy 1 year ago
Idiots. Atheist ,communist, idiots.
anandanaga999 1 year ago
@anandanaga999 atheism & communism is 2 different things. Dictature is not what Karl Marx ideology was about...Rich ppl used religion to explain why poor ppl couldn't get any jobs or succes, it was because "God wanted so", that's what Marx theory was about. You can find Marxists who are against communism.
But i guess your poor head can't understand because in US the main ideology is to protect the elite (rich ppl) & forget about social communities.
Low IQ...
7numrat 1 year ago
Workers of the World... Yawn?
vivino100 1 year ago
Capitalism the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically manipulated market mechanism of artificial scarcity to perpetuate poverty and exploiation in the interest of the ruling class. A monetary web of control and suppression of the working class in the employment system of commodity production for profit, a template of war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty, a reality of fear,insecurity,dehumanisation. We need to create a world of cooperation for our common needs and wellbeing
arzoyan 1 year ago 2
@arzoyan you have well defined what's the new world order :)
7numrat 1 year ago
The notes on Feuerbach signify Marx's break with Hegelianism, but don't constitute a fully coherent argument. Marx's great insight here is on the importance of praxis to human politics, as opposed to mere Left-Hegelian argumentation and critique. The danger, though (as Hannah Arendt pointed out) lay in the use of practice as an epistemic criterion, the subordination of theory to practice.
LowestOftheDead 1 year ago
There is an element of recklessness in such a stance, a kind of mentality of "Just do it!" Marx, of course, had no way of knowing what the practical consequences of his theory would be; we, from our present vantage point, cannot justifiably ignore them. Although Communism as practiced in the 2nd world was not without successes, and capitalism certainly not without failures, I think nonetheless that it may be time for something new.
LowestOftheDead 1 year ago
What is with the Stalinist Maoistcrap?
Stalin Mao were no communists.
Dudtz 3 years ago
Yeah, it's a bit distasteful.
Patavinity 2 years ago
Very distasteeful.
Stalin and Moa were big time Worker exploiters,being far from being Communists.
Dudtz 2 years ago 12
Dudtz is absolutely correct. it's extremely distasteful to juxtapose images of state-capitalist tyrants like Stalin and Mao with the words of classical Marxism. Stalin and Mao are only socialists if you completely flip Marx and Lenin on their heads.
1917T 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the words of a true murder!
seebigred 3 years ago
Why are so many of my comments missing? Where is the one wheere I outlined possible topics? I don't get youtube lol.
CW8824 3 years ago
One last thing...thanks for proving me right in respect to you. If anyone has a real discussion topic I'm really open. I have certain reservations about Marx to entertain myself but I need someone who is read enough to carry on a debate, or atleast support their assumptions. I look forward to it when that someone gets here. Till then...take care.
CW8824 3 years ago
To Blowme:
That's it, I gave you "one last chance" and you failed, AGAIN.I offered topics from the get go and you ignored them.I opened it up to oyu to say something and you evade.If I continue to bang my head against the wall I'll start to sound like you.Say what you will, thinking your smart doesn't mean shit, nor will it get you anything.
To anyone:
If someone goes back through this dialogue I'd love a third opinion.Sorry this bs interrupted the real convos.
CW8824 3 years ago
So who does this really show the gutless one to be. I challanged you to back up what you were saying and you say that I challenged you so I need to make a point...so I offer up a dozen and you have nothing to say...so I give you leeway to pick a topic and you have nothing to say. Apparently you have nothing to say cause you are a dipshit. Calling people Chiwahwahs isn't a point, its pretty sad. The only thing i criticised about you is your so called "intellect" and it seems I was right.
CW8824 3 years ago
Such an idiot...anyone else?
CW8824 3 years ago
Hilarious you call somebody else an "idiot" when you've just exposed your full-blown imbecility for the entire world to see.
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
I've yet to hear anything intelligent from you to respond to..so yes, you're an idiot. If you have something to say, say it and I will rebutt. If you think that continually evading and stalemating a debate counts as justification then sink back into your world of delusion and enjoy the win..the rest of us will go on without you..I promise. So what's your criticism of Marx? If you don't have one then don't fill up the blog with nonsense. I'm going out..write something relevant for Saturday.
CW8824 3 years ago
It's a clear waste of time to keep explaining the most obvious points.
But clearly, the "idiot" is the one accusing someone else of not knowing anything about a topic & challenging them to a debate -- & when the other person accepts, suddenly wringing hands & acting as if it had nothing to do with you.
YOU are the supposed EXPERT; YOU challenged ME; YOU backed off immediately when I accepted.
Ergo, YOU are the COWARDLY, HYPOCRITICAL, FRAUD. Even a child could understand that.
Grow some nuts
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
Not at all. I asked you to make a point that showed you knew what you were talking about and I'd debate it with you, or to stop mouthing off...you didn't. I'm not backing off or wringing hands? I'm here...what's your point? Got anything to say? Apparently not going by all this bs. What do you want to debate about Marxism...obviously I'm not going to write a defense for his life's work...say something, that's what I've been asking for over and over and over....but your just a dumbass. Shame.
CW8824 3 years ago
If you don't know what you are talking about than just shut up...I wanted to debate it because it is interesting...you haven't said anything pertinent so I assume your just blowing hot air...I'm here whenever you think of a point...till then go read...or whatever...I don't care. If anyone else would like to seriously debate this I'll take the Marx side..I suggest challenging the materialist outlook given this vid is on the Theses...but I'm flexible. ttys, not you NoBlowhard, someone brighter.
CW8824 3 years ago
You are a liar. Anyone can go back & read the record. You called someone out, got it thrown back in your face, peed your pants & left. What a ridiculous joke of a "Marxist".
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
haha YES!!! Please go back and read it...not that anyone should care...but I'd love to hear what someone else thinks...
CW8824 3 years ago
Pathetic...I've never even found anyone willing to debate Marxism, because it's too intellectually indefensible. And then you show up to teach me a lesson in a debate to prove how unlettered I am. Hahaha!!!
Of course, a trembling-kneed cheewahwah like you, in all his dissembling minutia, is not going to change the paradigm.
Castrated, gutless pooch.
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
So that's it then? You've got nothing? Your saying its so indefensible that its not even worth your time eh? Well thanks for your insightful contributions...it makes me feel good when people I don't see eye to eye with turn out to be stupid...little ego boost you know? But seriously, aside from calling people chiwahwah (you spelt it wrong by the way) do you have anything relevant to say? Last chance...then I'm not responding to you anymore, I'll find someone who can discuss it.
CW8824 3 years ago
CW, you know about philosophy? Then you've been exposed to some debates. Yet it seems it's totally beyond your knowledge that when one person challenges another, claiming they are unread, it's up to the challenger to bring on the proof. Yet that's totally beyond your abilities. How is that possible?
The fact is, when you challenged me & tried to embarrass, you had no idea I'd accept your debate.
So, you're a typical bully -- a boasting coward.
Don't message me again, sniveling, gutless dolt.
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
CW8824 3 years ago
You never accepted so stop acting like some hero.I called you out because you were picking on people who had a diff viewspoint than you and who were trying to learn about an interesting body of knowledge.You were the bully, and now a hypocrit because you don't measure up to your own standards.Where are your points, insights, let alone proofs?If you are embarassed its not because I didn't allow you several opportunities to make a case, its because you can't(despite the chances/points to dispute).
CW8824 3 years ago
Even better, if you think I'm a hypocrit then come up with something to debate...I'm defending, you need to support your position before I can respond dipshit. If I'm the idiot then you have nothing to worry about...what's your interpretation of the Thesis...what's your objection? This is eassy its like 2 pages. Or if you feel ambitious come up with something yourself...tic toc dipshit
CW8824 3 years ago
Do you have something to say or not, because I picked up where you were being critical without any valid support for your points and asked you to say "Where are you coming from", and that "I'd love to debate a point that shows you are familiar with the writings of Marx". Since then you haven't made a remark...I ask, what am I defending Marx from, white space?
CW8824 3 years ago
If you don't have something worth while to say in the next 2 minutes I'm going to bed. I can try to defend Marx, but I'm not staying up until 2am to indulge idiocy.
CW8824 3 years ago
I can't get my comment to post. But You call ME out & then claim it's ME whose up to "idiocy" because you can't come through with even a single point? You have a lot of gall & not much else, pal.
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
Yes, I am calling you out to give a good criticism of Marx that we can debate. I don't know what kind of point you're looking for...I am going to try to defend it from whatever claim is made. Got one? Guess not! And I even gave you atleast half a dozen topics to start it off or something. What am I going to say before a know what your criticism is...uh Marx is good. It's a wide ranging theory...I would need a life time and several books if I have to defend it all. What's the prob?
CW8824 3 years ago
You pathetic BLOWHARD. I KNEW it's was too good to be true. You act like a real intellectual toughguy, making snide & insulting comments, claiming others "don't know Marx" simply because they disagree with you.
And you brag you'd "love a debate" to show the other guy what a fraud he is & how he doesn't know any Marx. But when the gauntlet is picked up & your offer accepted? The debate suddenly becomes the other guy's responsibility. LMFAO!!!
What a pusillanimous poseur of a Liberal.
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
Yes goof, if we are debating and I am defending that presumes the existence of an agressor. I cannot defend something if there is nothing to defend it from. I'll check this tomorrow to see if you've got that through your head. I'd love to hear someone else's interpretation hear...or just talk to someone who has something to say...anyone? I'm interested in this stuff. Goodnight
CW8824 3 years ago
here*...if anyone has a point to address reply to one of my threads and I'll see it in my email and respond.
CW8824 3 years ago
FRAUD
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
"Idiot", YOU challenged ME to a debate. YOU bragged you were going to prove I didn't know any of Marx's writings. It is therefore contingent upon you to show that.
But in the guise of a typical liberal -- it's always somebody else's responsibility & fault.
Absolutely classic.
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
ICW8824 cannot defend something if there is nothing to defend it from. I'll check this tomorrow to see if you've got that through your head.
Wow, what absurdities. You call someone out to debate, but when they accept, you suddenly claim it's all up to them.
hen you condescendingly state there is "nothing" to defend, despite the subject being your precious Karl Marx.
Finally, you sweep off to your chambers, in your little neglige' & clear-heeled fur pumps, like some deranged Queen of Sheba.
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
I can't write an all encompassing enorsement or defense to a non-existent argument. Not to mention this thing only allows for like 5 sentences at a time. You;ve gotta give me a point to respond to, otherwise this is pointless.
CW8824 3 years ago
CW You've gotta give a point to respond to.
I'm afraid you have it completely turned around, friend. It was YOU who challenged me to debate: I'd love to debate a point
showing you're familiar with Marx's writings
(but you don't seem to be)
This is your call-out, your party, a toss of your glove. It's up to YOU to put out your brilliant dismembering. Don't tell me there was nothing backing up the haughty chastisement & high-handed offer to debate?!!
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
Marx, expecially from the rather amateurish shots about "failed communism". It is not especially simplistic, unless you just skim the surface. I'd probably say my views are influenced by M. Smith, S. Sayers, E. Mandel, and so forth. I have especial interest in philosophical and theoretical debates if you care to entertain...for instance, morality, dialectics, materialism vs dualism/idealism, analyzing the condition of knowledge, environment, economic trends through a Marxist lens...
CW8824 3 years ago
What I'd really care for is what you originally promised, a doctrinaire defense of classic Marxism. Why view something "through the lens" of a worldview you have not yet established?!!
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
Think about what you just said...I'm not 'establishing' a Marxist perspective, he did that in the late 19th century. It is a perspective that has already been used to analyze those topics and many more...you still don't seem to know what you're talking about...are you stalling to read or something? What am I defending Marxism from, your evasions?
CW8824 3 years ago
CW8824 What am I defending Marxism from, your evasions?
I'M EVADING? This is one of the weirdest things I have ever witnessed on YouTube. YOU call me out & when I accept your challenge & your offer to show I know nothing of Marxism, you dry up like a slug under a pinch of salt.
How much bigger of a fraud can you get?!!
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
This is a great piece of text. He says so much in such little text. However i dont understand why the hell these Mao and Stalin pictures where shown. They are a discrease to Marx and marxism.
daskrankeschwein 3 years ago 12
Whats with the mao bollocks
Militant000Marxist 3 years ago 3
You Marxists are so deluded, you think there is a pure, Platonic Marxism that never hurt anyone, floating out in space. But how many did the REAL Marxists kill last century? 150+ million. What a sad travesty.
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
The "REAL Marxists" and by that I assume you mean those who followed a dialectical historical materialist method, such as Trotsky, Ted Grant, Alan Woods etc. erm Well trotsky was head of the red army when The French, English, USA and old murdering Tzarsist invaded so probably quite a few. But then does that make any leader during was a killer? Especially since it was a war of defence
Militant000Marxist 3 years ago
Question: If Marxism is so wonderful WHY have the worst excesses of Government in history been associated with it?
Google this: Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War by RJ Rummel
THIS guy does hard research on killing by governments. CHILLIING!
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
RJ Rummel concluded that Chang Kai Shek was worse than Mao BTW.
Khomradeigor 3 years ago
By the way, does not "militant marxism" not represent armed overthrow of democracies to install marxism? wow
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
No it is a refernce to the Militant struggles of the working cass of my nation and internationaly. That is strikes, the support of fellow workers in danger and all the actions taken to give us the working rights we have now.
The worst excesses of Government? By this I assume you mean stalinism and maoism; check the history Stalin's theories have no resembalance to Marxism at all; he mearly attatched himself t a beourocracy and Mao was a nationalist for most of his life
Militant000Marxist 3 years ago
MM, there is no Platonic Marxism. Instead, just the failed attempts of ALL Marxisms.
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
wow, thats a great argument. How many times has capitalism 'failed' its failing right now. Socialism isnt a choice it is the next stage of society
Militant000Marxist 3 years ago
You Marxists are so deluded, you think there is a pure, Platonic Marxism that never hurt anyone, floating out in space. But how many did the REAL Marxists kill last century? 150+ million. What a sad travesty.
ConservativeAnthem 3 years ago
By that I assume you mean stalinist's; even though they were not Marxists I will argue that the figures given include everyone killed by the russians and germans in WW2 during the war. The invasion of the soviet union by america, UK, france etc
Militant000Marxist 3 years ago
An educated Marxist, like yourself, is certainly aware that Marx left behind no firm system.
So for anyone to argue that "real Marxism has never been tried", to defend the horrific record of real-world Marxism, that is a specious argument to the nth degree.
There have been three major attempts to systematize Marxist thought since he died; each a more spectacular failure than the last.
ConservativeAnthem 3 years ago
First of all, most Communist countries have succeeded. I dont know where people keep getting the opposite from, it must be the intellectual Death Squads in America who makes sure everybody can only repeat that same old mantra.
Second, would you claim that America resembles Adam Smith's thinking in any way?
Khomradeigor 3 years ago
Deluded?...better than ignorant I suppose. Do some investigating for yourself before you criticize.
CW8824 3 years ago
"Investigation"? Simply because I disagree with you, I lack an education? I think that's my new definition of arrogance, if you don't mind.
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
Call me what you will. You're the one chastizing a theory before giving it due consideration. That seems quite arrogant to me. I'd love to debate a point that shows you are familiar with the writings of Marx (but you don't seem to be)...I too have reservations. Don't regurgitate facts about so called 'socialist' countries or their death toll(minor next to capitalism). C'mon, dig into your Marxist conceptual arsenal...if you have one? I can recommend some literature if you are truly interested...
CW8824 3 years ago
I'm arrogant, but your the one peremptorily calling me a know-nothing fraud? Uhhh, yeah, right.
Your idea of ignorance is someone who does not agree with you, since to know the "facts" would mean capitulating to your position & grandiose glossing of the field. Correct? lmao
Give it your best shot, uber-Marxist. I am here & waiting, mr modesty.
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
No, I read your comments and they show no indication that you are acquainted with Marxist theory. I appologize if I am wrong, am I? And no, if you re-read my post you'll see I did not call you ignorant for disagreeing: "I'd love to debate a point that shows you are familiar with the writings of Marx (but you don't seem to be)...I too have reservations." You don't even know my position..? Basically, what is your objection to Marxism in the context of the theory itself is what I asked you?
CW8824 3 years ago
I don't have a problem debating Marxism. Please begin, since it's your challenge.
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
Ok, but I'm not quite sure to begin since I am trying, in a sense, to defend it. Uh lets see...what are your ontological and epistimological views?...do you take objection to any major from Capital or Gundrisse?...I mean I personally think many of Marx' insights are still quite relevant but I'd concede that he did not explore every caveat to exhaustion. Of course it has to be applied to modern economics but that is less daunting than being an capitalist apologist. Where are you coming from?
CW8824 3 years ago
Marxism is not a terribly sophisticated theory. But you ought to at least indicate if you are defending him, Engels, or many of the further refiners & satelitic defenders.
So please be specific.
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
Look, maybe you believe in Marxism, or Neo-Marxism, but don't know it well enough to make a positive case for it.
Don't feel bad, there's only about 99.999% of its adherents fitting into that category.
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
Yeah how schocking that the US backed Stalin had the audacity to kill Nazi spies and terrorists.
Khomradeigor 3 years ago
Ubderstand hegel? Is that a dog-German pun? Honestly, my German should be much better, so what do I know. Honestly, my enthusiasm for Feuerbach and Hegel and Walter Benjamin are all mediated through translators. So I ask, not ridiculing you, and in all humility:
What the fck do you mean? Is that "uber und under" ..."udded tugutther?"
Now I'm just making fun of German because I'm uncomfortable with my own ignorance...
But what DID you mean?
falstaffswims 4 years ago
Ubderstand hegel
Frsoroad 4 years ago
Ubderstand hegel? Is that a dog-German pun? Honestly, my German should be much better, so what do I know. Honestly, my enthusiasm for Feuerbach and Hegel and Walter Benjamin are all mediated through translators. So I ask, not ridiculing you, and in all humility:
What the fck do you mean? Is that "uber und under" ..."udded tugutther?"
Now I'm just making fun of German because I'm uncomfortable with my own ignorance...
But what DID you mean?
falstaffswims 4 years ago