New York City

[MikeNovack]

I'm quoting Marx. And if you think you know more about him, I'm more than happy to discuss it. I've got The Communist Manifesto and Das Kaptal right here, beside my computer.

So you don't think Marx and Engels know enough about Socialism to say that:

MARXISTS would would tell you that they are the only leftists (and even they are in factions). Do you understand what I am saying? You wouldn't accept my defining YOU according to Catholic teachings (likewise making a claim to the one true Christianity)

The left vision predates Marx, and non-Marxist left traditions persist. You have me in front of you telling you I am not a Marxist, heck, I'm not even a "material determinist" (I believe history CHAOTIC, material conditions determine only the bounds of what is possible (determine what will not happen, what is impossible) but not what among the possible will happen.

[Age]

Medicine and of course a pension (and all else) requires an earner who, in one way or another, pays for it. No earner, no moolah, and thus no service.

While I understand the concept of Universal Healthcare, it is really a question of having an economy to pay for it. And no matter what it must be paid for.

The question is really in how the money is obtained, isn’t it? How it is paid for.

Are you talking to any one in particular?

And, if the people in some countries can manage doing it very simply and easily, then why do the people in other countries find it so hard and/or complex to do?

[Age]

Comrades who are unsure about exactly what Socialism is may wish to inform themselves with Socialism For Das Beginners

Well that is but one definition.

Now, how many more definitions are there, exactly?

[Age]

Actually, Communism is utopian Socialism. So it's one sub-variety of the larger toxicity, but not the only version.

At the risk of upsetting Promethean75 (who I presume Marxist) I would like to explain to IC that he completely misunderstands socialism vs communism. To do that I will commit the no-no of using a utopian model << I do not know of a route to get there >>

But, if you ask "immanuel can" it believes, absolutely, that it does not completely misunderstand things, here, at all. In fact "Immanuel can" believes, absolutely, that if others do not agree with and accept "Immanuel can's" versions and definitions, then it is 'the other' who misunderstands. And, if you do not believe me, then just ask "Immanuel can".

IC, imagine a society where the PRIMARY unit is the "commune" a group of 50-200 individuals (a group size where all wouldknow each other PERSONALLY). These communes practice sharing under the "from each by ability to each by need". These communes relate to each other "in the market" except neighboring communes act more neighborly, likely to help each other out as needed. However many activities/projects are too big for groups of such size to undertake. For THESE, "enterprises" are organized with multiple communes taking a share of the venture (and participating in its governance. There might even be some so large that all (in the region, in the whole "state") are participating"in the venture".

Understand? When you see traditional leftists Marxists discuss "who owns the means of production" they are treating the relation "owns" as describing a material relation rather than a social relation (which exists or does not exist depending on what people believe).

But back to my utopian model. What would you call something like that, IC? If you say not (a form of) communism, WHY do you say that?

When the words, 'communism', and, 'socialism' are used in relation to commune, community, and, social, society, and/or a 'communal society', in relation to a 'socially communicating' animal, like the human being species is, then any form of 'these things', which is not in the best interest of all, equally, is obviously a deviant form of 'those words'.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Are you talking to any one in particular?

I believe I am talking to some people, I hope I am not just talking into the air. Are you implying that there is no “particular” person? Is there then a general person? An ur-person, a meta-person?! I sense you edging toward a mystery but I just cannot figure it out. What gives?

[Age]

Actually, Communism is utopian Socialism. So it's one sub-variety of the larger toxicity, but not the only version.

IC, imagine a society where the PRIMARY unit is the "commune"...etc.

I don't see a contradiction with what I said. You'll have to identify it, if you think there is one.

There have been a great number of things that you have not seen throughout this forum.

But, as I keep explaining, when on 'looks at' and 'sees' 'the world/things' from and through the perspective of beliefs and assumptions, then 'they' miss and/or misunderstand the actual Truth of things, which lays, here, before you all.

What I said was that Socialism, the broad category, includes the State or Big Government as permanent...and, as Marx said, Communism assumes the State will, so use Marx's terms, "wither away" when Socialism has been in place long enough, to be replaced by a communal society, allegedly.

Understand? When you see traditional leftists Marxists discuss "who owns the means of production" they are treating the relation "owns" as describing a material relation rather than a social relation.

That's actually not the case, and I can show it isn't.

You seem to be forgetting that the primary thing that gets "produced" when Socialists "seize the means of production" is not merely economic. It's man himself. Marxism is a human-engineering project. The economics are only instrumental.

LOL Now it is "marxism", which it talks about.

Would you like to just write each term separately, with your own definition for each term, and then proceed?

If no, then 'the way' you attempt to communicate, here, is obviously not working.

That will strike superficial followers of Marx as surprising. It's not an aspect of Marxism that gets talked about in one's local chapter of the Red Brigade. But remember that Marxism teaches that human beings are not born fully human; they're born "alienated from their humanity," which consists in their material relations, particularly economic and class ones.

Do "christians" believe human beings are born perfect, or imperfect as well?

But until they come into "Socialist consciousness," they remain alienated -- they are not truly and fully actualized as human.

Do "christians" believe that not until human beings are older and start believing in "christ", they remain alienated, and also not allowed into particular places, like 'heaven', for example?

Humans, then, are "constructed" from their "social relations," meaning that only Socialists get to count as human.

And, only "christians" get to go to heaven, correct?

You see this with Mao, for instance. For him, "the People" does not mean the Chinese, or even just the Han Chinese. It means only those who are committed to Socialism, and of a sort that Mao approved.

For "christians" 'people' are 'not worthy', and only those who accept and believe in "jesus" 'are worthy', correct?

To see from "the People's standpoint," in Maoism, is to think like a Chinese Socialist. And only Chinese Socialists can count as "the People," and hence can be fully human.

And, only those who believe in "jesus" can be counted as 'worthy' of being accepted into 'heaven', correct?

Human authenticity is made contingent upon one immersing one's thinking in "Socialist consciousness."

Human's 'worthiness' is made contingent upon one immersing one's thinking in "christianity", right?

The idea that human beings are "constructed by society," through their material relations, is essential to Marxism, and is at its core.

And, the idea that human beings are not born perfect, and must be 'born again', "christian", in order to be 'good', enough, to go to 'heaven', is an essential part of "christianity", itself, correct?

Essentially, Marxism is not an economic engineering project, but a human-engineering project performed through the manipulation of material means.

And, "christianity" works by manipulating the people, and/or masses, as well, right?

So society is key, for them.

Is not 'society' key, for all?

If any one thinks or believes, 'No', then go and live 'alone', and find out and see 'what happens, and occurs'.

The control of society must be absolute -- not for economic reasons exclusively, but ultimately, for human-engineering purposes. Man -- Socialist Mankind -- is the "product" at which Marxism aims, and for which it so happily murders all objectors.

And, obtaining as much money as can be is the 'product' of the religion "christianity", which happily rejects all but "christians".

So, there, really, is not that much of a 'difference', here.

[Age]

Why should such a model necessarily preclude some individuals living by themselves, in atomic families, etc.?

Well, there's no reason such a thing shouldn't be done, but Socialism will not stand for it, of course. The Socialist argument is that we can't have "real Socialism" or "successful Socialism" while any other form of arrangement is allowed to persist and compete with it. Socialism is a totalitarian doctrine.

LOL 'The 'socialist argument' is ...'.

"immanuel can" could not come across more closed, blind, and conniving here.

If Socialism were willing to advocate alternate arrangements and personal choice, then there'd be no need for Socialist propaganda, and Socialists would all simply be saying, "Hey, I happen to like Socialism, but if you want to be a 'capitalist' or libertarian or monarchist or republican, or whatever, you can just go right ahead and be that." But is that, in fact, what the advocates of Socialism ever say? Of course not. They insist that YOU, the exception-taker, the "counter-revolutionary," the "selfish one," the one who falls afoul of "social justice," are the root of all the problems Socialism is supposed to solve, and you must be eliminated -- if not by being forcibly merged with Socialism, then by way of confiscation, torture, gulags...

Why do you spend so much time fighting for greed, and selfishness, "immanuel can"?

Why is it you think 'this way of living' is the best and right way, in Life?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm saying you don't know enough about the various traditions of "leftism" to be saying what IS.

Here's the funny bit. I'm not saying what I think...

I'm quoting Marx. And if you think you know more about him, I'm more than happy to discuss it. I've got The Communist Manifesto and Das Kaptal right here, beside my computer.

So you don't think Marx and Engels know enough about Socialism to say that:

"The first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."

-- The Communist Manifesto

I take it you aren't in favor of the working class running society?

What place are you thinking of, where Socialism has produced that?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm quoting Marx. And if you think you know more about him, I'm more than happy to discuss it. I've got The Communist Manifesto and Das Kaptal right here, beside my computer.

So you don't think Marx and Engels know enough about Socialism to say that:

MARXISTS would would tell you that they are the only leftists (and even they are in factions). Do you understand what I am saying? You wouldn't accept my defining YOU according to Catholic teachings (likewise making a claim to the one true Christianity)

But again, I'm not. Marx and Engels are. And it's them you are claiming don't know what they're talking about.

[Age]

Does 'your attitude' include explaining what the 'actual problem' is, exactly, and then explaining what the 'actual route' to 'solving it' is, exactly?

If yes, then great, will you now do this?

Of course.

But, as can be clearly seen, you did not.

[Age]

Medicine and of course a pension (and all else) requires an earner who, in one way or another, pays for it. No earner, no moolah, and thus no service.

While I understand the concept of Universal Healthcare, it is really a question of having an economy to pay for it. And no matter what it must be paid for.

The question is really in how the money is obtained, isn’t it? How it is paid for.

Oddly enough, the question arises more often with respect to healthcare and less often with respect to military weapons.

What about fewer weapons and more healthy people?

Sounds like what every one really could, and would, like anyway.

USA is at close to $1 trillion in military spending. Far more than any other country.

[Gary Childress]

Here's the funny bit. I'm not saying what I think...

I'm quoting Marx. And if you think you know more about him, I'm more than happy to discuss it. I've got The Communist Manifesto and Das Kaptal right here, beside my computer.

So you don't think Marx and Engels know enough about Socialism to say that:

"The first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."

-- The Communist Manifesto

I take it you aren't in favor of the working class running society?

What place are you thinking of, where Socialism has produced that?

I don't know, according to you the only countries that have been socialist were places like Cambodia and the Soviet Union. There are no "socialist" countries in Europe. We should all be thankful to the wealthy for allowing us to earn our pittance. Maybe Jebus will take us to the promised land after we die where we can live it up in Heaven. That'll show them!

This world is a sick joke. Your God is a sick joke.

[Immanuel Can]

I take it you aren't in favor of the working class running society?

What place are you thinking of, where Socialism has produced that?

I don't know, according to you the only countries that have been socialist were places like Cambodia and the Soviet Union.

And China, and North Korea, and Bulgaria, and Zimbabwe, and Venezuela, and Cuba, and Congo, and Vietnam...and lots of other places.

None good. But that's the history of Socialism.

[Gary Childress]

What place are you thinking of, where Socialism has produced that?

I don't know, according to you the only countries that have been socialist were places like Cambodia and the Soviet Union.

And China, and North Korea, and Bulgaria, and Zimbabwe, and Venezuela, and Cuba, and Congo, and Vietnam...and lots of other places.

None good. But that's the history of Socialism.

Sounds like the sort of countries a God who drowns everyone would approve of. Hopefully, Europe will snap out of their stupor and usher in austerity programs soon. Don't want workers to get complacent. Capitalists can't profit off of complacency.

[Age]

That's not enough to justify calling a society "Socialist." Definitionally, a Socialist state must ...........

I'm saying you don't know enough about the various traditions of "leftism" to be saying what IS.

Here's the funny bit. I'm not saying what I think...

I'm quoting Marx.

And, exactly like just about every other written literature you human beings interpret differently, and on most occasions differently from what was actually meant, and/or intended.

you, "immanuel can", can quote from as many "authors", and/or from as many books at you like, including the bible if you want to, and you will get different interpretations from the ones you have.

And if you think you know more about him, I'm more than happy to discuss it.

LOL Now 'this one' thinks, or believes, that it knows more about particular 'people', and not just more about what 'they' said or wrote.

I've got The Communist Manifesto and Das Kaptal right here, beside my computer.

Great.

But, let 'us' not forget you may also have one copy of the bible, and, as 'we' all already know, how you read and interpret the bible is certainly not how others do. But, unlike you, others do not believe, absolutely, that their own interpretation is the one true and right version.

So you don't think Marx and Engels know enough about Socialism to say that:

"The first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."

-- The Communist Manifesto

Which means 'what', to you, exactly?

And, could what 'that' means, to you, be false, wrong, inaccurate, or Incorrect in any way at all? Or, are your own personal interpretations always exactly true, right, accurate, and/or correct, to you?