Refuting my father's Reganism

[Dogs On Acid]

My old boy posted this video on youtube:

8gIxuOabGBE

So I refuted with a labour voucher communal economy (not a gift economy otherwise he would just say "that wouldn't work" and walk away from discussion).

My answer:


You are really buying into this propaganda?

Marxist Socialism:

Has no State.
Has no Welfare.
Has voluntary labour.

Also anyone could have a weekend on a yacht if they wish. Just head down to the communal docks and hop on. Also the yacht can be their personal property if they intend, all you have to do is put in an equal amount of hours of work as it takes to manufacture a yacht in the factory.

People would not stop working for 2 reasons:

Accumulating hours of labour.
The joy of doing a job they wish and are qualified for.

Due to the moneyless nature Marxist Socialism, price for personal property is determined in labour hours.

I'm sure you would love to know that it takes around 30hrs to manufacture a car, plus a few more hours for transportation of raw materials.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_labor_cost_to_build_a_new_car

A yacht wouldn't take anywhere over a 100hrs with automated production, and that includes transportation.

100/8 hours = 12.5 days of work to afford a yacht.

You could own quite a few by now Dad!

angbZB2WeMQ


So push-ups for candy is proof that Socialism isn't as productive as Capitalism. I laugh.

Now to refute:

If push-ups is production, then take into consideration that in Marxist Socialism there is no unemployment, no unproductive jobs like banking, military, police, insurance, investing, or sitting on your bum, etc.

In Capitalism there are 15 workers, and all the above aren't doing any push-ups; in Socialism, everyone is doing push-ups. So labour doesn't have to go through excruciating suffering to produce 21 push-ups, instead it will be a much more numerous labour force doing 15.

Anyway Reagon is a hilarious demagog and anyone with an understanding of Society knows he stinks of shit.

[tir1944]

Since when does Marxist Socialism have no "state,welfare,or voluntary labor"?:confused:

[Dogs On Acid]

Since when does Marxist Socialism have no "state,welfare,or voluntary labor"?:confused:

Communism has no State, there is no such thing as Welfare, and all labour is voluntary.

[Susurrus]

There's no labour vouchers in communism either, stick to socialism as your definition.

[tir1944]

Communism has no State, there is no such thing as Welfare, and all labour is voluntary.
Communism yes,but you said Socialism.:confused:
Don't wanna get into semantics and all that though,but still...

[TheGodlessUtopian]

There's no labour vouchers in communism either, stick to socialism as your definition.

Agreed.Though didn't Marx speak out against Labor Vouchers? Or am I thinking of someone else?

[Susurrus]

Agreed.Though didn't Marx speak out against Labor Vouchers? Or am I thinking of someone else?

He probably did, but you're probably thinking of Kropotkin.

[Dogs On Acid]

Communism yes,but you said Socialism.:confused:
Don't wanna get into semantics and all that though,but still...

Marx used communism and socialism interchangeably.

[Dogs On Acid]

There's no labour vouchers in communism either, stick to socialism as your definition.

Why not? Labour vouchers can simply be a precursor to a gift-economy. Think lower communism -> higher communism.

[Susurrus]

Why not? Labour vouchers can simply be a precursor to a gift-economy. Think lower communism -> higher communism.

That's why it's socialism, not communism. Communism is when everything is over and done with, economically and politically.

[Dogs On Acid]

That's why it's socialism, not communism. Communism is when everything is over and done with, economically and politically.

Err, no. As I said before, Marx used Socialism and Communism interchangeably.

There is only lower and higher communism. Lower communism is certainly not "over and done with".

[Susurrus]

Err, no. As I said before, Marx used Socialism and Communism interchangeably.

There is only lower and higher communism. Lower communism is certainly not "over and done with".

He used them interchangeably in describing political ideologies, he never used socialism to describe a state of society, that came after him.

Communism... is the genuine resolution of the antagonism between man and nature and between man and man; it is the true resolution of the conflict between existence and essence, objectification and self-affirmation, freedom and necessity, individual and species. It is the riddle of history solved and knows itself as the solution. Marx

[tir1944]

Marx used communism and socialism interchangeably. Yes,and? Marx was also racist and homophobic.Marxism didn't "stop" in 1883.
Later theoretical etc. development distinguished "socialism" from "communism"...
Also today the terms obviously have a different meaning in the "leftist" political discourse...

[Susurrus]

Marx was also racist and homophobic.

Source?

" Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded." Marx

[Dogs On Acid]

Yes,and? Marx was also racist and homophobic.

Seriously doubt that.


Marxism didn't "stop" in 1883.

Yes, it did.


Later theoretical etc. development distinguished "socialism" from "communism"...

Only Leninism and post-Leninist ideologies make this distinction. Most other Left-Wing ideologies outright reject this.

[tir1944]

:huh:


The Jewish nigger Lassalle who, I’m glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm

He also wrote some nasty things ("that scum should be exterminated" etc...) about Slavs etc...

[Dogs On Acid]

He used them interchangeably in describing political ideologies, he never used socialism to describe a state of society, that came after him.

Exactly my point.

[Dogs On Acid]

:huh:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm

He also wrote some nasty things ("that scum should be exterminated" etc...) about Slavs etc...

So what? Socially acceptable pejoratives change with the years.

"Nigger" was widely used at that time, and "acceptable".

[Susurrus]

:huh:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm

He also wrote some nasty things ("that scum should be exterminated" etc...) about Slavs etc...

That was a commonly used word back then, any evidence saying he was any less than a white man?

[Dogs On Acid]

Karl Marx

One of our nigger’s great discoveries — which, however, he only confides to his ‘closest friends’ — is that the Pelasgians were of Semitic descent.

Doesn't sound insulting at all, taking in the time of writing and context.

[tir1944]

Maybe so,but what about the "being extremely racist,even genocidal against Slavs" part?

[Dogs On Acid]

Maybe so,but what about the "being extremely racist,even genocidal against Slavs" part?

Sauce please :lol:

[tir1944]

If this ain't hardcore racism i don't know what is...:lol:


But at the first victorious uprising of the French proletariat, which Louis Napoleon is striving with all his might to conjure up, the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm

[Dogs On Acid]

If this ain't hardcore racism i don't know what is...:lol:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm

That's not racist.

Racism would be calling Slavs biologically inferior, not inadequately trained fighters as in the quotation.

[tir1944]

To say that "Slavs are a reactionary peoples that have to be completely destroyed" is not racist?
The notion of "reactionary peoples" is not racist?
Are you trolling?
BTW i reported you to the moderators,let them decide...

[Dogs On Acid]

To say that "Slavs are a reactionary peoples that have to be completely destroyed" is not racist?

He wasn't talking about destroying Slavs. But worldwide reactionaries in general.

Karl Marx
The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.



The notion of "reactionary peoples" is not racist?
Reactionary peoples? Err, no. Reactionary races? Yes.


Are you trolling?
BTW i reported you to the moderators,let them decide...
:confused:

[tir1944]

Reactionary peoples? Err, no. Reactionary races? Yes.
You're disgusting.
Are the Jews a "race"? ...
Would anyone here not denounce as "racist" some (obviously racist) bullshit about,for example,Jews "being a reactionary people"?
I don't know...it is a shame that people can read such racist poison on a leftist site...

[Dogs On Acid]

You're disgusting.
Are the Jews a "race"? ...
Would anyone here not denounce as "racist" some (obviously racist) bullshit about,for example,Jews "being a reactionary people"?
I don't know...it is a shame that people can read such racist poison on a leftist site...

Marx was an Atheist Jew, you idiot. And yes, most religious peoples are reactionary, for their religion is itself reactionary.

Slav isn't a religion is it? :glare:

[tir1944]

Marx was an Atheist Jew, you idiot.He had some Jewish ancestry...



And yes, most religious peoples are reactionary, for their religion is itself reactionary.And i thought that the notion that Jews aren't also a people is itself racist...
Also i guess your "logic" can lead us to conclusions such as all Muslims being reactionaries who should be destroyed.
Shame on you.

[tir1944]

And yes, most religious peoples are reactionary, for their religion is itself reactionary.
This is horrible.
It seems that,according to this logic,all Jews (Judaists) are reactionary.

[Art Vandelay]

This is horrible.
It seems that,according to this logic,all Jews (Judaists) are reactionary.

So you believe that Judaism along with other religions are progressive? As opposed to being reactionary like the comrade said?

[tir1944]

So you believe that Judaism along with other religions are progressive?No.But i also wouldn't even think about saying that all Jews are reactionary and that they should be destroyed.

[Art Vandelay]

No.But i also wouldn't even think about saying that all Jews are reactionary and that they should be destroyed.

I do not think that is what dogs on acid meant, neither do I think that is what Marx meant either but truthfully I am just giving him the benefit of the doubt here. Hopefully a more knowledgeable member on Marx's life can clear this up. But I do admit that it did sound bad when I read it as did the quote where he used the word nigger, but it has already been said that nigger was a normal term in those days, hopefully a similar explanation can be given for the second quote in question. I highly doubt based on what I have read that Marx was racist.

[tir1944]

but it has already been said that nigger was a normal term in those days, hopefully a similar explanation can be given for the second quote in question.
Maybe that back then it was "OK" to call for the destruction of one people?

[Veovis]

I think we need to delineate a distinction between the Jewish ethnicity (I prefer the term 'Hebrew' personally) and the Jewish religion.

[Art Vandelay]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/karl-marx-racisti-t146433/index.html?t=146433

Rosa's post a little down the page adresses it quite well, plus Marx never called for the eradication of a certain ethnicity but of reactionaries.

[Art Vandelay]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1050535&postcount=3