Marxism for the Upper Classes only

[MKS]

Please keep in mind I do not agree with the following statement. I only present it for arguement and disscussion

The problem with Marxism is that it was created by the upper-middle class for the upper-middle classes. Marxist sit in their ivory tower and theorize.

Nothing really gets accomplished, the people they are supposed to be liberating have no idea what they are talking about.

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

The statement would suggest nothing happend, that their has not been a class-struggle and that it wouldnt matter if there was.

I disagree, and I think history is proof of the fact that thousands and milions of people have gathered around and fought & died for marxist ideas, they did not just sit and write books.

So even if it was 'created by the upper class' it was a pretty fuckin' stupid thing to do. Cause it would have posed a real threat in the past, and will still in the future.

[RedStarOverChina]

Marx and Engels did participate in the 1848 revolution. Not to mention Lenin, Mao, Zhou Enlai, Che, all of which came from the upper-middle class.

How can it be created FOR the upper-middle class?

[MKS]

The only people who can understand marx are upper-middle class intellectuals. Hence the automatic nessecity of a vanguard, which usually ends up as tyranny (Stlain, Mao, Pol Pot, etc)

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:30 AM
The only people who can understand marx are upper-middle class intellectuals. Hence the automatic nessecity of a vanguard, which usually ends up as tyranny (Stlain, Mao, Pol Pot, etc)
Thats your opinion... not a fact. There are a lot of workers that understand marxism. Joseph Dietzgen for example, was one of them. An important theorist of marxism & a worker.

[RedStarOverChina]

Stalin wasnt from the upper class(not exactly). And he CERTAINLY wasnt an intellectual.
U have a point there but I have to point out that all of them rebelled against upper class.
Ur argument maybe strengthen if u say that true marxism can be only understood by the intellectuals(which isnt a class since anyone can become an intellectual).

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

The liberation of the proletariat can only be the work of the proletariat itself.
-Marx.

As long as the workingclass needs a 'vanguard' it is not emancipated, if it is not emancipated it can't take over control & it won't make revolution.

[Cobra]

The problem with Marxism is that it was created by the upper-middle class for the upper-middle classes. Marxist sit in their ivory tower and theorize.

Nothing really gets accomplished, the people they are supposed to be liberating have no idea what they are talking about.
I agree with that statement. Many upper middle class Marxist “intellectuals” believe that once socialism comes they will become the rulers. They support Marxist revolution because of their ambitions. They support it for the power they expect to receive from it.

Marx had the upper-middle class in mind when he wrote Das Kapital. For only the upper-middle class has time to study Das Kapital and figure out what the hell Marx is talking about. Das Kapital was not written for the busy factory worker who is unfamiliar with Marx’s scholarly scholarlyness and complex language. It was written for elitist at bourgeois German colleges, who had all day to theorize in their “ivory towers”.

Socialism’s gradual “withering away” of the state is a false promise made to get the support of the masses. All socialist countries have been ruled by the upper-middle class, not by the proletariats or the peasantry. Marxism is an upper-middle class ideology.

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:49 AM

The problem with Marxism is that it was created by the upper-middle class for the upper-middle classes. Marxist sit in their ivory tower and theorize.

Nothing really gets accomplished, the people they are supposed to be liberating have no idea what they are talking about.
I agree with that statement. Many upper middle class Marxist “intellectuals” believe that once socialism comes they will become the rulers. They support Marxist revolution because of their ambitions. They support it for the power they expect to receive from it.

Marx had the upper-middle class in mind when he wrote Das Kapital. For only the upper-middle class has time to study Das Kapital and figure out what the hell Marx is talking about. Das Kapital was not written for the busy factory worker who is unfamiliar with Marx’s scholarly scholarlyness and complex language. It was written for elitist at bourgeois German colleges, who had all day to theorize in their “ivory towers”.

Socialism’s gradual “withering away” of the state is a false promise made to get the support of the masses. All socialist countries have been ruled by the upper-middle class, not by the proletariats or the peasantry. Marxism is an upper-middle class ideology.
I disagree... once again.
There are thousands of shorter, easy-to-read versions of the marxist theories, there are institutions like partys & other oranisations that can teach the theories of marxism.

I don't understand how you could say that marxists are just looking for personal gain...

Now, I don't know who you are, or where you came from. But of one thing I am sure: I did NOT come form an upper-middle class... but I am a marxist and have been for some time now in a very participative activist way.

I for one do not doubt my motives... if you do, maybe you are on the wrong forum.

[Cobra]

Originally posted by ErikuSz -sXe-
There are thousands of shorter, easy-to-read versions of the marxist theories, there are institutions like partys & other oranisations that can teach the theories of marxism.
That may be true, but why weren’t they “easy-to-read” in the first place?


I don't understand how you could say that marxists are just looking for personal gain...
Marxists seeks to replace one system of hierarchy with another, with a new set of rulers.


I did NOT come form an upper-middle class... but I am a marxist and have been for some time now in a very participative activist way.
That’s great. I’m sure Karl Marx would be proud.

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by Cobra+May 26 2005, 06:22 AM--> (Cobra @ May 26 2005, 06:22 AM)
ErikuSz -sXe-
There are thousands of shorter, easy-to-read versions of the marxist theories, there are institutions like partys & other oranisations that can teach the theories of marxism.
That may be true, but why weren’t they “easy-to-read” in the first place?


I don't understand how you could say that marxists are just looking for personal gain...
Marxists seeks to replace one system of hierarchy with another, with a new set of rulers.


I did NOT come form an upper-middle class... but I am a marxist and have been for some time now in a very participative activist way.
That’s great. I’m sure Karl Marx would be proud. [/b]

That may be true, but why weren’t they “easy-to-read” in the first place?

Perhaps beacuse it just isn't easy, its science?
Do you agree? :rolleyes:


Marxists seeks to replace one system of hierarchy with another, with a new set of rulers.

No. Thats your opinion that we are discussing here... a marxist wants a new set of ruleres, true but they are called 'the proletariat', if you don't agree with that you aren't a marxist and therefor a 'marxist-theorist-dictatorship' could not exist.
It would be like a 'circle-square'... 'marxist-dictators'.


That’s great. I’m sure Karl Marx would be proud.

I don't care about the old bastard! I care about justice!
Let me tell you this again:

Maybe you doubt your own motives, I for one do not!

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by ErikuSz -sXe-+May 26 2005, 05:34 AM--> (ErikuSz -sXe- @ May 26 2005, 05:34 AM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 05:30 AM
The only people who can understand marx are upper-middle class intellectuals. Hence the automatic nessecity of a vanguard, which usually ends up as tyranny (Stlain, Mao, Pol Pot, etc)
Thats your opinion... not a fact. There are a lot of workers that understand marxism. Joseph Dietzgen for example, was one of them. An important theorist of marxism & a worker. [/b]
I think you missed the most important part, which was the tyranny part.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:49 AM

The problem with Marxism is that it was created by the upper-middle class for the upper-middle classes. Marxist sit in their ivory tower and theorize.

Nothing really gets accomplished, the people they are supposed to be liberating have no idea what they are talking about.
I agree with that statement. Many upper middle class Marxist “intellectuals” believe that once socialism comes they will become the rulers. They support Marxist revolution because of their ambitions. They support it for the power they expect to receive from it.

Marx had the upper-middle class in mind when he wrote Das Kapital. For only the upper-middle class has time to study Das Kapital and figure out what the hell Marx is talking about. Das Kapital was not written for the busy factory worker who is unfamiliar with Marx’s scholarly scholarlyness and complex language. It was written for elitist at bourgeois German colleges, who had all day to theorize in their “ivory towers”.

Socialism’s gradual “withering away” of the state is a false promise made to get the support of the masses. All socialist countries have been ruled by the upper-middle class, not by the proletariats or the peasantry. Marxism is an upper-middle class ideology.
That is sick. The first thing we do comrades in the next revolution is shoot those intellectuals.

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 26 2005, 07:23 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 26 2005, 07:23 AM)
Originally posted by ErikuSz -sXe-@May 26 2005, 05:34 AM

[email protected] 26 2005, 05:30 AM
The only people who can understand marx are upper-middle class intellectuals. Hence the automatic nessecity of a vanguard, which usually ends up as tyranny (Stlain, Mao, Pol Pot, etc)
Thats your opinion... not a fact. There are a lot of workers that understand marxism. Joseph Dietzgen for example, was one of them. An important theorist of marxism & a worker.
I think you missed the most important part, which was the tyranny part. [/b]
your definition of communism isn't mine.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 26 2005, 07:23 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 26 2005, 07:23 AM)
Originally posted by ErikuSz -sXe-@May 26 2005, 05:34 AM

[email protected] 26 2005, 05:30 AM
The only people who can understand marx are upper-middle class intellectuals. Hence the automatic nessecity of a vanguard, which usually ends up as tyranny (Stlain, Mao, Pol Pot, etc)
Thats your opinion... not a fact. There are a lot of workers that understand marxism. Joseph Dietzgen for example, was one of them. An important theorist of marxism & a worker.
I think you missed the most important part, which was the tyranny part. [/b]
Please learn the difference between authoritarian socialism (Leninism/stalinism/Maoism) and libertarian communism/anarchism.

Dumbass.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:49 AM
I agree with that statement. Many upper middle class Marxist “intellectuals” believe that once socialism comes they will become the rulers. They support Marxist revolution because of their ambitions. They support it for the power they expect to receive from it.
That statement would apply to marxists of just about any "class". Who ever supported a system they believed they wouldn't benefit from ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:49 AM
libertarian communism.
There is no such thing. You cannot have a regulated economy without a regulatory body.

[NovelGentry]

That may be true, but why weren’t they “easy-to-read” in the first place?

Cause it was translated from German written nearly 150 years ago, into English styles of nearly 150 years ago. Why isn't Shakespeare easy to read? He wasn't too well off from what I understand.

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 26 2005, 03:39 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 26 2005, 03:39 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 11:49 AM
libertarian communism.
There is no such thing. You cannot have a regulated economy without a regulatory body. [/b]
And that regulatory body could not be organised in a libertarian way?
Please explain.

[MKS]

Thats your opinion... not a fact. There are a lot of workers that understand marxism. Joseph Dietzgen for example, was one of them. An important theorist of marxism & a worker

Correction, that is not my opinion! I disagree with the statement as mentioned in the orignial post.

This is not my arguement I am trying to defend, it is the opinion of another party that I thouhgt would be interesting to discuss.

[Zingu]

I have to disagree, this is a common mistake I think alot of people make; even Marxists theirselves
. Marxism really, is not the liberation of the working class, but the liberation of everyone. Everyone
is affected by alienation, all classes are. Man is seperated from his true being, capitalists are, workers are, everyone is.

Sure, Marx saw the proletariat as the potentional class that will begin the revolution, but it is not limited just to the workers, the goal of Socialism is not to make everyone a worker, but to abolish the worker.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 26 2005, 03:39 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 26 2005, 03:39 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 11:49 AM
libertarian communism.
There is no such thing. You cannot have a regulated economy without a regulatory body. [/b]
Wrong, their is no 'economy' insofar as your narrow-minded money worshipping ideology puts it.

Care to try again 'Professor'?

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 04:10 PM

Thats your opinion... not a fact. There are a lot of workers that understand marxism. Joseph Dietzgen for example, was one of them. An important theorist of marxism & a worker

Correction, that is not my opinion! I disagree with the statement as mentioned in the orignial post.

This is not my arguement I am trying to defend, it is the opinion of another party that I thouhgt would be interesting to discuss.
X-cuse me.

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:07 PM
Care to try again 'Professor'?
hehe... :P

[MKS]

Th common reason why Marxism has failed to be successful is because no one has been able to "make it simple": that is to say no one has been able to give a good, simple reason why it should be instead of Capitalism. The answer that Marxism isnt simple is exactly why the common man has little intrest in its establishment. (especially in the US and western nations)

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by ErikuSz -sXe-+May 26 2005, 07:53 AM--> (ErikuSz -sXe- @ May 26 2005, 07:53 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by ErikuSz -sXe-@May 26 2005, 05:34 AM

[email protected] 26 2005, 05:30 AM
The only people who can understand marx are upper-middle class intellectuals. Hence the automatic nessecity of a vanguard, which usually ends up as tyranny (Stlain, Mao, Pol Pot, etc)
Thats your opinion... not a fact. There are a lot of workers that understand marxism. Joseph Dietzgen for example, was one of them. An important theorist of marxism & a worker.
I think you missed the most important part, which was the tyranny part.
your definition of communism isn't mine. [/b]
I agree it is not your definition, but that is reality bub.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 07:40 PM
Th common reason why Marxism has failed to be successful is because no one has been able to "make it simple": that is to say no one has been able to give a good, simple reason why it should be instead of Capitalism. The answer that Marxism isnt simple is exactly why the common man has little intrest in its establishment. (especially in the US and western nations)
The flaws of communism are right there for anyone who wants to look:

1) classless? but wait there are going to be intellectuals

2) no rulers? but wait there are intellectuals again directing people

3) everyone will be have enough? but wait, only if you comply otherwise it is 'the woods for you'

4) freedom? see #3 again you get enough ony if you comply.

get the point?

[OleMarxco]

Hmmmm....not quite! :redstar2000:

1) They will mold into the classless society as an equal free citizen, or if they try to start SHIT, they will straight up be deported by the people togheter to a single island were they can "sit in an ivory tower" and "theorize all day". Or shot, hanging from the gallows, whatever.

2) Only if anyone let them....easily brainwashed fools! Intellectuals may help, but they shall never be given anything "in return", such as power.

3) There's no-one to comply to in Communism, except principals the workers decide togheter. But no formal laws, or "unwritten laws". Atleast not that's how I see it. There's no exclusion to everyone having enough, basis sustenance is compulsory. Anything beside that can just a simple contribution to society fix! Whatever it is, no routine!

4) Besides, you only have to live in the woods if you like nature. 'Sides, we could build a hut for you there, or you could, just sign yourself up for some goddamn materials. No-one will push you there, the only "opression" will be eye for an eye principals. If you fuck shit up, someone is allowed to fuck you up - Providing the majority of the people togheter is not rebelling backwards to Capitalism (which no-one could stop them in, as if that's needed!) reactionaries threathening security may risk whatever they do :P

Now, cappie, do YOU get ME!? :D

[Cobra]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort
The flaws of communism are right there for anyone who wants to look:

1) classless? but wait there are going to be intellectuals

2) no rulers? but wait there are intellectuals again directing people

3) everyone will be have enough? but wait, only if you comply otherwise it is 'the woods for you'

4) freedom? see #3 again you get enough ony if you comply.

get the point?
Replace the word communism with socialism and your logic is infallible.

Communism is supposed to come after the tyranny and oppression of the state magically disappears. But the state will only disappear if you remain faithful to the new intellectual elite. It’s a bunch of bullshit, as you’ve already realized.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by NoXion+May 26 2005, 05:07 PM--> (NoXion @ May 26 2005, 05:07 PM)
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 26 2005, 03:39 PM

[email protected] 26 2005, 11:49 AM
libertarian communism.
There is no such thing. You cannot have a regulated economy without a regulatory body.
Wrong, their is no 'economy' insofar as your narrow-minded money worshipping ideology puts it.

Care to try again 'Professor'? [/b]
There is a exchange of goods and services. That is an economy.

[MKS]

Why has Capitalism thrived?

Because it is palletable to the general masses. It allows for growth and success, and in the American model, class mobility.

The ideas of Socialis/Communism should be easily "sold" to the people. The ideals of equality, justice, classless society. However these ideals are so bogged down in so much theory, and extrapolation; just look at the isms; Maosim, Leninism, Stalinism, De-Leonism etc etc.

Capitalism has been able to maintain a clear and precise basic idealogy or economic principle, but also allows for social modification.

Socialism/Communism needs an intellectual vanguard, and to many this seems like the beginnings of a dictatorship. (just look at China, N.Korea, USSR)

The arguement also addresses the Marixts intellectuals unwillingness to abandond or revise certain tenants of Marxist teachings in order to create a general mood of action or conciousness.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 08:12 PM
Hmmmm....not quite! :redstar2000:

1) They will mold into the classless society as an equal free citizen, or if they try to start SHIT, they will straight up be deported by the people togheter to a single island were they can "sit in an ivory tower" and "theorize all day". Or shot, hanging from the gallows, whatever.

2) Only if anyone let them....easily brainwashed fools! Intellectuals may help, but they shall never be given anything "in return", such as power.

3) There's no-one to comply to in Communism, except principals the workers decide togheter. But no formal laws, or "unwritten laws". Atleast not that's how I see it. There's no exclusion to everyone having enough, basis sustenance is compulsory. Anything beside that can just a simple contribution to society fix! Whatever it is, no routine!

4) Besides, you only have to live in the woods if you like nature. 'Sides, we could build a hut for you there, or you could, just sign yourself up for some goddamn materials. No-one will push you there, the only "opression" will be eye for an eye principals. If you fuck shit up, someone is allowed to fuck you up - Providing the majority of the people togheter is not rebelling backwards to Capitalism (which no-one could stop them in, as if that's needed!) reactionaries threathening security may risk whatever they do :P

Now, cappie, do YOU get ME!? :D
Hey man, tell it to the other anti-revolutionaries who want to stop me. All I want to do is gravitate towards making porn and racing cars. The anti-revolutionaries want me homeless and starving to death in the woods.

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 10:22 PM
Socialism/Communism needs an intellectual vanguard, and to many this seems like the beginnings of a dictatorship. (just look at China, N.Korea, USSR)

The arguement also addresses the Marixts intellectuals unwillingness to abandond or revise certain tenants of Marxist teachings in order to create a general mood of action or conciousness.
The vanguard doesn't make the revolution. The objective circumstances for the proleratiat to seize power will be created by capitalism itself, no vanguard is needed, just the clear minded will of the supressed class as it always has been. It's even possible for the communist revolution to take place without actually being acknowledged as a communist revolution.

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 10:37 PM
Hey man, tell it to the other anti-revolutionaries who want to stop me. All I want to do is gravitate towards making porn and racing cars. The anti-revolutionaries want me homeless and starving to death in the woods.
We just want to gravitate you to reality. You jerking of behind your computer, dreaming of girls & cars you will never own.

We try to change that, we try to stop people believing those capitalist lies of everybody being happy, rich and fucking around like rabbits! It exists... of course it does, but not for people like you & me. We are just workerbee's, not rabbits, you will have to be in a tabloid every week to be one of them.
And all you can do is bother us with your puberty.

If it was up to us... you would've probably even have finished your high school.

[MKS]

The vanguard doesn't make the revolution. The objective circumstances for the proleratiat to seize power will be created by capitalism itself, no vanguard is needed, just the clear minded will of the supressed class as it always has been. It's even possible for the communist revolution to take place without actually being acknowledged as a communist revolution

All revolutions have had a vanguard; Cuba, Russia, Vietnam, China, Korea, etc.

Your comment demostrates the gap between reality and theory, and how many marxists/commnunists cannot or will not reconcile the two. The people only see what has happened, not what could happen if...

Capitalism has thrived because it can give clear, understandable examples of the practical application. Capitalists never claimed total eqaulity and fairness, they did give the people a message of self-determination, and creation of your own wealth. People can relate to that, alot better than they can relate to the complicated maxims and socio-economic principles of Marxism.

We as Socialists/Communists must recgonize our weaknesses if we are truly serious about changing things. We must be the people and not above them, we must act within them, because we are them.

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

I agree with your conclusion, but I disagree with your analysis. Middle-class revolutionaries also had a theoretical ideology with wich they tried to mobilize the supressed for a revolution. They had a necessary criticism on the feudal system as a 'blueprint' for a new (i.e. capitalist) system. The middle-class revolutionaries promised the people freedom and equality, in the context of their time. But those ideals did not come from theoreticians, they are the result of the sad circumstances of the supressed and lack of development that the system produces. All it takes is for the people to suffer as much, until they can stand no more and take matters into their own hands. You don't have to be a scholar or indeed a theoretician to understand that. And you don't need a vanguard to lead a mob in rage.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by ErikuSz -sXe-+May 26 2005, 11:09 PM--> (ErikuSz -sXe- @ May 26 2005, 11:09 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 10:37 PM
Hey man, tell it to the other anti-revolutionaries who want to stop me. All I want to do is gravitate towards making porn and racing cars. The anti-revolutionaries want me homeless and starving to death in the woods.
We just want to gravitate you to reality. You jerking of behind your computer, dreaming of girls & cars you will never own.

We try to change that, we try to stop people believing those capitalist lies of everybody being happy, rich and fucking around like rabbits! It exists... of course it does, but not for people like you & me. We are just workerbee's, not rabbits, you will have to be in a tabloid every week to be one of them.
And all you can do is bother us with your puberty.

If it was up to us... you would've probably even have finished your high school. [/b]
I'm sorry I don't get it?

Then why should I be a communist or strive for it? Sounds to me like a pretty depressing way to live if I understand your vision correctly. I thought there was going to be lots of over production of goods and services. I though that life was going to be more comfortable under a communist system. I thought that in addition to over production there was going to be more time to enjoy the over production. If I understand your vision correctly why should the workers listen to the intellectuals? Do you think they are going to look upon this as a raw deal?

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 27 2005, 06:45 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 27 2005, 06:45 AM)
Originally posted by ErikuSz -sXe-@May 26 2005, 11:09 PM

[email protected] 26 2005, 10:37 PM
Hey man, tell it to the other anti-revolutionaries who want to stop me. All I want to do is gravitate towards making porn and racing cars. The anti-revolutionaries want me homeless and starving to death in the woods.
We just want to gravitate you to reality. You jerking of behind your computer, dreaming of girls & cars you will never own.

We try to change that, we try to stop people believing those capitalist lies of everybody being happy, rich and fucking around like rabbits! It exists... of course it does, but not for people like you & me. We are just workerbee's, not rabbits, you will have to be in a tabloid every week to be one of them.
And all you can do is bother us with your puberty.

If it was up to us... you would've probably even have finished your high school.
I'm sorry I don't get it?

Then why should I be a communist or strive for it? Sounds to me like a pretty depressing way to live if I understand your vision correctly. I thought there was going to be lots of over production of goods and services. I though that life was going to be more comfortable under a communist system. I thought that in addition to over production there was going to be more time to enjoy the over production. If I understand your vision correctly why should the workers listen to the intellectuals? Do you think they are going to look upon this as a raw deal? [/b]
I don't want them to listen to the intellectuals... whatever gave you that idea?
I want them to emancipate, start thinking for themselves instead of electing a government that does the thinking for them.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by ErikuSz -sXe-+May 27 2005, 07:02 AM--> (ErikuSz -sXe- @ May 27 2005, 07:02 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by ErikuSz -sXe-@May 26 2005, 11:09 PM

[email protected] 26 2005, 10:37 PM
Hey man, tell it to the other anti-revolutionaries who want to stop me. All I want to do is gravitate towards making porn and racing cars. The anti-revolutionaries want me homeless and starving to death in the woods.
We just want to gravitate you to reality. You jerking of behind your computer, dreaming of girls & cars you will never own.

We try to change that, we try to stop people believing those capitalist lies of everybody being happy, rich and fucking around like rabbits! It exists... of course it does, but not for people like you & me. We are just workerbee's, not rabbits, you will have to be in a tabloid every week to be one of them.
And all you can do is bother us with your puberty.

If it was up to us... you would've probably even have finished your high school.
I'm sorry I don't get it?

Then why should I be a communist or strive for it? Sounds to me like a pretty depressing way to live if I understand your vision correctly. I thought there was going to be lots of over production of goods and services. I though that life was going to be more comfortable under a communist system. I thought that in addition to over production there was going to be more time to enjoy the over production. If I understand your vision correctly why should the workers listen to the intellectuals? Do you think they are going to look upon this as a raw deal?
I don't want them to listen to the intellectuals... whatever gave you that idea?
I want them to emancipate, start thinking for themselves instead of electing a government that does the thinking for them. [/b]
What is 'start thinking for themselves'?

Does that mean educated to think like you?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:29 PM
Please keep in mind I do not agree with the following statement. I only present it for arguement and disscussion

The problem with Marxism is that it was created by the upper-middle class for the upper-middle classes. Marxist sit in their ivory tower and theorize.

Nothing really gets accomplished, the people they are supposed to be liberating have no idea what they are talking about.
I think you are being a bit disingenuous here, MKS. You may not "agree" in a formal sense with this view, but you seem to be very sympathetic to it.

If, as you indicated, this comes from another board, perhaps it would help if you would link us to the thread on that board...so we could see how that writer developed his/her argument.

At the moment, all I can say is that I don't think that the "problem" with Marxism is that it's "too hard to understand".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Hiero]

This is where Maoism runs superior to other ideologies.

Mao's little red book was designed and distributed so the peasants and workers had a small book with direct quotes to some of the fundemental ideas of Maoism.

It was encouraged to read the book in groups and have discussion about the book. In the book you can even find quotes where Mao states that everyone should help everyone with their studies of Marxism-Leninism, and people of higher knowledge of the theory to help the people with little knowlede. He also stated that the people with higher knowledge should not be afraid to learn and listen from people with less knowledge.

Although Mao has been criticised with releasing the book with the intention of building his personality cult and help him into a position of complete power.

He released the book for the people who didn't have the time, or the ability yet to read his books.

Quotation books should be written for all the main marxist writers. This is the best way for people to get the main points on the main subjects.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:47 AM
This is where Maoism runs superior to other ideologies.

Mao's little red book was designed and distributed so the peasants and workers had a small book with direct quotes to some of the fundemental ideas of Maoism.

It was encouraged to read the book in groups and have discussion about the book. In the book you can even find quotes where Mao states that everyone should help everyone with their studies of Marxism-Leninism, and people of higher knowledge of the theory to help the people with little knowlede. He also stated that the people with higher knowledge should not be afraid to learn and listen from people with less knowledge.

Although Mao has been criticised with releasing the book with the intention of building his personality cult and help him into a position of complete power.

He released the book for the people who didn't have the time, or the ability yet to read his books.

Quotation books should be written for all the main marxist writers. This is the best way for people to get the main points on the main subjects.
There is one problem with that whole picture.

It assumes Mao is right, just, and smart enough to form a stable system.

Do you think Mao was good enough, smart enough, and just enough?

Because if he wasn't, then everything following out of that red book is going to lead to one big mess and not lead incremently towards communism. It is going to be very flawed, just like the man.

[Hiero]

He left room for positive criticism.

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:47 AM
This is where Maoism runs superior to other ideologies.

Mao's little red book was designed and distributed so the peasants and workers had a small book with direct quotes to some of the fundemental ideas of Maoism.

It was encouraged to read the book in groups and have discussion about the book. In the book you can even find quotes where Mao states that everyone should help everyone with their studies of Marxism-Leninism, and people of higher knowledge of the theory to help the people with little knowlede. He also stated that the people with higher knowledge should not be afraid to learn and listen from people with less knowledge.

Although Mao has been criticised with releasing the book with the intention of building his personality cult and help him into a position of complete power.

He released the book for the people who didn't have the time, or the ability yet to read his books.

Quotation books should be written for all the main marxist writers. This is the best way for people to get the main points on the main subjects.
Yes, that does sound like a very good idea.
I have to admit though, these kind of actions (distibuting books to the peasants) is a-very good way to distribute the communist principles, but is also subject to a very characterizing bolshevik workstyle. These kind of things show how special the revolution was for the people in every corner of China.


What is 'start thinking for themselves'?

Does that mean educated to think like you?

No, it is like I stated before: They think for themselves, they don't elect people to think for them.

If you are going to ask the same question a third time, Let me anwer that for you:

No, it is like I stated before: They think for themselves, they don't elect people to think for them.

Okay?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by ErikuSz -sXe-+May 28 2005, 08:41 AM--> (ErikuSz -sXe- @ May 28 2005, 08:41 AM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 06:47 AM
This is where Maoism runs superior to other ideologies.

Mao's little red book was designed and distributed so the peasants and workers had a small book with direct quotes to some of the fundemental ideas of Maoism.

It was encouraged to read the book in groups and have discussion about the book. In the book you can even find quotes where Mao states that everyone should help everyone with their studies of Marxism-Leninism, and people of higher knowledge of the theory to help the people with little knowlede. He also stated that the people with higher knowledge should not be afraid to learn and listen from people with less knowledge.

Although Mao has been criticised with releasing the book with the intention of building his personality cult and help him into a position of complete power.

He released the book for the people who didn't have the time, or the ability yet to read his books.

Quotation books should be written for all the main marxist writers. This is the best way for people to get the main points on the main subjects.
Yes, that does sound like a very good idea.
I have to admit though, these kind of actions (distibuting books to the peasants) is a-very good way to distribute the communist principles, but is also subject to a very characterizing bolshevik workstyle. These kind of things show how special the revolution was for the people in every corner of China.


What is 'start thinking for themselves'?

Does that mean educated to think like you?

No, it is like I stated before: They think for themselves, they don't elect people to think for them.

If you are going to ask the same question a third time, Let me anwer that for you:

No, it is like I stated before: They think for themselves, they don't elect people to think for them.

Okay? [/b]
No my question is more simple. You want THEM to THINK like YOU. Which is brain washing. That is my point. You don't want them to think, you want to be drones. The software for thier wet brains are in those red books. You want them to follow the software. That is not independant thought.

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:08 PM
No my question is more simple. You want THEM to THINK like YOU.
uuuhm... thats not a question. ;)

Anyway, I don't doubt my own motives.
You may believe anything you like.

Okay? :)