Nazismophobia, fascismophobia, communismophobia

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,241
#81
There's quantitatively more social mobility, general well-being and political stability in an industrialized capitalist society than an agrarian feudal one. Even Marx would agree with that.
Not what I said or asked.

Whats the justification for the massive privileges of the very rich, people and corporations who buy our governments and are generally unconstrained by the law. Like the Nobles before them they don't pay tax.Like the Nobles they day it's all for our benefit.
 
Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
#82
Marxism isn't about perpetual Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It is meant to be a transitory phase with the ultimate aim of communalisation of all property and wealth.
You don't create properties to be communal because that is a violation of the right to property and that makes it a perpetual authoritarian. Humans are not robots.
 
Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
#83
There can be no equality before the law were great economic difference exists.

Are you saying that billion dollar corporations and poor people with no cash reserves enjoy any sort of equality before the law?
Sure, the billion dollar corporation have lots of edge by hiring the best law firm, but still the poor man and the billionaire shall be in equal footing before the court of law. Ever heard of a law that states that the rich shall be advantageous in democratic courts of law?
 
Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
#84
Not what I said or asked.

Whats the justification for the massive privileges of the very rich, people and corporations who buy our governments and are generally unconstrained by the law. Like the Nobles before them they don't pay tax.Like the Nobles they day it's all for our benefit.
The nobles created your states and without them there would be no leaders and history gave them that perk.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,241
#85
Sure, the billion dollar corporation have lots of edge by hiring the best law firm, but still the poor man and the billionaire shall be in equal footing before the court of law. Ever heard of a law that states that the rich shall be advantageous in democratic courts of law?
Does it matter what the law states the result is the same. The very Rich people and corporations operate in completely different legal space. Bunch of corporate lawyers are just the modern equivalent of bunch of feudal thugs in amor with swords, they pillage society for the people who keep them in style there are accustomed.

When google decides to copy every book on the planet does copyright laws stop google?

When uber decides to ignore taxi industry regulations across the planet, does the law stop Uber in any way?

If you got enough money you simply don't pay tax.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,241
#86
The nobles created your states and without them there would be no leaders and history gave them that perk.
Did they nobles really contribute to society more than the people who grew the food the Nobles needed to eat. Wasn't all the wars and conflicts waged by Nobles just a giant waste of societies resources?
 
Jan 2016
1,637
India
#87
You don't create properties to be communal because that is a violation of the right to property and that makes it a perpetual authoritarian. Humans are not robots.
What kind of reasoning is this? How does communalisation of private property make a society authoritarian?
 
Aug 2010
16,202
Welsh Marches
#88
The question was about what Marx theorised and said. The poster I quoted claimed that the actions of authoritarian rulers like Stalin are a direct result of Marx's philosophy which is utterly false. In any case, such arguments as the one you have raised here are very hackneyed at this point and have been addressed already in the thread. The only variety of Marxism that happened to gain prominence worldwide was Stalinism which aims at having a centralised and authoritarian single-party rule in the first place. To say that just because USSR and it's followers became tyrannies Marxism as a political thought itself is bound to always produce tyrannies is ridiculous to say the least.
I prefer to judge by experience, which shows that whenever Marxism is imposed by any regime, it leads to centralisation of power which tends to increase over time rather than decrease. And the one thing that the experience of the last century has shown is that any political ideology with totalitarian tendencies (and Marxism certainly has such tendencies in the short run, whatever dreams it may put forward about the future) is extremely dangerous, gradual reform in which it is always possible to reverse decisions or alter course is by far the best approach. We really have to grow up and stop placing faith in pseudoscientific political ideologies.
 
Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
#89
What kind of reasoning is this? How does communalisation of private property make a society authoritarian?
The industrious should never be in commune with a lazy person in terms of propriety rights. The industrious must never share the property with someone who is stupid. No, that communal is awarding of the lazy. They should never profit from the labors of the industrious and the best.

Forcing the industrious to share the wealth that's accumulated by his industry is authoritarianism. You don't force anyone to give you his wealth. That is robbery.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
#90
Did they nobles really contribute to society more than the people who grew the food the Nobles needed to eat. Wasn't all the wars and conflicts waged by Nobles just a giant waste of societies resources?
Before the secular governments was invented the world government was monarchy. So there is no other choice but to give due credit to the leaders. A follower is never a leader.