[SolarCross]

So the USSR gave Chile some fishing boats, milk, tractors, and wheat, and rebuilt a few factories after an earthquake.

And this was such a threat to the USA that this somehow justifies the very real oppression that the US imposed on Chile; the same type of oppression that you whine about when you misunderstand Marxism and want to paint us as oppressors.

So, how does this compare to the millions of dollars and direct military aid by the US?

Finally, how do lion penises support your point?

That's how it begins, it's called "winning hearts and minds" and the US knows what that's for because the US does it too. You'll note that if it weren't for the military rebellion the USSR was planning arms transfers next..

You picked a side and that side lost and now you are mad and are compelled to endlessly grumble about it to any fool (me in this case) that will listen but you probably should just get over it for your own sake. The US doesn't care either way, they won.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's how it begins, it's called "winning hearts and minds" and the US knows what that's for because the US does it too. You'll note that if it weren't for the military rebellion the USSR was planning arms transfers next..

Well, when your argument contradicts the actual declassified KGB papers dealing with Allende, I think I know which is more likely to be correct.

The point is that you claimed that these social experiments fail because we do not take biology into account, and then you told us about lions and penises.

My point is that even the most cursory glance at history shows that socialism in the developing world failed because the US brought in guns, money, and occasionally drugs. It has nothing to do with your feelings about biology.

You picked a side and that side lost and now you are mad and are compelled to endlessly grumble about it to any fool (me in this case) that will listen but you probably should just get over it for your own sake. The US doesn't care either way, they won.

Yes, that must be why I started this thread.

[SolarCross]

Well, when your argument contradicts the actual declassified KGB papers dealing with Allende, I think I know which is more likely to be correct.

The point is that you claimed that these social experiments fail because we do not take biology into account, and then you told us about lions and penises.

My point is that even the most cursory glance at history shows that socialism in the developing world failed because the US brought in guns, money, and occasionally drugs. It has nothing to do with your feelings about biology.

Sub-Director of the State Security Committee (KGB) of the Soviet Union, General Nikolai Leonov begs to differ POD.

s regards Chile, he also refers to the aid provided by the USSR to the government of Salvador Allende, and reveals that in the northern hemisphere summer of 1973, approval had been given to send weapons (artillery, tanks) to the Chilean Army. However, when information was subsequently received about the imminence of a coup d’étât to depose Allende, the order was given to unload the weapons in another country

https://web.archive.org/web/20100228185 ... _1140.html

Marxism is stuck in the 19th century. It has not progressed (if you will pardon the pun) intellectually at all. It was incorrect then (purposely so perhaps) and it is still more incorrect now and that is why it fails more generally. The specific example of Chile is muddy because those who saw it flaws and fought against it prevailed before it had much chance to play out. We don't need more examples of failure though. At this point the matter is settled.

Yes, that must be why I started this thread.

You brought up Chile.

[The Immortal Goon]

Marxism is stuck in the 19th century. It has not progressed (if you will pardon the pun) intellectually at all.

This is plainly not true. Of course, it's coming from someone that refuses to read Marx or anything about Marxists. The most basic cursory glance at Marxism would show at least a Trotsky/Stalin fight that certainly indicates intellectual advancement.

You picked out a portion of Connolly, which certainly does.

I suspect you're simply saying this because you are attempting to emotionally manipulate either yourself or your opponents. Regardless, it is plainly counterfactual.

It was incorrect then (purposely so perhaps) and it is still more incorrect now and that is why it fails more generally.

As noted, the premise for this remark is incorrect. But even then, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you many times, Marxism is a way to analyze the world. It's very nature precludes it from being a stationary set of "commandments," as you like to mock whatever is completely in your imagination.

The specific example of Chile is muddy because those who saw it flaws and fought against it prevailed before it had much chance to play out. We don't need more examples of failure though. At this point the matter is settled.

"This specific example is hard. But it doesn't matter, because everyone knows that I'm always right! Why? Lion penis."

[SolarCross]

This is plainly not true. Of course, it's coming from someone that refuses to read Marx or anything about Marxists. The most basic cursory glance at Marxism would show at least a Trotsky/Stalin fight that certainly indicates intellectual advancement.

You picked out a portion of Connolly, which certainly does.

I suspect you're simply saying this because you are attempting to emotionally manipulate either yourself or your opponents. Regardless, it is plainly counterfactual.

If that's what you call development, but to me that just looks like bickering over interpretation and policy. Marx was wrong on more than few things about economics, and while dead and buried Marx, like anyone in that condition, has every excuse for not updating his ideas however all his devoted followers have not that excuse. The dialectic is a simplistic metaphysic patched together out of a few scraps of ancient philosophy and the Whig theory of history. Both the fields of history and economics have moved on from those days as related fields like biology and mathematics. Why else is it that marxism is so separate from the mainstream of science? It has fallen behind.

If we compare with where biology has gone since Marx's contemporary Darwin there is no comparison.

As noted, the premise for this remark is incorrect. But even then, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you many times, Marxism is a way to analyze the world. It's very nature precludes it from being a stationary set of "commandments," as you like to mock whatever is completely in your imagination.

Marxism is advertised by devotees like yourself as "a way to analyze the world" but actually is more like a model of the world, an unchangeable model, a model that despite its glaring flaws remains zealously defended against improvement. The commandments are policy that is built on top of the model and spuriously justified by it. The espoused policy of modern marxists is not much different from this.

"This specific example is hard. But it doesn't matter, because everyone knows that I'm always right! Why? Lion penis."

Muddy because one can't draw too many conclusions on how sustainable or effective the policies of a political movement that was killed before it could do too much. Cuba, USSR, China are better examples because they had much longer lifespans.

As an analogy if a child is discovered to have a genetic disorder that is estimated to cause certain symptoms manifesting in his thirties but that child is knocked down by a bus and killed in his twenties then that particular case will not have the same quality of information as a similar child with a similar condition whose life is not cut short.

[The Immortal Goon]

If that's what you call development, but to me that just looks like bickering over interpretation and policy. Marx was wrong on more than few things about economics, and while dead and buried Marx, like anyone in that condition, has every excuse for not updating his ideas however all his devoted followers have not that excuse. The dialectic is a simplistic metaphysic patched together out of a few scraps of ancient philosophy and the Whig theory of history. Both the fields of history and economics have moved on from those days as related fields like biology and mathematics. Why else is it that marxism is so separate from the mainstream of science? It has fallen behind.

Since you have a poor grasp on the Manifesto and proudly have not read Marx's other works, I cannot imagine what you are basing this upon.

Further, in the Trotsky/Stalin debate there is quite a deal of development. For instance, SIOC and Uneven and Combined Development. Then, of course, there is the social development that was greatly expanded upon and continues to be expanded upon.

It's silly to pretend otherwise.

Marxism is advertised by devotees like yourself as "a way to analyze the world" but actually is more like a model of the world, an unchangeable model, a model that despite its glaring flaws remains zealously defended against improvement. The commandments are policy that is built on top of the model and spuriously justified by it. The espoused policy of modern marxists is not much different from this.

Those of us who have read and understand Marx say that it is something. You, who have been struggling with his most basic and rudimentary work and with nothing else, say that you actually know more about it.

You'll forgive me if I am not well persuaded.

As an analogy if a child is discovered to have a genetic disorder that is estimated to cause certain symptoms manifesting in his thirties but that child is knocked down by a bus and killed in his twenties then that particular case will not have the same quality of information as a similar child with a similar condition whose life is not cut short.

This would only work if you were to assume, again, that history has never changed and that there is no analysis present within Marx.

Neither of these things are accurate.

[SolarCross]

Further, in the Trotsky/Stalin debate there is quite a deal of development. For instance, SIOC and Uneven and Combined Development. Then, of course, there is the social development that was greatly expanded upon and continues to be expanded upon.

It's silly to pretend otherwise.

What is SIOC? It seems to be an acronym for something but numerous and varying internet searches have not yielded any clues. Whatever it is it seems to have no presence on the internet.

Even Acronym finder is stumped:
SIOC
Also found in: Wikipedia.
Acronym Definition
SIOC Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry (China)
SIOC Strategic Information and Operations Center
SIOC Semantically Interlinked Online Community
SIOC Serial Input/Output Controller
SIOC Strategic Intelligence Officers Course
SIOC Subaru Impreza Owners Club

On "Uneven and Combined Development" that is a fairly trivial observation, if that is all your people have moved forward from Marx in more than a century then...

This would only work if you were to assume, again, that history has never changed and that there is no analysis present within Marx.

Neither of these things are accurate.

Yes neither of your strawmen are accurate.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sub-Director of the State Security Committee (KGB) of the Soviet Union, General Nikolai Leonov begs to differ POD.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100228185 ... _1140.html

Note that this does not contradict my claim in any way.

Nor does it support your point about ignoring underlying biological aspects.

Marxism is stuck in the 19th century. It has not progressed (if you will pardon the pun) intellectually at all. It was incorrect then (purposely so perhaps) and it is still more incorrect now and that is why it fails more generally. The specific example of Chile is muddy because those who saw it flaws and fought against it prevailed before it had much chance to play out. We don't need more examples of failure though. At this point the matter is settled.

Again, how does this relate to lions and penises? Or have you just abandoned your initial premise to pontificate uselessly?

You initially claimed that experiments like the Chilean one failed because of lions and penises.

Now you are changing your argument. Apparently it failed because we were still stuck in the 19th century and it has nothing to do with the fact that US companies stood to lose money.

Or the fact that the US bought and paid for a brutal dictatorship.

You brought up Chile.

You brought up lions and penises.

[ingliz]

What is SIOC?

It's no wonder you are so ill informed, your 'googling' is crap.

Anyway, here you go.

About 93,700 results, asking:

SIOC (Marx)

[The Immortal Goon]

On "Uneven and Combined Development" that is a fairly trivial observation, if that is all your people have moved forward from Marx in more than a century then...

"Actually guys, I was wrong. There was advancement and my entire premise until this point is completely wrong. And actually, for some reason now, it's all consistent and I'm wrong about that too. But even though I just heard about this concept, I know all about it, and it's dumb. And so is Marx.

"Also, I'm just going to address this detail in the most unconvincing way possible while completely proving the broader argument that I'm actually proving while writing this."

[/anti-communist arguments]

[Aufheben Olam]

First and foremost, I don't see how an early (1847-48) and brief writing, basically a political pamphlet, could be seen - both by supporters and opponents - as something that represents Marxist methodology/analysis and the communist movement as a whole. This was not the intention when it was written. It was written to be a pamphlet and it should be treated as one. Marxist critique of society, economy, and culture is much more rich than that: from the German Ideology and the three volumes of Capital to Anti-Dühring, it's a ton of books, thousands of pages, and this is only Marx&Engels. How could anyone think that a critique of the Manifesto can be the critique of Marxism as a whole? The same with communism: we are speaking about a movement that has many tendencies with different thoughts, it both predates Marx (arguably beginning with Babeuf or even earlier) and it lives to this day in arguably obsolete, but also very up to date forms.

[SolarCross]

First and foremost, I don't see how an early (1847-48) and brief writing, basically a political pamphlet, could be seen - both by supporters and opponents - as something that represents Marxist methodology/analysis and the communist movement as a whole. This was not the intention when it was written. It was written to be a pamphlet and it should be treated as one. Marxist critique of society, economy, and culture is much more rich than that: from the German Ideology and the three volumes of Capital to Anti-Dühring, it's a ton of books, thousands of pages, and this is only Marx&Engels. How could anyone think that a critique of the Manifesto can be the critique of Marxism as a whole? The same with communism: we are speaking about a movement that has many tendencies with different thoughts, it both predates Marx (arguably beginning with Babeuf or even earlier) and it lives to this day in arguably obsolete, but also very up to date forms.

The Manifesto is a gateway into leftist literature, few communists have read Das Kapital but most of read the Manifesto, it doesn't get to be exempt from critique just for being a flimsy pamphlet.

The question arises from all these protests from the leftists here that the Communist Manifesto of the 19th century is an repugnant document which makes leftists look bad and so should not be looked at for fear of making a bad impression, as to what would be the neo-marxist manifesto for the 21st century? What would be your "ten commandments"?

[Aufheben Olam]

it doesn't get to be exempt from critique just for being a flimsy pamphlet.

No one ever said it does. But the critiques of the Manifesto alone are usually pretty lazy, especially because those aim to be the critique of both Marxist analysis and the communist movement (two different things). Many communists criticized the Manifesto as well. It was reflected upon, it was criticized, but to think that a nameless blogger in 2000 who probably never read anything else just managed to """"debunk """" the whole Manifesto and the whole of Marxism takes a particularly high level of arrogance.

what would be the neo-marxist manifesto for the 21st century? What would be your "ten commandments"?

The Manifesto was perfectly right for its time. Its concrete plans are pretty much outdated now, this is true, but the general critique made by it still applies to the realities of our current world. There are thousands of "21th century neo-marxist" manifestos. I've read plenty of them, from Troploin to AltWoke, and also more "traditional" ones as well. Most of them contain legitimate critiques of our contemporary society. Some of them are probably going to be still relevant in the future, who knows. But, by the very nature of a manifesto, these kind of political writings simply don't last long. Their importance is usually in the "here and now." None of these new manifestos should be treated as "ten commandments". Neither should be the original Communist Manifesto. I guess some self-identified communists would beg to differ but whatever. It's not ideologies and propaganda that make revolutions and social changes happen anyway.

So in conclusion: there can be legit critiques of the Manifesto, it's just 1) kind of pointless really, especially if you want to criticize marxism as a whole, and just this text 2) the critique presented in the original post is rather bad, ideologically loaded, with infurating claims (like "recession is good" - yeah, tell that to people who lost their means of living or became homeless). Also, the Manifesto shouldn't be seen as the "bible" of communism, even if it is considered "gateway into leftist literature".