In what book of writting did Karl Marx say or write The last capitalist we hang shall

[tradeunionsupporter]

In what book of writting did Karl Marx say or write
The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.

[New Tet]

I think that it was Lenin who paraphrased that saying, the origin of which I am unaware.

[Drace]

The actual quote is


The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.

Different sources tell me its Lenin or Stalin

[greymatter]

The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them. The rope is cheapest at Wal-Mart. You know what they say, lower prices everyday. My wondering is: why would you want to hang the guy who sold you such a cheap and well-made rope which your ancestors would have had to work ceaselessly to make with yucca fibres?

The fellow I want to hang is the one who makes it impossible for me to buy a hemp rope for a reasonable price. He may already be dead, but if I could go back in time with my wal-mart rope and hang him, I would do it.

[New Tet]

The rope is cheapest at Wal-Mart. You know what they say, lower prices everyday. My wondering is: why would you want to hang the guy who sold you such a cheap and well-made rope which your ancestors would have had to work ceaselessly to make with yucca fibres?

The fellow I want to hang is the one who makes it impossible for me to buy a hemp rope for a reasonable price. He may already be dead, but if I could go back in time with my wal-mart rope and hang him, I would do it.

A "futurist" wanting to "go back in time". Interesting.

[greymatter]

A "futurist" wanting to "go back in time". Interesting.My issue is not that hemp is better or not better, it is that I am not allowed to grow it without government permission which they do not give, unless I jump through a ridiculous set of hoops. These hoops reduce the number of hemp farmers, which causes the price of hemp to become exorbitant. All I want is the freedom to do whatever the fuck I want as long as I'm not hurting anybody - animals and the environment included.

Wait... you're not going to try to hang me for that, are you?

[Drace]

The rope is cheapest at Wal-Mart. You know what they say, lower prices everyday. My wondering is: why would you want to hang the guy who sold you such a cheap and well-made rope which your ancestors would have had to work ceaselessly to make with yucca fibres?

The fellow I want to hang is the one who makes it impossible for me to buy a hemp rope for a reasonable price. He may already be dead, but if I could go back in time with my wal-mart rope and hang him, I would do it.

This:
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/sweatshop.jpg

[greymatter]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/1903sweatshopchicago.jpg
Chicago Illinois, 1903

[Robert]

Make your own rope (http://www.instructables.com/id/Make-rope-out-of-dead-plants----with-no-tools/), or "Quit whining and start winding."

[Drace]

All I want is the freedom to do whatever the fuck I want as long as I'm not hurting anybody - animals and the environment included.And somehow imperialism, massive inequality and poverty are excluded from being hurtful to society?

Oh yea the king and nobles should of had the ultimate right to do whatever the fuck they wanted with their workers because else wise it would be violation of human rights and freedom :rolleyes:
Its funny how what the rightists preach are so comparable to that of their hated feudalism and fascism. But of course, somehow their notion of freedom only applies to the modern bourgeoisie.

[Bud Struggle]

Its funny how what the rightists preach are so comparable to that of their hated feudalism and fascism. But of course, somehow their notion of freedom only applies to the modern bourgeoisie.

I would venture to say that in all of history--the modern Bourgeoise are probably the freeist people the world has ever produced in any quantity.

[IcarusAngel]

Capitalists are unfortunately a lot smarter than they're given for. They're not actually good at doing useful things for the economy or for the workers, but they have been very successful in maintaining the power their hold over the economy.

[greymatter]

And somehow imperialism, massive inequality and poverty are excluded from being hurtful to society?
Oh yea the king and nobles should of had the ultimate right to do whatever the fuck they wanted with their workers because else wise it would be violation of human rights and freedom :rolleyes:
Its funny how what the rightists preach are so comparable to that of their hated feudalism and fascism. But of course, somehow their notion of freedom only applies to the modern bourgeoisie.Implying that freedom of choice or mobility somehow leads to imperialism or fascism totally misses the point - and it's totally wrong. Imperialism is, I think, an important part of the evolution of human civilization, which we should put behind us as soon as possible before we start nuking eachother. It's a kind of organized theft which hopefully will be treated as a very serious crime by the international community in the future.

When did I ever advocate for the rights of kings and queens to push slaves around? That kind of absurd statement kind of makes me think you're a moron.

My notion of freedom extends to communists, to the somali pirates, even Vladimir Putin. Let them do what they will, and I will respond the way I deem appropriate. I believe that people are responsible and therefore accountable for their own choices.

Maybe you should temporarily adopt a different perspective and look at things in a more amoral, mechanical kind of way for a while. You might realize a few things about our world:


Human beings are evolving
Humans need conflict in order to progress
Stagnation would result inevitably in the decline of our species

If that sounds fascist to you, then consider me an anarcho-fascist.

[Drace]

Implying that freedom of choice or mobility somehow leads to imperialism or fascism totally misses the point - and it's totally wrong.

Your notion that "freedom of choice" gives the right for capitalists to exploit and seek further profit is what frightened me and its rebuttal was the purpose of my last post.
What I am proposing is that imperialism is the cause of this profit motive. Right economics will preach about how the profit motive leads to innovation, competition, etc, but always exclude imperialism as another effect of profit.


Imperialism is, I think, an important part of the evolution of human civilization, which we should put behind us as soon as possible before we start nuking eachother. It's a kind of organized theft which hopefully will be treated as a very serious crime by the international community in the future.

How is imperialism progressive at all? You describe it as "organized theft" yourself and still say its part of our evolution?


When did I ever advocate for the rights of kings and queens to push slaves around? That kind of absurd statement kind of makes me think you're a moron.

The bourgeoisie are the modern forms of kings and nobles. They are the new upper class who still hold the same incentives, to exploit the lower and to expand their power and profit.





Maybe you should temporarily adopt a different perspective and look at things in a more amoral, mechanical kind of way for a while. You might realize a few things about our world:


Human beings are evolving
Humans need conflict in order to progress
Stagnation would result inevitably in the decline of our species



1. Human beings cannot evolve until the the oppressive system that keeps men in shackles is abolished with. And may I ask what you even mean by evolving? I'm not growing any arms or anything...
2. Ya, that's why I'm advocating revolution! :lol:
3. What stagnation are your referring too?

Your supposed mechanical way of thought ignores many factors important to the discussion of politics. You cannot discuss politics unless you take in mind the moral concept that the human life and condition needs to be valued.

I also don't see the point of looking at the social system in evolutionary terms. You can do so for a scientific understanding of the human condition, but for politics?

[Bud Struggle]

You cannot discuss politics unless you take in mind the moral concept that the human life and condition needs to be valued.


What makes things moral? The only morality is "take what you want"--what other criteria is there?

[Robert]

What makes things moral? The only morality is "take what you want"--what other criteria is there?

Look alive, boys.:lol:

[Drace]

What makes things moral? The only morality is "take what you want"--what other criteria is there?

Society has in it concepts of morality which cover murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, suffering is bad, human life has value, etc.
Politics, then, is a study of how these ideals need to be upheld in society.

[Bud Struggle]

Society has in it concepts of morality which cover murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, suffering is bad, human life has value, etc.
Politics, then, is a study of how these ideals need to be upheld in society.

OK then. But you see that right now (at least in America and Europe) it is pretty much agreed by the majority of people that Capitalism is a better thing than Communism, so doesn't make Capitalism more moral than Communism? Now of course if the Revolution come and bring a Communist world--then that will be more moral politic, but till that happy day--Capitalism is more moral.

[Drace]

OK then. But you see that right now (at least in America and Europe) it is pretty much agreed by the majority of people that Capitalism is a better thing than Communism, so doesn't make Capitalism more moral than Communism? That is a ridiculous analysis. You have to simplify the statement that "Capitalism is more moral than Communism".
Such statements are made through the use of morals as "building blocks".
The moral codes, such as killing is bad, stealing is bad, humans have value, etc are universal and a part of thought that is embed in the majority.

We take these moral codes and apply them to situations and concepts to rationalize whether something is moral or not. Though people perceive things in different ways and thus end with different conclusions. For example, we think of it wrong if someone kills someone because it violates the moral code.
But what if we put into the equation that the victim was a murderer. The view on the situation then changes.

Similarly, on the issue of abortion, a controversial topic, people apply the basic moral of "killing humans is bad' to reason that abortion should be banned. The opposition to this claim does not disagree with the moral code but rather argues that abortion is not a violation of this sacred moral.
The thesis that communism is not moral because the majority does not think it is, is not a natural party of humanity.
So, in the case of communism, all we would have to do to show that communism does not violate the morals that killing is mad, that theft is bad, that human life should be valued, etc.

Thus, it is not simply the majority's view on a subject that makes it moral but rather the evidence and logic used to correctly accuse the target of being immoral. As said, politics "is the study of how these ideals [morals] need to be upheld in society".
This is where all the argument and rebuttal comes in whether communism is moral or not.
If the majority's opinion was to directly dominate the question of morality, then no study and no reason would be needed to peruse anyone. There would be no need for science, biology, economics, politics, or anything, since supposedly humans are always right.

In the case of communism though, there is so much propaganda that the same majority of people would not even be able to define communism correctly.