Marxists Thread

[everywhere116]

I believe that the communists will be sick of living in communism and move to the capitalistic city. This has been done before. See: Berlin, 1946-1989.

how many people have already told you that was NOT COMMUNISM

Then define communism and what the USSR was.

its kind of in the name you know, united soviet SOCIALIST republic

And like the "Democratic Republic of North Korea"

from memory the USSR was under entirely different system then communism and marxist it was defined as leninist or marxist-leninist, because they are differing systems. marxist is a form of socialism, socialism is supposed to be before communism as it is implemented before there is enough of everything for everyone.

You still havent answered my question. How do they work?

[foolish_yeti]

But I thought school was free, and, in fact, forced? How can you deny they cannot get an education?

A highschool education will get you very little in today's world. So you're education is only "free" up until then (payed through taxes).

Besides that- education is not "free". Any teacher in a school will tell you that. Funding is a huge issue. A rich school can easily raise thousands of dollars to educate their students through book sales, etc. Whereas a poor school cannot. I know for a fact that every child who goes through public education does not get equitable education- even within the same school. Ever tried to teach a class of thirty kids versus one of twenty- the difference is staggering. Ever had to teach a class of kids who's parents are professors, doctors and lawyers vs. working three jobs and struggling to pay the bills?

This is because there is no capitalism there. Name one poverty stricken country. (I am not denying that there arent any, I just want to reveal something about it.)

Ever wonder why there's not capitalism there? Where do the resources for capitalism come from? Other countries. If everyone in the world lived as you do in the States- you'd need around 5 planets.

Also the majority of the world lives under capitalism- ever wonder where your Nikes come from (not saying you own a pair). I'm sure those kids are loving capitalism. Got them a great education in toxic solvents, death trap factories, inhumane work hours and basically no pay.

[everywhere116]

And I congratulate you. But, what's this? Applying yourself? Getting an education? Things that we are telling you and everyone you represent to do?

Not sure who I represent to you...

But I am privileged. I recognize that I have had much more help in succeeding than many students can ever hope to get.

To me you represent the liberals and their stance you are taking.

But I thought school was free, and, in fact, forced? How can you deny they cannot get an education?

Will a commie please respond to this?

just because it is free and forced does not mean that everyone will still get the opportunity

How so?

[everywhere116]

But I thought school was free, and, in fact, forced? How can you deny they cannot get an education?

A highschool education will get you very little in today's world. So you're education is only "free" up until then (payed through taxes).

Besides that- education is not "free". Any teacher in a school will tell you that. Funding is a huge issue. A rich school can easily raise thousands of dollars to educate their students through book sales, etc. Whereas a poor school cannot. I know for a fact that every child who goes through public education does not get equitable education- even within the same school. Ever tried to teach a class of thirty kids versus one of twenty- the difference is staggering. Ever had to teach a class of kids who's parents are professors, doctors and lawyers vs. working three jobs and struggling to pay the bills?

I wonder why they dont get the same education. Is it because they dont want to learn? Is it because they dont try?

[ksslemp]

And I congratulate you. But, what's this? Applying yourself? Getting an education? Things that we are telling you and everyone you represent to do?

Not sure who I represent to you...

But I am privileged. I recognize that I have had much more help in succeeding than many students can ever hope to get.

To me you represent the liberals and their stance you are taking.

But I thought school was free, and, in fact, forced? How can you deny they cannot get an education?

Will a commie please respond to this?

just because it is free and forced does not mean that everyone will still get the opportunity

You are right i suppose, I mean i'm sure there is some kid locked up in a closet somewhere being stopped from going to school! But NOTHINGS PERFECT!

[Anarchy Ninja]

I'm still not liking this whole "taking the USSR to represent Marxism thing... WHICH IT DIDN'T AND NEVER DID!" thing, but... ya heard of Sputnik? Crazy commies figured out a computer or two.

Do you believe they would have developed these things without the pressure brought on them from the worlds democracies?

If by that you mean the exact opposite, than you're right, as Sputnik, the world's first man-made satellite, forced the West to consider how an "inferior" economic system had bested them, and forced them to redouble their space program to prove to the world that capitalism was better. So, pressure from the Soviet sphere forced the ... ahem... [stifled giggle]... "democracies" [bursts into laughter] to reconsider their system.

If indeed you believe this, I feel sorry for you.
Don't fear Truth, Embrace it!

Sputnik was a paper tiger.

on the topic of space suprerioty you know whats funny. all the US style space shuttles are grounded because they keep finding faults with them, yet the old russian space rocket design seems to continue to perform

Is Hail a Fault? Hmmm

I dont remember ever seeing a russian reusable shuttle, i remember they were working on a design and not surprisingly it looked like the U.S. shuttle.

I'm not trying to make this an American against Russian thing, I'm just saying that without the pressure of the cold war, they would have no desire for those kinds of advancements. They would keep the status quo.

i would prefer to life in a world of peace that is less 'advanced' i use this term lightly, then one of war where the human race spends more and more resources on killing each and finding new ways to kill other then on anything else

[everywhere116]

This is because there is no capitalism there. Name one poverty stricken country. (I am not denying that there arent any, I just want to reveal something about it.)

Ever wonder why there's not capitalism there? Where do the resources for capitalism come from? Other countries. If everyone in the world lived as you do in the States- you'd need around 5 planets.

And how do you suppose the US gets these resources? Do they steal them? Or do they buy them from the naitives? And I will tell you why there is no capitalism. It is because of of the third world contries are run by dictators!

[ksslemp]

Do you believe they would have developed these things without the pressure brought on them from the worlds democracies?

If by that you mean the exact opposite, than you're right, as Sputnik, the world's first man-made satellite, forced the West to consider how an "inferior" economic system had bested them, and forced them to redouble their space program to prove to the world that capitalism was better. So, pressure from the Soviet sphere forced the ... ahem... [stifled giggle]... "democracies" [bursts into laughter] to reconsider their system.

If indeed you believe this, I feel sorry for you.
Don't fear Truth, Embrace it!

Sputnik was a paper tiger.

on the topic of space suprerioty you know whats funny. all the US style space shuttles are grounded because they keep finding faults with them, yet the old russian space rocket design seems to continue to perform

Is Hail a Fault? Hmmm

I dont remember ever seeing a russian reusable shuttle, i remember they were working on a design and not surprisingly it looked like the U.S. shuttle.

I'm not trying to make this an American against Russian thing, I'm just saying that without the pressure of the cold war, they would have no desire for those kinds of advancements. They would keep the status quo.

i would prefer to life in a world of peace that is less 'advanced' i use this term lightly, then one of war where the human race spends more and more resources on killing each and finding new ways to kill other then on anything else

So it's an Agrarian Utopia? That is your desire, and God Bless It.

I however prefer a peaceful society WITH the desire for peaceful advancement.

[Anarchy Ninja]

This is because there is no capitalism there. Name one poverty stricken country. (I am not denying that there arent any, I just want to reveal something about it.)

Ever wonder why there's not capitalism there? Where do the resources for capitalism come from? Other countries. If everyone in the world lived as you do in the States- you'd need around 5 planets.

And how do you suppose the US gets these resources? Do they steal them? Or do they buy them from the naitives? And I will tell you why there is no capitalism. It is because of of the third world contries are run by dictators!

and they power vacuum left by western society after they rape the land of its resources would most definatley not lead to dictators

[ksslemp]

This is because there is no capitalism there. Name one poverty stricken country. (I am not denying that there arent any, I just want to reveal something about it.)

Ever wonder why there's not capitalism there? Where do the resources for capitalism come from? Other countries. If everyone in the world lived as you do in the States- you'd need around 5 planets.

And how do you suppose the US gets these resources? Do they steal them? Or do they buy them from the naitives? And I will tell you why there is no capitalism. It is because of of the third world contries are run by dictators!

and they power vacuum left by western society after they rape the land of its resources would most definatley not lead to dictators

Thats all i needed to hear.

Goodnight.

[everywhere116]

Do you believe they would have developed these things without the pressure brought on them from the worlds democracies?

If by that you mean the exact opposite, than you're right, as Sputnik, the world's first man-made satellite, forced the West to consider how an "inferior" economic system had bested them, and forced them to redouble their space program to prove to the world that capitalism was better. So, pressure from the Soviet sphere forced the ... ahem... [stifled giggle]... "democracies" [bursts into laughter] to reconsider their system.

If indeed you believe this, I feel sorry for you.
Don't fear Truth, Embrace it!

Sputnik was a paper tiger.

on the topic of space suprerioty you know whats funny. all the US style space shuttles are grounded because they keep finding faults with them, yet the old russian space rocket design seems to continue to perform

Is Hail a Fault? Hmmm

I dont remember ever seeing a russian reusable shuttle, i remember they were working on a design and not surprisingly it looked like the U.S. shuttle.

I'm not trying to make this an American against Russian thing, I'm just saying that without the pressure of the cold war, they would have no desire for those kinds of advancements. They would keep the status quo.

i would prefer to life in a world of peace that is less 'advanced' i use this term lightly, then one of war where the human race spends more and more resources on killing each and finding new ways to kill other then on anything else

I beg to differ. War advances our technology. I am not saying I would push the button to blow up China, but look. Japan gave us nuclear power and Germany allowed us to go into space. More specifiacally, we invented the nuclear bomb because we needed to beat Japan, and that gave us nuclear power plants. Germany created V2 rockets during WWII, which after they war they gave to the US. 20 years later we use that technology to get into space. That came directly from war.

[everywhere116]

This is because there is no capitalism there. Name one poverty stricken country. (I am not denying that there arent any, I just want to reveal something about it.)

Ever wonder why there's not capitalism there? Where do the resources for capitalism come from? Other countries. If everyone in the world lived as you do in the States- you'd need around 5 planets.

And how do you suppose the US gets these resources? Do they steal them? Or do they buy them from the naitives? And I will tell you why there is no capitalism. It is because of of the third world contries are run by dictators!

and they power vacuum left by western society after they rape the land of its resources would most definatley not lead to dictators

Are you saying that the US Army just goes in to countries, takes the resources and scuttles off? I dont see that happening. We only go to war for good reason. And we do not leave a power vacuum. The last time we invaded a country we replaced dictatorship with democracy.

[foolish_yeti]

I beg to differ. War advances our technology.

Yeah- the vast majority of technological advances have been through the military. Tons of people are getting rich off of wars and have been doing so for ages. Send Joe Shmoe to die so the cash keeps rolling in!

[Anarchy Ninja]

if you all read the first page you will see that this thread was originally designed for those with marxist views to talk about it, its stated in the first post. its as bad as any religion thread, as soon as its made instantly the athiests jump in to disprove god (or so ive read) this appears to be the case here, i accept that you believe that capitalism leads to a better life and what not and i believe that no matter what i, or anyone else says you wont change you views. just as you must accept that there is nothing you can say to make me stop believeing that communism is trully an utopian society and that i find that most far left views to be supperiour to the greed bough about by capitalism

[everywhere116]

I beg to differ. War advances our technology.

Yeah- the vast majority of technological advances have been through the military. Tons of people are getting rich off of wars and have been doing so for ages. Send Joe Shmoe to die so the cash keeps rolling in!

I answer that with my last post.

[Anarchy Ninja]

This is because there is no capitalism there. Name one poverty stricken country. (I am not denying that there arent any, I just want to reveal something about it.)

Ever wonder why there's not capitalism there? Where do the resources for capitalism come from? Other countries. If everyone in the world lived as you do in the States- you'd need around 5 planets.

And how do you suppose the US gets these resources? Do they steal them? Or do they buy them from the naitives? And I will tell you why there is no capitalism. It is because of of the third world contries are run by dictators!

and they power vacuum left by western society after they rape the land of its resources would most definatley not lead to dictators

Are you saying that the US Army just goes in to countries, takes the resources and scuttles off? I dont see that happening. We only go to war for good reason. And we do not leave a power vacuum. The last time we invaded a country we replaced dictatorship with democracy.

ohh yes thats rite you dont scuttle off you stay while the country rips itself apart in a civil war caused by the invasion for whats the 'good' reason they are up to now i could have sworn he had WMD's somewhere

[foolish_yeti]

Are you saying that the US Army just goes in to countries, takes the resources and scuttles off? I dont see that happening. We only go to war for good reason. And we do not leave a power vacuum. The last time we invaded a country we replaced dictatorship with democracy.

Well it's more like: the US goes into countries and puts in rulers who will be friendly to US intentions- so they can get easy access to resources. The main reason why a lot of fighting goes on is access to resources. For example, the US didn't invade Iraq until Saddam (who they put in power) stepped out of line. They funded him through his worst atrocities and when he was most powerful, but as soon as he steps out of line he's considered a threat to the world. The US "steals" resources by buying them from governments or corporations. In theory the money is supposed to trickle down and benefit everyone, but in reality the majority of it stays where it's always been- with the rich.

[everywhere116]

This is because there is no capitalism there. Name one poverty stricken country. (I am not denying that there arent any, I just want to reveal something about it.)

Ever wonder why there's not capitalism there? Where do the resources for capitalism come from? Other countries. If everyone in the world lived as you do in the States- you'd need around 5 planets.

And how do you suppose the US gets these resources? Do they steal them? Or do they buy them from the naitives? And I will tell you why there is no capitalism. It is because of of the third world contries are run by dictators!

and they power vacuum left by western society after they rape the land of its resources would most definatley not lead to dictators

Are you saying that the US Army just goes in to countries, takes the resources and scuttles off? I dont see that happening. We only go to war for good reason. And we do not leave a power vacuum. The last time we invaded a country we replaced dictatorship with democracy.

ohh yes thats rite you dont scuttle off you stay while the country rips itself apart in a civil war caused by the invasion for whats the 'good' reason they are up to now i could have sworn he had WMD's somewhere

We are staying to prevent civil war. And the military believes they were sent to Syria.

[everywhere116]

Are you saying that the US Army just goes in to countries, takes the resources and scuttles off? I dont see that happening. We only go to war for good reason. And we do not leave a power vacuum. The last time we invaded a country we replaced dictatorship with democracy.

Well it's more like: the US goes into countries and puts in rulers who will be friendly to US intentions- so they can get easy access to resources. The main reason why a lot of fighting goes on is access to resources. For example, the US didn't invade Iraq until Saddam (who they put in power) stepped out of line. They funded him through his worst atrocities and when he was most powerful, but as soon as he steps out of line he's considered a threat to the world. The US "steals" resources by buying them from governments or corporations. In theory the money is supposed to trickle down and benefit everyone, but in reality the majority of it stays where it's always been- with the rich.

The US didnt put Saddam in charge, moron! He clawed his way up to that level. Watch "Saddam and the Third Reich" on the History Channel. Its really good. And how can we be stealing resources if we are buying them?

[foolish_yeti]

We are staying to prevent civil war. And the military believes they were sent to Syria.

Yeah that's a theory- but if that's the case I wonder why your administration would not be jumping all up ons that as the lack of WMDs is one of the main arguments made against the war. I'm no nuclear expert, but I also think it would be difficult to dismantle an entire nuclear program, leaving no trace whatsoever. The weapons are one thing, but the infrastructure is another.

[Anarchy Ninja]

if you all read the first page you will see that this thread was originally designed for those with marxist views to talk about it, its stated in the first post. its as bad as any religion thread, as soon as its made instantly the athiests jump in to disprove god (or so ive read) this appears to be the case here, i accept that you believe that capitalism leads to a better life and what not and i believe that no matter what i, or anyone else says you wont change you views. just as you must accept that there is nothing you can say to make me stop believeing that communism is trully an utopian society and that i find that most far left views to be supperiour to the greed bough about by capitalism

any greedy capatilists care to comment on this or do u prefer pushing your selfcenterd views upon others?

[Anarchy Ninja]

We are staying to prevent civil war. And the military believes they were sent to Syria.

Yeah that's a theory- but if that's the case I wonder why your adnimistration would not be jumping all up ons that as the lack of WMDs is one of the main arguments made against the war. I'm no nuclear expert, but I also think it would be difficult to dismantle an entire nuclear program, leaving no trace whatsoever. The weapons are one thing, but the infrastructure is another.

i agree isnt there normally some kind of nuclear waste left over?

[spurgistan]

If I knew how to post pics, this is where I cue Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand. Of course, what people don't really know is that in Iraq, that is actually signifying that you are this man's mortal enemy, and are definitely NOT dupplying him with cheimial weapons to use against the iranians.

[spurgistan]

Anyways, this IS supposed to be a thread about Marxism, yes? Could we not maybe talk about that, instead of rehashing the Cold War?

[everywhere116]

Uh huh. Lets see, the UN sends wepons inspectors to Iraq. Saddam kicks inspectors out. (He is up to something) Saddam sends weapons to Syria. US invades. Saddam claims there were no weapons. Do you believe this?

I have to go to bed now. Part of that education thing about applying yourself and being responsible.

PS, they wernt nuclear weapons, they were biological and chemical weapons. So no.