abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
And no, you are incorrect, it is not "Karl Marx's definition", simply because I use the word Capital the same way he did.
"Why does anybody need an assault weapon"
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Yes, it is. Marx interpreted the meaning of feudalism into what you describe instead the initial description revolving around lords, vassals and fiefs.
dude, you are a Marxist. Embrace it, don't deny it. It would be more prudent to argument to say we've taken Marxist ideas and expanded and improved them. Denying they are Marxist in genus illigitamizes anything following.
dude, you are a Marxist. Embrace it, don't deny it. It would be more prudent to argument to say we've taken Marxist ideas and expanded and improved them. Denying they are Marxist in genus illigitamizes anything following.
Doer
Well-Known Member
He can't figure out what he is. And Marx was not brilliant to me. A dilettante if there every was one. I mean, he was born the thing he turned against. Mommy issues?
So, he is the original commie philosopher, "Do as I say, not as I do." The more equal animals get more equal treatment. Animal Farm is just a Marx lampoon. And it's failed everywhere it's been tried. Obviously, it's just a theory from the Victorian age. And is so impractical as to be actually impossible.. In that way it is a Religion.
And that is why it ain't over. It is the fervent wish of a few against the burning knowledge of many. It is NOT over.
---------------------------
Marx's theories about society, economics and politicscollectively known as Marxismhold that human societies progress through the dialectic of class struggle: a conflict between an ownership class that controls production and a proletariat that provides the labour for production. He called capitalism the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", believing it to be run by the wealthy classes purely for their own benefit; and he predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism would inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism.[SUP][9][/SUP] He argued that under socialism society would be governed by the working class in what he called the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the "workers' state" or "workers' democracy".[SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP] He believed that socialism would, in its turn, eventually be replaced by a stateless, classless society called communism.
So, he is the original commie philosopher, "Do as I say, not as I do." The more equal animals get more equal treatment. Animal Farm is just a Marx lampoon. And it's failed everywhere it's been tried. Obviously, it's just a theory from the Victorian age. And is so impractical as to be actually impossible.. In that way it is a Religion.
And that is why it ain't over. It is the fervent wish of a few against the burning knowledge of many. It is NOT over.
---------------------------
Marx's theories about society, economics and politicscollectively known as Marxismhold that human societies progress through the dialectic of class struggle: a conflict between an ownership class that controls production and a proletariat that provides the labour for production. He called capitalism the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", believing it to be run by the wealthy classes purely for their own benefit; and he predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism would inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism.[SUP][9][/SUP] He argued that under socialism society would be governed by the working class in what he called the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the "workers' state" or "workers' democracy".[SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP] He believed that socialism would, in its turn, eventually be replaced by a stateless, classless society called communism.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Marx saw capitalism as stemming from feudalism. He was wrong. I prefer the views of Proudhon to Marx.
I'm fucking sick of people who don't know what libertarianism means call me an advocate of state socialism. I vehemently oppose state control of resources and means of production just as I oppose the private ownership of it.
You're a feudalist, just embrace it. This is how every argument goes with you mouth breathing REPUBLICANS. I call you on your BS and show you how you are a statist and you call me a Marxist.
The state exists to protect private property. Therefore Laissez Faire is statism.
if it isn't, it is feudalism (privatized state).
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
OK I get it.
You guys read the word "Socialism" as "state control of resources" and those are interchangeable in your view.
That is incorrect. I hope that clears it up for you.
You guys read the word "Socialism" as "state control of resources" and those are interchangeable in your view.
That is incorrect. I hope that clears it up for you.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
And yet you fail to explain how common ownership can be achieved without government, or any of your ideas for that matter. You fail to realize that the class structure we have today is brought upon not by the free market, but by the mixed market. Can we agree that we don't have a free market today? If you don't see that then there is no hope for you. You blather on about how state ownership is bad, yet you advocate for candidates who love state control. It is all about the environment for you and your ideas about protecting the environment must be enforced by "common ownership of vital finite resources", whatever the fuck that means. Chomsky is the ultimate troll, pushing ideas that are tired and tried, and pretending they are something new. You cannot have equally distributed resources without some sort of state control. The means of production encompass everything, the idea to forbid individuals from owning capital for production is ludicrous and the opposite of liberty. The idea that people will voluntarily share common ownership of the means of production and resources you claim vital without coercion is absurd and cannot be explained. Natural order does not develop into a collectivist market, it is fantasy land. Direct democracy that Chomsky regurgitates is not Anarchy.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I oppose that too, stopped reading there. Go read a fucking book.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
That clears up nothing until you explain how common ownership can be achieved without the state. You can't just make claims without explanation and say "I hope that clears it up for you".
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Why does anybody need an assault weapon?
So they can claim a piece of earth and have power.
So they can claim a piece of earth and have power.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You should read a book.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Wow you quoted 2 words of that paragraph and just claim you oppose it. You oppose everything supposedly, your tactics are worn out and nobody is falling for your nonsense.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
So they can protect their means of production from pseudo-philosophers such as yourself.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
So you advocate for Lincolns state intervention instead of the civil rights movement? I thought we didn't need the state?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Why is it you only oppose the state when it protects the interests of labor?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I'll answer for you.
It is because you're not a libertarian. You're a republican. It's ok, I don't think you're a totalitarian or authoritarian, just kind of fascist.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Why would I answer your questions when you don't even acknowledge my questioning of your philosophy? Go ahead and make some vague abstract statement like, "the free market is feudalism". Have fun kiddo.
DonPepe
Active Member
We spend billions every year developing new and more efficient ways to kill people and you can't even understand why someone would need something as simple and basic as a tactical rifle?
In a world of nuclear warheads, rail guns, microwave cannons, curse missiles, and mini guns a fucking tactical rifle is the worst thing you can come up with......
consider eliminating some of the more destructive stuff then I will entertain your foolishness about simple rifles.
NEVER EVER trust anyone who is trying to get you to do something they are unwilling to do themselves. When our gov starts disarming then i will consider it the citizens responsibility to follow suit. But until then i must assume there is a very real need for them and as long as we are taxing the crap out of citizens and dumping huge amounts of tax dollars into building better and even more efficient killing tools, not to mention legalizing the use of them on american citizens, the only conclusion I can draw is that we must need protection more than ever and will require more and more advanced weapons to achieve it.
PS: You should stop eating, i will be eating enough for both us, thus it will be unnecessary for you carry such a burden for the next few weeks. I will also be servicing your wife and giving your kids the attention they need. I know you didn't ask for this, but hey, i'm a nice guy so i will take care of it for you. and since I'm doing all this for you, i will be staying at your house, please find somewhere else to spend your time.
any gun law that might be passed will serve the exact same purpose to reduce crime as a voluntary gun hand it. The people who will give you there guns are not the ones that posed any threat, same with any law that would ban them.
There is very simple, very basic problem solving logic that forms the foundation of this argument, yet it baffles me how blind Americans become when the media prods their emotions the right way.
In a world of nuclear warheads, rail guns, microwave cannons, curse missiles, and mini guns a fucking tactical rifle is the worst thing you can come up with......
consider eliminating some of the more destructive stuff then I will entertain your foolishness about simple rifles.
NEVER EVER trust anyone who is trying to get you to do something they are unwilling to do themselves. When our gov starts disarming then i will consider it the citizens responsibility to follow suit. But until then i must assume there is a very real need for them and as long as we are taxing the crap out of citizens and dumping huge amounts of tax dollars into building better and even more efficient killing tools, not to mention legalizing the use of them on american citizens, the only conclusion I can draw is that we must need protection more than ever and will require more and more advanced weapons to achieve it.
PS: You should stop eating, i will be eating enough for both us, thus it will be unnecessary for you carry such a burden for the next few weeks. I will also be servicing your wife and giving your kids the attention they need. I know you didn't ask for this, but hey, i'm a nice guy so i will take care of it for you. and since I'm doing all this for you, i will be staying at your house, please find somewhere else to spend your time.
any gun law that might be passed will serve the exact same purpose to reduce crime as a voluntary gun hand it. The people who will give you there guns are not the ones that posed any threat, same with any law that would ban them.
There is very simple, very basic problem solving logic that forms the foundation of this argument, yet it baffles me how blind Americans become when the media prods their emotions the right way.