Phatscotty wrote:what Marxism hinges on was not the topic of discussion, but nice try. Your comment is a side step
It's kind of important to know what you mean by "Marxist" in a thread asking people if someone is a Marxist, no?
Moderator: Community Team
Phatscotty wrote:what Marxism hinges on was not the topic of discussion, but nice try. Your comment is a side step
WATCH THE TRANSFORMATION IN OBAMA'S FACE AS HE IS CONFRONTED WITH THE 'HOLY NAME OF JESUS'. SCRIPTURE SAYS DEMONS BELIEVE AND TREMBLE... NOTICE HOW HE ROBOTICALLY REPEATS THE PHRASE... BUT THE 'SMIRK' ON HIS FACE REVEALS THE DEMONIC SPIRIT WITHIN HIM, LOOKING OUT OF THOSE BLACK, EVIL EYES! GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION - SATAN IS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9Qy5rAd ... ults_video
Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:what Marxism hinges on was not the topic of discussion, but nice try. Your comment is a side step
It's kind of important to know what you mean by "Marxist" in a thread asking people if someone is a Marxist, no?
Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:what Marxism hinges on was not the topic of discussion, but nice try. Your comment is a side step
It's kind of important to know what you mean by "Marxist" in a thread asking people if someone is a Marxist, no?
Idk, that wasn't my point, it what someone elses, dumbass
Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:what Marxism hinges on was not the topic of discussion, but nice try. Your comment is a side step
It's kind of important to know what you mean by "Marxist" in a thread asking people if someone is a Marxist, no?
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
Phatscotty wrote:Is redistribution of the wealth a key tenet of Marxism? Or isn't it?
Of course it is, and there is Obama, ALL about redistributing the wealth. But a smart person would never waste the time trying to make the connection, while it seems they will spend an extreme amount of time arguing otherwise
Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:what Marxism hinges on was not the topic of discussion, but nice try. Your comment is a side step
It's kind of important to know what you mean by "Marxist" in a thread asking people if someone is a Marxist, no?
Idk, that wasn't my point, it what someone elses, dumbass
Nope- that was what you said. Try once more, or go for the dodge again.
Marxism is based on a materialist understanding of societal development, taking at its starting point the necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs. The form of economic organization, or mode of production, is understood to be the basis from which the majority of other social phenomena — including social relations, political and legal systems, morality and ideology — arise (or at the least by which they are greatly influenced). These social relations form the superstructure, for which the economic system forms the base. As the forces of production (most notably technology) improve, existing forms of social organization become inefficient and stifle further progress. These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in the form of class struggle.
Phatscotty wrote:Is redistribution of the wealth a key tenet of Marxism? Or isn't it?
Phatscotty wrote:I read this, and I'm thinkin to myself "that's Obama....Obama....Obama again....yup...OBama....."
saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Is redistribution of the wealth a key tenet of Marxism? Or isn't it?
No.
Redistribution of wealth is a key tenet of Keynesianism.
Nationalization of wealth is a key tenet of Marxism-Leninism.
In redistribution, property flows from A Party to B Party, the State acting as a transfer point on the journey. In nationalization, the State is the terminus of the journey.Phatscotty wrote:I read this, and I'm thinkin to myself "that's Obama....Obama....Obama again....yup...OBama....."
Capitalism also represents a "materialist understanding of societal development." Both capitalism and communism are materialist approaches to the social condition. Distributism and related ideologies are anti-materialist understandings of social development.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
kentington wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Is redistribution of the wealth a key tenet of Marxism? Or isn't it?
No.
Redistribution of wealth is a key tenet of Keynesianism.
Nationalization of wealth is a key tenet of Marxism-Leninism.
In redistribution, property flows from A Party to B Party, the State acting as a transfer point on the journey. In nationalization, the State is the terminus of the journey.Phatscotty wrote:I read this, and I'm thinkin to myself "that's Obama....Obama....Obama again....yup...OBama....."
Capitalism also represents a "materialist understanding of societal development." Both capitalism and communism are materialist approaches to the social condition. Distributism and related ideologies are anti-materialist understandings of social development.
To clarify:
In Marxism, the government takes the money of citizens and keeps it.
In Keynesianism, the government takes the money of citizens and blankets it over other citizens.
Did I get it right?
Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:what Marxism hinges on was not the topic of discussion, but nice try. Your comment is a side step
It's kind of important to know what you mean by "Marxist" in a thread asking people if someone is a Marxist, no?
Idk, that wasn't my point, it what someone elses, dumbass
Phatscotty wrote:Is redistribution of the wealth a key tenet of Marxism? Or isn't it?
Of course it is, and there is Obama, ALL about redistributing the wealth. But a smart person would never waste the time trying to make the connection, while it seems they will spend an extreme amount of time arguing otherwise
saxitoxin wrote:kentington wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Is redistribution of the wealth a key tenet of Marxism? Or isn't it?
No.
Redistribution of wealth is a key tenet of Keynesianism.
Nationalization of wealth is a key tenet of Marxism-Leninism.
In redistribution, property flows from A Party to B Party, the State acting as a transfer point on the journey. In nationalization, the State is the terminus of the journey.Phatscotty wrote:I read this, and I'm thinkin to myself "that's Obama....Obama....Obama again....yup...OBama....."
Capitalism also represents a "materialist understanding of societal development." Both capitalism and communism are materialist approaches to the social condition. Distributism and related ideologies are anti-materialist understandings of social development.
To clarify:
In Marxism, the government takes the money of citizens and keeps it.
In Keynesianism, the government takes the money of citizens and blankets it over other citizens.
Did I get it right?
Maybe BBS will correct me if I am oversimplifying too much for emphasis, but Keynesianism might see redistribution as a means to an end. Wealth is like calcium in your plumbing. It periodically accumulates in large deposits and needs to be flushed out occasionally so the lower classes can keep purchasing and the cycle of industrial production-consumption doesn't stagnate. One might see it as based in pragmatism versus egalitarianism, though politicians might occasionally apply dressage to make it look like a compassionate system (i.e. "giving everyone their fair share", "community safety net").
The redistribution - or, more correctly, abolition - of property in Marxism is an end in itself and the economic ideology can only be understood in the frame of the parallel sociological belief in a wide-ranging, global conspiracy engineered by the "immortal nobility" who have artificially created nation-states to beguile and fool the working class into fighting each other so they won't turn their attention on the government.
Phatscotty wrote:yeah okay Saxi tickled me good. Even BBS sneaks a feather tickle in the end. I had a comment here, I had to erase it, so now I have to explore a new perspective and come back in a bit, either with a changed mind, or an even stronger sense, of Obama the Marxist
chang50 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:yeah okay Saxi tickled me good. Even BBS sneaks a feather tickle in the end. I had a comment here, I had to erase it, so now I have to explore a new perspective and come back in a bit, either with a changed mind, or an even stronger sense, of Obama the Marxist
Give it up you are way out of your depth with Saxi and BBS here,the fact you could even begin to argue Obama is a Marxist shows you have zero comprehension of what Marxism is about.Do you seriously think the power brokers in your country would allow a President to implement a Marxist programme,even if a majority of voters wanted it?
Phatscotty wrote:chang50 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:yeah okay Saxi tickled me good. Even BBS sneaks a feather tickle in the end. I had a comment here, I had to erase it, so now I have to explore a new perspective and come back in a bit, either with a changed mind, or an even stronger sense, of Obama the Marxist
Give it up you are way out of your depth with Saxi and BBS here,the fact you could even begin to argue Obama is a Marxist shows you have zero comprehension of what Marxism is about.Do you seriously think the power brokers in your country would allow a President to implement a Marxist programme,even if a majority of voters wanted it?
tell me what Marxism is about? Yes you are right about those guys, but that does not mean Obama basic traits and the basic concepts of Marxism are not running parallel either
Now you'll have to excuse me, as I am overdosing on theraflu and just bumped it off with some nyquil
chang50 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:chang50 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:yeah okay Saxi tickled me good. Even BBS sneaks a feather tickle in the end. I had a comment here, I had to erase it, so now I have to explore a new perspective and come back in a bit, either with a changed mind, or an even stronger sense, of Obama the Marxist
Give it up you are way out of your depth with Saxi and BBS here,the fact you could even begin to argue Obama is a Marxist shows you have zero comprehension of what Marxism is about.Do you seriously think the power brokers in your country would allow a President to implement a Marxist programme,even if a majority of voters wanted it?
tell me what Marxism is about? Yes you are right about those guys, but that does not mean Obama basic traits and the basic concepts of Marxism are not running parallel either
Now you'll have to excuse me, as I am overdosing on theraflu and just bumped it off with some nyquil
Anyone can read the Communist Manifesto,in one sitting if you like,and the ideological differences between KM and BO should be obvious.If BO had tried to introduce full on Marxism in the last 4 years he would not be POTUS now.
Phatscotty wrote:chang50 wrote: Anyone can read the Communist Manifesto,in one sitting if you like,and the ideological differences between KM and BO should be obvious.If BO had tried to introduce full on Marxism in the last 4 years he would not be POTUS now.
sure I would read it, except I have already posted it here and held discussions on it at least 3 separate times.
Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:chang50 wrote: Anyone can read the Communist Manifesto,in one sitting if you like,and the ideological differences between KM and BO should be obvious.If BO had tried to introduce full on Marxism in the last 4 years he would not be POTUS now.
sure I would read it, except I have already posted it here and held discussions on it at least 3 separate times.
I think we figured out that you hadn't read it quite a while ago, dude. Just saying.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
kentington wrote:Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:chang50 wrote: Anyone can read the Communist Manifesto,in one sitting if you like,and the ideological differences between KM and BO should be obvious.If BO had tried to introduce full on Marxism in the last 4 years he would not be POTUS now.
sure I would read it, except I have already posted it here and held discussions on it at least 3 separate times.
I think we figured out that you hadn't read it quite a while ago, dude. Just saying.
Did you catch him non-red handed?
Dukasaur wrote:kentington wrote:Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:chang50 wrote: Anyone can read the Communist Manifesto,in one sitting if you like,and the ideological differences between KM and BO should be obvious.If BO had tried to introduce full on Marxism in the last 4 years he would not be POTUS now.
sure I would read it, except I have already posted it here and held discussions on it at least 3 separate times.
I think we figured out that you hadn't read it quite a while ago, dude. Just saying.
Did you catch him non-red handed?
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee, pmac666