what Marxism really is.....

The problem is really not consistent with any ism. It is what they always said, as perhaps luck would have it, it always depends on the side you are on, marerially, genetically, with , and it can be pretty cold in the middle of winter, if you’re living under a bridge and your kids with you, and your wife is sick, and someone just ribbed you, but the yourself you are rich in spirit.

Heard, way before covid that professionals have hit the skids, and stuck there, some kids have died, and no health insurance.

But then , in a third world country, this is considered the no and we are solo afraid of what or who else we may loose.

Love is killing and the snow bites through little blue fingers , and the heartbreak is not felt by those behind the warmth and protection of …

If we really felt like those, surely could as the question , …

Is in today’s scarcity, could Marx even ask the question wether socialism could really be affordable? Or, is it a dead doctrine, which really belonged to the logistics of Western Civilization

Marx never intended any other configuration that beset any other social effect other than the romantic reaction. against the rapid industrial revolution. Colonialism was merely an afterthought.

On the other hand" no current resident of post colonialism, should not assume that the New Westerner cant relate to familial necessities as excluding heretofore ideas associated with love , sex and romance, for there are those among us, for whom the pressures associated with staying alive for others' sake, make such common pleasures secondary .

Stereotypes have ceased to effect credible responses long ago.

As I noted while loitering on your corner:

Similarly, there is what we profess to know about Marxism. And there are any number of historical facts able to be confirmed by any number of sources. But in evaluating it morally and politically as an “ism” worth embracing, defending and fighting for? What knowledge here can be confirmed as obligatory for all rational men and women?

Here is the problem though, Iam: you never appealed to one when you made that statement. You made it like that, bare, without need of context. Why can you not answer a simple question about a simple declaration you made?

As transpired in the aforementioned corner:

What it done say? It ain’t Chinese, brother.

You say: “Well, maybe individual subjects are the ones who profess to know things, but the things that they profess to know [assuming human autonomy] are either true objectively for all of us or they are not.”

I say: “Why not?”

What’s issa so complicated massa?

Seriously though, can you not answer the question?

If the wording seems a little snarky, maybe the reader would like to visit the thread, Pedro’s Corner in The Sandbox, for “context.”

But it’s clear enough.

But you do agree with the ends?

Note to others:

What on earth is he talking about that is not covered by me here:

And…

If the end is a wee bit more like, “all for one and one for all” and less like “every man for himself”.

Not true at all. The theory is that the bottom shall overthrow and kill off the top. That is hardly “one for all and all for one”. It is “we for us and kill off the rest”.

The “means” is revolution, mass destruction, and killing off those who disagree - fascism.

Care to sight your source? You editorial is fiction.

That was my claim of yours. Care to sight your source for “Marxism is about all for one and one for all”?

I asked first. LOL

thefreemanonline.org

‘collective’ ownership?

Collective definition is - denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole.

The phrase is a statement of sentiment that we all support each other as we each support the whole.

Large scale collective ownership means NO ownership. Ownership means control. It is not “all for one”. It is “all for all (who we haven’t killed off)”. All can’t control anything. All cannot make a decision. All cannot control itself. “All for all” is “all for none”. “All for all” means no control over anything. “All for all” means no ownership at all.

Imagine a large society where it is declared that ALL men are kings. Would anyone actually be a king? If ALL people have $1 million, $1 million becomes meaningless. And if ALL people are the owner, being an owner is meaningless.

I share in such a sentiment of theory, but disagree with how it is practiced or accomplished. I haven’t found an example of an implementation achieving the goal, the difference between the means and it’s ends. That is to say communism as a practice does not achieve the goal of the collective ownership in the theory.

Well now we differ in opinion. I wasn’t aware you were such a control freak. That will have it’s influence on your thinking.

You are the one who said “collective ownership”. Are you such a “control freak” about ownership? I’m sure that will have influence on your thinking.

You are a funny parrot.

It’s painfully obvious that Marxists do not own $100,000 worth of assets. If they did, then they wouldn’t be spouting this nonsense.

When you own things like new cars, a house, a family, you don’t just give them away to any Marxist Fascist Dictator group… you defend them with your life.

That’s how Freedom works, and it is why Marxism will fail everytime (as per its historical track record too).

Again, for the billionth time…

That’s a totalitarian government.

Now if you see Marxism as totalitarianism (which isn’t true). But, if you see it that way, I understand why you’re so upset by Marxism

Marxists are looters, rioters, and domestic terrorists posing as ‘Revolutionaries’. In reality, they are merely violent thieves and street-thug strong-arm of the Democrat Communist party.

Brown Shirts.

If they really cared about black people, then they would show compassion to black Republicans and Conservatives, instead of violently attacking them and calling them N-word.