Philosophy Now Forum

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 12:19 am Revolutions have to begin from the bottom up.

But American Leftists are rich (on a world scale, if not always in US terms) spoiled, privileged members of the bourgeois class. There is no "industrial prole" class of any size left. So again, Marx is wrong.

No more of these social Democrat shenanigans where some party seizes power, promises reform, and only ends up throwing the working classes a few more scraps.

Wow. Is that ever a perfect description of the last US election.

And conservatives ain't gonna let that happen without a fight.

Well, nobody can legitimately surrender their property rights. Locke showed that. Even if you try to, you're still responsible.

But I'm just aghast at the naivete that thinks that if we hand over our property to the government they will suddenly turn all nice, gentle, unselfish and thoughtful and give us all back what we think we deserve...

Can ANYBODY be that naive? Only by not knowing anything about how every government has operated in the past, or by not knowing any history at all, maybe..

Hard to say what'll happen, really.

If you want my bet, the Dems, the Davos Group and the other Leftists will keep pushing for worldwide power for themselves. The people's situation will get worse and worse, so long as they go along with it. But they'll keep being told that "it's all for your good...the common good...equity...justice..."

And if the Wokies win, God help us all...because nothing less will.

But you're still not answering. Tell me, how are you going to create a worker's paradise on some fraction of $10K per person per year...and much less, if you can't get the entire world and all the billionaires to buy in?

"But American Leftists are rich (on a world scale, if not always in US terms) spoiled, privileged members of the bourgeois class."

Because of the ambiguous nature of what it means to be a leftist, I'm only concerned with the interests of the working classes. A politician's party line means squat to me, as well as the petty bourgeois class you speak of.

"There is no "industrial prole" class of any size left. So again, Marx is wrong."

Of the almost seven billion people on the erf, three billion were employed (as of 2011). Today, sixty-one percent of people on the erf eligible to work are either employed or seeking employment. So again, Marx was right, and IC was wrong. Or are you still having trouble understanding what is meant by 'proletariat'?

"Well, nobody can legitimately surrender their property rights. Locke showed that. Even if you try to, you're still responsible."

What I meant wuz, constitutional amendments would need to be made before private ownership of business could be threatened or challenged. Currently the 4th and 14th amendment protects them. So, in the absence of an actual violent revolution to restructure society, the only other way to abolish private business would be to fuck with the constitution.

"But I'm just aghast at the naivete that thinks that if we hand over our property to the government they will suddenly turn all nice, gentle, unselfish and thoughtful and give us all back what we think we deserve..."

A non-problem in a genuine Marxist state, as the government would be the people. To catch a glimpse of how such a government might work, watch the 'future of socialism' video you watched 1.7 seconds of before you went back to watching Metallica videos.

"how are you going to create a worker's paradise on some fraction of $10K per person per year."

I have no idea, because I have no idea what a 'worker's paradise' is.

Is it anything like living Coolio's 'gangsta paradise', maybe?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 4:39 pm I'm only concerned with the interests of the working classes.

"Industrial working classes." That's what Marx believed in. And what the heck is the "erf"?

...in the absence of an actual violent revolution to restructure society, the only other way to abolish private business would be to fuck with the constitution.

Yeah, I'd worry about that. I wouldn't put it past them to think they have the wisdom to know how to do that.

"But I'm just aghast at the naivete that thinks that if we hand over our property to the government they will suddenly turn all nice, gentle, unselfish and thoughtful and give us all back what we think we deserve..."
....the government would be the people.

Oh, you poor, naive fellow.

That's never happened in history, as you yourself have pointed out.

"how are you going to create a worker's paradise on some fraction of $10K per person per year."

I have no idea, because I have no idea what a 'worker's paradise' is.

Well, do you know what "money" is? Do you know what mathematics are? Do you know what "cost of living" is? That's all you need.

"Industrial working classes." That's what Marx believed in. And what the heck is the "erf"?"

Wage workers. The focus and point of interest was on the industrial class of wage earner because the industrial revolution called for it. If you put Marx in a field out in Philippines somewhere, he'd be examining the nature of agrarian wage earners.

And the 'erf' is what I call the embarrassing and comical caricature of what could have been (had history turned out differently), that the planet earth presently is.

"That's never happened in history, as you yourself have pointed out."

Check and mate. Earlier you swore that Marxist societies HAD happened... now you are agreeing that they have not.

"Well, do you know what "money" is? Do you know what mathematics are? Do you know what "cost of living" is? That's all you need."

Keepin it real, I don't even remember what you were on about. Something about people in Minnesota would be making less than 10k a year if it were a Marxist state... or something like that? I mean there's a hunerd ways to handle a question like that, and it's a rather vague point I think. Like I don't even know what you are trying to imply. Perhaps you think you've identified some kind of problem that would only be exacerbated by a Marxist state?

I feel like Karl and I, those fuckin godless communists, have forced IC to leave his kingdom so as to not suffer the sight of the paltry abhorrence of our plebian ignobility.

I would now ax the citizens of the polis if to redeem myself I should go, voluntarily, into exile, or drink the hemlock, so that IC might return to his people.

What is ontically differrent about fifty legislators in session, a board of directors discussing investment, and a team of five jiffy lube employees deciding the best way to change a tire?

Not a gotdamn thing.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 8:32 pm I feel like Karl and I...

Karl knew no proles at all, except his housekeeper, whom he molested sexually. You're a rich, patronizing Westerner who thinks he knows what the proles need.

Birds of a feather? Perhaps in that way. But whereas his writing killed millions, yours is quite inert. So there, the comparison ends, I suppose.

You are spouting right-wing speculation as if it were historical fact, Manny!

Ever thought of checking your facts before taking a dump in everyone's breakfast? No, of course you haven't—you're a conservative.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 9:31 pm You are spouting right-wing speculation as if it were historical fact, Manny!

Go and read his biography.

He even sired a illegitimate child with the woman he molested.

Her name was Helene Demuth. His was Fred Demuth.

Check your facts. Google will do it for you.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 2:48 am

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 9:31 pm You are spouting right-wing speculation as if it were historical fact, Manny!

Go and read his biography.

He even sired a illegitimate child with the woman he molested.

Her name was Helene Demuth. His was Fred Demuth.

Check your facts. Google will do it for you.

Here is FURTHER EVIDENCE of just how BLIND FAITH can lead one completely and utterly ASTRAY.

What this one is SAYING here is; If 'it' is written in a particular book, or place, then 'it' IS true. Which is Truly laughable to watch and observe.

Marx had a housekkeeper. Her name was indeed Helene Demuth. She conceived Fred Demuth while in Marx’s employ, yes.

The rest is at best gossip (at worst, deliberate right wing smears). You’re too smart not to know the difference, Manny, and that is why I consider you to be dishonest. Philosophy requires total commitment to honesty. You do not belong here.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 2:22 pm Marx had a housekkeeper. Her name was indeed Helene Demuth. She conceived Fred Demuth while in Marx’s employ, yes. The rest is at best gossip (at worst, deliberate right wing smears).

Naive. But that's okay. I can't expect much understanding from somebody who's never even read Marx's bio -- just knee-jerk defensiveness, obviously.

Here's a lovely, Leftie source that will tell you exactly the same thing: https://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/14/opin ... x-hid.html

No, if you read one, you'll find out that Marx did the dirty deed alright...just as his ideology has powered the regimes that killed more people than any other in the history of the world.

Sometimes, naivete has a price, you see.

Marx had a housekeeper. Her name was indeed Helene Demuth. She conceived Fred Demuth while in Marx’s employ, yes.

Even supposing Werner Blumenberg is right to credit surviving copies of Louise Freyberger's lost 1898 letter as factual, which is a stretch, you still need to explain why you deduce sexual molestation from pregnancy.

Does all sexual intercourse amount to molestation in your view, or just when there's a leftie you want to smear?


Hint: that's a rhetorical question. There's no need to give your answer, Manny, because it won't be an honest one.