Marxism 2.0 - Page 5 - 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.
By Truth To Power
#14890515
B0ycey wrote:So many errors TtP, is it even worth acknowledging your presents?

So many errors.... Yet oddly, you cannot refute a single sentence I have written.
When everyone tells you that you are wrong and only you claim to be correct

They don't, and it isn't. I occasionally get fan mail from people who have understood why I am right. In some cases, they even confess that the dishonesty of their "arguments" was exactly as I described, and everything became obvious once they found a willingness to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.
could you really be wrong?

Of course. But all human progress has come from those who did not renounce the truth even when everyone around them told them they were wrong. Galileo, Jenner, Semmelweiss, the list goes on and on.
But does it really matter?

What kind of person could ask if the truth about good and evil in modern civilization matters?
Ignorance is bliss. Believe what you like.

Right back atcha, champ.
It doesn't affect me or reality and I instead will discuss these matters with people who don't cry or shout 'false' to a claim without supplying any evidence when debating economics.

Claims advanced without evidence -- i.e., almost everything Marx wrote -- can be dismissed without evidence. And you are aware that I almost always DO supply evidence for my statements.
Perhaps I know things to be true.

But more likely, you refuse to know things that you know to be true because you know that they prove your beliefs are false.
By Truth To Power
#14890521
Tainari88 wrote:Capitalism TtP is all about this: (make it simple for you):



You look out for your own ass. Who cares about other people?

If that's what you think, you will never understand why capitalism beats socialism, or why justice will beat capitalism.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#14890705
Look Truth to Power, it is not very hard to understand. You have a society who is set up to have a very few of its members profiting off of a very large group of people who are productive. Over time if the productive value of the large majority becomes unsustainable because the greed of the very tiny minority overrides it? You got a condition for changing it. Socialism is the efficient way of changing it. Selfish shit which is anti socialist is actually not good for a human society in the long run. It creates waste of human potential, it foments crime, and it is highly detrimental to respecting all the most important factors to creating opportunity in a society. Capitalism has a big problem. It makes selfishness a core value. If you don't know how it makes selfishness a core value? No hope for you. You can't understand capitalism well. Go back to the fundamentals of what capitalism promotes.

And for me selfishness is something that ultimately is not what human beings should be encouraged to be or do in a society. It only creates problems that are incredibly bad in the long run. That is the short and sweet version of why capitalism sucks.

I have heard every argument about compassionate capitalism, efficient capitalism, how capitalism is moral and just and every BULLSHIT lie about it. The bottom line is what are the fundamental principles it is based on? What are its issues. And how does it work in capitalist economies? In the end? It is about a very few people and the very rich are always, always and always consistently the FEW and not the majority of people in any given capitalist economic system, going on about how they create wealth and how they do this or that as something special. I think it should be obvious to all that it is about POWER. Some people have access to huge loans, lines of credit from international banks, they have kids who go to very expensive schools, they live in exclusive neighborhoods and they have enormous personal stakes and power over property that is privately owned, and privately held to benefit them. They influence politicians to reflect their interests. They are at war with the workers by refusing to deal with the diffusion of wealth and redistribution of it with the workers. They are at war with the regular people. Who don't live off of anything but their own labor and live paycheck to paycheck.

This is patently obvious in today's world. In today's economy.

Justice is about material conditions. It always has been. If you don't understand that? Then you are in a problem with cognitive skills.
By Truth To Power
#14890740
Tainari88 wrote:Look Truth to Power, it is not very hard to understand.

OTC, it is extremely difficult to understand, which is why the number of people who understand it is microscopically tiny.
You have a society who is set up to have a very few of its members profiting off of a very large group of people who are productive.

Like all societies to date, you mean?
Over time if the productive value of the large majority becomes unsustainable because the greed of the very tiny minority overrides it?

That hasn't happened yet in ANY advanced capitalist democracy. It has in socialist dictatorships.
You got a condition for changing it. Socialism is the efficient way of changing it.

No, socialism is guaranteed to be inefficient, and to fail, as it always has when participation is not entirely voluntary. Capitalism beats socialism because when socialists steal capital, it reduces the amount of capital available for production, but when capitalists steal land, it does not reduce the amount of land available for production.
Selfish shit which is anti socialist is actually not good for a human society in the long run.

Flat false. As Adam Smith showed, it is specifically the selfishness of the productive that we rely on to obtain the things we want.
It creates waste of human potential, it foments crime, and it is highly detrimental to respecting all the most important factors to creating opportunity in a society.

Refuted above. Selfishness is not the problem. The problem is privilege: greed empowered by law to take without commensurate contribution.
Capitalism has a big problem.

Right: like socialism, it can't distinguish between production and privilege. Socialism incorrectly assumes the capital owner's return for his contribution to production is a return to privilege; capitalism incorrectly assumes the return to landowner (and bankster, IP monopoly owner, etc.) privilege is the rightful return for commensurate contributions to production.
It makes selfishness a core value.

No; it recognizes that selfishness is, immutably, a core value of the human organism. Socialism believes it can repeal the facts of objective biological reality that billions of years of evolution have given us. That is why it will always fail other than in purely voluntary implementations like Mondragon and the Israeli kibbutzim.
If you don't know how it makes selfishness a core value? No hope for you.

If you don't believe that human beings are products of evolution, and selfishness is therefore immutably one of our core values? No hope for you.
You can't understand capitalism well.

I have proved I understand it incomparably better than you.
Go back to the fundamentals of what capitalism promotes.

Go back to the fundamentals of what a human being is, and what capitalism is.
And for me selfishness is something that ultimately is not what human beings should be encouraged to be or do in a society.

I get it. You think you know better than evolution. But you do not.
It only creates problems that are incredibly bad in the long run.

Like survival...?
That is the short and sweet version of why capitalism sucks.

Nope. You just don't understand enough biology or economics to know why it sucks, or why socialism sucks even more.
I have heard every argument about compassionate capitalism, efficient capitalism, how capitalism is moral and just and every BULLSHIT lie about it.

But you still can't understand the truth: capitalism is uncompassionate, unjust, inefficient and immoral -- except by comparison with socialism, feudalism, and the older systems found in history.
The bottom line is what are the fundamental principles it is based on?

Right. And you don't seem to know.
What are its issues. And how does it work in capitalist economies? In the end?

And what about the same questions regarding socialism?
It is about a very few people and the very rich are always, always and always consistently the FEW and not the majority of people in any given capitalist economic system, going on about how they create wealth and how they do this or that as something special. I think it should be obvious to all that it is about POWER.

:roll: You think socialism imposed on society by force isn't about power?
Some people have access to huge loans, lines of credit from international banks, they have kids who go to very expensive schools, they live in exclusive neighborhoods and they have enormous personal stakes and power over property that is privately owned, and privately held to benefit them.

You do not understand the difference between property and PRIVILEGE.
They influence politicians to reflect their interests. They are at war with the workers by refusing to deal with the diffusion of wealth and redistribution of it with the workers. They are at war with the regular people. Who don't live off of anything but their own labor and live paycheck to paycheck.

They are at war with JUSTICE. And so are socialists.
This is patently obvious in today's world. In today's economy.

But you don't understand why.
Justice is about material conditions. It always has been.

No, it most certainly is not. There can be justice with extreme poverty, and injustice with extreme wealth.
If you don't understand that? Then you are in a problem with cognitive skills.

<yawn> IQ tests at 20 paces...?

You could do worse than to read all my posts on this site. You'd get a better education in economics than in a typical grad school, that's for sure.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#14890814
@Truth To Power you don't understand. You got cognition issues. That is ok. It is a problem for understanding economic theory but it won't affect other aspects of your education. Good luck.

You are not accepting the premise of the fundamentals. Probably because you can't. That is my only guess. It is not about conservatism. You are incapable of processing it.

So, I won't ever waste my time with you. It is not productive.
By Truth To Power
#14891089
Tainari88 wrote:@Truth To Power you don't understand.

Yes, in fact, I do.
You got cognition issues.

No, I do not.
That is ok. It is a problem for understanding economic theory but it won't affect other aspects of your education. Good luck.

<yawn>
You are not accepting the premise of the fundamentals.

Right, because it is objectively false. I do not believe it is fruitful to accept premises that are provably objectively false.
Probably because you can't.

I could if I was stupid and/or dishonest enough, but unfortunately I am not stupid, and choose not to be dishonest. Other people choose to be dishonest. That is their right. But they can't hope to actually be objectively correct when they have already chosen to be dishonest.
That is my only guess. It is not about conservatism. You are incapable of processing it.

No, I am just not willing to accept absurd, dishonest garbage when self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that contradict that garbage are available instead.
So, I won't ever waste my time with you. It is not productive.

Enjoy your life of being permanently wrong.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#14891132
@Truth To Power don't waste your time with me. You can't understand and you are on top of that disrespectful and ignorant. I choose never to answer you. Go talk bullshit with someone else. :D
By Truth To Power
#14891321
Tainari88 wrote:@Truth To Power don't waste your time with me.

I believe your example may be instructive for others reading this forum.
You can't understand and you are on top of that disrespectful and ignorant.

I am disrespectful of evil, lying sacks of $#!+ who rationalize privilege and justify injustice precisely because I am not ignorant, and DO understand.
I choose never to answer you.

I.e., you would rather BE wrong than ADMIT you are wrong, so you simply refuse to know facts that PROVE you wrong. No surprises there.
Go talk bullshit with someone else. :D

I invite readers to judge which of us is talking bullshit.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#14891363
Living in your own world @Truth To Power :

A great song "Si me comprendieras" it means "If you could only understand me". That is your issue. Not being able to understand. It is frustrating....more Spanish bolero lyrics for you TTP. Lyrics: "My conditions would be the reasons you would accept me, if you could understand me, just a little bit, because everything would change"....that is your issue. You can't understand and because of that you get frustrated. You want to be right. You want to win. But you can't get to first base because you somehow think if some economic theory is valid in some ways your position would be erroneous, so you must not acknowledge anything of truth to it. TTP your way of dealing with it is of a man with no critical thinking skills at all. There are parts to Fascist theory, liberal theory, conservative theory or some fill in the blank political theory that has aspects of truth to it. Regardless if I categorize it as not something I would label myself as that. One has to understand what it is saying well first, and then the parts that you disagree with and the exact parts of it. You have not done so and can't do so. It is the way you approach how you see economics. It is a serious lack of sophistication and a lack of ability to analyze what you read. At least in this particular subject. Unfortunately, that reveals a lack of critical thinking on your part. So that means you can't do it. So 'If you would only understand me" Song in Spanish by Lucho Gatica is the only reply for you! ;) :



This is also my last attempt to communicate with you about Marxism 2.0. I did this last one as a courtesy for you taking the time to answer me back with your usual disrespectful and ignorant way.

After this?Don't try to reply. Just sit there and listen to Lucho Gatica. The Argentine crooner who died in a plane crash on a Colombian airplane strip. Enjoy how he he goes on about not being understood. I hope you enjoy it. It is not your fault you can't understand it or be able to argue about it with understanding. Don't blame yourself.
By Truth To Power
#14892065
Tainari88 wrote:Living in your own world @Truth To Power :

A great song "Si me comprendieras" it means "If you could only understand me". That is your issue. Not being able to understand. It is frustrating....more Spanish bolero lyrics for you TTP. Lyrics: "My conditions would be the reasons you would accept me, if you could understand me, just a little bit, because everything would change"....that is your issue. You can't understand and because of that you get frustrated. You want to be right. You want to win. But you can't get to first base because you somehow think if some economic theory is valid in some ways your position would be erroneous, so you must not acknowledge anything of truth to it. TTP your way of dealing with it is of a man with no critical thinking skills at all. There are parts to Fascist theory, liberal theory, conservative theory or some fill in the blank political theory that has aspects of truth to it. Regardless if I categorize it as not something I would label myself as that. One has to understand what it is saying well first, and then the parts that you disagree with and the exact parts of it. You have not done so and can't do so. It is the way you approach how you see economics. It is a serious lack of sophistication and a lack of ability to analyze what you read. At least in this particular subject. Unfortunately, that reveals a lack of critical thinking on your part. So that means you can't do it. So 'If you would only understand me" Song in Spanish by Lucho Gatica is the only reply for you! ;) :



This is also my last attempt to communicate with you about Marxism 2.0. I did this last one as a courtesy for you taking the time to answer me back with your usual disrespectful and ignorant way.

After this?Don't try to reply. Just sit there and listen to Lucho Gatica. The Argentine crooner who died in a plane crash on a Colombian airplane strip. Enjoy how he he goes on about not being understood. I hope you enjoy it. It is not your fault you can't understand it or be able to argue about it with understanding. Don't blame yourself.

<yawn> Were you planning, at any point, to offer anything but spurious and unsupported claims that I "don't understand"? You claim to be trying to communicate, but I see no evidence of any such attempt. There is simply nothing in your messages to either think about or respond to, just the usual absurd Marxist presumption of moral and intellectual superiority based on nothing but prophetic revelation.
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#14892133
Truth To Power wrote:<yawn> Were you planning, at any point, to offer anything but spurious and unsupported claims


Speaking of spurious and unsupported claims, when are you going to decide if it’s a Marx, Engels, or Kautsky admission that Marxism is wrong; if that admission was in a single place or strung together from various parts, and then present it?
User avatar
By Tainari88
#14892140
The Immortal Goon wrote:Speaking of spurious and unsupported claims, when are you going to decide if it’s a Marx, Engels, or Kautsky admission that Marxism is wrong; if that admission was in a single place or strung together from various parts, and then present it?

[bostezo=yawn] He won't do shit. He is incapable of it. Plus, he doesn't want to work. Take a nap in a hammock.

It is better than expecting critical thinking from someone who doesn't want to think.

YAWN.....hammock time! This is more useful for you to learn TIG:

By Truth To Power
#14992339
The Immortal Goon wrote:Speaking of spurious and unsupported claims, when are you going to decide if it’s a Marx, Engels, or Kautsky admission that Marxism is wrong; if that admission was in a single place or strung together from various parts, and then present it?

I guess it would be Marx himself, who explicitly admitted that he was not a Marxist.

Well, we can always weed idiots out of the gene p[…]

Trump and Russiagate

It's not that the mainstream media and high profi[…]

climbed onto the manmade machans atop the large tr[…]

Honestly I think it can be both. If you believe t[…]