Look carefully at what is on the board: The title is "Power Analysis", Relationships based on Self Interest: Mayor by money to Corporations, Utilities, Banks...hmm.
Sounds to me like parasites leeching the money of working class people.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Marxists (and Democrats) also confuse Mercantilism with Capitalism.
This is great !!
Marxists claim that workers are oppressed in capitalist societies. Workers in communist societies always try to sneak out into capitalist societies. No one in South Korea is trying to sneak into North Korea. The Berlin Wall was not built to keep West Germans from sneaking into East Germany’s collective farms. Cubans in Florida do not steal boats to seek asylum in Cuban collective farms.
But why do the workers keep voting for it?
So, while he was sleazing off the working people, you know, the ones he says he was there to help, his wife and numerous children were starving.
Here's a man totally out of touch with the self-industrial, moraly-responsible, self-sufficient people, which he was the totally opposite.
Excerpt:
The Cerberean Conception
Since it's almost become a cliché to observe that Marxism is dead in practice -- that is, if you overlook its authoritarian half-life in China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam -- but thriving in theory, we can at least ask exactly what that theory is, a question that returns three very different answers:
Some should get all of the pie. This is classic manual-labor theory of value Marx: Since the manual laborers produce all wealth (somehow), anyone else who has any wealth must be leeching off that labor. Every slice of the pie belongs to "the workers" who baked it, i.e., all wealth must be redistributed to the proletariat. This is why Communism eventually adopted the hammer-and-sickle as its emblem. (An embarrassing choice, by the way, for what those tools really represent is the investment of capital. A truer symbol of the manual-labor theory would have been simply a pair of dirty hands, a fact ironically reflected in the Bolshevik workers' term of derision for the Party's nonworker majority: beloruchki -- "white hands.")
All should get some of the pie. This is Critique of the Gotha Program Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Now those slices belong, not to the bakers, but to the hungry, i.e., wealth must be redistributed from the proletariat to the poor -- and other cases of "economic necessity." (An earlier variant of this was the proposal that each should get an equal slice of the pie, with everyone working equally and compensated so.)
None should get any of the pie. This is the Marx of The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. "[W]e don't want a communist society," paraphrases a Green disciple, "where people greedily redistribute the wealth of capitalism; we want a society where the craving for wealth has been overcome by a more fully realized state of human being." The pie belongs to no one, and all slices must be redistributed away from anyone and everyone. The people will no longer want (or even need?) pie either here on earth or in the sky, for their "obsession with Having" will be superseded "by a fulfilled condition of Being."
The upshot of all this should have been obvious from the start: Marx sired a monster whose three heads each pull in a different direction. What was going to tear itself apart with "contradictions" was not market capitalism but this tripolar concept of "socialism." We are to believe -- what? That each one of these incompatible theses is an example of how "[j]ust as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic matter, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history"? That the assembler of this pile of inconsistencies -- who obscurantly dismissed critical analysis as "not a scalpel but a weapon. Its object is the enemy, [whom] it wishes not to refute but to destroy" -- was a scientific theorist? That Je ne suis pas marxiste! was ever anything other than the cry of a schizophrenic zealot?
We cannot let it go without note that while Darwin never falsified data, Marx did -- chronically. As early as the 1880s, Cambridge scholars demonstrated that Marx manipulated source materials "with a recklessness which is appalling ... to prove just the contrary of what they really establish." One example will suffice. He prophesied: "In proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the laborer must grow worse. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery ... at the opposite pole." But did the statistics for wages actually show workers growing poorer as their employers grew richer? Not at all, so in 1867's Das Kapital he jettisoned the contemporary figures and passed off as contemporary those from 1850.
We behold in Marx a man who evidently could accept being contradicted by himself, but not by reality. So war dieser Mann der Wissenschaft. An epitaph appropriate for those who exalted him, in contrast, remains elusive...
PIE? DID I HEAR SOMEONE SAY PIE?
The.
Best.
Article.
Ever.
Well, maybe or maybe not. But I am saving it. What an excellent primer on Marxism!
When I say that Obama is a Racist, Marxist and Socialist, it is usually easier to provide understandable proof for his racism and socialism, but making his Marxism understandable to people who don’t know what it is is more challenging.
To that end, I took statements out of this excellent article, and with apologies to the talented author, put Obama’s name in, just to see if the shoe fits:
WHY OBAMA IS A MARXIST
***************************
Obama thinks that all products contain value that is directly proportional to the amount of labor embodied within them. He was wrong. All the rest of Marxism is based entirely on this mistaken and falsifiable premise.
Obama thinks the problems in the USA are based on conflict between “social classes.”
Obama claims that people’s ideas and ideals are dictated by property relations.
Obama cares a lot about the distribution of material wealth. But he has no idea how to bring about the creation of the material wealth that they wish to redistribute. He just assumes it all gets produced all by itself.
Obama claims that workers are oppressed in capitalist societies.
Obama claims that lower-income people support the Left and that higher-income people support the Right. Generally the opposite is the case. Let’s not forget the Hollywood Left.
Obama claims that capitalists do not work and that workers do not own capital.
Obama claims that businesses are owned by a small closed clique of capitalists.
Obama claims that people are prisoners of their material circumstances and of their classes of birth.
Obama claims that all workers share common interests and shared goals, making them into a “class.” In reality, they share nothing in common and have no common interests.
Obama thinks that if you earn more money than me, it means you are exploiting me.
Obama thinks that if one person has more wealth than a second person, it can only be because the first one stole the wealth of the second. Ditto for richer and poorer countries.
Obama thinks that only things matter in economics, meaning tangible products, and so services do not.
Obama does not see why workers should need to be allowed to vote. The interest of workers is always defined as whatever those claiming to speak in the name of the working class happen to support and desire.
Obama thinks that socialism works.
Obama claims that he and people like him come from the working class. In reality almost all people like Obama are the pampered children of middle class and wealthy parents. There are more people like Obama today on the campuses of some American universities than in all of eastern Europe.
Obama claims that under his plans everyone receives according to his needs and contributes according to his capabilities. In reality, under his plan everyone receives according to whatever the entrenched party apparatchiks decide their needs are, usually sub-sustenance levels of consumption, and the same people decide what are your abilities, generally assumed to be your ability to work endlessly at whatever you are told to do without getting paid much. To put this differently, in the absence of positive incentives, no one is capable of doing anything and everyone’s needs are infinite.
Obama thinks that “experts” can tell what needs to be produced. There is not a single “expert” in Obama’s administration who could produce a pencil by himself.
Obama think that efficiency in production can be achieved by intimidating citizens.
Obama believes that economic incentives do not matter.
Obama claims that his ideas are fundamentally democratic. In reality they are fundamentally anti-democratic.
Obama pretends to be in favor of the working class collectively owning all property. In reality, Obama and people like him always steal the property of members of the working class and turn it over to well-paid party apparatchiks.
Obama thinks that he understands economics. In fact, virtually all Obama’s “theories” were completed debunked 160 years ago. Obama is wrong about virtually everything he believes on economics.
Obama sees no need at all for “finance capital.” That is why he is going to try to steal everyone’s savings. That is why he had to admonish us recently about taking our money out of banks.
Obama does not have the slightest inkling about what determines wages of workers in markets. He has even less understanding of what determines prices.
Obama uses the term “...um....er...ahhh...” whenever he does not know how to finish a sentence, or whenever he has no idea of what is being discussed.
Obama thinks that women live better lives under his system. That is because he doesn’t know any women who grew up under his system.
There is not a Marxist on earth who has actually read and understood Karl Marx’s tedious book “Das Kapital.” Obama was one of them.
Obama wants to abolish the family, but that is because they became a radical in the first place as a way to antagonize and irritate mommy and daddy, even though he was just like daddy, the alcoholic, socialist one who was a bigamist.
Obama does not believe in God. He believes in Black Liberation Theology and “Reverend” Wright.
Obama believes that in every voluntary transaction, one side wins and the other loses, and so it is impossible for two sides to profit from it. That is why he thinks you should be told what to buy and how much you should pay for it.
Obama claims that capitalist countries engage in imperialism.
Obama believes that there are no real conflicts of interest between the workers living in different countries and speaking different languages or coming from different cultures.
Obama thinks that capitalism makes people greedy. Actually people living under his economic system will become much greedier because they will be poor and desperate.
Obama claims that his economics are a science. They are not. They are little more than a form of mental illness.
Look carefully at what is on the board: The title is "Power Analysis", Relationships based on Self Interest: Mayor by money to Corporations, Utilities, Banks...hmm.
Sounds to me like parasites leeching the money of working class people.
There is not a Marxist on earth who has actually read and understood Karl Marx's tedious book "Das Kapital." You can read a summary of the book on Wikipedia, written by people who did not read it either. In reality, Marx had no idea at all even what capital is.
First off, let me start by saying that back in college, I needed a "300 level" economics class as a part of my computer science core requirements. The only one I could fit into my schedule was "Marxist Economics." If there's a book written that's a sure fire cure for insomnia, it's Sinclair Lewis' "Babbit," but I have to say that "Das Kapital" certainly gives it a run for its money! I never did get more than about 30 pages through that book. However, I did read a lot of other stuff about what Marx wrote, and it seemed to me that those other authors understood the topics much better than Marx ever did. It finally occurred to me that "Marxist Economic Theory" was pretty much what people who didn't understand the simplest concepts of economics hoped that economics was all about. Not only were those people ignorant in economics, they tended to be jealous, and often self hating. BTW, one of my roommates was also in the class, and he was an Economics major. We both learned that the best way to pass the class was to parrot back what the professor said, along with a few quotes by Marx. He got a solid "B." I got a "B+!" As college students we went into that course with open minds about the validity of Marxism and Socialism, but we came out of the class as rabid capitalists. And we had a terrific professor, who happened to be a committed Marxist himself, but he wasn't an "evangelist."
Marxists believe that in every voluntary transaction, one side wins and the other loses, and so it is impossible for two sides to profit from it. That is why they think you should be told what to buy and how much you should pay for it.
This is true. One of the beliefs in Marxism is that there's a finite value in a product, and once that value has been realized, there's no more value in that product to "go around." Of course, this flies in the face of the other idea that Marxists have that value comes from work by the laborers to make that very same product. As with many concepts within Marxism, they are contradictory.
Marxists believe that there are no real conflicts of interest between the workers living in different countries and speaking different languages or coming from different cultures. That is without a doubt the very stupidest idea of all coming from Marxism. In any case, that is why Marxism is generally spread only via military conquest.
I'm not 100% that this is so much a "Marxist" belief as a communist belief, which of course, the political ideology to which Marx subscribed. Something to remember is that Marxism is an economic theory, while communism is a political theory. Marx did subscribe to the belief that all "workers" have things in common, which led to communism, which is sometimes known as "world socialism." Meaning that workers (the Proletariat) all over the world have common needs, and the government (of course, the one world, communist government) should take care of all those needs. This differs from other forms of socialism, like the one espoused by NAZI Germany, which was national socialism, which pretty much came up with the same ideas, however, it was based on the superiority of a certain nation, and the "natural rights" of that nation state to rule over the rest of the world.
Mark
So, while he was sleazing off the working people, you know, the ones he says he was there to help, his wife and numerous children were starving.
Thank you, Fred Nerks
OT Ping.
So, while he was sleazing off the working people, you know, the ones he says he was there to help, his wife and numerous children were starving.
Thank you, Fred Nerks
OT Ping. Second try!
Bookmark
ping
BFL
Fully agreed with almost everything regarding that analysis on Marxism, and definitely a lot of very good points to counter the Marxist arguments.
Probably the only bit I might disagree with is the claim that Marxists are fundamentally anti-democratic. Even that’s only because when I think of “democracy”, I think of the French Revolution and the horrors that were occurring there, such as the Vendee Massacre, the September Massacres, the Reign of Terror, and plenty others, and the masses were clearly enjoying the slaughterfest by a significant degree. And I am certain of this because that’s EXACTLY why our founding fathers (well, most of them, anyways. Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine might beg to differ) were against democracy or being democratic, why we were founded as a republic, and more importantly, since we’re dealing with Marxism, this was EXACTLY what Marx wanted to not only reenact, but actually make even gorier, something he himself said (he said, and I quote, “Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793…When our time comes, we shall not conceal terrorism with hypocritical phrases. . . The vengeance of the people will break forth with such ferocity that not even the year 1793 enables us to envisage it.” And the source for that was this: Marx-Engels Gesamt-Ausgabe, vol. vi pp 503-505, final issue of Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 18, 1849. Quoted in Thomas G. West, Marx and Lenin, The Claremont Institute.). So far as I can tell, democracy fundamentally requires people commit sickening massacres for a sheer laugh and have people engage in complete lawlessness.