I want to punch Marx in the face for making Hillary Clinton

That should read: I want to punch Marx in the face for making Hillary Clinton possible.

Based on his strange idea that man should merit according to his capacity to merit but consume based on his desire to consume.
Clinton has less than zero merit, literally she is the worst politician of her age in terms of what she is supposed to stand for, if you go look at it with an honest mind you will see she is the one that has created these slave markets in Libya, and thats just the froth of the foam.

A real life nature principle is: merit as you can and be rewarded accordingly.

But no. People without any merit should be rewarded according to their desires, even if these desires include the cooking of infants, the enslavement of millions and the suffering of hundreds of millions - yes, they are entitled to have it their way, because they talk down on people that feel less entitled.

Anyway Marx, you stupid unfortunate star, look what your creation has become now…

By the murderers of Christ, what a pompous fool.
He’d probably have liked it all.

Someone makes the point that cultural Marxism is worse even than Marxism.
And then a further point that Marx never intended the proletariat to extend into all who can find a way to regard themselves a minority, nor perhaps that all the protagonists under his doctrine would be self-labeled victims.

But his logic explicates it.

Produce as you can (so be as useless or destructive as you happen to behave in the moment) and be rewarded according to your lusts. - First Law of Marx, my translation

Who could be the beneficiaries of such a law other than psychopathic retards? No one. Because no one else can even work when psychopaths are getting all they require to persist as psychopaths because they are victims… of their parents, of the people they murdered for making them feel guilty, so they are the righteous owners of the Earth and get to consume what Marx said they could.

It is probably the dumbest thing ever proposed as morality. In any case it is without question responsible for the most senseless pain and death.

What a cunt.

Lets talk about it though. I mean, you know. Its only my opinion, right?

The magic trick of a true society is for its components to rank and privilege each other. So a fluid mechanism exists whereby the biggest concentrations of A are marked by people who value A and benefit of it, and a close scrutiny is applied constantly to the quality of what is produced. Perfection: Control is bottom up, executive consequence is top down. But herein is not enclosed the whole of the formula – as, contrary to Marx dialectic as seen from the position of an abstract proletarian, it includes also that which is in the minds eye of the executive director.

Marx never came to the luminious ideas of attribution general value to the process of production. He thence never even considered the angle of justification, and spontaneous will to sacrifice – the glory of the worker for the greater good — which is all the USSR ultimately came to stand for. A virtue so high and out of touch with the ideology’s roots that it had become invisible, and in its highest visible virtues the USSR aspired to meet the invisible.

And so a new, far greater and more untouchable Above was created. It was thus that the Marxist ideal lead to the ultimate subjection of the human to the idea of the Greater Body of Man - something evidently no single human can have any conception of - and of which it is thus rather questionable, if it holds ay merits to the individual at all.

Instead, Marxism - and a child is screaming very loudly low, down below me on the beach - had led to the impulse at least toward the singularization of Capital. Marx’ very exhorting the principle of Capital as something to overcome has made capital infinitely stronger than it could have done by the mere devices of Capitalism. It has allowed the Industries to totally subject all forms of government.

Original Capitalist, minimal governments can not be bought, as they are already well invested in themselves. Socialist governments can only be bought. They can do little else than to cater to interests here and there by the ones who make themselves most available. They are bought out of good will - they basically think that all (clever) Lobbyists are Auschwitz victims.

Given that the Socialist will has prevailed, and that its means for destabilization by revolution have proven to be inexhaustible it is clever for us to introduce something else than a revolution over it; as we must be utilitarian in our causes, and ideological only in terms of our tastes; we can afford this luxury because we can afford none else. We are aristocrats by necessity; history has forced this on us.

Ironically it was only through the looming danger of the USSR bringing about the Interior Revolution in European capitalist nations that the workers demands were granted and the welfare state was created. In the brief time that this lasted, all economic rigors were slackened to bring about an enormous growth of prosperity based on the everlasting productive nature of the satisfied and secure man.

Socialism is an asymptotic climb to utopia. It approaches the satisfaction of the common man closer and closer, but at ever greater cost per increase. In the meantime everything else falls away, and ultimately satisfaction has become synonymous with banality. Intellectual satisfaction is increasingly scorned, as, when the curve progresses its stretching and flattening, some truths are becoming dangerously obvious.

Foresight itself becomes anti-systemic. All intelligence is employed to progressively stupefy the workings of the human society, turning it craftily into a kind of goo. From within this goo all exceptions bubble forth like bubbles of promise and happiness, but nothing sticks. The rock star is forever tragic, the amusing antithesis to the socialist promise.

Within any socialist society, the idolatry of successful men is tenfold; these men are interpreted not as successful individuals (all individuals are in Communist principle equally successful) as agents of necessity itself. - exempt from commonality, as even communism ultimately realizes by trial and error that power is not coherently maintained by the masses. Power mustn’t really exist, but it must still be operated.

So we get the Stalin and the Mao, the men who can do endless harm without being seen as harmful. They are perceived as too great to be said to simply ‘exist’.

An those who don’t imply exist aren’t accountable for anything.
The mere idea of prosecuting hem would stir their subjects to flames.

Punch Marx in the face? You want to walk around the rest of your life with that smell on your fist?

Im not really a corpsepuncher, but you know, Im angry.

On the other hand, as with so many here, Karl Marx was just one more objectivist.

Scientific socialism I believe Friedrich Engels called it.

Clinton however is basically just a “politician” – an opportunist willing to do whatever it takes to sustain whatever power she manages to accumulate. In particular with regard to meat and potato economic and foreign policy interests. She is just one more embodiment of crony capitalism.

Or so it seems to me.

If she has any hardcore convictions, they are likely to revolve around various “social issues”. “Value voter” concerns in other words. Here the liberals and the conservatives are often equally objectivist in their positions.

Also, just out of curiosity, who should we punch in the face for making Don Trump?

You know, if you’re one of those scumbag liberals. :wink:

As far as I can tell, “Cultural Marxism” is a fairly new term made up to associate Marx with these recent authoritarian movements about social issues.

And as far as I know, Marx was a historical materialist who wrote about economic issues and how things dialectically evolve away from Authoritarianism…

So basically nothing to do with what’s now called “Cultural Marxism”.

And God knows what his writings have to do with Hillary Clinton…

Sil, you simply ignored my post and looked for key words to respond to.
The post is about the logic he proposed of consuming per desire and producing per capacity, rather than consuming in accordance with merit.

Since you didn’t even read the OP, you will definitely pretend to not see the connection of his implied proposal of “no merit, infinite consumption” with Clinton.

Its curious how Liberalism is actually the same as brain death.
Save you self from it Sil-ly.

Oh, Cultural Marxism is a well established term, has been wildly used across the West for decades, but fake media now censors the term and actually posts fake wikipedia articles on it. W

Seeing all this edited on wiki now, realizing how even a guy like you can be so deceived, I think our society will not survive. It doesn’t deserve to. It has been electing and defending slave-traders for centuries, and now that it has selected the first non-slavetrading non-pedophile leader, it is about to blow itself up.

Oh well.

Better things come after.

This is truly astounding. Google has just deleted and altered everything on Cultural Marxism.
3 Years ago there ware thousands of articles on it, and the term was solidly accepted as a legitimate cultural movement, emphasizing the victims and downtrodden at the cost of others cultural dominance; a basic victim-philosophy, which has shaped all public discourse from the second half of the 70’s onward.

Now, all that comes up is “fake term”, “obscure Frankfurt school” (by far the most influential school of thought of the 20th century!) and “far right accusations”…

This civilization has come to a definitive end.
I guess my group forms the basis of what will grow from the ashes.

But then this is why I started my group.


Ok Im not angry.

read up:

beforethelight.forumotion.com/t7 … as-all-law

Oh, I was assuming you’d go back and punch him when he was alive when I was talking about his reek.

Don’t use Google.

Id do it man. For all of us, Id take that stank on my knuckles. Hell yeah.
Id walk right up into that mouldy apparent he leeched in and break his nose. Or jaw. Or just my own hand because it’s probably very dark there and his head slippery with sweat.

Friends have been trying to tell me this but finally Google itself drives the point home.
But regardless of whether I am using it - there are millions or hundreds of millions of people who still believe that google is a search engine.


Well, I didn’t ignore your post, I just responded to some bits that seemed fundamental to the rest of what you said but wrong according to my understanding. I’m sorry if that offends, considering you’ve put effort into what I didn’t address and the subject matter is obviously troubling you.

Though I’m not interested in the KT-style name-play with the “Sil-ly” quip and the haughty trashing of Liberals as brain-dead by the way, so I hope you won’t mind if I ignore little hiccups of that sort.
What I am interested in is whether or not I can learn anything and maybe even teach anything.

So what I gather is I shouldn’t be using Google or Wikipedia, coz they’ve been appropriated by Liberals. Ok, well I know Google has been re-programmed to only show you what it thinks you might (ought to?) be interested in, and Wikipedia literally can be re-written by people with an agenda, but I’m not aware of anything more than that. I still use them as a guide, though not gospel - I am a thinking man, not a sponge.
Frankly, I prefer to just go by my own experience and reason anyway, rather than quarrel over facts about who said that and who did what. I think you can figure out the important things from the ground up, without getting bogged down with the unreliability of second-hand resources. That’s what I like trying to do anyway.

I’d honestly never heard the term Cultural Marxism before recently, so with Wikipedia and the like confirming what I thought, that gave me no more grounds to be any more suspicious - but regardless of that, it really has nothing to do with what I know about Marx. I don’t know everything about Marx, but I’m pretty sure he wasn’t concerned with cultural matters, just economic ones.

But I gather that you’re trying to take the famous quote “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” and apply it to cultural attitudes anyway. Fair enough.

So to compare this quote with your interpretation of “consuming per desire and producing per capacity, rather than consuming in accordance with merit”, I am to understand that you see no issue in “translating” the term need to desire, and that you would rather the word “merit” was included in the quote instead of this.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his desires” ought to be “From each according to his ability, to each according to his merits”, yes?

Whether or not this relates to Hillary Clinton doesn’t interest me, she’s a political nobody now anyway, but perhaps you saw her as a figurehead for a larger movement that is taking your amended Marx quote to an extreme - something like “From each according to his ability, to each according to whatever he wants to consume without boundary and regardless of what they deserve”.

But this is all groundwork to try and align our respective points in light of any misunderstanding that may have occurred.

I now see a couple of issues that sound like something that you would expect to see on a philosophy board:
Q1: What is the difference between want and need?
Q2: What is merit and how is it/ought it to be determined economically?

To start with Q2, immediately we see a subjective term: “merit” and we run into problems when trying to make something objective out of it. But I believe this was the whole point behind Marx’s quote “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” - this is meant to be a subjectively preferable definition of merit.
Do what you can to the best of your abilities, so that it may be shared out in such a way that everybody gets at least some socially respectable measure that hopefully fulfills at least their basic needs, so long as it is economically possible to do this.

  • The shared-out part is what they “merit”, so long as they are doing what they can to the best of their abilities.
    Forget that Marx said it, since you are clearly emotional about what you associate with him(!) - is this not a fair representation of merit?

Q1: I think wants and needs can both be taken to extremes where wants can be infinite and needs can be next to nothing, so long as it keeps you alive in some basic way. But I think I have somewhat covered what these terms ought to imply in my above attempt at Q2: wants and needs ought to have social context. There is a certain acceptable minimum that everyone in a society ought to have just by virtue of living in that society, just because it’s well within the capability of that society to provide it. Yes, they should be answering to the call of “From each according to his ability”, but frankly when societies get so good at providing things that people need (like much of the West) it really doesn’t matter if some people don’t. It’s not like they aren’t looked down upon anyway, but they’re still humans and they live in a rich society that can easily pick up their slack. Before that enrages you beyond rationality (I hope I’m not too late) frankly I think our economy is better off without the shitty people providing stuff to you. If somebody is absolutely dead-set on not contributing, they’re going to provide crappy stuff in a crappy way and bring everyone else down while they do it. Like I said, Western societies can easily pick up their slack if you just let them go home.

The problem is that, in a society that has particularly good visibility of all the different lifestyles that are possible within it, and where the available information shows that as society gets better and better it’s providing for some people far more than others - this isn’t going to sit well. By far, the wants/needs of the wealthiest of the wealthy are visibly being catered for at increasingly higher rates to the point of obscenity. Relatively, the vast majority see little to no increase over time in having their wants and needs catered for - in some cases it’s a decrease over time. It’s possible to keep these increases aligned across all levels of wealth, in line with the ability of our economy to provide better and better, but this isn’t happening, and we can all see it.

Do the taunted vast majority not merit some fairness in this regard? Are they being baited into a state of envy to try and “motivate” them to actually reach the heights of the very most wealthy that they’ll never reach? I think the answer to the former is no, because economic improvement relies on all contributing people, the vast majority of whom are not being remunerated in line with their merit. They are the ones contributing the most to the increase in economic prosperity simply by their numbers. Just because the wealthiest of the wealthy own it all (some document somewhere has their name on it, so what?), doesn’t mean they’re collectively contributing to the same extent as others who are reaping considerably less proportionately. Needs and wants can and ought to be adjusted accordingly. The answer to the latter is very probably.

An interesting sideline is the new liberal’s meeting among whom the principals I believe are Clinton , some important benefactors Soros and others .

As far as Soros goes , he has been discredited since the Trump win particularly in his own country of origin , Hungary where in spite of his consiserable contribution , his name was removed as the name for a particular college.

The results of highly mercurial litmus tests and likewise reactions to what happens in US politics is significant in countries which have had communist led regimes for nearly 40 years.

The Internationale with regional power centers connecting to symbolic centers of unity of recent past , such existed in France, Italy, China, Cuba, and elsewhere were viable centers of political construct. In the US the onlythe only litmus test bearing significance in an undefined use of a non ideological constructions formed a blurry anti thesis , which took the form of national paranoia in the form of McCarty-ism.

Whether that line can be connected to Marx or derivative to more remote trains of thought is quizzical., especially the political motives of social progressive thought more inclined to be interpreted more in line with Thorstein Veblen, whose thoughts emanate toward a position of an economic theory separate from an ideological approach.
The Frankfurt School has application here , but more on the level of interpretation in-se.

If Clinton type liberal democracy is derivative of this. type of designation, as Marx. has sustained. with only a marginal and reactionary red herringed form of resistance to a global fear of global ideology.

Internal political justification, is only uses as a neo-Wilsonian type of reactionary pseudo socialism of the kind , to soothe rattled political nerves, well knowing the difference is minimal
That is not to imply and discredit any direct reductive thought bit to point to Veblen’s independently researched and applied evolutionary, social psychologically And ideological approach

Wether these ideas could be derived from only two out of three relevant sources becomes increasingly problematic as the intuitive and original strains of Veblein’s thought are factored in.

For the above I would coin Clinton a moderate liberal. Am I off?

Did he say desire or did he say need? There is a subtle difference between the two. Also, did he say produce as you can or did he say do anything you can? There is a subtle difference between the two just as well. Nonetheless, I agree it is unfair to give the same reward to people who are not equally productive.

Is the measure of fairness a subtle form of developmental progression of interpretation or a regressive trend to sustain a conventional defining measuring ?

In other words do conventional and regressive interpretations
are more pronounced as the gap between them narrows or widens within any temporal context? Are European and Anglo Saxon views habe a dynamic relationship where both are intereffected ?

Can these sort of questions be raised at all, to a more then negligible level? Or any kind of methodology fail in this kind of endeavor?
I think Your reasoning patents this kind of dynamic.

Whoever can give determines what has and what does not have merit. And they do so in relation to their needs. If what they need is a doctor then doctors have merit. And then, only a number of doctors. There may be a hundred doctors out there. If the one who can give only needs a dozen doctors only a dozen doctors will have merit. All others won’t. They may discriminate between better and worse doctors. Again, this would be in relation to their needs. Their needs establish the ideal doctor i.e. the exact kind of doctor they need. Doctors that are less than this ideal doctor would be considered worse and those that are closer to it would be considered better. Also, doctors that are far above this ideal would be considered equal to the ideal doctor even though they really are not. All of this would no doubt be disheartening to doctors who are just as good as those doctors that are selected by the one who can give; not to mention how disheartening it would be to doctors who are even better than the selected doctors. But that’s simply how things work in reality.

No need to press the point however in the case of hypoconsriasis, the difference becomes dubious as far as reliance on the idea of seeking out a perfect doctor. The choice narrows or widens corresponding to this absolute standard. The other extreme is less prone to perception.

There is more nuance here than either Marx or Clinton warrant. Marx brutishly destroyed the ancient cultural logic of merit, value, integrity, worth, work, results, reality, with an impressively anti-logical idiocy that has repeatedly brought us all on the brink of extinction.

Clinton is the epitome symptom of this cosmic evil. All her actions have had obscenely disastrous human losses as a result.

People that voted for Hillary C are even more karmically fucked than those that voted for Adolf H. After all AH had not yet killed and sold millions of people when he ran.

HRC actually ran on her genocidal accomplishments. And people love her. I say people but I wouldnt say humans.

Then Veblen broke down that illogic and therefore she revamped the presumptive paranoid defensiveness of the assumed utility of reacting against a global communism, which assumption was merely for effect.

That she knew this , which she must have, then probably she was as much involved in the national conspiracy to mask the larger international plan to de-ideologize the effort to cover an
early attempt to popularize the so called New World Order.
She knew it and the suggestion gaining some awareness that the difference between the remaining two factors in a social welfare state in the US’s two party system is deceptively over exaggerated.