what Marxism really is.....

You lack three things:

Dignity
Intelligence
Masculinity

If you cannot defend yourself against Satyr, Ksavir, or those at KT, then you certainly are not worth another second of my time, weakling.

thats your reply???in a way you are much smarter than paGAYns on shitThyself…if you have nothing but a little deranged autistic twink brain it is better to not show it at all or you will either have to go into hiding or act like SATIRE…the deeper the lie…the harder to save face later…

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
So, i just finished reading this.

“Reactionary socialists” seem to be people that bitch about the state of things,
but refuse to or suppress revolutionary actions and political opposition.
That is too much work. They just bitch.

This above may be a miss-understanding / straw-man,
but if i am wrong show me.

What?

In short, monopolization is better than competition : Marx’s theory on how to do away with the problems of competition, while not realizing how vital competition is.

Monopolization of what? You do realize using capitalistic technical jargon meant to describe elements of a capitalistic system to describe and accuse Marxism makes you look a bit naive and narrow-minded?

.

I look narrow-minded? I’m quoting Marx directly, here.

but where do you get the idea of removing private property or creating a monopolization? Engels clearly writes ‘private property’ as ‘means of production’ not private property as private ownership or anything like this. and the democratization of the control over the means of production by the workers seems like actually doing the opposite of creating monopolies since it would, indeed, disable a single individual from becoming somebody like Jeff Bezos or Warren Buffet, but its billionaires that drive monopolies not workers.

You know, this idea is not AS revolutionary as you would think…in Germany, they have a law which forces 49percent of the directory board of any large corporation to be composed of workers representatives(as it would be in Marxism) and it has been one of the most socially supported initiatives to date. You are trying to argue with me about Stalinist or Leninist 19th century Soviet Republic…

I am not a jag-off and I will admit that the theory, however good and genuine it might be, is far from the dirty and chaotic realities of the implementation of anything new or anything old anew through politics(as it did in Russia)…America is not suited for Marxism and it would end up badly if it was attempted in the States right now as far as I am aware(but the current capitalistic kleptocracy will end up badly also). I am not a Marxist and I am not advocating for it either, I am just exploring different things. As Aristotle said, a sign of an intelligent man is to entertain ideas seriously without agreeing with them. hope all the best for you friend.

youtu.be/-np-3g3_Mg0

And that would be a good thing – if those “representatives” were not corrupt often brainless union leaders. :smiley:

AND the opposite.

Then the biased media gets to decide who wins.

_
I think Polish Youth got IP banned, and the sock-puppet he created soon after becoming banned, too.

He wasn’t Polish, and he certainly wasn’t a He… in other news. :-k

:laughing:

In Marxism the workers representatives are always 100 percent. Ideally, however, the workers representatives should only be 49 percent - like it is in Germany, as you said…

Yes.

That’s the thing, yes. I therefore propose that every society renews itself every 30 years in the sense that every corrupt person is replaced by a non-corrupt person. But this is only possible if it is controlled and the controllers themselves are not corrupt. In other words, at present there is no single possibility for this in the whole world.

That leads to the question of how to detect corruption - related to how to detect deception.

Certainly media cannot be trusted with that issue.

It is not easy to rely only on the mass media for information, so the information must come from elsewhere, but above all, one should be well informed historically and think for oneself (not let think, but think independently).

T_F_Y.jpg

Nah… they’ve just gone quiet, as they’ve been logging-in, but not saying anything.

…maybe he got-a-life and kept to his word, on departing from ILP’s boards for good.

“But one promethean is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because every promethean is only a worker like every other promethean; but it tacitly recognizes unequal promethean endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal prometheans (and they would not be different prometheans if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.” - K.M.