Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Karl Marx' Grave Desecrated: My Thoughts" video.

  1. Communism drew out the worst of Cambodian's.
    1
  2. Socialism is only a stepping stone to misery And yet it's what you all are trending towards, "nationalism", then socialism thru your various groupings, racial, religions, or otherwise, as you all tend towards groups, especially on the right: on the left, groupings happen almost by way of incursion, but that's only due to the spread of liberalism and Capital. Nationalisms are just waning and waxing riverbeds of socialism, and then on the left, "social democracy". "Socialism", as an idea, is one thing; as a "reform" or insurrection and revolution, is another. And Marx did reveal the inclinations towards social ends and resources [economic] made those ends most exigent in the formation of many orders of whatever creed or custom abounds. It's certainly true for Trump Populism, as you keeping alluding to him as the "Money President", right? Marx is a theorist you didn't even read, or if you did, you just glistened with your rankled fists, hackles raised, because you are American with deeply installed "roots".
    1
  3. Nightmare All of general historic trends are nightmarish...it's all because people like to exploit and greed-monger and then say they are Gods. Like you, mandinga.
    1
  4. People are not anarchic When was that ever a point by Marx, oh that's right, he critiqued Proudhon on his theories of anarchism [which really is just when things really 'hit the fan', as it were: crisis theory]. Marx wrote on private property as the foundation of a crude communist action: it's written in "Private Property & Communism". He never posits a "return to roots" [that's what you're fanatics are constantly aching for, though, which you know they won't have under capitalism, at least, not to the extent the most fringe loonies are hoping for]. He posits nothing more than a "postcapitalism" [as we would call it today in any political science that recognizes that there are critiques of your so-called 'benevolent' God.
    1
  5. Organization is innate Yeah, Marx's point is that people are social animals, and they relate totally in this manner of self-management, eg., in the manner that says, 'organization is innate'. But you haven't really comprehended much; we do more than "act" Styx. We form intricate relations with the world around...wow.
    1
  6. Nah. Marx exposes the trends of this world under the auspices of Capital. It's truly remarkable. Capitalism is like human itself...crumbling decay.
    1
  7. A stateless communist society cannot exist Says you. A stateless capitalist society certainly, by the same ostentatious merit, "can't exist" either, even though, surely it can...it just won't work well for anyone as a whole. Communism, however, confronts the problem, at least. You, what you do it this: you start juntas in Chile...then they turn socialists anyway, after all the capital flows are received. Then they become rich and profitable. An-cap, but not an-cap...see? you call them socialist? why? because they self-manage themselves, that's why. A stateless "state" can't exist. But on that note: Marx never posits a "stateless" Communism. Ever. Anarcho-communism is never posited by Marx and is only critiqued on the ends of it's perceived jejune and vulgar status, to him; which he posits is a "crude communism" and fundamental misunderstanding. Again, read "Private Property & Communism". You are simply spreading a conceit, one which is uninformed.
    1
  8. Karl Marx is not some one-sided figure. But his projection of Communism was taken as such [one-sided] and it was a conflagration of the masses into death. All of Marx's proponents were blood-thirsty motherfuckers. Was Marx himself, though? Meh, it's not...not too important. Don't care for the iconoclast bullshit, though, it just makes everyone look ... the same. Oh wow, this is covered in the video. Impressive.
    1
  9. Primitive Communism theory Posited by Marx as in an society egalitarian social relations and common ownership, like Çatalhöyük, literally, Styx, you rabid indigestion. Engels expanded on the theory [and Marxists orthodox], that's what you are talking about. But everything adds up, and you are just being a doofy. Çatalhöyük has strong evidence of an egalitarian society, as no houses with distinctive features (belonging to royalty or religious hierarchy, for example) have been found so far. The most recent investigations also reveal little social distinction based on gender, with men and women receiving equivalent nutrition and seeming to have equal social status, as typically found in Paleolithic cultures.[36][37] Children observed domestic areas. They learned how to perform rituals and how to build or repair houses by watching the adults make statues, beads and other objects.[19] Çatalhöyük's spatial layout may be due to the close kin relations exhibited amongst the people. It can be seen, in the layout, that the people were "divided into two groups who lived on opposite sides of the town, separated by a gully." Furthermore, because no nearby towns were found from which marriage partners could be drawn, "this spatial separation must have marked two intermarrying kinship groups." This would help explain how a settlement so early on would become so large.[38] From Wikipedia.
    1