Marxism

All liberals and socialists are marxists, they don't come out and say it, but recently reading through the communist manifesto and conversing with liberals I have noticed a pattern too unlikely to be a coincidence. Apart from the usual extremism that has turned marxism into more of a cult-religion than a legitimate political science, there are 4 major errors in marxism which liberals use ad nauseum in their weak arguments. To be honest I'm too bord to explain them all so I will just do 1 at a time when I feel like it.

There are 2 major themes in this discussion, the first being the problem marx told people he was trying to solve, his ideas concerning exploitation and how the rich and powerful control labourers. Bear in mind these were not his ideas, so when I say that "the rich and powerful can exploit people", I'm not agreeing with marx, but with something so self evident the idea that Marx was the first to point this out could count as a 5th major error. The second theme is a more logical definition of the problems he was trying to solve, which was poverty and unequal opportunity, once again these ideas were older than the internet by the time Marx was squeezed out of his mom's VAGINA and in the typical liberal manner for some reason he never mentionned them.

1: The "liberty is evil" fallacy.
This fallacy is very simple. It makes use of superstition and the attempt to take out proof and correlation when determinning whether 2 events are connected or not. Marx believed that liberty is the freedom for factory owners to exploit their workers.

Long story short, Liberty is just a set of laws which prevent the tell tale signs of somone using military force to political oppress people, obviously marx and future marxists wanted their government to politically oppress the proletariat and came up with this. Freedom of speech, human rights and that everyone is equal under the law etc.. there is nothing wrong with these, they merely do not instantly turn the world into a paradise, eliminating poverty and ensuring equal opportunity. With this in mind it is obvious that while liberty does little to reduce exploitation, it does enable people to speak out against it and do something about it. The reason why communism and socialism is such a huge failure is because it expects a benevolent tyranny from the avidly non-libertarian thugs that take over.

>>1 too lame;didn't respect

Of course Marx also said that Capitalism is only slightly above Communism. Looking at the United States at the moment, I'm inclined to agree.

>>1
LOL, way to go. True liberals = prettymuch same as libertarian except they don't really have opnion on economics. Social "liberals" = marxist scheme and they aren't liberals at all. You're on right track though.

>>4
Agree

you're a joke

>>3
>>4
>>5
Thanks, I am not an idealist so I rarely get an applause, also look at what the marxists have been reduced to.
>>2
>>6

The fight between extremism and truth starts off with the truth having to spend a lot of time explaining why their fallacies are wrong and for the extremists to create more fallacies and re-use old fallacies to waste more of the truth's time. Eventually however the truth's argument becomes so refined and directed, disproving new fallacies becomes easier than creating new fallacies. At this point the extremists either go take a long look in the mirror or resort to slander, or if they are not in a free speech environment begin to implement political oppression.

>>7 Common for convinced people is to attach their position and that of the destructive powers that assault them with left-overs is to universalize everything in order to turn an argument into a fight for everything good and holy - incredibly nebulous these values may be. You make strawmen no one even has to bother sweeping up the ashes of and your writing is quite poor. This is subjevtive and is no attempt to refute your points. I am currently trying to move to the libertarian movement from my originally leftist position - you are the inevitable shadow of the dogmatic nature of freedom lauders. We don't have to resort to preaching - Rand itself managed, allegedly, to induce the perfection of laissez-faire via reality, but she tried to gain oomph by making strawmen and overplaying her hand. I think you've done the same, you heterosexual.

>>4
You know it's actually scary that modern American "liberal" movement you're referring had ties with Soviet Union.
>>6
That's not true. Conservative = traditionalist. In US we have got libertarian/classical liberal conversatives and neo-"conservatives" who seem to believe in some form of republican ascism, but I don't know why they call themselves conservatists, since their ideology has nothing to do with American traditions. While in Russia and China there are communist conservatists.

Marx was a jewish faggot

I WILL NOT SUPPORT ANY MARXISM-BASED COMMUNIST CAUSE UNTIL I CAN FIND A REGULAR SOURCE OF GOOD, SPREADEAGLE-QUALITY PORNOGRAPHY THAT FEATURES LIKENESSES OF THESE HISTORICAL FIGURES: KARL MARX, LENIN, JOSEPH STALIN, GORBACHEV, OR VALDIMIR PUTIN.

>>8
Well, the thing is, you are on my side. I believe that as long as a political opponent doesn't want to kill me for disagreeing with her/him, they are on the good side. The differences in our opinions are negligible compared to the differences in our opinions with a violent extremist.

>>9
It couldn't be attributed entirely to the soviet union and marxism. Most liberal followers are simply told that this political group has the answers to poverty, discrimination etc etc.. and of course the only moral thing to do is to go along with it. Socialists always have answers to the simple questions and most people don't doubt them because they don't even consider the need to ask relevant questions. The sad truth is that all they succeeded in doing was turning otherwise determinned libertarian egalitarians into raving marxist extremists.

>>4
You are only partly right.  For clarity, you should refer to these liberals as 'classical liberals'. 

Understand, this poster isn't referring to or trying to attack -classical- liberals, he is attacking the neo-liberal scum that we see today.  He isn't attacking John Locke and those folks when he insults 'liberals', he is insulting modern socialists.

>>13
Yeah, but I think it's important that we make clear that these modern "liberals" don't deserve to be called liberals. It's very important to reveal their true nature. I bet half of their votes come from misguided people who believe they're for freedom and liberty.

>>14
That is why we make the distinction by referring to the old 'liberals' as 'classical liberals' so that when I go bashing present day liberals, the blame isn't directed at the 'liberals' of the past (who are actually 'classical liberals'. 

Classical liberals = Jeffersonian type liberals (really somewhat libertarian in nature.

liberals = modern day neo-liberal trash.. ex John Kerry , Hillary Clinton, half the Democratic Party... you name it.

Yes, I know the democratic party USED to be more or less freedom and liberty loving, but that just isn't the case now. 

http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

>>13
>>14
>>15
Using non-slang terminology, how would you define neo-liberals.

They seem to be a mix of different marxist derived ideologies, they seem to have some sort of impulse to support democracy, but some of their ideas are inherantly statist... They believe equality is above meritocracy, so while they believe in equal opportunity, they believe that taking power out of the hands of experts is justified to make the experts as wealthy as the unqualified, even though it makes everyone poorer..

>>17
Not to mention that they have very retarded concept of "negative" liberties. That's main reason why I hate them. I find their economic policy bit misguided, but it's not reason for my dislike.

>>18
Curiously this leads on to the 2nd fallacy.

2: Equal opportunity vs equal outcome, not poverty vs equal outcome.

Obviously this has to do with the idea that people need an incentive to work hard and so should be paiod more, but the argument continues and there is a complex idea I have to explain. I can't be botherred at the moment though. Maybe later today.

2: Equal opportunity vs equal outcome, not poverty vs equal outcome.

People work for rewards, however people are struck by different vices that affect their ability to do so. These factors in reality are obviously what need to be alterred by the rule of law to make everyone happy and productive etc..

Marx was very blunt about this with his quote
"From each according to their productivity, to each according to their needs."

It is pretty obvious this baseline for creating laws to be productive and to eliminate poverty has little bearing on reality whatsoever. For a start people generally wish to be as unproductive as possible since productivity requires work and people prefer to be lying around, eating, sleeping or playing than working. There is also the problem that a vast majority of people have a potentially practically infinite desire for material wealth. Marx's solution to this problem is that people must realise they would all be better off if they worked together collectively for the collective good and to punish people who do not work hard enough or take more than their fair share, possibly through democratic law. All well and good, but who decides how productive a person is and what needs to be produced? I suppose that could be done collectively aswell, people at the start of the year say "I want ___ carrots", the amount of carrots people need is added up and someone estimates and calculates the amount of carrots that need to be grown and if it is possible. However what happens if they cannot produce what everyone wants? I could tap out another paragraph concerning the impracticalities of a planned economy, but I can't be botherred, it's obvious a collective needs some sort of market economy so they can better plan supply and demand...

Let's say they implement a market economy and run the collective like a business in which the workers are the shareholders, all get paid the same and can vote to influence how the collective is run. The consumers determine what crops they want by providing demand and the farm organiser set the most accurate value for the crops they have depending on how much they have and estimate the best method of making a profit by blaancing which crops they need, with their ability to produce etc etc.. All's fine and dandy, except the organiser gets paid the same as a labourer and knows it will not make any difference how much effort he puts into improving efficiency, someone finds out he can do a better job and whips up support to fire the organiser and put him in his position. This someone succeeds and becomes the new organiser, except this someone realises he is no better off, he still gets paid the same as a labourer, maybe even paid less to represent the fact that he sits indoors all day, so he only works hard enough to increase efficiency slightly more than the last organiser and sits back and does nothing for the rest of the day. This sort of corruption due to lack of incentive plagues the entire collective until the motivation to work runs entirely on the dogmas the marxist social engineers first started with. In the end the collective will turn into a great self-destructive monopoly and little more than the original premise of marx and all it's contradictions with reality.

"From each according to their productivity, to each according to their needs."

Or when applied to reality...

"From each according to their will to work, to each according to their greed."

Poverty is a terrible thing, people should not have to live in poverty for their entire lives with no education little more than animals or machines, but reality isn't as simple as people living happily together working for each other and asking for nothing in return. I myself believe that a certain amount of welfare is needed to keep people out of poverty and allow people the opportunity to get an education and be more productive, however I doubt these ideas would work in a 3rd world country where the economy is barely sufficient to keep people out of poverty.

Liberals are very good at criticising people and saying where there are problems, however their solutions to these problems are always full of contradictions and very suspicious. Machiavelli was famous for the idea of fooling people into thinking your ends are their means to their ends. Convince people to think your tyrantship is the solution to their problems and you will gain endless loyalty, without a shadow of a doubt Marx and liberals have picked up on this. The communist manifesto is essentially a handbook like Machiavelli's "The Prince", except for an up and coming tyrant rather than a tyrant trying to keep power.

P.S. In before bel air..

As marxist I can honestly say that liberals are much more like conservatives then like me.

>>21
They have to be or people wouldn't take them seriously.

The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.

>>23 Eloquent yet disproven by basically every philosopher ever. GBT art, you autocratic kraut.

>>24
I'm not really Adolf Hitler.

>>25

Um. I think he knows that.

Marxists like to claim all anti-communists are nazis. Of course fascists were anti-communist, they were practically anti-everyone.

>>27
"Marxists" rarely claim this.  And communists rarely claim this.

Nazism does not define fascism.  Just as Marxism does not define communism.


Anyway, you're a Hitler loving Fascist--I can tell.

The abhorrent and undemocratic tactics of the CIA in opposition to marxism is encyclopedic in scope and quantity. If one has to rely on an organisation like that to defend democracy (smyeah right) then you have failed.

>>29
Marxism is really great!!

>_>
<_<

No I don't see any CIA, but I'll be sure to call when they're electrocuting my nipples.

If you want to live easy happy life without having to really work and still get food & place to sleep why don't you become someone's sex "slave"? It's nothing impossible and infact quite easy if you're attractive. Possibly you could even find someone who has fetish for Soviet stuff. If you can't get your kicks that way then you could get some friends and found together Sovietish village. Would make popular tourist attraction and I guess you could easily find investors too. Your dreams are not impossible in capitalistic society, so there's no reason to fuck up other people's lifes in quest to attain them.

3: Ignorance of power structures.

Marxists believe that marxism is not a philosophy, but a practical-philosophy, or someone who applied philosophy for the betterment of the world. However marx's philosophies never address how communism will actually exist and be stable, they always talk about transitions, how to get there, what to do next, what you are justified to do in order to create this wonderful happy world.

A characteristic of marx's work, as can be seen in the last 2 fallacies I point out, is the interference of reality with achieving imagined ideals. Thus Marxism's main purpose is to remove reality from the equation so that people can be convinced to do things which have no real logical purpose. This is by no means the first time someone has attempted to do this, but Marx hit the nail right on the head. Power structures are the most evident and important of all systems of government, Marx was an absolute genius to have found a way to convince a large sum of people that power structures do not exist by focussing all their attentions on class systems. This success was revolutionary as can be seen throughout history as the many communisms that arose had very much the same power structures as before, despite their supposed moral intentions.

I will explain by first saying, there are class systems. Just like how I have already said liberty doesn't immediately stop exploitation and that equal opportunity doesn't stop poverty, Marx liked to elevate 1 truth above all else and corrupt it rather than pluck a fallacy out of the blue so that someone who points out his fallacies can be claimed to support exploitation, poverty and class systems etc.. Class systems exist, but are an effect of power structures, not a cause. You can't change effects without targetting the cause, yet Marxism aims to do this.

>>32

yeah, but still...

>>33
but still... what?

I can't be botherred to type the rest, power structures can either be one great military despotism controlling everything or one where people in the military government and police strongly oppose the tools of despotism to the point where anyone who implements political oppression against the people will be a target for people who want to gain power.

>>34

I was just playing, cutie.

>>36
gb2 communist land

>>37
gb2gbs

>>38
wat is gbs

k so wat is gbs??