A Critique of the Communist Manifesto. - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14832085
It means that you're attempting to construct an argument that because things are the way they are now, that is to say a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, that they have always been that way.

To make this argument, you're pointing out that the feudal family structure in Iran is becoming abolished by norms established by the bourgeoisie.

It seems to me that you are doing little but undermining your argument.

Class, in a Marxist sense, is less about some arbitrary amount of money one may or may not have, and more about what the relation that individual has to capital.
#14832089
SolarCross wrote:That is one pervasive reason why people make an effort to better themselves to improve the economic standing of their children but it isn't just "bourgeois" people who care about their children.

We don't disagree very much on this one point that poor people tend to propagate poor people, middle income people tend to propagate middle income people and rich people tend to propagate rich people. Our disagreement comes over what to do about it.

I am comfortable doing nothing about it certainly nothing drastic like "abolishing x, y & z normal human activities" because I don't see it as a problem. Moreover I am pretty convinced that the sort of "solutions" you or any commie would throw at it would make a far greater mess of things, witness Venezuela now.

You live in Canada these days right? Maybe you are only a low income person in Canada but Canada is the global top 10 out of like 150 countries for GDP per capita, relatively speaking you are one of the lucky ones, you might even say you are enormously privileged. Do you really want to swap your Canadian lifestyle for that of any joe average in Venezuela now? Think of your children!
;)

I am going to ignore your weird thing where you convince yourself that you know better than I what I think, believe, and want.

Now that we have agreed that inheritance is one of the ways that the class system is perpetuated, there is no more reason to keep discussing it with you.

Okay but abolishing families, commercial organisations, militaries, communist parties, churches and every other social arrangement that requires and therefore functionally perpetuates hierarchies for the purpose of supposedly making everyone equal remains a retarded crusade to attain an impossible and retarded aim. Inequality is both fine and inevitable, hierarchies are functional for civilisation.


If you think that Marxists want to abolish all these things entirely, you have misunderstood yet again.

Poverty matters but not inequality. I am all for increasing the wealth of anyone, even you. All those starving people in Africa? Sincerely I hope they can swing the investment, economic management, good governance and all the rest that will improve their fortunes. It is no solution for me or them for us all to be equally destitute.


Thanks for telling us all about your feelings, but they are irrelevant. So, moving on....

This? "According to Engels, the monogamous nuclear family only emerged with Capitalism."

It's obviously wildly inaccurate to anyone even remotely acquainted with reality, I'd say that is pretty wrong. Are you cognitively capable of entertaining the idea that maybe just maybe that famous commies are as just as equally capable of talking shit right out their arses as anyone?


You spend a lot of time writing about how you think it is wrong, but you have yet to actually explain how it is wrong.

Do so.

Here is a thought experiment for you. You come home early from work to find me in bed with your missus and she is loving it by the way. Paternity tests reveal that contrary to what you have been lead to believe all your children were fathered by all sorts of disreputable characters but not yourself. Feeling murderous yet? Is it "capitalism" making you feel murderous? Or is that your biological instincts to push back against being a massive reproductive loser are getting triggered? Biological instincts that haven't changed barely a squib since the dawn of time.

Do you think the proverbial caveman enjoyed being a cuck anymore than the less proverbial factoryman? REALLY?


Your fascination with cuckoldry is common among conservatives. However, this has nothing to do with the discussion.

As far as I can tell, you have no intelligent rebuttal of the definition of the bourgeois marriage.
#14832093
The Immortal Goon wrote:It means that you're attempting to construct an argument that because things are the way they are now, that is to say a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, that they have always been that way.

To make this argument, you're pointing out that the feudal family structure in Iran is becoming abolished by norms established by the bourgeoisie.

It seems to me that you are doing little but undermining your argument.

Class, in a Marxist sense, is less about some arbitrary amount of money one may or may not have, and more about what the relation that individual has to capital.


[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

Engels is imagining that monogamy was invented by "bourgeiosie" apparently in complete ignorance that monogamy in practice and in law has been the mainstream for Europe since even before Christianity, pagan Rome? yup monogamy.

Biologically males are larger than females, biologically we have as a species a slight tendency for polygamy but who is it that gets multiple wombs to impregnate? Everyone? The betas? The alphas?

Yes that's right the Alpha males get the poontang, the beta get cuckolded or they get nothing.

The richer you are the more alpha you are in the eyes of any woman. Consequently laws that allow polygamy favour the rich men not the poor men. Laws that prohibit polygamy but tolerate adultery favour the rich men not the poor men. Laws that prohibit polygamy AND strongly punish adultery favour the poor men not the rich men.

If monogamy was invented by the "bourgeiosie" they did so against their own biological interests.
#14832095
SolarCross wrote:Jeebus you people are genuinely brain damaged.


Insults are not a valid rebuttal.

Engels is imagining that monogamy was invented by "bourgeiosie" apparently in complete ignorance that monogamy in practice and in law has been the mainstream for Europe since even before Christianity, pagan Rome? yup monogamy.


No. You have misunderstood Engels.

He is not saying that monogamy was invented by capitalism, but that the nuclear family became the most predominant family structure because of capitalism.

Biologically males are larger than females, biologically we have as a species a slight tendency for polygamy but who is it that gets multiple wombs to impregnate? Everyone? The betas? The alphas?

Yes that's right the Alpha males get the poontang, the beta get cuckolded or they get nothing.

The richer you are the more alpha you are in the eyes of any woman. Consequently laws that allow polygamy favour the rich men not the poor men. Laws that prohibit polygamy but tolerate adultery favour the rich men not the poor men. Laws that prohibit polygamy AND strongly punish adultery favour the poor men not the rich men.

If monogamy was invented by the "bourgeiosie" they did so against their own biological interests.


....and we are back to conservative fantasising about cuckoldry.
#14832099
Pants-of-dog wrote:Insults are not a valid rebuttal.

i didn't intend it as rebuttal I intended it as an observation on how you are.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. You have misunderstood Engels.

He is not saying that monogamy was invented by capitalism, but that the nuclear family became the most predominant family structure because of capitalism.


In which is he also wrong. People share housing according to their means, the greater their means the less they need to share. Poor people in the middle ages might well of had dozens of family members piled into a one room cottage, but that was because they were super poor. The better paid 19th century factory worker has the relative luxury of sharing a 2 bedroom brick built tenement with just his wife and children and maybe an ageing parent too. The 21 st century poor person can quite easily have the means to live comfortably completely alone.

....and we are back to conservative fantasising about cuckoldry.


It's not a fantasy those are the facts.
#14832105
SolarCross wrote:i didn't intend it as rebuttal I intended it as an observation on how you are.


So you intended to be insulting and violate forum rules, and admit it has nothing to do with the argument.

In which is he also wrong. People share housing according to their means, the greater their means the less they need to share. Poor people in the middle ages might well of had dozens of family members piled into a one room cottage, but that was because they were super poor. The better paid 19th century factory worker has the relative luxury of sharing a 2 bedroom brick built tenement with just his wife and children and maybe an ageing parent too. The 21 st century poor person can quite easily have the means to live comfortably completely alone.


Yes, this is one of the ways in which capitalism made the nuclear family the predominant family structure.

You again agree with Marx.

It's not a fantasy those are the facts.


It was you musing about an irrelevant sexual practice. Feel free to think about sex stuff on your own time.
#14832112
Pants-of-dog wrote:es, this is one of the ways in which capitalism made the nuclear family the predominant family structure.

You again agree with Marx.


So communism is going to "fix" the nuclear family by making everyone as poor as they were in the middle ages? I'll pass thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It was you musing about an irrelevant sexual practice. Feel free to think about sex stuff on your own time.

If you want to be a social engineer it would help if you understood how the world works, including sex practice. Ignorant social engineers make messes.

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]
#14832114
SolarCross wrote:Engels is imagining hat monogamy was invented by "bourgeoisie" apparently in complete ignorance that monogamy in practice and in law has been the mainstream for Europe since even before Christianity, pagan Rome? Yup monogamy.


As has been mentioned since the first page, it always helps to read about Marxism before ranting and raving about how you don't understand it.

POD already pointed out the misconception you have about the nuclear family and capitalism. Historically you are also, consistently, incorrect:

Engels, in a piece already cited at least once in this thread that you have not surprisingly refused to read, wrote:Monogamy arose from the concentration of considerable wealth in the hands of a single individuals man-and from the need to bequeath this wealth to the children of that man and of no other. For this purpose, the monogamy of the woman was required, not that of the man, so this monogamy of the woman did not in any way interfere with open or concealed polygamy on the part of the man. But by transforming by far the greater portion, at any rate, of permanent, heritable wealth – the means of production – into social property, the coming social revolution will reduce to a minimum all this anxiety about bequeathing and inheriting. Having arisen from economic causes, will monogamy then disappear when these causes disappear?

One might answer, not without reason: far from disappearing, it will, on the contrary, be realized completely. For with the transformation of the means of production into social property there will disappear also wage-labor, the proletariat, and therefore the necessity for a certain – statistically calculable – number of women to surrender themselves for money. Prostitution disappears; monogamy, instead of collapsing, at last becomes a reality – also for men.

In any case, therefore, the position of men will be very much altered. But the position of women, of all women, also undergoes significant change. With the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. This removes all the anxiety about the “consequences,” which today is the most essential social – moral as well as economic – factor that prevents a girl from giving herself completely to the man she loves. Will not that suffice to bring about the gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse and with it a more tolerant public opinion in regard to a maiden’s honor and a woman’s shame? And, finally, have we not seen that in the modern world monogamy and prostitution are indeed contradictions, but inseparable contradictions, poles of the same state of society? Can prostitution disappear without dragging monogamy with it into the abyss?

Here a new element comes into play, an element which, at the time when monogamy was developing, existed at most in germ: individual sex-love.
#14832136
Engels wrote:Monogamy arose from the concentration of considerable wealth in the hands of a single individuals man-and from the need to bequeath this wealth to the children of that man and of no other. For this purpose, the monogamy of the woman was required, not that of the man, so this monogamy of the woman did not in any way interfere with open or concealed polygamy on the part of the man.

But by transforming by far the greater portion, at any rate, of permanent, heritable wealth – the means of production – into social property, the coming social revolution will reduce to a minimum all this anxiety about bequeathing and inheriting. Having arisen from economic causes, will monogamy then disappear when these causes disappear?

This is still wrong. Male animals are sexually jealous too, Lions will even routinely kill cubs sired by other males, and animals are as propertyless as can be. Poor men have exactly the same intolerance of infidelity on the part of their woman as a rich man does. Women tolerate infidelity of their male partners more easily because while it potentially threatens them economically it does not threaten their reproductive surety. There is an asymmetry in the mechanics of sexual biological incentives which results in women being able to tolerate sharing one man with other women providing the male is high quality (read rich / strong / powerful). Conversely the incentives for men is to try to seek out many wombs and never mind very much at all on their quality but to pay for those wombs only in proportion to the probable fidelity, "bunnies for playtime, maidens for marriage" as the saying goes.

To sum: Men pursue quantity, women pursue quality and for those respective ends men will sacrifice in proportion to fidelity, women will share in proportion to quality.

Consequently if all people are reduced to the property status of farm animals by the revolution all you will do is alter what is perceived by women to make a man high quality. The mating game will be less about how much money one has and more about something else, probably physical brawn or good looks once again or perhaps political influence (read thuggery). If a woman no longer has to worry for a loss of resources for sharing a quality male she will be all the more ready to share a quality man with other women. In this way the new betas will effectively be subsiding the reproductive fitness of the new alphas. They will work, the state will take all their surplus and share it out amongst all the women orbiting the new alpha and the alpha will have to pay nothing for it, just be devilishly handsome. The net effect will tilt society further towards polygamy actually and so result in an even worse deal for the betas. Monogamy is for the benefit of the betas not the alphas.

Engels wrote:One might answer, not without reason: far from disappearing, it will, on the contrary, be realized completely. For with the transformation of the means of production into social property there will disappear also wage-labor, the proletariat, and therefore the necessity for a certain – statistically calculable – number of women to surrender themselves for money. Prostitution disappears; monogamy, instead of collapsing, at last becomes a reality – also for men.

Prostitution caters to betas as much if not more than alphas. For an alpha a prostitute is a optional supplement to a wife and the more wives he has the less use he has for a prostitute. For the most beta of betas the prostitute is his only chance of access to a womb and a poor quality one at that, given that he must share that womb with innumerable others and the owner of the womb has a strong professional incentive to abort or prevent any baby that results anyway.

Engels is claiming here that "socialised property" will remove the incentive for women to endure prostitution however this is also a thoughtless admission that it will also remove the incentive for anyone to do any unpleasant work. If women will have no incentive to risk herpes, bakers will have no incentive to burn their fingers, miners will not risk being buried alive, drivers will not risk crashes, policemen will not risk being stabbed.. etc.

That being the case we will certainly see a precipitous drop in economic output, increasing poverty and thus the return of prostitution as starving women desperately sell themselves to public officials in charge of rations in return for a measly loaf of bread. Has any communist regime in history ever stopped prostitution? Or just made it cheaper? Cuba at least is kind of notorious for it.

Engels wrote:In any case, therefore, the position of men will be very much altered. But the position of women, of all women, also undergoes significant change. With the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. This removes all the anxiety about the “consequences,” which today is the most essential social – moral as well as economic – factor that prevents a girl from giving herself completely to the man she loves. Will not that suffice to bring about the gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse and with it a more tolerant public opinion in regard to a maiden’s honor and a woman’s shame? And, finally, have we not seen that in the modern world monogamy and prostitution are indeed contradictions, but inseparable contradictions, poles of the same state of society? Can prostitution disappear without dragging monogamy with it into the abyss?

Here a new element comes into play, an element which, at the time when monogamy was developing, existed at most in germ: individual sex-love.


Engels seems to be imagining that somehow no one will be partial to their own children anymore, which is exceedingly bizarre and unsubstantiated. He also seems to suggest, in contradiction to the earlier paragraph where he claims that males will finally get some monogamy too, that it will disappear along with prostitution. Possibly but clearly it will be highly dystopian society.
#14832150
SolarCross wrote:There are some serious problems with the implications you seem to be drawing from this.

Firstly it is highly problematic drawing socio-biological conclusions from fantasy literature. What conclusions would future anthropologists draw about the lifespans of people in the 20th century by reading Lord of the RIngs wherein it mentions that men of the Numenor can live to be several hundreds of years? :lol:

Secondly fantasy literature that revolves around jealous husbands, marriage, adultery etc implies that monogamy is the norm at the time it was written as much as it is today. Fantasy fiction often feature norm contravention but there is no contravention if there is no norm. Game of Thrones' most romantic pair would be Jaime Lannister and his sister Cerci Lannister whose love affair occurs concurrently with Cerci's marriage to Robert Baratheon, all Robert Baratheon's legally named heirs were secretly fathered by Jaime, so that is adultery, cuckoldry and even shock horror incest. Would you take that as the norm for our times when GoT was written or a contravention of the norms of our times? Are you knobbing your sister and calling it normal because GoT said you could?

@ingliz Read the Illiad... ;)


You're drawing implications I never made. I doubt you've ever read French literature, let alone medieval French literature, but it's simply not in the same genre as modern fantasy novels. I've never read or seen GoT so all that stuff you talk about simply doesn't mean anything or relate to what I've said.

The literature did embody cultural values of the time. Courtly love, or fin amor, abounds in the literature of the time. The people who wrote those stories, and the people who listened to them read aloud or read them for themselves, did place a high value on the ideals of courtly love: noble, chivalrous love, and this included women cheating on jealous, disinterested husbands with another member of the nobility, often a knight, in a romantic liaison. These themes and ideals being common is well-known.

Obviously, it goes without saying that this doesn't mean everyone committed adultery, or that everyone's ideal was to find a lover outside of marriage. I never said everyone does something.

I'm sure this will all go over your head, judging from your responses to ingliz and TIG.
#14832153
Bulaba Jones wrote:You're drawing implications I never made. I doubt you've ever read French literature, let alone medieval French literature, but it's simply not in the same genre as modern fantasy novels. I've never read or seen GoT so all that stuff you talk about simply doesn't mean anything or relate to what I've said.

The literature did embody cultural values of the time. Courtly love, or fin amor, abounds in the literature of the time. The people who wrote those stories, and the people who listened to them read aloud or read them for themselves, did place a high value on the ideals of courtly love: noble, chivalrous love, and this included women cheating on jealous, disinterested husbands with another member of the nobility, often a knight, in a romantic liaison. These themes and ideals being common is well-known.

Obviously, it goes without saying that this doesn't mean everyone committed adultery, or that everyone's ideal was to find a lover outside of marriage. I never said everyone does something.

I'm sure this will all go over your head, judging from your responses to ingliz and TIG.


I haven't read french medieval literature in the original language but I have read Morte d'Arthur and also some Chaucer. Morte D'Arthur does feature some extra-marital between sir lancelot and King Arthur's wife Guinevere. This was a rather tragic tryst that resulted in pain and tragedy all round. In fact the story could be dropped seamlessly into Game of Thrones and it would fit very well.

I think my point stands that you can't read and generalise too much about everyday life from fantasy fiction. It may not of been your intention to imply that the middle ages had wildly different morals to that of today or the 19th century but my point stands. Have you seen The Piano?... it takes a sympathetic angle on adultery too.

Image

I am sure if you take a holistic look at the themes of marriage and adultery throughout world literature through out all the ages from the Illiad to Canterbury Tales to Othello to Dracula to Game of Thrones you would see that while literary fashions ebb and flow, wax and wane the substance is pretty timeless and universal.
#14832155
SolarCross wrote:This is still wrong. Male animals are sexually jealous too, Lions will even routinely kill cubs


Yet again; you imagine that lions do something, so for all of human history nothing has ever changed in the slightest.

How can we argue with that :roll:
#14832156
The Immortal Goon wrote:Yet again; you imagine that lions do something, so for all of human history nothing has ever changed in the slightest.

How can we argue with that :roll:


That's not my argument, but if you want a such a simple summation such that even a marxist can't misconstrue or misunderstand it then it would be this:

When social engineers concoct schemes for fundamentally altering the way of life for the ecologies of biological agents then their plans will result in abject mess and failure if those social engineers are totally ignorant of the biology of those biological agents.

Forget Marx read Darwin.
---
It wouldn't hurt to bone up on game theory too.
#14832161
You consistently refuse to acknowledge anything in the Manifesto. You absolutely refuse to read any other Marxist text.

Then you try and lecture us on your feelings about lions, and how that should be considered above whatever you feel like Marx says.

Since page one people have been imploring you to do the reading. You have consistently refused. Now it comes down to your citationless feelings about lion penis again.

Is it any wonder that we are all laughing at you? :lol:
#14832162
The Immortal Goon wrote:You consistently refuse to acknowledge anything in the Manifesto. You absolutely refuse to read any other Marxist text.

Then you try and lecture us on your feelings about lions, and how that should be considered above whatever you feel like Marx says.

Since page one people have been imploring you to do the reading. You have consistently refused. Now it comes down to your citationless feelings about lion penis again.

Is it any wonder that we are all laughing at you? :lol:


Well I am laughing right back. So what?

Fact remains all your kooky social engineering scams result in total failure whenever you try to implement them in the real world. There is a reason for that but you are in denial.

If you can't learn then you can't adapt and you will just keep failing.
#14832209
SolarCross wrote:So communism is going to "fix" the nuclear family by making everyone as poor as they were in the middle ages? I'll pass thanks.


Nope. Wrong again.

If you want to be a social engineer it would help if you understood how the world works, including sex practice. Ignorant social engineers make messes.


Again, please do not discuss your sex fantasies with me.

SolarCross wrote:Well I am laughing right back. So what?


People are laughing at you because you make criticisms of Marx and Engels without reading their works.

So, does that mean you are laughing at TIG and others because they have read them?

Fact remains all your kooky social engineering scams result in total failure whenever you try to implement them in the real world. There is a reason for that but you are in denial.


My people tried a social(ist) experiment. It almost worked. The reason it failed is because a foreign capitalist power spent millions of dollars and countless hours destroying our economy and fueling anti-democratic groups. This resulted in a long and violent capitalist dictatorship.

If you can't learn then you can't adapt and you will just keep failing.


No doubt Allende would have been able to overcome US hegemony by spending more time thinking about your feelings vis a vis lion penises.
#14832279
Pants-of-dog wrote:Nope. Wrong again.

If I wanted to make someone destitute using the powers of government, I would confiscate their real estate and confiscate their income. At this point that person is quite efficiently reduced to destitution and those are only the first two of the manifesto's ten commandments. The third point about banning inheritance is superfluous overkill because when one has taken everything from a person and everything that person could ever get in the future there won't be anything left over to pass on to someone else anyway. But if that wasn't overkill enough why not confiscate any property he has left (his clothing?) should he try to leave my dominion, that's point 4 in the manifesto.

At this point once my bilious fury had subsided a bit I would probably worry that given how I had so injured this person he may desire some revenge and that somehow he may even find a way to do it despite his destitution. Luckily I am the all powerful government so I can just "centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State." so that he can only know what I want him to know, and I can know exactly what he says and where he wants to go and prevent his travel or catch him any time I like. Point 6.

So now I am safe because he is so thoroughly trapped and defeated I need not fear his reprisals but then I wonder what I am to do with him, why keep him alive at all? The answer is obvious make him work for me as my slave. Point 8 of the manifesto.

Not quite safe, this person has a child and I intend to do the same to the child as I did to the father.. perhaps the child will revenge where the father could not? So I will be sure to "educate" that child instead of the father who may yet plot against me through his child, I will make him believe that all that I did was a noble and helpful thing full of good intentions and that all by victims deserved their fate because of some terrible but imaginary infamy. That's point 10.

-------

Perhaps you will cry about how that is an excessively dark reading of Marx's 10 demands, that I had that pithy phrase "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" too much in mind while reading it? Maybe so, but how else could one read it?

-------

Pants-of-dog wrote:My people tried a social(ist) experiment. It almost worked. The reason it failed is because a foreign capitalist power spent millions of dollars and countless hours destroying our economy and fueling anti-democratic groups. This resulted in a long and violent capitalist dictatorship.


It was ended too soon to say whether it would have worked if it had not been overthrown. The USSR "worked" for 70 odd years. Cuba is "working" still. For those in Chile who saw his programme as deeply flawed they are not going to hang around for 70 years of silliness before taking action.

Perhaps Allende was just a well meaning bungler but regardless he was effectively an agent of the USSR and there was a cold war on at the time, the cuban missile crisis had recently raised a big red flag on the security implications for the US on allowing the USSR to extend its hegemony into latin america. It is no wonder the US got involved. Geo-strategics is a thing to be taken seriously.
#14832332
SolarCross wrote:If I wanted to make someone destitute using the powers of government, I would confiscate their real estate and confiscate their income. At this point that person is quite efficiently reduced to destitution and those are only the first two of the manifesto's ten commandments. The third point about banning inheritance is superfluous overkill because when one has taken everything from a person and everything that person could ever get in the future there won't be anything left over to pass on to someone else anyway. But if that wasn't overkill enough why not confiscate any property he has left (his clothing?) should he try to leave my dominion, that's point 4 in the manifesto.

At this point once my bilious fury had subsided a bit I would probably worry that given how I had so injured this person he may desire some revenge and that somehow he may even find a way to do it despite his destitution. Luckily I am the all powerful government so I can just "centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State." so that he can only know what I want him to know, and I can know exactly what he says and where he wants to go and prevent his travel or catch him any time I like. Point 6.

So now I am safe because he is so thoroughly trapped and defeated I need not fear his reprisals but then I wonder what I am to do with him, why keep him alive at all? The answer is obvious make him work for me as my slave. Point 8 of the manifesto.

Not quite safe, this person has a child and I intend to do the same to the child as I did to the father.. perhaps the child will revenge where the father could not? So I will be sure to "educate" that child instead of the father who may yet plot against me through his child, I will make him believe that all that I did was a noble and helpful thing full of good intentions and that all by victims deserved their fate because of some terrible but imaginary infamy. That's point 10.

-------

Perhaps you will cry about how that is an excessively dark reading of Marx's 10 demands, that I had that pithy phrase "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" too much in mind while reading it? Maybe so, but how else could one read it?

-------



Your long and drawn out exposition of your misunderstanding does not, in any way, address Marx and Engle's defintion of a bourgeois marriage.

It was ended too soon to say whether it would have worked if it had not been overthrown. The USSR "worked" for 70 odd years. Cuba is "working" still. For those in Chile who saw his programme as deeply flawed they are not going to hang around for 70 years of silliness before taking action.


Again, what does this have to do with your claim about ignoring penises?

Perhaps Allende was just a well meaning bungler but regardless he was effectively an agent of the USSR and there was a cold war on at the time, the cuban missile crisis had recently raised a big red flag on the security implications for the US on allowing the USSR to extend its hegemony into latin america. It is no wonder the US got involved. Geo-strategics is a thing to be taken seriously.


I would ask you for evidence, but we both know that you would not provide it.

There is also the serious possibility that you would not even know where to look for it.

For those who do know, and know what the USSR thought of Allende, this claim of yours is not supported by the facts.

But the whole "everyone has to be scared of the Commies!!!" myth is a common one among critics of communism who actually have no real knowledge.

Either way, it has nothing to do with your claims. You are now trying to change the subject because your discussion on marriage failed so miserably.
#14832335
Pants-of-dog wrote:I would ask you for evidence, but we both know that you would not provide it.

There is also the serious possibility that you would not even know where to look for it.

For those who do know, and know what the USSR thought of Allende, this claim of yours is not supported by the facts.

But the whole "everyone has to be scared of the Commies!!!" myth is a common one among critics of communism who actually have no real knowledge.

Either way, it has nothing to do with your claims. You are now trying to change the subject because your discussion on marriage failed so miserably.


wiki wrote:Political and moral support came mostly through the Communist Party and unions of the Soviet Union. For instance, Allende received the Lenin Peace Prize from the Soviet Union in 1972. However, there were some fundamental differences between Allende and Soviet political analysts, who believed that some violence – or measures that those analysts "theoretically considered to be just" – should have been used.[89] Declarations from KGB General Nikolai Leonov, former Deputy Chief of the First Chief Directorate of the KGB, confirmed that the Soviet Union supported Allende's government economically, politically and militarily.[89] Leonov stated in an interview at the Chilean Center of Public Studies (CEP) that the Soviet economic support included over $100 million in credit, three fishing ships (that distributed 17,000 tons of frozen fish to the population), factories (as help after the 1971 earthquake), 3,100 tractors, 74,000 tons of wheat and more than a million tins of condensed milk.[89]

In mid-1973 the USSR had approved the delivery of weapons (artillery, tanks) to the Chilean Army. However, when news of an attempt from the Army to depose Allende through a coup d'état reached Soviet officials, the shipment was redirected to another country.[89]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende

I don't want to overemphasise the links with the USSR, clearly it wasn't Cuba 2.0 but if you are the US military-industrial complex playing geo-strategic football against the USSR you don't neglect any vector that may, in whatever small way, help the enemy win.
#14832338
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?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Find Someone Who Loves You Like Israel Loves Att[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over mains[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainl[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0pAf3aBt18 How […]