Comments by "" (@soulcapitalist6204) on "Ryan Chapman" channel.

  1.  @asielnorton345  1) Marx's work was not intellectual. Marx avoided intellectual discourse and scrutiny and sought to impress normatives of violence on illiterate and innumerate German working class. 2) Kapital is 3 volumes of normative demagogy of economics and presents no valid economic theory nor new information. It charades as if economics and this is only effective to folks who have never picked up an econ book. 3) Marx does not predict future society, he claims that this is predictable through a bogus philosophical butchery of dialectic, his historical materialism. Marx prescribes rather than predict. Marx calls for extended, brutal state capitalism and repressive politburo dictatorship in Critique of the Gotha Program and Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee, respectively.
    10
  2.  @asielnorton345  You can additionally read Marx's zur Judenfrage to learn Marx's racist basis of his classist demagogy in Manifesto. Years earlier, all of that bourgeoisie bit referenced jews in Marx's writing. This moots Marx being a jew or not very devout one. These people were bigots, typical of anticapitalist Germans until reform after WW2. Read Engels' Conditions for more bigotry, or how about marxian theory of asiatic mode of production? Race is class #1 - the latter proposals of Marx's revise this, especially in German zeitgeist.
    4
  3. This idea is not possible. The claim that there is a basis of production is a claim that a government enforces such a basis. This is why Marx's allusion to stateless communism (Critique of the Gotha Program part 1) is utopian, being both impossible to achieve and impossible to measure.
    4
  4. This is nonsense fallacy about personal experiences, happiness and brutal authoritarianism. Any soviet was abrogated the most conventional human rights and this was hated so substantially that the 1991 referendum to end socialism and establish capitalism was nearly unanimous.
    4
  5. Here's some Karl Marx to help you cut the bullshit about conflation of marxism with totalitarianism. Marx's dialectic was indeed between liberal social democracy and totalitarian communist dictatorship: "The democrats will either work directly towards a federated republic, or at least, if they cannot avoid the one and indivisible republic they will attempt to paralyze the central government by granting the municipalities and provinces the greatest possible autonomy and independence. In opposition to this plan the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority. They should not let themselves be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the municipalities, self-government, etc."
    4
  6. This was a great comment as a complement to the vid. Great job. Marx refers to liberal democracies as "free" states (US, pre napoleanic FR - CotGP pt 4), but since his improvement was over dictatorship models, marxist ideas are inverted from what we value like democracy (no elected government officials or regional reps), freedom (highly centralized prole dictatorship) , career (alienation) and employment (exploitation) or societies and his own idea communist (in his Critique of the Gotha Program). "They should not let themselves be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the municipalities, self-government, etc." I'll take your challenge: "There's no one sentence you can point to where he says 'this is a totalitarian society' (the word didn't exist yet), so you have to analyze what he said to get there." Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League provides the best bet available: "...the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority." "...it cannot under any circumstances be tolerated that each village, each town and each province may put up new obstacles in the way of revolutionary activity, which can only be developed with full efficiency from a central point" "As in France in 1793, it is the task of the genuinely revolutionary party in Germany to carry through the strictest centralization." Of course, this tips the context unequivocally toward extreme totalitarian dictatorship in the statement of Marx later (CotGP, pt 4): "Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." There is no such thing as an orthodox marxism which does not include totalitarian formula. In reality, this is hard to escape with any collectivist ideas.
    4
  7.  @Dominikmj  Bollocks. 1) Marx and Engels were autocratic activists. 2) Marx was not an economist - the only philosophers which focus on topics like capitalism are economists. 3) Marx presented sophistry and not valid philosophy based on the standard of his time or for the 2000 years preceding his time (socratic philosophy). 4) The correct title for Marx was a "revolutionary" - an activist. 5) Yes. This activism was for autocracy/totalitarianism/dictatorship and strictly not by any means for equal rights or freedom. Not a chance. 6) To wit, in part 1 of Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx describes his ideation as imposing "unequal right", shitting on your claim based on not reading his words. He dedicates part 4 to how his ideation of communism is dictatorship and specifically not free. 7) in Critique of the Gotha Program, marx debuts totalitarian state capitalist dictatorship 8) and in Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee, he debuts the brutal politburo dictatorship institutional design 100% of marxist tradition socialists conformed to. 9) Marx was not an unclear author in the translations available in English. 10) Marx was not a contradictory author and maintained the above solution without contradiction for the 20ish years between the works referenced above. 11) Lastly Lenin acknowledged Marx to the effect of state capitalism and politburo by referencing the above works of Marx (and Critique of the Erfurt Program of Engels)
    4
  8.  @lifecloud2  #1 Who has built on Marx? Marxism is steeped in ideology and building on it is shunned as revisionism. Marx's quality of philosophy is and always was substandard for economics or sociology, philosophy or political science and these studies were never aware of Marx during his career. At no point had Marx contributed anything to the academic fields I list there, not even posthumously. I'm curious which marxist revisionist has seemed remotely competent in any. Sounds impossible on a marxist basis because of the poor quality of philosophy in the marxist tradition, whatsoever. I struggle to believe any rational philosopher would tolerate marxism as philosophy and not crude demagogy. Name this neomarxist contributer and name this influential or important marxist theory, whatsoever. #2 Where does Marx propose a piecework basis of labor compensation? I'll be damned if you inform me of the first major contradiction in I have found in Marx's theory. Where did Marx write what you claim is marxian? Marx proposes need based compensation and not work based (in his Critique of the Gotha Program part 1). Next, marxian economics is temporal and not based directly on commodity output - Socially Necessary Labor Time is marxian microeconomics and approaches productivity by overallocating labor (universal employment), so I suggest Marx is ambivalent to commodity production efficiency in deference to this universal employment. You have to read more Marx before guessing about people's conclusions concerning his work. American politicians reject Marx because his ideas will violate American's constitutional civil rights. Marxist communism is centralized state dictatorship (Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee) - state capitalism (Critique of the Gotha Program), and that shit's illegal here. American business people also know far better than Marx's ignorant 19th century no-working ass on the topics of human resources, business administration, microeconomics, human rights, and industrial psychology. They work with scientific method and not low-brow cheap demagogy like Marx. Do yourself a favor and critically examine any given work of Marx's for the quality of the philosophy entailed. The shit is not philosophy. Normative delivery of fallacy by a chalatan of economics is called sophistry. Name the theory of Marx's which transcends complete bullshit aimed at stupid (illiterate and innumerate) 19th century manual laborers.
    4
  9.  @t00bgazer  Bollocks. This video is pretty well done. You people are the ones without the Marx reading and this is how obvious your propaganda is different from what the man wrote. You probably believe all the propaganda, like that Marx did not call for brutal dictatorship under state capitalism or that marxism is some stateless bullshit or that marx analyzed capitalism/economics.
    3
  10. ​ @1990alone Social Democracy is capitalism and not socialism. We can know ithis with certainty because all social democracies have laws banning the state from engagement in socialism - the allocation of labor or of goods by the state or the organization of private institutions by the state (eg workplace democracy mandates) Additionally, these nations all committed to capitalist economic scholarship and rejected socialist claims of economic advice. The populace of social democracy has rarely if ever put socialists into seats in their commons following Germany's mistakes in 1932.
    3
  11. The $100M fortune of Vanderbilt at the time he died is adjusted to $2.9T in 2023.
    3
  12. Marx's economics was deliberately garbage. Marx selected debunked ideas of previous economic philosophers which had mostly lost in dialectic analysis to social democracy and capitalist ideation and reintroduces them in a death throe for socialism which was disfavored on the economic topic for a decade before Marx's career. Since Marx struggled with basic algebra and with philosophical standards (honesty), there was no hope to have any useful analysis out of Marx, anyhow. To the contrary, the totality of Marx's work makes zero contribution to the field of economics and made no contribution at any time since his debuting them. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not looked into academic economics. Anyone thinking science is entailed in marxist analysis should look into the economists who forced Marx to pretend he had a scientific basis - Carl Menger, John Stuart Mill, Leon Walras, David Ricardo... these were the people who cast a shadow on Marx in economics such that Marx was never heard of outside his own circle of gullible, ignorant fans. All of Marx's work was low-brow demagogy to make marginally literate and innumerate lower working class upset enough to get shot down in the streets in 1848.
    3
  13. Not logic. Communism has no play because the ideas are stupid and rationale is childish. That is within liberal social democracy. Nearly all have some sort of marxist party - all such parties are hated (votes for their opposition; no numbers in national commons) The institutional design of a marxist state - single party offering only communism, top-down dictatorship providing command economy, bans on capitalism - our right to private, plural economic self-determination - this is what Marx used to force a single viewpoint across a communist nation. He insisted on no elected officials in governme - nothing like a social democracy where people shit on communists for being idiots who still promote shit philosophy - the worst ever taken seriously in all history.
    3
  14. ​ @potheo1192  USSR was a marxist communist state, dufus. That totalitarian bullshit is not like United States - most capitalist. US has the oldest commune tradition in the developed/social democratic world. It is marx and marxists who disapprove of voluntary communes because this is a delusion of self-governance (Address to the Communist League) and critical utopianism (Manifesto).
    3
  15. Marx was a butcher of philosophy in his body of work. It's funny to hear his aims described as exploring logic when he most brutally butchered socratic standards of rational philosophy. He also butchered hegelian dialectic with his idea (dialectic materialism) that dialectic was somehow social phenomenon versus a contrived intellectual process. As an overarching example, Marx submits several ad lapidems by reviving debunked theory and ignoring the emiricism which deprecated them. It makes me laugh reading Marx described as having pursued empiricism when he cowered so desperately away from the empirical methods of his orthodox economic colleagues of the time. I more customarily understand Marx to be a case in point as to the superiority of empirical methods over the heterodox normative approaches used throughout marxian theory.
    3
  16. These are perhaps history's worst philosophers in sociology, economics and political science.
    3
  17. Marxist theory is stupid demagogy. There's nothing to exploitation, for example. You want to examine it like it's actual theory. Marx just swapped out the word employment with exploitation and people who like complaining about shit that everyone else likes were the only ones - are still the only ones - who take it seriously.
    3
  18.  @jonrwert  It is not advisable to take these ignorant ideas of Marx's seriously. For example, all of this which you think is brilliant about "exploitation" is just the fact that Marx used that word instead of the preexisting economic term "employment". They are 100% the same. This is because Marx was not an economist nor intellectual. He was trying to rile up ignorant people into his authoritarian revolution.
    3
  19.  @lifecloud2  No you don't. When? You and your degree don't dare to disagree with me above ☝🏾
    3
  20. Kapital is not important because it contains no ideas which are new or consequential to economics and was never considered consequential. It was even useless to those who tried out his theory of communist society. Marx was a revolutionary and not a philosopher nor economist. He could barely do algebra which made him unable to critically engage economics of his period. Kapital and all of his economic works are pseudoeconomics used to make his revolution seem more credible to uneducated workers.
    2
  21. Only liberalism is a philosophy and should not be confused with social democracy's political blocs: liberal and conservative.
    2
  22.  @raymondhartmeijer9300  Private property is not just personal; it is commercial. The proposal otherwise is marxist apologetics and abrogates conventions (like UNCHR) on human rights related to property ownership and the rights of owners to proceeds from said.
    2
  23.  @stenbom  You must struggle with math. Because middle class is determined by net adjusted median income per household by purchasing power parity, middle class households will be households of the same purchasing power, forever. This is not the same as saying American purchasing power is stagnated because the same people are not middle class. Only unclassed median incomes can show this trend.
    2
  24. You people haven't read and studied Marx and for this reason you have ignorant ideas about what he claimed. Marx clearly and unequivocally advocated for totalitarian dictatorship his entire literary career. The form of his dictatorship is just as claimed in this video - a central committee dictates to an appointed and not elected congress which controls almost everything. Some aspects of work are controlled by worker's councils in his theory and only these leaders are elected. They take the dictate of the state and no opposite way entailing public representation: "At the soonest possible moment after the overthrow of the present governments, the Central Committee will come to Germany and will immediately convene a Congress, submitting to it the necessary proposals for the centralization of the workers’ clubs under a directorate established at the movement’s center of operations."
    2
  25.  @LirumLarumLarum  Must be a shitpaper arts degree, correct? This is like a flattard with a physics degree or a creationist with a biology degree: charlatan. Primary source trumps whatever socialists or marxists think, these days or otherwise. These people are ignorant and unethical, dishonest and lazy, uncited and uncitable. Highlighting Marx's own beliefs, directly from him in his clear and unequivocal wording for how ignorant and unethical it was and how far it falls short of basic philosophical standards is an exposé of a 19th century sophist and charlatan of an economist. Sounds like fair play to me. If the work of Marx is defensible, then defend it. Your study should provide the ammo if it was. My study provides my ammunition and you've yet to contest any of it per those quotes, whether from this video or my commentary. You can't. If you try, you know someone who has also studied Marx and actual economics could crush that effort, likely with Marx's crystal clear language.
    2
  26.  @kitsune630  That is a description of state capitalism, ignoramus. It describes the capitalistic nature of socialism and early stage communism which you said was never contributed by Marx. "What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." You are illiterate, as we can see. That shit is precisely state capitalism and we can know this because Lenin coined state capitalism in reference to part one and this quote (in his 'State and Revolution'). Illiteracy and minimal reading is the reason you marxists are so ignorant about your own philosophy. That, and dishonesty. You people simply won't admit to clearly worded normative descriptions like above or the clearly worded references to it by Lenin and Stalin.
    2
  27. Then again, appealing to the emotions of stupids is timeless, so marxism is still a thing.
    2
  28. ​ @francismarion6400 Socialism is actually judged based on who owns institutions controlling the microeconomy. You have the same issue that this video has: nothing justifies that you guys generalize or conflate any of these philosophies. It's incompetent. For example, by claiming fascism and national socialism were fascism, this video conflates to polar political economies under one term for a political economy. You do the same by calling all of these socialist. Mussolini's philosophy preserved capitalist allocation in Italy and actually propped up capitalist equities to a greater extent than we will ever see again. This isn't what the nazis did. By 1937 if you were a failing enterprise, the nazis wouldn't bail you out, they would expropriate your company and roll it into an SOE like we will never see again in the Reichswerke Hermann Göring. That was socialist political economy, not due to what Hitler or anybody studied, but based on the policies 3rd Reich rolled out in 1933 and their "national socialist revolution".
    2
  29. You give Marx too much credit.
    2
  30. A movement against private equity.
    2
  31. It is division of labor (marxian alienation) and not unions or welfare which has improved the lot of workers in social democracies. Proof is in United States - #1 for working families, globally and where unions were hated in the same 50 years which proved out this predominance. US is a world leader in Median Disposable Household Income, which is the single most significant statistic for employed.
    2
  32. Too bad that is a bunch of bullshit tautology designed to appeal to the emotions of illiterate German working class. The issue with dictatorship of the proles is that it's actual dictatorship directly opposed to the social democracy everyone prefers to live under, including "workers"
    2
  33.  @inovakovsky  The human right to own a business is not arbitrary. Human rights exist as freedoms to operate at our own discretion without abrogating the freedoms of others. This means that if me and friends, family or employees endeavor to operate a business, it is an unethical role of state to abrogate those rights of free association where no rights of others are violated.
    2
  34. Freedom for governments.
    2
  35.  @jamaldarwand1935  1) The working conditions are substantially better. Your position is based on hyperbolic complaints. If it was based on reality, you would seem like a whiny, naive and sheltered soul complaining about the freedoms of others to make better decisions than you do. 2) Welfare and social services in general is a capitalist approach which long predates the implementation of marxism, debunking that it's any reaction to ignorant marxists in Russia. We can know this for certain from the Gotha and Erfurt saga of marxists rejecting welfare in deference to socialism 50 years before the soviet putsch. 3) You and Marx are ignorant, yet pretending you have done some empirical research, travel or critical thought to conclude wealth creates poverty. Wealth creates wealth and not poverty. It does not create poverty elsewhere than wealth. Wealth is also a creator of wealth in developing countries. We We can know this for certain because the countries which are empirically growing in wealth at the fastest rates are the same productive developed nations which you claim are impoverished by trade or foreign wealth. We can know this for certain and showcase ignorant socialist hypocrisy at the same time. The socialist will attempt to sustain the claim that sanctions versus socialist states results in their failure to impress anyone with their wealth. This effect should be opposite according to your stupid premise that developing productive nations get poorer. Cuba and Venezuelan wealth production should have shot up rather than collapsing under a socialist mode of production and distribution.
    2
  36. One of the worst philosophies ever expounded so far or taken so seriously. Sophistry, actually.
    2
  37. There's plenty of primary source reviewed here, homeboy. Lens is irrelevant under primary source review. On the matter of totalitarian philosophy, the facts of this video and Marx's career are incontrovertable. If by lens you mean the typical socialist who claims Marx was against the state and pro-democracy, that is simply blissful ignorance from folks who lack primary source reading of Marx's most consequential works.
    2
  38. British marxists are revisionists, however. They have an old eventualist tradition which would make knowing Marx by their leadership misleading. This video does better - primary source is king. Marx staked his career on unmistakable statist totalitarian dictatorship. Which Brits affirm this fact? Most dream of a marxism without the marxism - without the totalitarian dictatorship by an unelected central committee and commons.
    2
  39. ​ @ryebread3417  I call bollocks. 1) Marxism is indeed communism and normative theories advocating implementation of communism, strictly. No works of Marx's fall outside this characterization. For example, marxian dialectical materialism is a normative claim concerning the inevitability of communism, specifically. It is a repudiation of hegelian dialectic methods which would require socialist approaches like Marx's to have tipped their king to capitalist approaches by the 1820s-1840s. 2) Communism is the dotp. Marx describes development of his communism in stages in part 1 (Critique of the Gotha Program). The coining of dotp is unequivocally the revolutionary and early stages of this theory. The policy prop Marx describes in part 1 is dictatorial. The political institution he called for (Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League and The Civil War in France) - the politburo/central committee is dictatorial.
    2
  40. Gimme a break. This shit is about Karl Marx, guy. He was a notorious statist who was unequivocal about the value of centralized totalitarianism within his own theory which he juxtaposed dialectically to social/liberal democracy: "The democrats will either work directly towards a federated republic, or at least, if they cannot avoid the one and indivisible republic they will attempt to paralyze the central government by granting the municipalities and provinces the greatest possible autonomy and independence. In opposition to this plan the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority. They should not let themselves be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the municipalities, self-government, etc."
    2
  41.  @DecMurphy  You present the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam - a lie. There's no nuance to what Marx presented - it is clear and unequivocal. Your claim of nuance cannot be backed with quotes of Marx and is a falsehood which I debunked by quoting Marx and how clearly and unmistakably he advocates totalitarian dictatorship. Marxism is not analytical. You are sorely mistaken. Marxism is dogmatic, featuring a core principle of non-revisionism. The implementation of marxist communism and the philosophical registration of Marx's dogma by Lenin in his State and Revolution debunks your falsehood about any dynamism in marxism. When you propose that bollocks, like a marxist, you ignore that there are presently several million practitioners of economics, social sciences, sociology, industrial engineering, industrial psychology, human resources and business management - all the topics to which Marx contributed irredeemable bullshit and not analysis nor nuance. On the contrary to the megalomania you and Marx share, several orders of magnitude greater nuance and analysis are offered in the social democratic academic mainstream than is availed from Marx's career and the combined careers of marxists. This is why marxism is regarded as heterodoxy in all these fields - Marx was far out of his depth commenting on any. Marxists have not helped - these are the least cited/citable clowns in economics or sociology because of their laziness and dogmatic marxism.
    2
  42.  @DecMurphy  The goal of socialism has always been to convince stupid people (literally illiterate and/or innumerate) to revolt and hand power to state know-it-alls. "Collective ownership of the means of production" is a description of totalitarian dictatorship, granted collective is necessarily goverment and the means of production entails our entire economic lives which ethical government (UNCHR) abdicates to our autonomy.
    2
  43. Yes. We just need to be smarter to understand how good totalitarianism is for us. Sure.
    2
  44. This is such ignorant commentary. Get it through you thick skull: Karl Marx prescribed single party politburo dictatorship with no elected state officials - no democracy, dictatorship. Marx prescribed brutal state capitalism inflicting unequal rights on the workers, forever. He describes totalitarianism in plain language. The utopian standard Marx raised for state capitalism to devolve is impossible, so marxism proposes state capitalism forever.
    2
  45.  @halfjack2758  This is not an example of functional economics. A nation which has to force people to stay to endure state orchestrated economic torture is not working. This is dysfunction and not working.
    1
  46.  @somenerdguy  Rye is a marxist-fan who hasn't read basic works of Marx and can't believe he called for an authoritarian state. Marx is crystal clear about this, but it is not in his Manifesto nor Kapital. Marx lays down brutal state capitalist institutional design in his Critique of the Gotha Program and his politburo dictatorship design in his Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee.
    1
  47.  @ryebread3417  You present inaccurate critiques about material you have not taken the time to study, yourself. For example, you claim that Marx's theory does not propose a socialist political economy, however, that was the entire purpose of all of Marx's theory and his whole career. He presents details of his political economy in his Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, Critique of the Gotha Program and The Civil War in Paris. Your claim that Marx proposes his dictatorship in any same or similar way to the means whereby marxian petty bourgeois democracy does so is directly contradicted by Marx in part 4 of Critique of the Gotha Program. Marxian political economy proposes workplace democracy and strictly not political democracy. Marx details the politburo political dictatorship structure in The Civil War in France.
    1
  48.  @dominicgunderson  A classist dictatorship cannot present de facto democracy at the same time. It is dictatorship.
    1
  49. That's not what socialist means. Some economies are capitalist, like all of those tax/spend economies and then there's socialism - government engaged in collectivist economic engineering.
    1
  50.  @jamescrydeman540  That sounds like ahistorical nonsense. Socialism is a poorly developed philosophy advocating selection of some special class in society - collectivism - and thwarting an economy for its benefit, typically at the expense of outgroups which don't conform to the socialist class ideals of race or labor relation. It's written philosophy, and that's all that's been written by its advocates. Capitalism is the relegation of the state to the tax and spend reality that you describe and because capitalists also write down their philosophy, I could refer you to the capitalist who specifically advocated for the way all developed countries treat economy. Claims of any socialist with something to say about it are unsupported.
    1
  51.  @ryebread3417  A marxist is an ignoramus concerning the work of Marx, mainly from having read a minimal amount of his work. For example, most marxists claim that Marx did not propose how his communist society would be or that Lenin and Stalin did something differently than this proposal of Marx's. Most claim that Marx's career was some intellectual critique of capitalism - challenging the orthodox economics world view in any way - and not demagogy of economics to incite revolts - challenging the illiterate german worker's world view.
    1
  52. It's actually a mistake to read the emotions of society to project causality on to political economic philosophies which were developed before this emotion set in. For example, 3rd Reich gained fervent support of Germans through their policies and extremes of power. Germans went nuts in support, although they barely got the nazis in office in a political contest. The German nutters were not causal to 3rd Reich and their transgressions, the national socialist political economy justified the nuttiness and persecution and racism and gassed these up as a state. It's the technical analysis of political economy which answers what fascism is. This emotional analysis clearly failed with the conflation of national socialism with fascism.
    1
  53.  @dominicgunderson  Seems pretty spot on, actually. Marxists are generally folks with poor reading of Karl Marx's works and typically respond to better informed people by pointing out that they are not inline with their favorite source of marxist propaganda - youtube videos and charlatans like Noam Chomsky and Richard Wolff. What Marxists cannot do is quote Karl Marx to the effect they have been led to embrace. It's easy to quote Marx's unequivocal call for brutal, totalitarian dictatorship, just by picking from his war with social democrats and liberal democracy altogether.
    1
  54. Any club sharing nationalist emotion like how fascism is described here is harmless, especially in 2023. That did not cause fascism or national socialism - that is not what fascism refers to - and of course, the analysis of political economy through emotions is incompetent. I don't know why someone would go out of their way to do that. Anyhow, we have to fear state regulation of enterprise and labor in order to stave off fascism and national socialism and the emotions that concern folks will be abated commensurately. Fascism will be implemented by populist politicians like Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama who proposed deceptive policies for public services. They focused on US healthcare - the largest sector of economy on the planet. Specifically the mandate of from the state for private consumption of health insurance is a fascist dictate introduced in US politics. (deception: universal healthcare is everyone being forced to buy services from private companies which lobbied the government) That is fascist political economy, it's not emotion about United States or about white-guy blood. Sanders's M4A is a state mandated ban on private pay for healthcare and that is socialist policy. That will bring about the emotions of 3rd Reich and of USSR, not the other way around. Policy and philosophy of state and the great and powerful force of government is where fascist excess produced the emotions recorded by millennial scholars.
    1
  55.  @tr1bes  That's not what happens when people don't pay their hospital bills, nor does fairness in healthcare have anything to do with government-mandated private health insurance, genius. How gullible are you people? You are also mistaken about what fascism was. Fascism was in Mussolini's Italy and not in 3rd Riech Germany. This is where you history flunkies get in trouble with this conflation of fascism and national socialism. You are not capable of recognizing policy which came directly from these systems, just like intended by fascists. For example, AHA is a fascist idea and you need to be made into a history flunky like you are so that you would think the opposite from historical reality about this type of policy. The state mandating private citizens to buy a product from private businesses like health insurance companies because of the financial relationship between government and these big business sectors (like US healthcare, which is the largest sector of any economy in all human history). That is fascism - corporative state, it is called - like Italy from the early 20s to the early 40s, New Deal/Progressive United States and like Weimar Republic and not like 3rd Reich. All forced guild/union membership into privately-owned unions which had government's attention because they paid cash for it. 3rd Reich was anti-corporative and mandated the state's role and not private companies in any nationally essential matter like labor relations or healthcare. (See Medicare for All of Progressive Sanders). That's your nazi shit. It is socialist political economy within the health sector - banning private exchange like the nazi's policy of July, 1933 - First Law for the Implementation You are wrong about US conservatism versus US Progressivism visa vis fascism and national socialism. It is the state's presentation of propaganda which is fascist and national socialist and not the state's regulation that no propaganda be issued through the state. The position of FL Board of Ed is that normative propaganda about race and sexuality are not permissible in public schools. United States Bill of Rights separates religion from the state for this reason. Prior to United States, governments would each own a religion and use the propaganda power from this to control society. Whereas normative propaganda about race and sex are not religion, these are religious and faith-based ideas and not science and history based ideas. The conflict of these faith based opinions about gender or about race conspiracy are not acceptable in public institutions, especially those mandated for education. For example, conflating gay history and black history as attempted here is not historical and is a political propaganda attack through the state on the black population in the state. The reality of Black history is the leadership of black "religious homophobes" and "anti-Progressive" conservatives and never intersectional gay agenda like the banned excuse for black studies attempted here. You must think places other than United States have Bill of Rights. Bill of rights prevents national socialist policy in the US, after a long saga of legal battle and civil warfare with American Progressive fascists and national socialist Democrats. For example, fascism was banned in the US by conservatives on the US Supreme Court (Schecter vs state) and again with Brown vs Board of Education, the last time Progressive's education ideas for blacks in the south was suspect. Conservatives on the supreme court banned Obama's fascist private healthcare mandate and Biden's fascist private vaccine mandate.
    1
  56.  @__D10S__  If marxists actually read what Marx proposed, there wouldn't be so many.
    1
  57. We disagree that capitalism survives from Smith's theory of invisible hand, rather than moral superiority. Capitalism is morally superior on the basis of human rights. Capitalism requires government to guarantee assembly, expression, contract and property rights. 1) socialism is the abrogation of these human rights for them to be used collectively - centrally. 2) No socialist has ever explored the implications of collectivism on human rights. 3) So no socialist has confronted what injustice human rights presents. 4) if basic human rights are respected by the state, there is automatically a capitalist political economy. If basic human rights are guaranteed, socialism is outlawed.
    1
  58. @philosteward  Socialist theory - no exceptions - is collectivist. This is directly opposite of human rights which are individualist philosophical concepts. The success or failure of capitalist economies is down to factors of those economies moreso than human rights. Capitalism is the basis of economics on human rights, not the efficiencies of doing so which vary within the theory.
    1
  59. @philosteward  It only depends on whether a conventional human rights regime is a moral standard. If it is, all collectivist theory, not just Marx's, fails to understand or ever seriously address human rights. Socialism battled Enlightenment individualism like human rights by proposing the alternative of classist or racist collectivism. Since socialists don't actively develop theory, we are left with bigoted and antique notions which still get attention from poorly educated and envious. The socialist claims of capitalist immorality are often unethical - based on classist determinism, name calling and semantic fallacy. In most cases, they demagogue what happens when human rights are guaranteed to a populace. Read Marx on free countries in part 4 of his Critique of the Gotha Program. That's the wrong side of history all socialist theory wallows in. Check out the Soviet Referendum (1991). Note it banned socialism by extending human rights. Note the overwhelming popular support and the marxist counter-reaction, then the reaction of the soviet populace(s), subsequently to that. Case in point of human rights ending socialism and capitalism only offering Russians freedoms, not all this wealth. That has to come from factors in the Russian economy which invite foreign direct investment.
    1
  60. Middle class is less due to poor immigrants being welcomed in different proportions than before. Measuring middle class is not economic/scientific, but rather just leftist populist demagogy of the fact there's a median performance in economies.
    1
  61. Marx is totalitarian because he called for the state to control the means of production as an institution instead of allowing people to do so autonomously. This is the transfer of human rights to government.
    1
  62.  RealQuarlie  Government is opposite the people in any political science analysis. You present nonsense. Communists don't get their own standard of human rights, they just abrogate the standards of human rights which existed well before there was communist theory in the first place.
    1
  63.  RealQuarlie  The collective operates through the government. Communist government is the dictatorship of the proles entailed in the politburo government of all marxist tradition states. In order that the government can insist on workplace democracy and other socialism, it cannot use liberal democratic political institution design. Marx debuted his politburo or central committee of the proles approach in his "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League", years before later referring to it as dictatorship of the proles.
    1
  64. That is the most important lesson United States has to teach you idiots. No other system than the maximums of capitalism applied in US history has been as successful at what matters for working people. No other system features higher household disposable income on median average than United States - highest wages in the worls. No other nation provides more free healthcare or free education and few come close. Few have a home ownership rate in the vicinity of United States and note exceed it, certainly none which also boast the best real property and equity investment markets of all time.
    1
  65.  @SuperGirl-tf2wn  Colonialism is a mercantilist political economy like Marx's communist socialism is. Capitalism is an offspring from this whereas socialism is the brother which takes the same approach as feudal or mercantilist production with a different class in the autocratic ruling position.
    1
  66.  @SuperGirl-tf2wn  They're already different words. It's more important to recognize that all socialism is dusty old mercantilism so nobody gets it twisted that capitalism is backwards political economy like that.
    1
  67.  @SuperGirl-tf2wn  They're already 2 different words and they are already opposites. The devil is in the details which had you confuse colonialism and capitalism.
    1
  68. ​ @cooleren3124  It's nonsense scapegoating of soviet personnel for the exceptionally low quality and depth of philosophy Marx drummed up.
    1
  69. At some point you demagogues have got to stfu and gtfo. Since socialism has slaved and starved workers and has no reason to do better than capitalism, can't you let it go? Capitalist nations are the ones with the best and most desired workplaces with the highest compensation. United States is most capitalist of all and features the most regulated and enforced workplace on earth, the highest pay by purchasing power (OECD Median Disposable Household Income), the most desirable companies to work for on all earth and likely all history, the most free healthcare and free higher education with the highest standard of doctors on earth and highest ranked hospitals on the planet, the largest welfare program on earth which all social democracies are moving to emulate... can't you recognize the best as better than the worst (socialism for workers in history)?
    1
  70. ​ @kitsune630  No, guy. This is common for marxists to say because marxists have not read enough Karl Marx to see how stupid his ideas were. Marx invented state capitalism (in his 'Critique of the Gotha Program'). State capitalism is "socialism" and "early stage of communist society" according to Marx in part 1 of that work. Marx invented soviet politburo dictatorship (in his 'Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee'.) Lenin was no inventor, but a dogmatic marxist. In Russia, Lenin was playing the role Marx assigned to himself in Commie League - permanent advisor to the central committee of the soviet. You may reference Lenin's justification on the minutia of state capitalism on a strict basis of Marx's ideology (his words) by reading Lenin's 'State and Revolution'.
    1
  71.  @kitsune630  You could not have read the one place where Marx describes this in his own words and that is the problem. Breaking up marxian from each/to each as separated proposals and being incredulous about Marx's clear description of "socialism" and "early stage" communism as being specifically capitalistic gives this fact away. Read from Marx before making ignorant claims about his philosophy. Even though Marx is crystal clear in his writing, marxist have chosen to misrepresent unpopular ideation of marx rather than confronting it. The result is if you take a marxist charlatan's word for what Marx said - a guy like Richard Wolff, for example - you will be wrong and ignorant about what Marx advocated. Critique of the Gotha Program part 1 is what you have obviously never read. Read it. It is short. Tell me how I'm wrong or misinterpreting Marx or Marx's clarity on the ordination of state capitalism.
    1
  72. Maybe "populism" is conflated with fascism here. 3rd Reich, fascist Italy and communist Russia were populist movements. Each of these was a distinct political economic design and philosophical tradition and fascism was the name of the Italian one and not this populist commonality. Despite the hope that inclusion of Germany in this doc shouldn't taint the premise, it certainly does. To find common ground between two different philosophies with different philosophical traditions, the technical definition of fascism is not delivered by the 'what is fascism?' video. The modern scholarship on this topic tend to resort to this emotions-of-fascism analysis and it omits a great deal of history through misnomer and generalization.
    1
  73. Dialectic or historical materialism is nonsense. Marx was mistaken that dialectic is any natural social process. Dialectic (Hegel) is a contrived intellectual process, presuming opposites and using methods which can't come about from plural decesis. This "theory" was cheap argumentation for non-thinkers to believe his communism was some needed step beyond capitalism. In real political science, after mercantilism is deprecated - for example, by capitalism - there's no sustainable return to the authoritarian, unilateral nature of mercantilism and socialism is no exception.
    1
  74. ​ @kohdicraig5179  Dunce, marxist-leninist systems executed people on a basis of non-communist ideology. Marxist leninism is authoritarian by design. It is the execution of Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat. We can know that Marx meant dictatorship like the common modern usage because he detailed the political institution (politburo) which would need to replace liberal democracy and it is a political dictatorship with no control of policy left to the populace.
    1
  75. Capitalism works for people additionally to funding all government and social democracy - being the only possible route to broad social welfare - capitalist market-based currency valuation (Keynes).
    1
  76.  @notarealAlbanian  You are mistaken. Marxist communism is not a stateless proposal. Marxist communism is a state capitalist proposal and proposed centralized dictatorship with no elected state officials. Marx raises utopian - impossible - standards for the marxist state to give up its brutal dictatorship. Literally his totalitarian ideation was supposed to be brutal enough to change human nature to working as our #1 desire, then Marx claimed the state may go away. Marxian state capitalism and anything to do with late stage communist utopia are both delivered in Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program part 1.
    1
  77.  @bobbiemiles-foremaniii8747  It's like a teddy bear versus a grizzly bear - interpreted marx from a charlatan like Richard Wolff versus Marx making crystal clear normatives for totalitarian dictatorship by his central committee.
    1
  78. Karl Marx proposed that everyone is paid in work vouchers based on hours worked and goods will be priced in average hours required to produce each unit (Socially Neccesary Labor Time).
    1
  79. ​@monk_cs2 Be honest. You got an F on economics paper.
    1
  80. 100% of Marx's conjectures were debunked before he debuted them. For example, marxian TRPF crisis was debunked by ricardian business cycle before Marx graduated. 100%
    1
  81. To be fair, If you refer to Engels' "Working Conditions", the book does describe this upgrade. Marx comments on peasantry and their poverty in Kapital vol 1.
    1
  82. ​ @chris.bcfc.keeprighton.5685  Speeking of low IQ, when does you and Marx's stupid prediction expire? Is it still based on deliberately bollocks analysis like Marx's "Capitalist [sic] Accumulation" of Kapital 3? Still based on debunked 18th century economic philosophy (eg LTRPF taken from Smith, debunked by Ricardo (business cycle)?
    1
  83. I suggest these young marxists are not pursuing education concerning the topics which Marx's ideas covered. For example, you either study sociology, economics or political science, industrial psychology, human resource management or business administration or you take the ignorant pseudointellectual approach of running with the bigotry some innumerate sophist in Marx had put out 2+ bygone eras ago.
    1
  84.  @dino9921  Marx is considered unethical heterodox economics and is not lauded by anyone outside of pseudointellectual sycophants of his nonsense claims.
    1
  85.  @dino9921  This is not opinion. Marx is considered unethical and heterodox in social sciences, political science and economics. Clearly you are poorly informed about Marx's philosophy to even believe that what he wrote about would be taken seriously in any academia. Why would it be? For example, what contribution has Marx made to economics? His contemporary and countryman, Carl Menger was real economist and not a revolutionary populist demagogue. Menger is lauded by economics for his contribution of marginal utility among other analytical methods. What, specifically, has Marx contributed to economics, whatsoever, if you are not just gaslighting about a populist bigot with selfish authoritarian ambitions he wrote down for us to remember him by?
    1
  86.  @kamoshi  Not one of them supports modern economic theory. It is not possible due to Marx solely presenting populist demagogy in all 3 volumes of that work. Obviously you have not read any Kapital. That's no economic thesis.
    1
  87. @kamoshi  Kapital is only valuable for understanding what Marx claimed and not any other purpose or even close. It's nonsesnse and was nonsense at the time of its publication. It's normative and full of fallacy. It's deliberately bad philosophy delivered poorly. For example, economics is what requires analysis, not capital nor capitalism. Those pseudointellectual pursuits are a fool's errand of populist demagogy of fundamental economic human rights like free expression, free assembly, private property and free contract. The criticism is of freedom expressed by private citizens. The complaint from Marx, some 3rd party to a labor relations, making it irrelevant and unethical. We can work together however we feel like. Marx discusses his unethical disdain for state guaranteed freedom in part 4 of his Critique of the Gotha Program. Critique of the Gotha Program is more valuable reading all 3 volumes of Kapital, combined... As far as understanding Marx's goals. I just read Kapital to say I did. If you are interested in the topic of economics, I suggest "Foundations of Economic Analysis" by the great Paul Samuelson. Compare that to Marx's antique and deliberately incorrect bollocks.
    1
  88. Contradiction hunting is poor quality of philosophy and one of the reasons why marxist philosophy is only indulged in by marxists and never used in sincere analysis of any topic. For example, the approach to these same matters of contradictions and critique in conventional economics is the recognition and redress of externalities (Pigou). Rather than the marxist approach which ignorantly assumes systems are or have been swapped out in a quest for fewer contradictions, or worst yet, that these have materialized as a result of broad economic experience (historical materialism), the economic scholars of the time had not recognized any dialectic of economic systems for 20 some years. In that 20 years passed before Marx's graduation, socialism was buried by capitalism on the same grounds of competency and human rights as present day (Ricardo vs Malthus). In that same time, the philosophical approach and certainly Marx's sophist approach were completely deprecated from economics because these methods are estranged from reality, rather than informed and constrained by reality (science).
    1
  89. This is by Karl Marx's reckoning. In reality, socialism is an outdated and unethical concept which capitalism has eliminated in the womb in most cases. It is not suitable for post capitalism since capitalism is more superiorly armed and significantly more studied on effective economics.
    1
  90. Marx used ideas which were already debunked a few decades prior to him using them. He wasn't trying to compete with the cutting edge of economics at the time and if you read his more technical works, you can tell he struggled with the math economists were using in his era. For example, Ricardo debunked his own LTV and Smith's TRPF was regarded as cyclical after Ricardian business cycle was debuted in the 1820s. Carl Menger introduced the prevailing understanding of value in lieu of archaic cost basis altogether. He had the ears of the German government, John Stuart Mill was influencing England and Leon Walras was influencing France. Marx did not and could not dream of prevailing his economic parody over real economists like these. They were trying to understand economics and Marx was not. Marx was hoping to get people angry enough to revolt and not understand economics. The #1 theory we are thankful for are the economic human rights that Marx was so opposed to. These men beat out Marx's idea of totalitarianism with a central government of fools with poor mathematic skills. This is what happened in Russia and China and killed millions of soviets and chinese out of incompetence.
    1
  91. Capitalism is about tax and spend and socialism is about everyone being a worker or Chinese or German, etc. Socialism is for authoritarians to posit a red herring to deflect from their goals of controlling everyone in society.
    1
  92. 1) These classes are unethical and illusory determinist conjectures. 2) The conjecture that social position is gained or lost as a group is irrelevant demagogy aimed at instigating civil unrest in Germany as Marx's works were all dedicated to. 3) This proposal is debunked. Relatively to the mid 19th century, German median wage earners are more enfranchised economically and politically in 2024. 4) In addition to Germany, 100% of nations subscribing to capitalism have experienced broadening economic and political enfranchisement in every generation relatively to the prior in the 170 years since this claim.
    1
  93. The idea that the mechanics of capitalism is subjugating workers rather than improving their livelihoods is debunked by such stats. At the same time, Marxist ideas are debunked as means whereby working people could see improvement in their conditions.
    1
  94. Everyone can define socialism because it is an economics term with established history. Socialists refuse to define their philosophy because it is unethical and inept economics which requires brutal authoritarianism. Better to keep the reality hidden.
    1
  95. @j_kobx  The resolution of the German and western European dialectic between capitalism and socialism in favor of capitalism ended widespread poverty on earth (60% in 1950, 8.5% now) and 1400 years of total war there. The fact that most men born this century are alive and have all their limbs is night and day from when old mercantilist concepts like socialism dominated.
    1
  96.  @j_kobx  Obviously everything is more regulated now than the 1950s. Use facts rather than these fantasy positions. Try real economics, political science and history instead of being a demagogue like all of the socialist philosophers. At some point enough is enough with ignorant bigots opining on the economies we have to live with. If your position requires extreme hyperbole like your claims of monarchy and oligarchy, then it is not a valid position (argumentum ad absurdem). Don't propose bullshit to criticize something you can't criticize academically.
    1
  97.  @j_kobx  That is silly. Do you know what a monarchy is in the first place? It is hard to take socialists seriously since you lot can't give credit where it is due and you use terms incorrectly/absurdly.
    1
  98.  @j_kobx  It was American capitalism which achieved the defeat of socialism last century. That United States was not as highly regulated as the present day. The opposite idea is misinformation about economic history. Capitalism and not high regulation was responsible for those changes to world peace and prosperity. Capitalism is regulation on government that specifically government/state/collective institutions have to reserve human rights to the public as individuals. This created prosperity which government allocation of the ecomomy could not possibly. This created peace because corporations are not war mongers like countries are and that's been proven.
    1
  99. The problem is the "amorphous" approach to education on marxism, national socialism and fascism. These were severally well defined ideologies with policies which could be predicted based on the philosophical basis of the movements. Amorphous political economy is our zeitgeist of federated social democratic capitalism and not any of these contrived, centrally administered and idealistic approaches to political economy.
    1
  100.  @dirkcampbell5847  Read Marx directly rather than trusting instructors about Marx. Most of these people misinform about Marx and the value of his works with relation to how economies actually work or in relation to the field which studies economies (eg Richard Wolff). Marxist economics was debunked prior to Marx's presentation of these ideas. He re-proposed ideas and understanding which was in disuse in economics since the 1830s and presented them to working class and never an academic economist. Marx's economics was parody of economists and the idea that economies have nature of themselves. Reading Marx deliver it makes this clear, calling out "the marginalists" and others who understood the topic beyond the accessibility of Marx's poor algebra. One may try to take on Kapital in order to read hundreds of pages of Marx's debunked tautology. Vol 3 is the most technical. One may also read the shortcuts: Kapital was compiled from Value Price and Profit, Wage Labor and Capital and Grundrisse. The shortcuts to marxist political economy (not broached in the kapitals) are Manifesto, Critique of the Gotha Program and Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee. Marx calls for a brutal, statist, authoritarian and totalitarian political economy in no uncertain nor contradictory terms and the top Marxist scholars lack the basic literacy to comprehend this. They all contend Marx had some twinkle in his eye for notions of democracy or self-government of workers and this is not supported by any work of Marx's career. By the time you get through the works above, any claims that Marx is unclear, contradictory or hard to understand will be permanently debunked. It would help to know proven economic concepts before reading Marx's compilation of purely disproven ones, but if you read Marx thoroughly, the hazard of being mislead by a guy with less insight to work and economics and poorer algebra than the average modern high schooler is minimal.
    1
  101. Leaching off Engels is probably overplayed. Marx was paid through his party, his own newspaper, a New York newspaper, dividends from stocks he bought in UK, etc. I doubt guilt emits from it rather than hubris. He lived like a politician.
    1
  102. Luckily Marx and marxism are marxist politics and marxist philosophy and marxist economics and marxist sociology - a side show - and can be completely ignored for lacking any redeemable value, whatsoever, to modern politics, philosophy or economics. Just like today, Marx had to compose and present something novel, true and rational to be taken seriously, whereas all marxian economics is recycled from a wastebin of disproven economic theory from 20-50 years prior to his debuting them. Marx is a deliberate parody - demagoguery - of philosophical standards like socratic rationality, political standards like human rights and freedoms and self-government and economic standards like proof and mathematic basis and economies as predictable phenomenon.
    1
  103.  @lifecloud2  Ideas like property rights are considered inalienable on a basis of standing. If one is capable of something and nobody has standing to challenge it with a grievance, that right is reserved by the capable party. Hence, the line between murder and killing in self defense is the standing of the killer to defend his own life where another had no standing to threaten it.
    1
  104.  @lifecloud2  Natural law is what I am describing. You are confused so I detected that and educated you about the notion of inalienability and natural right. These are not in lawbooks, but natural, on the basis I describe above. Speciating property is not natural and is a radical ideological excuse to abrogate human rights. That is precisely how your two bit bargain basement socialist philosophy attempts to justify personal versus private property.
    1
  105.  @lifecloud2  What a ripoff. You got a bachelors in political science, you say? You have no idea what natural rights are nor how to use a dictionary.
    1
  106. ​ @kohdicraig5179  You have got to be kidding. Marx is an antisemitic bigot in judenfrage. His entire thesis is that Germany should adopt the economic posture 3rd Reich took. Clearly you haven't even read it.
    1
  107. This is correct. As Proudhon regarded bourgeoisie "jews and barons" Marx's usage of bourgeoisie during March Revolution was racist dogwhistling.
    1
  108. Marx was a revolutionary. No position of Marx's reached the socratic standard of philosophy. He was a sophist fallacy artist and not any philosopher. As a revolutionary he indeed sought totalitarian and authoritarianian role of state and envisaged himself atop it: "At the soonest possible moment after the overthrow of the present governments, the Central Committee will come to Germany and will immediately convene a Congress, submitting to it the necessary proposals for the centralization of the workers’ clubs under a directorate established at the movement’s center of operations."
    1
  109. ​ @kohdicraig5179 Bootlicking refers to socialists, fool. It's about licking government (socialism/communism) and military (anarchism) boots. You guys are so sad and confused.
    1
  110. Well, you learned that conflating fascism and national socia)ism is controversial, but actually it is wrong and historically inaccurate and not merely controversial.
    1
  111.  @MikeGreenwood51  But Mussolini gave away where Hitler and Lenin/USSR expropriated. These can't be rolled together as they are opposite treatments. At least that's one of many issues with Fascism entailing philosophy other than Italy's.
    1
  112. So full of shit. There's no distinction between commercial and other private property, except in marxist ideology. This ideology is unethical because the state determines the personal nature of property in an arbitrary way which is reserved to the property owner by human rights conventions like UNCHR. As for you idiots claiming Marx was not crystal clear concerning state capitalist political economy and brutal totalitarian and authoritarian dictatorship, you can read his Critique of the Gotha Program and Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee, respectively, and stfu.
    1
  113. Personal and private property are the same. Marxists call for an end to the free discretion of property as a right by calling for autocratic dictatorship of property as a privilege with these inane and arbitrary boundaries. Hence, inherent in Marx's and other socialist approaches is a dictator prohibiting private property on some arbitrary standard which is contrary to society's plural discretion on what property is in the first place.
    1
  114.  @inovakovsky  That's an arbitrary dictatorial assertion versus my freedom to call whatever I want private property. This is a human right - assets and commercial property - per conventions like UNCHR and EUCHR and obviously United States Constitution.
    1
  115.  @inovakovsky  The basis on profit is arbitrary. Before you speciate property, whatsoever, a disposition as to who may speciate property is made and to what end. In the marxian notion, autocratic government force speciates property on the arbitrary basis of profit as opposed to purple color or visibility in dark conditions - some completely arbitrary basis. In ethical political science and sociology, speciation of private property is a human right. This lends to plural society rather than brutal dictatorship like Marx's proposal.
    1
  116.  @inovakovsky  That does not make ending capitalism or indexing profit any less arbitrary, guy. Consider studying some real political science and economics rather that Marx's pseudointellectual bollocks. When you get that far, you will recognize that capitalism is the free right of association and unqualified private property - freedom from socialist and feudal dictators with ignorant ideas.
    1
  117.  @inovakovsky  You can also look up what arbitrary means.
    1
  118. The conflation of nazism and italian fascism does oversimplify what fascism was and takes the common emotional analysis of the matter instead of the technical method of primary source historians who recognized the distinctions between the 3 experimental approaches to political economy - marxist communism, national socialism and italian fascism. The potsdam conference approach treats these as evils, attaches emotional appeals and obfuscates that any philosophy supported these movements or that those philosophies can be generalized under "evil" We'll do this all again without the granular detail contributed by those who studied especially 3rd Reich - Avraham Barkai, Charles E. Noyes, Otto Nathan, John Lucacz, Richard Overy, Ian Kershaw... they would contrast rather than combine these movements. They were right. This approach is wrong.
    1
  119. You can't buy land in a marxist state. You have problem? Gulag!
    1
  120. Wealth doesn't make people poorer, it makes them wealthier. You and Marx are out of touch with basic math, history and reality.
    1
  121. Working conditions are better now than 100 years ago, no matter where in the world you are referring to. This debunks any nonsense that market basis of economics makes conditions for economic participants worse. The opposite is true and Marx was made aware of this by trade unionists in Germany who fought the communists in March Revolution in order to protect the gains they were making under Germany's private industrialization of the mid 19th century.
    1
  122.  @jamaldarwand1935  Wealth does not create poverty. If that was true, Cuba's isolation from western wealth would result in great domestic riches for Cubans, but nope. It is the opposite and Cubans are kept dirt poor by Cuban law and foreign policy. We can just look at empirical facts to conclude this is the case everywhere and not just where socialist idiots are ruining lives. The rate of wealth acquisition is several times higher in productive developing countries than in developed capitalist nations. You predict the opposite, that these countries become poorer. This type of "thinking" is why you guys have no credibility. Your inability to admit that working conditions have substantially improved also shows that your position is pure demagogy. That is, apart from your claims being factually wrong and easily debunked.
    1
  123.  @jamaldarwand1935  This approach of socialist populist demagogy is not actually a method of economic analysis. As a result, the claims you make are falsehoods that may be easily debunked. Working conditions are measured independently from Elon Musk. Anywhere related to capitalist trade experiences improvement in working conditions and wages, 100% of the time. It is happening now and has always occured at any transition from mercantilism to capitalism. By embracing facts rather than being a bigot about people who are actually making working conditions far better like Musk, you can understand how the world works and why the highest wages and most legal and civil protections for workers exists in the United States. This is based on facts: worker's tort is an order of magnitude greater in the US per capita. OECD net adjusted median household and individual income is highest in the US vs any other major economy. US has the highest state spend per capita on both healthcare and worker safety. It's the capitalist approach.
    1
  124. This idea of attempting marxism under real democracy (liberal democracy) is impossible in a developed nation. This is due to the voting majorities in these states depending significantly on the economy, being fully aware of what will improve things a what couldn't possibly (like workplace democracy) and not caring to ruin the economy they depend on. On the other hand, peasants who have little or no connection to the economy are revolutionary. Along with soldiers, peasants have been the only marxianly revolutionary class in history, notwithstanding Marx claiming the reserve army was not revolutionary. The familiarity we have with our economy as private citizens exceeds Marx's understanding, especially 150 years into economics and basic algebra instruction. For example, modern people won't fall for cheap marxist demagogy which swaps the economics terms exploitation and employment in order to score emotional appeal. No significant percentage of working or literate people ever have valued this analysis in all history. Whereas there are no peasants to rile up in United States, there are suburban middle class Occupiers who live with mom and similarly have no economic knowledge or experience or connection. This is where we see a similar but worse showing for marxist partisans than they had in Germany in the 1850s. Making progress.
    1
  125.  @christopherbettridge  Employment is the correct term to substitute for Marx's exploitation pejorative. These are not two choices. They are the same. For all intents and purposes, one can use the term employment which preexisted Marx in place of Marx's exploitation. This is a clear case of semantic equivocation and not any theory. Stupid people and not economists are appealed to by name calling, especially when employment is widely desired.
    1
  126.  @christopherbettridge  Yes. Marxist demagogy also raised a question if he was joking because his ideas were such crude and obvious fallacy.
    1
  127. ​ @el5880 The marxian concept of petty bourgeoisie and unproductive workers encompasses these upper managers. They are strictly not proles which are all marxianly productive workers.
    1
  128.  @elpapichulo4046  Extreme poverty is the only poverty. Other notions like relative poverty don't actually feature poorness and are just ways of trying to stir jealosy in wealthy nations. Socialist demagogy.
    1
  129. Marx disagreed with liberalism and poked fun at the core principles of it. Marx is a champion for totalitarianism and strictly not liberalism. "They should not let themselves be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the municipalities, self-government, etc." - Not a classic liberal... Karl Marx
    1
  130.  @kellharris2491  The problem with your beliefs is 1) that Marx developed theory in the first place. Marx recycled debunked theory 20-50 years after they were in disuse in economics. 2) He made claims of a natural dialectic process and this was not supported by the philosophical standard of Socrates or even Hegel which preceeded his career. Marx's approach is not scientific because of fallacy like tautology and due to incompetent mathematics. As a political economist or political scientist, Marx fails a basic standard of logic by operating ad lapidem to academic minds in these fields, preexisting his career. This is what allows marxist political economy to present pseudotheory which does not confront conventions of human rights maintained scientifically by those with theory pertaining rights and role of state. He does so with 100% of his economic conjectures. None would pass a basic scrutiny of academic economists of his era and so he avoids the science and embraces the charlatanism and sophistry. 3) 100%, guy. There is not one contribution of marxism or Marx which is valuable to economics, sociology, social science, political science, industrial psychology, human resource management, econometrics, finance or international relations. Marx has posited pseudotheories in all of these fields, however - many clearly parodies (like "Capitalist [sic] Accumulation" from Kapital 3). Marxist ideas are all in a separate, heterodox and strictly not scientific clave of any discipline. Marxists are relegated to these fringes because dogmatic idealism is strictly not scientific by any measure.
    1
  131. Fascism isn't any of these ignorant claims about emotion. It's actually the way that Mussolini set up Italy's political economy and not the emotions or propaganda surrounding that. This means that there's nothing amorphous about fascism which allows it to be tossed around to describe opposition in general terms. Instead, when corporative policy is proposed (AHA individual mandate, too big to failouts), we can make a technical assessment of fascist policy in the US. These are like Mussolini's ideas and institutions. The appeal to emotion approach used in this video or which you propose would make any technical assessment like this impossible. We would be trying to qualify whether nation or excess patriotism featured in Obama's tone and this would make us imbeciles. That's not what fascism was, that's what European politics felt like.
    1
  132. ​ @renaissanceman9168  Fascism can't be an ideology if it is comprised by both fascist Italy and nazi Germany because these ideologies varied significantly.
    1
  133. ​ @musicaccount3340 Marxist communism calls for brutal dictatorship and the source of violence prescribed is centralized state monopoly on force.
    1
  134.  @renaissanceman9168  That's not a historical claim (John Lucacz). National socialism, fascism and communism were each separate philosophical approaches to political economy and each had their own philosophical traditions. Combining these is a pejorative approach. The transposition of German soil concepts on Italy is incompetent due to Italian unification being a new concept for Italians, moreover being comprised of irreconcilable ethnicities which would foil ethnic nationalism and did so in Italy. Fascism is the political economic philosophy of Mussolini and Gentile. It isn't emotions about nation. Propaganda does not inform us about what these governments technically were. Instead, fascism is an institutional design of state with, labor and enterprise interoperation and this is incompatible with communism and national socialism. Because this technical definition of fascism is not captured by the generalization in this video or in the emotions of blood and land, I see the generalization as incompetent.
    1
  135. ​ @paulbloemen7256 I agree with Mike here. Instead of this modern take where fascism is assessed through popular emotions of the period, a more competent analysis - the only competent analysis - is to treat national socialism and fascism as political economic philosophies of separate traditions and based on role of state and institutional design for economic regulation. If you do this, you can identify policy which is fascist and was fascist in these nations or on the present docket. This is actually the fear of politicians and why fascism has been taken from the technical frame Mussolini presented it with to the appeal to emotion and ad hitlerium fallacy promoted in this video (and by generally millennial leftist scholars). For example, the public mandate in US's AHA/Obamacare is classical fascism. The state applied its force for the enrichment of an economic sector which lobbied the state to make the case. This was presented through the deception that universal healthcare and universal mandate for individual pay to health insurance companies was the same. For example, Medicare for All of Sanders is socialism like the nazis and bolsheviks. Banning private pay for healthcare is presented as if like National Health Service in UK, whereas this is an obvious deception. There are no bans like this anywhere in Europe. Europe is not socialist. We defeated the nazis. An economy comprised of policy like this will present the emotional veneer this video's shallow analysis reads in nazi Germany and fascist Italy. It would be too late to use this emotional analysis because the fascism or nazism or bolshevism is already in place by the time it's palpable.
    1
  136.  @ryebread3417  You are an ignoramus. Marx directly associates dictatorship of the proles with communism in the one place he ever used dictatorship of the proles. Marx clearly prescribes state capitalism as early stage communism (Critique of the Gotha Program) and prescribes politburo dictatorship unequivocally (Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee).
    1
  137.  @t00bgazer  You've not read basic Marx, guy.
    1
  138. He talked about economy, almost exclusively. He was not a sincere, innumerate or important economist to the actual study of economies. He was one of the most influential to ever talk about economy.
    1
  139. The withering of the state is a utopian - impossible - conclusion to Marx's brutal state capitalism. There is no way that the standard Marx set for this could be achieved since it required fundamental changes in human nature in his view. This was simply a gaslighting device used in marxist lit to court anarchists and apologize for the statism Marx's socialist contemporaries accused him of.
    1
  140.  @BornTrespasser  I have plenty of room. Karl Marx wrote down his theory. I read it. You did not.
    1
  141.  @BornTrespasser  It's called reading, guy. Yes. I see no possible society where "labor is the primary want" is possible, plausible or measurable in any future.
    1
  142.  @BornTrespasser  Well Karl Marx didn't make that a requirement for his claim of statelessness to come about, however, it is just as impossible and improbable.
    1
  143. Especially refreshing that he's not droning on and on about greed like tankie videos.
    1
  144.  @dairallan  It's not hard to grasp. CIA is openly a spy agency. Frankfurt School is openly a hope that propaganda and social engineering by intellectuals could support nihilism of economics.
    1
  145.  @clem.3894  You propose that in early stage communism - "the socialist phase" - Marx prescribed a state controlled by workers and this is the opposite of what's proposed. Marx proposed a state informed by intellectuals who know the interests of workers and strictly no tolerance for workers' own ideation in their interest. The worker's councils affecting democracy in workplaces is the extent of democracy in Marx's proposal. Marx knew that your idea of any democratically steered state would result in steering towards social democracy and proposed institutional design to counteract democracy, not offer it: "The democrats will either work directly towards a federated republic, or at least, if they cannot avoid the one and indivisible republic they will attempt to paralyze the central government by granting the municipalities and provinces the greatest possible autonomy and independence. In opposition to this plan the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority."
    1
  146.  @clem.3894  "No, Marx was not arguing for democracy to be thrown away...he is specifically referring to the two potential paths that the democrats might pursue in shaping the state's political structure" Marx was against the democrats, genius, and called for dictatorship. Only a non-reader of Marx could possibly mistake the communists or the workers for "the democrats", their opposition. These passages resulted in the destruction of menshevism by the bolsheviks. The second option would be a "one and indivisible republic" (recognize that from the literal US national anthem?) That was not an option of the democrats, stupid. The very prior statement is the advocacy of the democrats for federated republic. This is Marx providing the counter strategy for "the workers" who pursue dictatorship with only worker council democracy. United States is a "federated republic", dumbo. US is an anti-marxist institutional design and not marxist, guy. This needs to be said? "He believed that within this unified republic, the workers should strive for the concentration of political power in the hands of the state authority SPECIFICALLY under a democracy of the proletariat." Bullshit. It is dictatorship of the proletariat and it is clear that the dictatorship was not to be of the prole's choosing nor guidance... "...it cannot under any circumstances be tolerated that each village, each town and each province may put up new obstacles in the way of revolutionary activity, which can only be developed with full efficiency from a central point..." "They should not let themselves be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the municipalities, self-government, etc." This is crystal clear in Address. Part 3 of Critique of the Gotha Program is dedicated to Marx's disdain for workers leading their state because of their desire for social democracy: "And particularly in the case of a toiling people which, through these demands that it puts to the state, expresses its full consciousness that it neither rules nor is ripe for ruling!" more from you: "You state that "Marx knew that your idea of any democratically steered state would result in steering towards social democracy", which is entirely laughable to me. No, "social democracy" isn't democratic just because it has "democracy" in the name." Well, social/liberal democracy is the only standard of democracy. Of course you people think it is fascism since Stalin said so, but fascism was actually a dictatorship like what Marx called for. Marx never claimed that his ideas were a democratic state and considered it a dictatorial state. Marx called for the politburo system where workers control their workplaces in minutia while they operate in general at the command of central planners. They strictly did not have any sectorial representatives at the philosophical level as Marx aimed for class representation. "The chief offense does not lie in having inscribed this specific nostrum in the program, but in taking, in general, a retrograde step from the standpoint of a class movement to that of a sectarian movement." More of your bollocks... "You go on to claim that "Marx proposed a state informed by intellectuals who know the interests of workers and strictly no tolerance for workers' own ideation in their interest"--he never did such a thing lol." Marx called for the central committee of a single party of workers to be led by a lifetime intellectual leader (himself and later Lenin, Stalin, Krushchiev, Mao, Kim, etc): "At the soonest possible moment after the overthrow of the present governments, the Central Committee will come to Germany and will immediately convene a Congress, submitting to it the necessary proposals for the centralization of the workers’ clubs under a directorate established at the movement’s center of operations. The speedy organization of at least provincial connections between the workers’ clubs is one of the prime requirements for the strengthening and development of the workers’ party" "...an independently organized party of the proletariat" Your claims again: "You seem to be butchering the theoretical framework of Marxism-Leninism, and specifically Lenin, which theorized the vanguard party leading the revolutionary movement. Lenin believed the working class, on its own, might not be able to develop a class consciousness and revolutionary leadership. Therefore, he thought that there should be a highly organized and disciplined party, composed of professional revolutionaries..." Tell me you have not read State and Revolution of Lenin without telling me you have not read State and Revolution of Lenin. I quote Marx to the effect of single party politburo above. In S&R, Lenin is sure to reference all of his theoretical basis in Marx's own writings. Marx is attributed politburo, above and the state capitalist political economy Lenin rolled out (per Critique of the Gotha Program, part 1)
    1
  147. ​ @clem.3894  Marx argues against democracy in plain words. Your interpretation of Marx as imprecise language requiring subjective interpretation is falsified by actually examining the political economic institution Marx designed for communism. Both in Address and in The Civil War in France, Marx describes productive democracy via worker's councils without primacy of these councils to the state. This is what DPRK presents as democracy and it is a strict implementation of what is described in Address. If it was true that Marx cannot be interpreted literally as he intended, the only disclosure of details concerning his communist society would not be strictly and solely advocacy for autocratic government in enough detail that we know the political institution design of it. Whereas, I may substantiate marxian political economy as a centralized authoritarian and totalitarian approach directly (dialectically juxtoposed) to liberal democracy, you cannot in your wildest dreams ever quote Marx in support of political democracy, whatsoever. You could not quote Marx advocating freedoms. You cannot quote Marx respecting the decesis of working class while I can quote him berating it. This idea that Marx left his writing up to misinterpretation begs the question which Marx you were reading. Shit is too repetitive, consistent and precise for misinterpretation.
    1
  148. ​ @Facerip Marxism is extreme because it calls for broad abrogation of human rights by authoritarian government. This is unwanted by any society, so marxism is extreme because a putsch of people who read Marx's extreme and heterodox views (mainly demagogy of economics) needs to be responsible for forcing it on society.
    1
  149.  @ryebread3417  You are full of shit. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" directly describes "the early stages"of marxist communism which Marx labeled interchangeably with "socialism" and defined as "society based on the common ownership of the means of production". Dictatorship of the proletariate is described in detail as the state capitalist political economy under a centrally controlled stare with no elected state officials. All of this is in parts 1 and 4 of Critique of the Gotha Program and Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee.
    1
  150. ​ @raymondhartmeijer9300  Wolff can't escape state autocracy. He just avoids commentary on it, being more passive with his aggression than Marx. For example, he is no innovator as to worker cooperative modes, he aims for the state to force businesses to operate in a unilateral worker coop mode of production which is based on idealism of Marx - that is Marx's suggested approach - versus the materialism of citizens - ie the liberal democracy which capitalist modes are universally based on.
    1
  151.  @raymondhartmeijer9300  We're not talking about referendum governments. We are discussing political ideologues who aim to force heterodox applications of democracy which are authoritarian. Democracy is not virtuous. Liberal democracy - democracy with the freedom of self determination through limits on state determination - is a virtue. Democracy without these limits as proposed by socialists is authoritarian. It is majority mandate. In rep democracies like Germany, it is 1 or 2 people making such a law, not public mandate at all. When I say Wolff can't escape the authoritarianism, but simply does not discuss it, you and these modern socialists are in the same spot. You propose an unethical role of state and Germany's legislation is no exception to that. It's a shade of gleichschaltung by the gleichschalters. Should I be impressed?
    1
  152.  @raymondhartmeijer9300  In Norway or United States or United Kingdom, the law would be illegal. Germany was most socialist and most organized under 3rd Reich. Under 3rd Reich, the party integrated workers who were party zealots on the boards of all Aktg as well.
    1
  153.  @raymondhartmeijer9300  They might not have a relationship, but they share authoritarian socialist role of state, targeting of large companies' board, collectivism of "workers" into presumed interests like having colleagues on the board... So what is that it substantiates the fact Wolff/socialists invariably offer authoritarianism to liberal democracy and merely don't lecture on that secret part which I pointed out is impossible for socialist philosophy to avoid. So what is that philosophy matters and 3rd Reich was authoritarian due to socialist/collectivist philosophy. Wolff's ideas will be authoritarian due to socialist philosophy, DPRK is authoritarian due to socialist philosophy.
    1
  154.  @raymondhartmeijer9300  It's political science which socialists cannot see. Others who studied it, like Wolff, are aware of the authoritarianism and don't talk about it, like I pointed out. Democracy is government and is an authoritarian institution in orthodox political science. It is merely mandated authority but is crudely guesses at interests that serve this majority and not even our input. A few hundred lawmakers debating what 1 or 2 came up with is not our input. Socialists generally lack any thought or education on this topic or they would reject ignorant heterodoxy on the application of democracy in the first place. In the case of Germany's policy, whether gleichschaltung 34 or 76, state authority determines how employees lead businesses - politicians' authority - rather than businesses and employees doing so autonomously - our input. Autonomy aka freedom aka self-determination is eliminated for government authority by gleichschaltung and other socialist policy. That's how authoritarianism is defined. It is juxtoposed directly to the pluralism of people to operate their lives and associate freely without politicians commanding us as to how.
    1
  155. ​ @g23emr38 In some places like Germany (which is named after a group of races and their language), nationalism and racism were the same thing. Patriotism is pride in your country. Nationalism implies this pride in nation, which in turn is a race reference in most context.
    1
  156. ​ @gorkyd7912 I agree with this. The emotions are irrelevant and were the result of propaganda, anyhow. These governments had no restriction to their powers and this was at issue.
    1
  157. But it's based on emotional charges and not a technical breakdown of fascist political economy. I'm sort of disappointed.
    1
  158. China abrogates the fundamental human rights of ore than 2 billion people. Marx, his ideas, China and their persistence in socialist political economy - are immoral. Unethical philosophy and role of state. China is a national socialist country which operates more like 3rd Reich than any marxist experiment like Russia. The improvement to the lives of Chinese is pathetic. The improvements to Taiwanese, Japanese and South Korean lives prove this in the region with less time and smaller initial industrial bases.
    1
  159. ​ @IDEASLXX  Socialism originated as a racist European collective and labor movement. See Strasbourg Pogrom for the impetus.
    1
  160.  @j_kobx  Socialism - all theories - are collectivist concerning controls on the means of production. This is a monopoly proposal which debunks your idea that socialism is opposed to monopoly. It proposes monopoly. "Monopoly capitalism" is not a political economic philosophy or theory of anybody's. Such terms are just criticisms of the noun like "crony capitalism". European countries are ordoliberal - perhaps the closest thing to monopoly capitalism. This is actually mercantilist states with capitalist economies. None are socialist as claimed.
    1
  161.  @fredwelf8650  No. You are full of shit. Marx describes state capitalism in 1867, before Lenin was born. (The Critique of the Gotha Program part 1) He clearly calls for dictatorship (CotGP pt4) and calls out the politburo government institution (Address to the Communist League) which Lenin (State and Revolution, NEP), Stalin and Krushchiev executed in Russia/USSR. Instead of supporting democracy, Address to the Communist League is dedicated to fighting democracy and installing government which had zero elected representatives. You are lazy and illiterate, so I will quote Marx unequivocally: "The democrats will either work directly towards a federated republic, or at least, if they cannot avoid the one and indivisible republic they will attempt to paralyze the central government by granting the municipalities and provinces the greatest possible autonomy and independence. In opposition to this plan the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority. They should not let themselves be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the municipalities, self-government, etc."
    1
  162.  @fredwelf8650  You are such an ignoramus. Marx designed state capitalism, not Lenin. It is in Critique of the Gotha Program part 1. Marx calls for dictatorship and Lenin and Stalin and Krushchiev followed Marx's script from Critique of the Gotha Program part 4. Marx designed politburo before Lenin's daddy was born. This is in his Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee. He is an anti-democrat for his entire career, spanning from national socialism in zur Judenfrage to Manifesto and Communist League to the Gotha and Erfurt programs. In each the communists/workers were opposed to the democrats, social democracy, liberal democracy and "free countries". My question is, why do you advocate for this bigot and present information which you never ever read from the man's works? Do you see how you have an opposite take than the truth (after reading the works above)? Shame on you for that. If you were like Lenin or Stalin, you would have read all of Marx - every drop. Lenin specifies Marx's inspiration for the soviet takeover of Russia and establishment of USSR in neighboring states in his State and Revolution)
    1
  163. Which philosophy of socialism emphasized popular control over government. All socialist theory calls for government control overthe populace - the brutal dictatorship you brought up. 100%
    1
  164.  @geoffreylang4474  This sounds like a conspiracy theory, guy. Name the author of books on socialist philosophy who ever in human history called for popular control of the state. This has nothing to do with conservatives and everything to do with the authoritarian basis of all socialist thought in history. All. FYI in conventional or orthodox approaches to political science, the proposals entailed in socialism are only possibly implemented by an authoritarian state. It is mechanically impossible for such narrow, irrational views to prevail in a liberal democracy. This is all easily proven through historical analysis. All of the philosophers of socialism I am familiar with have called for authoritarianism in writing - 100%. Present a name defying this. Eg Socialist fanboys like Orwell have criticized authoritarianism, but none have proposed how socialism and liberal democracy are compatible nor how a democratic institution could also mandate democratic workplaces in private enterprises or any other socialist proposal.
    1
  165.  @geoffreylang4474  How do you claim that socialism is defined in some lost ways which were lost in 2016 when Karl Marx wrote "co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production" in 1867 and all definitions in present day conform to those words, precisely?
    1
  166.  @geoffreylang4474  Name me the philosopher who wrote a book to inform definitions other than those which are readily available in modern dictionaries. Name of author; name of book/manuscript. For example, which philosopher of socialism developed a political institution which would allow popular control in the first place? The prevailing - only - socialist political institution design is politburo which Marx designed as a model for political dictatorship. Marx felt liberal democracy would unravel socialism, so did the soviets, so does United States. What makes you think differently?
    1
  167.  @geoffreylang4474  Explain how Marx's 1867 definition of socialism conforms to modern definitions in dictionaries which you claim were biased by conservatives following 2016. That claim strikes me as a conspiracy theory. Conservatism is not concerned about socialism since it is the most popular philosophy in the US at the moment and socialist philosophy is least popular. The difference in popularity is many orders of magnitude: hundreds of socialists, nationally; hundreds of millions of liberals and conservatives.
    1
  168.  @mamajuke6309  That is "employment", genius. If you talk in actual economics terms you say "profitable employers with employees" instead of your stupid 170 year old marxist demagogy.
    1
  169.  @lifecloud2  You can stfu and take Ls like you have been. If you don't learn, that's all there is for a degree and no argument.
    1
  170.  @SchmulKrieger  1. Whithering away of the state has a passive implication in the English translation,moreover Marx explains that material conditions afford the withering, like all Marxist theory. Your ideas as to what Marx meant by dictatorship are debunked by his certain claim that it is not liberal democracy like United States and is not "free" like the liberal standards which gave rise to US, Switzerland and prenapoleanic France. Marx claims that United States will still require revolution and dictatorship to follow the inevitable marxian path. This context is coupled with the claim of dictatorship, itself. We also know that Marx valued a highly centralized state apparatus without the localized autonomy and notions of self government which are baked in to the traditions of liberalism which preexisted Marx's lifetime and career. This is made clear with no deficiency in translation from Marx's Address by the Central Committee to the Communist League. I suggest appeals to ambiguity in translation are scams regarding Marx's work because his writing style did not leave the guesswork you imply is required. Marx is clearly engaged in a dialectic between the marxian centrally managed authoritarian state described in Communist League and Critique of the Gotha Program, juxtaposed against liberal democracy and social democracy which we have no problem clearly identifying by the examples he uses in CotGP and the tactics of "The Democrats" which were clearly advocating for the unambiguous notions of liberal democratic government. On the other hand, Marx directly contrasts the advent of social democracy in Germany/Austria with the agenda of the marxist workers to create an authoritarian state: "The democrats will either work directly towards a federated republic, or at least, if they cannot avoid the one and indivisible republic they will attempt to paralyze the central government by granting the municipalities and provinces the greatest possible autonomy and independence. In opposition to this plan the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority. They should not let themselves be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the municipalities, self-government, etc." Marx describes federated republican liberal democracy very clearly, then contrasts it with a very recognizable condition of state leadership being in charge of the populace in lieu of autonomy or popular control. To avoid any doubt as to why more informed readers of Marx than yourself have all recognized this crystal clear advocacy for dictatorship as we know the word to mean in German, Russian or English, Marx clearly describes the central committee's role in the state institution as the dictating assembly of his institutional design: "At the soonest possible moment after the overthrow of the present governments, the Central Committee will come to Germany and will immediately convene a Congress, submitting to it the necessary proposals for the centralization of the workers’ clubs under a directorate established at the movement’s center of operations." FYI, in any language, marxian democracy is limited to the workplace and the worker's councils he advocated for decades straight, encompassing his whole career. There is strictly no use of democracy within Marx's state institution design according to Marx's unequivocal words on the matter.
    1
  171.  @MrGoogleplecks  Sounds like the desperate claims of somebody who is out of their depth to point out even a single inaccuracy I have presented. How validating.
    1
  172.  @MrGoogleplecks  Do you understand that what you describe is 100% "employment" and that the contribution of Marx to the topic is purely name-calling? Marx calls "employment" "exploitation" and the simplest minds get emotional about it as he intended his mostly illiterate audience to do. For avoidance of any doubt that there is no substance in marxian theory on employment/exploitation, in his description of what his communist society would be like, he informs you people that surplus labor will still produce surplus value and it will still be taken to support society.
    1
  173.  @MrGoogleplecks  I didn't think so. Time and energy have nothing to do with it. You believe ignorant ideas about the world around you because you took the word of one of the worst philosophers to ever analyze it. Now when faced with facts, all you can do is project your own victimization by marxist propaganda. Propaganda is normative editorial like Marx's body of work, not facts like the real study of economics or sociology.
    1
  174.  @danielguzman6934  It must be an authoritarian state if it is socialist. Capitalism is the opposite of slavery - it is a system of wage labor exploitation - paid labor power versus unpaid labor power. This means the universal freedoms involved in capitalism - eg freedom of workers and employers to private assembly and commerce - must be banned by a socialist regime. This role of state takes human rights and justifies that government wields these instead of humans. This government can't be consented and is authoritarian/totalitarian for this reason.
    1
  175. The themes hurt themselves if they are presented objectively versus normatively. The theme of selected hyperbolic econ stats also hurts the credibility of your own case.
    1
  176.  @raymondhartmeijer9300  Marx's dialectic proposed that it is some natural process and this is clearly bullshit. Dialectic is a contrived way intellectuals may decide between two matters they selected to decide (Hegel). Marx presents the impossible case of natural dialectic (historical or dialectic materialism) and he does this so that he is not personally recognized as the Hegelian idealist driving his claim. It has zero philosophical basis (socratic or hegelian std) - conjecture, and easily debunked (for example, systems of economics have not been swapped out rigidly as proposed in the first place).
    1