Description of the NWO Economic wars as commenced with Libya from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion:
"The doctrine of squaring accounts is precisely as strong as the means of which it makes use. Therefore it is not so much by the means themselves as by the doctrine of severity that we shall triumph and bring all governments into subjection to our super-government. It is enough for them to know that we are too merciless for all disobedience to cease."
@americaisbacktrump That seriously lacks any critical sense of analysis. This just reeks of the same desperation that you get from the likes of those that attempt to connect the prophecies of the Bible and Nostrodamus to events in the real world. That description is easily just the obvious conclusion on any musings on imperialism, before the fact.
@vorfahrenbach Go read the protocols. The seminal document out of which Marxism and globalism emerged. It outlines the world today. That is what makes it so potent and different from Nostradamus which is a matter of belief not actual events and very thin imo. Protocols simply describe an ongoing process which has been happening over a long time. The conspiracy by the controlled media is that there is no conspiracy when the conspiracy is obvious and proveable. It IS related to the Old Testament.
I've read them. Marxism did not emerge from the 'protocols', nor did globalism. For me the comparison of "matter of belief not actual events and very thin imo" is a rather ironic statement to be made here. I'm not going to say that no conspiracy exists, but the vast majority of them (with which I would include this one) are not obvious nor provable.
The only relation to the Old testament is that with Judaism, to which this document has little relevance, in any reality.
1) The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a fabricated document that plagiarised Maurice Joly and Hermann Goedsche.
2) It was first published between 1897-1903, but Marx died in 1883....
It's not the fact that he ripped off the 'Protocols' that is interesting, it is that he was compelled to rise from the grave to do so! Zombie-Marx ripping off pseudo-Jewish domination plans.
@vorfahrenbach Protocols true in every word and sentence. In Protocol 1 the Rothschilds attack on Libya to stop the gold Dinar explained. 1 explains Hegelianism and the work of the Frankfurth school. It is the seminal doctrine of Jewish throught on dealing with non-Jews in order to control them. It lays out the plan for the new world order. It is an accurate account of what has happed up to today, it includes how Hollywood and the Rothschild controlled AP and Reuters work. It explains Marxism.
@americaisbacktrump Absolute sophistry. You haven't explained how Marx could possibly have plagiarised a fake-document that was published AFTER his death. How does it explain Hegelianism and the Frankfurt school? How does it explain Marxism. Tell me what you think 'Marxism' is.
@vorfahrenbach Tyranny is falling fast upon us. All news about Libya was controlled through the International federation of journalists in Brussels; a globalist political party affiliated to Rothschilds AP and Reuters. Start investigating, listen to Alan Watt/Alex Jones; it's all there. Or die a useful idiot or as a priveliged member of the elites if thats what you are. If I copied your diary and published it you could say it was a forgery. It would be no less accurate and true.
@americaisbacktrump Nonsurprisingly, you've offered nothing to support your original claim, and nothing in response to my questions. I don't doubt that there is tyranny in this world - I have investigated these things for myself. Ultimately, I'm a skeptic; it seems to me that most proponents of these 'conspiracy theories' have opened their minds to the point of their brains falling out.
The fundamental point is that Jews, didn't write the 'protocols'.
@vorfahrenbach The fundamental point is that the protocols are a perfect, and I mean word perfect outline of a plan which has been in operation for a very long time and which is rapidly moving towards conclusion and which history has proved to be accurate. But by the time you have moved from being a brainwashed sociobot of the Bolchevik Brainwashing Corporation to a digitally microchipped slave of the Rothschilds world dictatorship through the UN it will be too late for you to realise that.
I'm not going to deny that there aren't similarities, but to consider it 'word perfect' is merely an exercise in attempting to force square shapes into circular holes. A very skewed sense of 'history', perhaps.
I have no ties with anything 'Bolshevik' in ideology or anything else, for that matter. For me, what matters is intellectual honesty; something severely lacking when it comes to the matter of Marx and Marxism, from both the Leninists and those of your ilk.
@vorfahrenbach I admit I am only at Potocol 1 but I find Hegelianism, Frankfurth school cultural Marxism. Hollywood, fashion industry and publishing degeneration of non-Jewish culture, morality and tradition, corruption of minors, attack on non-Jewish religion and family. The construction of an alternative govermenent in the form of the CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, UN, Common Purpose, Fabian Society, Demos etc, multiculturalism, diversity, 'equality' mass immigration and so on.
@americaisbacktrump Fair enough. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see the connection between protocol one and the majority of those things. Specifically the Frankfurt school and Hegelianism. It seems to me to be more about linking a rather vague passage to a number of things in the modern world as if they were actually connected.
@vorfahrenbach The relation to the Old Testament is 'Might is Right' it is an expression of a brutal God. The plan to destabalise the non-Jewish family is clearly set out and to use 'egalite, fraternite, liberte' as a weapon to ensnare the people. In British and Western one-party liberal states real power is from above and controls the parties who never alter the agenda above them but act like competing football teams at the base. + Hegelian thesis v anthesis = tyranny.
@americaisbacktrump The protocols isn't a 'plan'; it is a document of defamation. Of course real power is from above, that is the very nature of capitalism. If parliamentary democracy actually achieved anything, it would be abolished. But the power isn't in the hands of some conspiratorial super-order; unless that is the collective interests of the capitalist class.
How does the abstract idea of "thesis" vs "antithesis" = tyranny? They aren't even a valid representation of Hegel's dialectic.
@vorfahrenbach The protocols is a plan which is being carried out as we speak for those who wish to look. The very corruption of democracy is there, the abuse of 'equality, liberty, fraternity' the masculinisation of non-Jewish women and feminisation of men ditto. The power is in the Rothschids and their family and puppets through the banks. They own Britain, they rule as a shadow government imposing climatescams, economic wars, increasing one world government and control of media.
@americaisbacktrump Perhaps it, somewhat, mirrors some of the goings on in the world today, but they have no connection to this document. Again, for me that is just grasping at straws. Those things do happen, but they aren't the result of some Zionist conspiracy. I would agree that the banks hold a lot of power, but I see no evidence for it to be solely the Rothschilds. Climate change is a fact. There isn't a "one world government" to increase, in any manner other than metaphorical.
@vorfahrenbach P12 Control of press by Rothschilds through IFJ, AP and Reuters: NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.
@americaisbacktrump You connect the two as if it is a matter of causation; it certainly is not.
The control of the media is the 'natural' result of capitalism. Noam Chomsky has written a number of brilliant books on this matter; it is cultural hegemony at its purest.
Now, rather than going back and forth on all of this, which isn't going to get resolved here, what is your proposed solution to these problems? I presume that you consider yourself a 'libertarian' in the US sense?
@americaisbacktrump Estimated fortune of the Rothschilds family who control Wall Street and The Fed through relations and puppets and who control the economy of the world:
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.
Topics: Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc2.yolasite.com
figure4etc1.yolasite.com
etc.
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
@ShotgunRog ii) BUT, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you misunderstood what he meant by that. In most of your other examples, you are referring to the “ten planks” which have to be considered in their proper context; Marx was writing about a transitionary programme for the countries of the time, and he later contradicted many of them in later works. The ten planks aren’t a programme for communism itself.
I may have come across a little strong and presumptuous, but Marx was steadfast on the idea that a revolution, (which would most likely be violent) was the only way to get to communism; that idea never changed, and was one of the primary ways in which his ideas differed from most other socialist ideologies. I wasn't saying that you said Lenin or Stalin were communists (which they were, at least at one point)...
He disagreed with those that tried to suggest a more peaceful road to Socialism because he deemed their proposed methods to be fruitless. At the time, most of the opposing socialists were of the social-democrat-reformist type, whereas Marx believed that only a revolution (violent or otherwise) would be able to bring about Socialism.
Note that I tried to summerise Marxism in just over 2 minutes. Also it was based specifically around Andrew Heywoods "Introduction to Political Thought" 4th edition because I made this for my A level revision.
I have read Marx's manifesto and studied several books by and about him. I understand that towards the end of his life he realised peaceful means were perhaps a more likely road to communism.
I also didn't say lenin/Stalin etc were communist, but were the "first signs of".
@Catholicism777 ..I merely mentioned them to differentiate between what is often assumed about 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and the reality, but regardless of that, they weren't the first signs of it.
Communism has never existed; all of the states (which wouldn’t exist in communism anyway) that called themselves communist were nominal, represented bastardisations of Marx’s ideas, and didn’t amount to anything more than state capitalism. If you actually bothered to read Marx, rather than second-rate rehashes, you would realise this. The very idea of a ‘dictator’ in the modern context is totally antithetical to Marx’s ideas.
But Marx still did enjoy rejecting others views. He was very much a 'bourgeois' hypocrite himself. He even had servants I think I remember reading somewhere.
Interesting character, but I'm no Marxist so I'm naturally not going to like him.
Oh, of course, I wouldn't disagree with the fact that the Russian Revolution stands out the most, but that's not the same as "the first signs of". He was very acerbic and had a no-holes barred approach; I don't agree with all of his criticisms and it was obviously a negative streak in his personality. But that shouldn't detract from his ideas.
@Catholicism777 He grew up in a fairly privileged household , but he lived most of life in poverty, he himself had no servants; Engels, on the other hand oversaw his father's wool factories in Birmingham, and Marx lived on money that Engels gave him. Marx was certainly not bourgeois as you say. I wouldn;t consider Marx a hypocrite in that respect either. He obviously didn't live the life of the proletariat, but again this doesn't detract from any validity of his ideas
@vorfahrenbach Maybe we should look at the fact that every time a nation adopts communism we end up with a Linen or Mao. Marx's manifesto wants to abolish private property, centrally controlled banking, state instituted education, the removal of morals and religion. Human nature proves that this opens the doors for someone to take advantage as leader of the state. Marx was either delusional or deceptive. There is no strive for an individual in communism.
@ShotgunRog i) No nation has ever adopted communism. Some leaders may have considered themselves, or their nations as communist, but they weren’t (at least if you equivocate 'Communism' with the writings of Marx). You are right about Marx’s wish to abolish private property; he even goes so far as to say that “The theory of communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.”
@ShotgunRog iii) He didn’t want to abolish “morals” unless you erroneously consider them to be inextricably linked with religion. Human nature isn’t a fixed absolute; it is a dynamic depending on the social and material conditions that an individual is in.
@ShotgunRog iv) Regardless of that, the idea that someone could take advantage as leader of the state is irrelevant, as 1) there is no state in communism and 2) There would be no individual leader; that idea is linked to Lenin’s theory of the Vanguard party, which isn’t one found in Marx.
@ShotgunRog v) You would first have to understand Marx to come to the reductive conclusion that he was either delusional or deceptive; you have proven that you don’t, so try again. Your misconception of communism leaves no strive for the individual, indeed.
...it didn’t refer to authoritarian methods or characteristics of proletarian rule, but merely the class nature of the socialist transition state. Marx alluded to the Paris Commune as the very example of the dictatorship of the proletariat in his work “The Civil War in France”.
The Russian revolution stands out far more than the others and actually resulted in a last longing failed attempt at creating a communist utopia. It was believed that a dictator was necessary in part to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" untill the rest of the world underwent its own revolution. Clearly it didn't.
It was believed that a dictator was necessary by those who mistook and misunderstood his ideas. That was not an idea the originated with Marx. The Russian Revolution may have been more successful had the German Revolution of 1918 not been crushed, but that's neither here nor there, and doesn't detract from the fact that Lenin both didn't do what Marx said, and didn't even do what he said should be done in his books "What should be done" and "The State and Revolution".
'It was believed that a dictator was necessary in part to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" untill the rest of the world underwent its own revolution.
Dictatorship of the proletariat does not refer to a dictator who once was part of the proletariat. Maybe it becomes clear to you what is meant by the phrase if you know that we are currently living in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
You don't seem to understand what Marx theorised at all; I wouldn't be surprised if you had never read any of his work, and/or got all your information from Wikipedia, or some conservative interpretation.
Additional issues with this video:
1)The way you tie a misunderstanding of Marx’s ideas with emotive imagery, that was a result of the bastardisation of those very ideas This is akin to the social-darwinist/Nazi imagery in the film “Expelled: No Intelligence allowed
The revolution is Coming . The rich getting richer will stop . Captilist republicans will be overthrown in the year of 2015. Then true equality will last for a thousand years
Karl new that wealth-redistribution would cause just enough conflict to let the real communist illumined power-elite rise to total control----unending war.
Very good. This is important to know (as you managed to show) that it was the very idea of marxism which was unacceptable from the very beginning. Too many people believe that the idea was good, just corrupted later on. This is wrong, the idea was wrong from the beginning.
What absolute sophistry this is. Marx was a very acerbic and critical man, agreed, but he did accept, to some degree the opinions of others; you only have to look to the labour theory of value (originating with Ricardo) and Marx's development in his ideas throughout his life to see that his ideas weren't iron-cast. The very same criticism could be levied at any political theorist, without detracting from the validity of their ideas.
2) I wouldn’t be surprised if you misunderstood what Marx meant by:
i)“The abolition of private property”, by which he was referring to the means of production, not to personal property, i.e. personal possessions.
ii)‘Dictator ship of the proletariat”. What was meant by the term ‘dictatorship’ was not the anti-democratic nature of the Lenin/Stalin/Mao regimes, but merely the acquisition of power by the proletariat, and then the formulation of a workers’ state; ....
What's the name of this song?
iwhbtyd 1 week ago
Description of the NWO Economic wars as commenced with Libya from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion:
"The doctrine of squaring accounts is precisely as strong as the means of which it makes use. Therefore it is not so much by the means themselves as by the doctrine of severity that we shall triumph and bring all governments into subjection to our super-government. It is enough for them to know that we are too merciless for all disobedience to cease."
americaisbacktrump 4 months ago
@americaisbacktrump That seriously lacks any critical sense of analysis. This just reeks of the same desperation that you get from the likes of those that attempt to connect the prophecies of the Bible and Nostrodamus to events in the real world. That description is easily just the obvious conclusion on any musings on imperialism, before the fact.
vorfahrenbach 4 months ago
@vorfahrenbach Go read the protocols. The seminal document out of which Marxism and globalism emerged. It outlines the world today. That is what makes it so potent and different from Nostradamus which is a matter of belief not actual events and very thin imo. Protocols simply describe an ongoing process which has been happening over a long time. The conspiracy by the controlled media is that there is no conspiracy when the conspiracy is obvious and proveable. It IS related to the Old Testament.
americaisbacktrump 4 months ago
@americaisbacktrump
I've read them. Marxism did not emerge from the 'protocols', nor did globalism. For me the comparison of "matter of belief not actual events and very thin imo" is a rather ironic statement to be made here. I'm not going to say that no conspiracy exists, but the vast majority of them (with which I would include this one) are not obvious nor provable.
The only relation to the Old testament is that with Judaism, to which this document has little relevance, in any reality.
vorfahrenbach 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Marx was just a plagurist who ripped off the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and re-packaged it.
americaisbacktrump 4 months ago
@americaisbacktrump Are you actually being serious?
1) The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a fabricated document that plagiarised Maurice Joly and Hermann Goedsche.
2) It was first published between 1897-1903, but Marx died in 1883....
It's not the fact that he ripped off the 'Protocols' that is interesting, it is that he was compelled to rise from the grave to do so! Zombie-Marx ripping off pseudo-Jewish domination plans.
Capital!
vorfahrenbach 4 months ago
@vorfahrenbach Protocols true in every word and sentence. In Protocol 1 the Rothschilds attack on Libya to stop the gold Dinar explained. 1 explains Hegelianism and the work of the Frankfurth school. It is the seminal doctrine of Jewish throught on dealing with non-Jews in order to control them. It lays out the plan for the new world order. It is an accurate account of what has happed up to today, it includes how Hollywood and the Rothschild controlled AP and Reuters work. It explains Marxism.
americaisbacktrump 4 months ago
@americaisbacktrump Absolute sophistry. You haven't explained how Marx could possibly have plagiarised a fake-document that was published AFTER his death. How does it explain Hegelianism and the Frankfurt school? How does it explain Marxism. Tell me what you think 'Marxism' is.
The 'Protocols' is a forgery, pure and simple.
vorfahrenbach 4 months ago
@vorfahrenbach Tyranny is falling fast upon us. All news about Libya was controlled through the International federation of journalists in Brussels; a globalist political party affiliated to Rothschilds AP and Reuters. Start investigating, listen to Alan Watt/Alex Jones; it's all there. Or die a useful idiot or as a priveliged member of the elites if thats what you are. If I copied your diary and published it you could say it was a forgery. It would be no less accurate and true.
americaisbacktrump 4 months ago
@americaisbacktrump Nonsurprisingly, you've offered nothing to support your original claim, and nothing in response to my questions. I don't doubt that there is tyranny in this world - I have investigated these things for myself. Ultimately, I'm a skeptic; it seems to me that most proponents of these 'conspiracy theories' have opened their minds to the point of their brains falling out.
The fundamental point is that Jews, didn't write the 'protocols'.
vorfahrenbach 4 months ago
@vorfahrenbach The fundamental point is that the protocols are a perfect, and I mean word perfect outline of a plan which has been in operation for a very long time and which is rapidly moving towards conclusion and which history has proved to be accurate. But by the time you have moved from being a brainwashed sociobot of the Bolchevik Brainwashing Corporation to a digitally microchipped slave of the Rothschilds world dictatorship through the UN it will be too late for you to realise that.
americaisbacktrump 4 months ago
@americaisbacktrump
I'm not going to deny that there aren't similarities, but to consider it 'word perfect' is merely an exercise in attempting to force square shapes into circular holes. A very skewed sense of 'history', perhaps.
I have no ties with anything 'Bolshevik' in ideology or anything else, for that matter. For me, what matters is intellectual honesty; something severely lacking when it comes to the matter of Marx and Marxism, from both the Leninists and those of your ilk.
vorfahrenbach 4 months ago
@vorfahrenbach I admit I am only at Potocol 1 but I find Hegelianism, Frankfurth school cultural Marxism. Hollywood, fashion industry and publishing degeneration of non-Jewish culture, morality and tradition, corruption of minors, attack on non-Jewish religion and family. The construction of an alternative govermenent in the form of the CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, UN, Common Purpose, Fabian Society, Demos etc, multiculturalism, diversity, 'equality' mass immigration and so on.
americaisbacktrump 4 months ago
@americaisbacktrump Fair enough. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see the connection between protocol one and the majority of those things. Specifically the Frankfurt school and Hegelianism. It seems to me to be more about linking a rather vague passage to a number of things in the modern world as if they were actually connected.
vorfahrenbach 4 months ago
@vorfahrenbach The relation to the Old Testament is 'Might is Right' it is an expression of a brutal God. The plan to destabalise the non-Jewish family is clearly set out and to use 'egalite, fraternite, liberte' as a weapon to ensnare the people. In British and Western one-party liberal states real power is from above and controls the parties who never alter the agenda above them but act like competing football teams at the base. + Hegelian thesis v anthesis = tyranny.
americaisbacktrump 4 months ago
@americaisbacktrump The protocols isn't a 'plan'; it is a document of defamation. Of course real power is from above, that is the very nature of capitalism. If parliamentary democracy actually achieved anything, it would be abolished. But the power isn't in the hands of some conspiratorial super-order; unless that is the collective interests of the capitalist class.
How does the abstract idea of "thesis" vs "antithesis" = tyranny? They aren't even a valid representation of Hegel's dialectic.
vorfahrenbach 4 months ago
@vorfahrenbach The protocols is a plan which is being carried out as we speak for those who wish to look. The very corruption of democracy is there, the abuse of 'equality, liberty, fraternity' the masculinisation of non-Jewish women and feminisation of men ditto. The power is in the Rothschids and their family and puppets through the banks. They own Britain, they rule as a shadow government imposing climatescams, economic wars, increasing one world government and control of media.
americaisbacktrump 4 months ago
@americaisbacktrump Perhaps it, somewhat, mirrors some of the goings on in the world today, but they have no connection to this document. Again, for me that is just grasping at straws. Those things do happen, but they aren't the result of some Zionist conspiracy. I would agree that the banks hold a lot of power, but I see no evidence for it to be solely the Rothschilds. Climate change is a fact. There isn't a "one world government" to increase, in any manner other than metaphorical.
vorfahrenbach 4 months ago
@vorfahrenbach P12 Control of press by Rothschilds through IFJ, AP and Reuters: NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.
americaisbacktrump 4 months ago
Comment removed
vorfahrenbach 4 months ago
@americaisbacktrump You connect the two as if it is a matter of causation; it certainly is not.
The control of the media is the 'natural' result of capitalism. Noam Chomsky has written a number of brilliant books on this matter; it is cultural hegemony at its purest.
Now, rather than going back and forth on all of this, which isn't going to get resolved here, what is your proposed solution to these problems? I presume that you consider yourself a 'libertarian' in the US sense?
vorfahrenbach 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@americaisbacktrump Estimated fortune of the Rothschilds family who control Wall Street and The Fed through relations and puppets and who control the economy of the world:
$1.9 trillion US (@ 4%)
$7.8 trillion US (@ 5%)
$31.5 trillion US (@ 6%)
$125,189.1 trillion US (@ 7%)
$491,409.0 trillion US (@ 8%)
americaisbacktrump 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc2.yolasite.com
figure4etc1.yolasite.com
etc.
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
@vorfahrenbach @Catholicism777 @shotgunrog Can't we all get along?
bastardsofnazareth 9 months ago
@ShotgunRog ii) BUT, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you misunderstood what he meant by that. In most of your other examples, you are referring to the “ten planks” which have to be considered in their proper context; Marx was writing about a transitionary programme for the countries of the time, and he later contradicted many of them in later works. The ten planks aren’t a programme for communism itself.
vorfahrenbach 9 months ago
@CathoIicism777
I may have come across a little strong and presumptuous, but Marx was steadfast on the idea that a revolution, (which would most likely be violent) was the only way to get to communism; that idea never changed, and was one of the primary ways in which his ideas differed from most other socialist ideologies. I wasn't saying that you said Lenin or Stalin were communists (which they were, at least at one point)...
vorfahrenbach 10 months ago
@vorfahrenbach
I may have made it propagandary but that's because it makes it, to me at least, easier to watch and more fun to make.
Catholicism777 10 months ago
@Catholicism777
He disagreed with those that tried to suggest a more peaceful road to Socialism because he deemed their proposed methods to be fruitless. At the time, most of the opposing socialists were of the social-democrat-reformist type, whereas Marx believed that only a revolution (violent or otherwise) would be able to bring about Socialism.
vorfahrenbach 10 months ago
Note that I tried to summerise Marxism in just over 2 minutes. Also it was based specifically around Andrew Heywoods "Introduction to Political Thought" 4th edition because I made this for my A level revision.
I have read Marx's manifesto and studied several books by and about him. I understand that towards the end of his life he realised peaceful means were perhaps a more likely road to communism.
I also didn't say lenin/Stalin etc were communist, but were the "first signs of".
Catholicism777 10 months ago
@Catholicism777 ..I merely mentioned them to differentiate between what is often assumed about 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and the reality, but regardless of that, they weren't the first signs of it.
vorfahrenbach 10 months ago
@vorfahrenbach
Take your issue up with Heywood. This was a severly summed up video on Marx from a book which summarises Marxism.
Catholicism777 10 months ago
@Catholicism777
Fair enough. I may take up your advice there.
vorfahrenbach 10 months ago
@Catholicism777
Communism has never existed; all of the states (which wouldn’t exist in communism anyway) that called themselves communist were nominal, represented bastardisations of Marx’s ideas, and didn’t amount to anything more than state capitalism. If you actually bothered to read Marx, rather than second-rate rehashes, you would realise this. The very idea of a ‘dictator’ in the modern context is totally antithetical to Marx’s ideas.
vorfahrenbach 10 months ago
@vorfahrenbach
But Marx still did enjoy rejecting others views. He was very much a 'bourgeois' hypocrite himself. He even had servants I think I remember reading somewhere.
Interesting character, but I'm no Marxist so I'm naturally not going to like him.
Catholicism777 10 months ago
@Catholicism777 atholicism777
Oh, of course, I wouldn't disagree with the fact that the Russian Revolution stands out the most, but that's not the same as "the first signs of". He was very acerbic and had a no-holes barred approach; I don't agree with all of his criticisms and it was obviously a negative streak in his personality. But that shouldn't detract from his ideas.
vorfahrenbach 10 months ago
@Catholicism777 He grew up in a fairly privileged household , but he lived most of life in poverty, he himself had no servants; Engels, on the other hand oversaw his father's wool factories in Birmingham, and Marx lived on money that Engels gave him. Marx was certainly not bourgeois as you say. I wouldn;t consider Marx a hypocrite in that respect either. He obviously didn't live the life of the proletariat, but again this doesn't detract from any validity of his ideas
vorfahrenbach 10 months ago
@vorfahrenbach Maybe we should look at the fact that every time a nation adopts communism we end up with a Linen or Mao. Marx's manifesto wants to abolish private property, centrally controlled banking, state instituted education, the removal of morals and religion. Human nature proves that this opens the doors for someone to take advantage as leader of the state. Marx was either delusional or deceptive. There is no strive for an individual in communism.
ShotgunRog 9 months ago
@ShotgunRog i) No nation has ever adopted communism. Some leaders may have considered themselves, or their nations as communist, but they weren’t (at least if you equivocate 'Communism' with the writings of Marx). You are right about Marx’s wish to abolish private property; he even goes so far as to say that “The theory of communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.”
vorfahrenbach 9 months ago
@ShotgunRog iii) He didn’t want to abolish “morals” unless you erroneously consider them to be inextricably linked with religion. Human nature isn’t a fixed absolute; it is a dynamic depending on the social and material conditions that an individual is in.
vorfahrenbach 9 months ago
Comment removed
vorfahrenbach 9 months ago
Comment removed
vorfahrenbach 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ShotgunRog iv) Regardless of that, the idea that someone could take advantage as leader of the state is irrelevant, as 1) there is no state in communism and 2) There would be no individual leader; that idea is linked to Lenin’s theory of the Vanguard party, which isn’t one found in Marx.
vorfahrenbach 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ShotgunRog v) You would first have to understand Marx to come to the reductive conclusion that he was either delusional or deceptive; you have proven that you don’t, so try again. Your misconception of communism leaves no strive for the individual, indeed.
vorfahrenbach 9 months ago
Comment removed
vorfahrenbach 10 months ago
@Catholicism777
...it didn’t refer to authoritarian methods or characteristics of proletarian rule, but merely the class nature of the socialist transition state. Marx alluded to the Paris Commune as the very example of the dictatorship of the proletariat in his work “The Civil War in France”.
vorfahrenbach 10 months ago
@vorfahrenbach
The Russian revolution stands out far more than the others and actually resulted in a last longing failed attempt at creating a communist utopia. It was believed that a dictator was necessary in part to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" untill the rest of the world underwent its own revolution. Clearly it didn't.
Catholicism777 10 months ago
@Catholicism777
It was believed that a dictator was necessary by those who mistook and misunderstood his ideas. That was not an idea the originated with Marx. The Russian Revolution may have been more successful had the German Revolution of 1918 not been crushed, but that's neither here nor there, and doesn't detract from the fact that Lenin both didn't do what Marx said, and didn't even do what he said should be done in his books "What should be done" and "The State and Revolution".
vorfahrenbach 10 months ago
@Catholicism777
'It was believed that a dictator was necessary in part to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" untill the rest of the world underwent its own revolution.
Dictatorship of the proletariat does not refer to a dictator who once was part of the proletariat. Maybe it becomes clear to you what is meant by the phrase if you know that we are currently living in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
pulsatingremedy 8 months ago
@Catholicism777
You don't seem to understand what Marx theorised at all; I wouldn't be surprised if you had never read any of his work, and/or got all your information from Wikipedia, or some conservative interpretation.
Additional issues with this video:
1)The way you tie a misunderstanding of Marx’s ideas with emotive imagery, that was a result of the bastardisation of those very ideas This is akin to the social-darwinist/Nazi imagery in the film “Expelled: No Intelligence allowed
vorfahrenbach 10 months ago
The revolution is Coming . The rich getting richer will stop . Captilist republicans will be overthrown in the year of 2015. Then true equality will last for a thousand years
hollygirl451 11 months ago
We need a new revolution
screnplay 1 year ago
i'm waring a shirt that has this on it ,WALL MARX, Alway Corporate Greed , Always. no joke!
hailfire101 1 year ago
PEOPLES OF EUROPE RISE UP !!!!!!!!!!
diogo7ful 1 year ago
@diogo7ful well ill join you whos with us !!!!!!!!!
DawnF2010 1 year ago
Karl new that wealth-redistribution would cause just enough conflict to let the real communist illumined power-elite rise to total control----unending war.
philoplatt 2 years ago
Very good. This is important to know (as you managed to show) that it was the very idea of marxism which was unacceptable from the very beginning. Too many people believe that the idea was good, just corrupted later on. This is wrong, the idea was wrong from the beginning.
OlenkaWagner 2 years ago
Thanks! I agree
Karl Marx was completely unwilling to accept anyone elses opinions, especially socialists who tried to suggest a more peaceful road to Socialism.
Socialism is overall, a utopian dream.
Catholicism777 2 years ago
@Catholicism777
What absolute sophistry this is. Marx was a very acerbic and critical man, agreed, but he did accept, to some degree the opinions of others; you only have to look to the labour theory of value (originating with Ricardo) and Marx's development in his ideas throughout his life to see that his ideas weren't iron-cast. The very same criticism could be levied at any political theorist, without detracting from the validity of their ideas.
vorfahrenbach 10 months ago
@Catholicism777
2) I wouldn’t be surprised if you misunderstood what Marx meant by:
i)“The abolition of private property”, by which he was referring to the means of production, not to personal property, i.e. personal possessions.
ii)‘Dictator ship of the proletariat”. What was meant by the term ‘dictatorship’ was not the anti-democratic nature of the Lenin/Stalin/Mao regimes, but merely the acquisition of power by the proletariat, and then the formulation of a workers’ state; ....
vorfahrenbach 10 months ago
Comment removed
vorfahrenbach 10 months ago