Sign in to follow this  
JakeHolman

THE FRUITS OF SOCIALISM & COMMUNISM > MISERY & POVERTY

215 posts in this topic

47 minutes ago, JakeHolman said:

 

Your article gets quite a bit of Marx's theories wrong and it wouldn't surprise me if he never picked up a book of Marx's in his life. Firstly, Marx's ideas of revolution were no different than the American revolution that overthrew feudal interests for capitalist interests. Secondly, Marx attacked authoritarian forms of communism in his life time and called them "Barracks Communism." The fact he does not know this shows he has never read any of his work. Thirdly, Marx never denied individual rights, human rights or democracy. This is literally just a sheer lie. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels stated in the Communist Manifesto and later works that "the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy" and universal suffrage. Fourthly, Venezuela is not marxist. It has 70% privatization, which is more than FDR era US. Fifth, the US actually funds money to Kurdish socialists in Rojava to fight ISIS. Your very tax dollars are going towards Socialism whether you realize it or not. I hope I could clear up some very inane misinterpretations.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While there was an economic element to the American Revolution, I don't think that was

the main motivating factor for it. And I don't know if I'd call the America of the late

18th century a feudal society, certainly not in the way the term is used to describe the

Europe of the Middle Ages. And then there is the question of whether there was a truly

capitalist society in America in the 1780s when it was mostly an agricultural one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

While there was an economic element to the American Revolution, I don't think that was

the main motivating factor for it. And I don't know if I'd call the America of the late

18th century a feudal society, certainly not in the way the term is used to describe the

Europe of the Middle Ages. And then there is the question of whether there was a truly

capitalist society in America in the 1780s when it was mostly an agricultural one.

In Marx's terminology, the monarchies of that time were considered part of the Feudalist stage. While the US was a colony of a Feudalist monarch, Marx said feudalism had no real roots in America in the first place, it was "subordinate to bourgeois society" from the very beginning. You're right that the US wasn't industrialized at that time but the American and French revolutions were both seen as the end of the Feudalist stage by his terminology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

In Marx's terminology, the monarchies of that time were considered part of the Feudalist stage. While the US was a colony of a Feudalist monarch, Marx said feudalism had no real roots in America in the first place, it was "subordinate to bourgeois society" from the very beginning. You're right that the US wasn't industrialized at that time but the American and French revolutions were both seen as the end of the Feudalist stage by his terminology. 

I still don't think the American revolutionists had the intention to overthrow a feudal

society for a capitalistic one, even disregarding that they likely wouldn't use those terms.

If there was no revolution, the U.S. would have become a capitalist society anyway, though

the timing of that might have been altered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vautrin said:

I still don't think the American revolutionists had the intention to overthrow a feudal

society for a capitalistic one, even disregarding that they likely wouldn't use those terms.

If there was no revolution, the U.S. would have become a capitalist society anyway, though

the timing of that might have been altered. 

Yeah, I agree there was much more to it than that but through Marx's theory of Dialectical Materialism it was mainly about Bourgeois getting rid of the monarchy. He did admit that America was at no time feudal and was essentially bourgeois from its conception though. The monarchy of the time represents the feudal order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

Yeah, I agree there was much more to it than that but through Marx's theory of Dialectical Materialism it was mainly about Bourgeois getting rid of the monarchy. He did admit that America was at no time feudal and was essentially bourgeois from its conception though. The monarchy of the time represents the feudal order.

Bourgeois is likely a fairly good description of the Founding Fathers and the colonial elite. 

There still being a large population of independent farmers and craftsmen who worked

for themselves, I don't believe there was yet a true mass proletarian class which had to sell

its own labor to the bourgeois, but that was obviously where early America was headed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HIGHWAY said:

 

Again the misuse of that word. 

He's no more the antichrist than I'm Inuit Eskimo. :wacko:

Guy should stick to supplying lumber.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Cuban-Crash-Government-Offers-Aid-Announces-Day-of-Mourning-20180519-0002.html

 

Acea further added that the Government of Cuba offers full support for the relatives during this difficult time.

The arduous task of identifying the victims of the Cuban plane crash has begun with a member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Party and first secretary of the organization in Havana, Mercedes López Acea, present to offer comfort to the bereaved.

Acea used the opportunity to extend support to the relatives of some 110 victims of the plane crash which occurred at about midday Friday, in Havana. The first secretary also conveyed the condolences of Army General Raul Castro, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party as well as President Miguel Díaz-Canel.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us