Who Is Karl Marx?

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: ketsuko

Heaven does not have merchant's, we don't work for a wage there since God gives freely to all that have need.

And that's why it's called Heaven, a perfect Utopia that can only be achieved through divine intervention. And why would a spirit need stuff anyway?

"Hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works" ~ Unknown

Funny thing about socialists. They usually try to justify socialism on the backs of minority groups like homeless people. If they ever get their way and get their socialist utopia, the first thing they want to do is murder all the people who are "dragging them down". Like homeless people, when they actually try to collect their free stuff they were promised.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The problem is technically not the system.

If you had a genuinely benevolent leader who had good intention to do what is best for a society, communism can still work. The problem is that is not the nature of people who want to lead.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: LABTECH767

You do realize that the "poor" of America have better standards of living then the richest of other countries, right?

So your whole argument falls apart simply on that.

What FCD was trying to say is that socialists see America as a way to have enough money available to actually achieve the dream of making socialism (Marxism. Communism Leninism, Maoism, the dreams of Hegal ad nausium) finally work.

While ignoring the whole point that it can't, simply because of human nature.

Capitalism actually does work, in the sense that every citizen has the chance to make a better life for themselves.

Unless you are a loser and always focus on someone that has more than you and blame them for it because they are actually better than you in the game of Capitalism.

Socialists play on that, scoop the losers up and in America make them a political party. Let's call them Democrats.

The top Democrats amass enough voters to gain power, keep gaining power and do well for themselves.

The lower level of Democrats get nothing out of the deal, stay poor and pissed off and keep voting Democrat to make their lives better.

Perhaps you should focus less on socialism as a good thing and maybe focus on the party that uses you to enrich themselves while keeping you poor.

Wow, I think we would be friends if we lived nearby. Certainly my wife would love to meet you too since you to share Native American blood, she is more Irish than anything but her mom wasn't. Well she wouldn't want to meet people I chat with on here but you know what I mean I do believe.

She and I are in complete agreement and I like this point you made here, and many others you've made.

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The problem is technically not the system.

If you had a genuinely benevolent leader who had good intention to do what is best for a society, communism can still work. The problem is that is not the nature of people who want to lead.

Plato decried in "The Republic" that there were no selfless men and therefore a Democracy was the best form of gov warts and all (paraphrasing).

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

That's because many of the things people read are basically theories. There is a whole heap of things and differences between a theory and reality. In theory Marxism works, in reality, its a whole nother ball game. But the same can be said of capitalism and any other ism out there.

And it took a few million and millions of people dying before they started to realize that.

And even if you find the perfect system were everybody lives in harmony and everybody is happy. There is always the question. Just for how long will this work? Because nothing lasts forever.

In the end both Marxism and Capitalism will fail eventually.

There are many books out there that should be put in the fantasy section of the library. But well you know, what we have here is an epidemic of mislabeling of epic proportions. And so because of that it was taken serious, and many people died.

# happens.

And if Marx was around now a days and wrote his books and papers. It would be in the cool story bro section.

In fact if there is any book or ideal out there or anybody that says he has it all figured out. There likely talking out there ass.

a reply to: LABTECH767

"extreme decadent wealth and extreme poverty" Is that why California is the process of creating exactly those conditions today?

a reply to: NthOther

"Marxists will force you to be charitable (which isn't charity) or put a bullet in your face."

Not true. Not true. They always shoot you in the back of the head.

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Absolute socialism will work,

But only over the dead bodies of people who don't want to be a part of it. Methinks that's the problem, because these political theories rely on 100% compliance and robot-like obedience.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Actually, I apologize.

I made my point poorly last night.

God expects that He is uppermost in our hearts. For most who have extreme wealth, the money is on that pedestal, the place where God should be. For the young man, clearly, his material life was there.

When Jesus asked him to give it all up, it was the same question that is echoed throughout the Bible only in less obviously material ways - Are you willing to die for Him? Are you willing to be reborn? You have to live for God in order to be saved, and that means turning your back on everything for Him, even friends and family if needed. Material wealth should be the very least of the things you are worried about losing for God.

Or let me put it to you this way:

There is a story that circulates about an old woman who has some stones one of which is a very precious stone worth a lot of money. She meets a traveler who notices that she seems unaware of the worth of her stone. She notices that he seems to be very poor and downtrodden and she asks what she can do to help. He asks for her stone and she gives it to him with nothing but a smile.

He later returns to her with the stone and asks her how she could do that and if she knew what it was. She told him she did, but that it was more important to make him happy.

Now I could be botching that story, but the main point is that she knew very well what the stone was worth and didn't care. She cared more about making his day.

Let me ask you, do you think if she came to Him that Jesus would ask her to give up her stone? I don't because even though she knew it's great value, she didn't care.

“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”

-Karl Marx

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Absolute socialism will work, it just needs to start with a really strong nation, like the capitalist economy republic of the USA.

What's the difference between absolute socialism and communism?

a reply to: Justoneman

And now what we have is a pseudo (illusion of a) democracy where the highest levels are permanent.

What is interesting about Marx is the backgrounds of his origins - The League of Just Men.

a reply to: ketsuko

Hey nothing to apologize about, actually it was way past my bedtime too over here but this is more about political ideology and I made the mistake of bringing my theology into the debate, the two seldom mix without a violent chemical reaction of some sort regardless of which faith we may be talking about.

So just opinion's, we may agree on some thing's and disagree on others and that is because we are individuals often with very different lives and different world view's, sometime's this is shaped by our experience of life, sometime's by our social class and standing in society, sometime's by our education system's and other's by the prevailing opinion of our social groupings.

But most of the time it is just that opinion and nothing more.

I am actually NOT a Marxist myself as he was a devout atheist but I do think he had some good idea's which if taken to the extreme become bad idea's so I still hold to the moderate socialist model of western Europe - pre-EU period since it cherry picked the best and did not do it to excess - of course any socialism no matter how moderate to a capitalist is regarded as extremely bad so I will always disagree with them on that point.

I think GOOD rich are a necessity to a successful and sustainable economy, they invest in that economy, base there business and finance interests within and on it BUT BAD rich whom take, invest only were they regard it as being financially prudent which invariably mean's in other country's are actually by far worse leeches than the social underclass were ever accused of being - by far and a way's, there speculating, there money laundering and tax evasion and there control of government's and corporate boards leads inevitably toward a polarized and divided society of have's and have not's, an immoral society which rewards greed and punishes everyone that is not first across the line.

Actually the US is the victim of the latter, at the start of the twentieth century it had plenty of Good wealth in the hand's of an industrious middle class, they suffered a catastrophe with the wall street crash and the tiny minority of the ultra wealthy that survived this then set about consolidating that wealth and power into there own hand's while leaving the rest of the world vulnerable to more crashes - yet ensuring that if they did come it would turn to there own advantage as they could then swoop down like vultures not to rebuild but to pick apart the remain's of society for there own further enrichment, for them money is never enough they want power and that too they can never get there fill of.

The Hidden Hand

The League of Just Men

a reply to: nOraKat

Gospel of St Matthew.
So when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be praised by men.
Truly I tell you, they already have their reward.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret.
And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you

a reply to: MisterSpock

No doubt they would attempt to pin the blame on the several-million-strong patriot militias opposing socialist/communist tyranny in accordance with historical precedent and Article 4 Section 4 US Constitution

a reply to: nOraKat

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Rather that attack the speaker maybe you should listen to what he was saying:



Marx is right. You are not.