This is what's wrong with the news these days.

[Hammerskjold]

Are you familiar with metonymy?

-Jester

I think given his answer, it's clear that a brillig mind like his sees through your borscht-waaah question.

After all it takes a certain type of geniousity and the Truest of True Scotsman to realize just how porous the boundary between being literate and literal, is. Literally.

TL,DR:

Oh my just look at what time it is! (It's even rouge lit LCD...lawlzers)

[LennyLen]

While Rupert Murdoch is certainly no friend of mine, or of the working class in general, it is a great oversimplification to blame the problems of the media on a single individual.

Here in Australia, Rupert Murdoch IS the media. Which is why you have front page articles in national newspapers that are [his] opinion pieces.

What does Murdoch think about your new prime minister?

I'm not sure. I don't actually read/watch any media over here in general. I just saw some of the pre-election newspapers because they were everywhere.

I actually know little of the politics here. I'm not a citizen so am unable to vote.

[eppie]

While Rupert Murdoch is certainly no friend of mine, or of the working class in general, it is a great oversimplification to blame the problems of the media on a single individual.

Here in Australia, Rupert Murdoch IS the media. Which is why you have front page articles in national newspapers that are [his] opinion pieces.

What does Murdoch think about your new prime minister?

I'm not sure. I don't actually read/watch any media over here in general. I just saw some of the pre-election newspapers because they were everywhere.

I actually know little of the politics here. I'm not a citizen so am unable to vote.

My apologies...now that I remember...where you from New Zealand?

What I heard about is that this new prime minister is pretty right wing so I guess Murdoch would support him.

[LennyLen]

My apologies...now that I remember...where you from New Zealand?

Yes I am. I've been living here for two years since the Christchurch earthquakes took out my home and job.

What I heard about is that this new prime minister is pretty right wing so I guess Murdoch would support him.

He mostly just seems to be incompetent, from what I've heard about him.

[kandrathe]

Tony Abbot formerly worked as a journalist for The Australian. The first edition of The Australian was published by Rupert Murdoch. So, 1 degree of separation. Murdochracy?

[FireIceTalon]

While Rupert Murdoch is certainly no friend of mine, or of the working class in general, it is a great oversimplification to blame the problems of the media on a single individual.

Here in Australia, Rupert Murdoch IS the media. Which is why you have front page articles in national newspapers that are [his] opinion pieces.

Perhaps so, but it still doesn't make sense to blame him for the media, in general, being the way it is. The media is an institution within capitalist society to promote, well, capitalist ideals and values. RM's neoliberal ideology is simply the expression of those interests, and he happens to be in a position of power to make sure his ideas (or the ruling class ideas in general) remain on the table as the dominant idea(s) of society. But if it weren't him, it would be someone else (with the same values and ideology) - guaranteed. In some places, there maybe some quantitative differences in ideological expression through the media (like in the US, MSNBC vs. Fox News), but there is no qualitative difference: the agenda, is the same - the maintaining of the prevailing social order/status-quo.

I do not make it a point to agree very often with the likes of Herbert Spencer, who was an avid Social Darwinist. But if there was one thing he was right about, it was his critique of the Great Man Theory being a "hopelessly, childish, and unscientific view" of history and society. All persons, weak or powerful, are products of their social environment and are thus constrained by it.

I'm not defending Mr. Murdoch in any way, as I think he is a part of the problem, but he is not the fundamental problem. By default, his views will be the ruling views within society - because they have to be for the existing social order to continue. And these ideas are expressed through the ideological state apparatus of the capitalist system (media, education system, etc). Even if you look at this from a "rationalist, individual" level, given his objective class position, there would be no reason for him to promote ideas that are counter to his class interests. "The ruling ideas of every epoch in history are the ideas of the ruling class" (Marx, The German Ideology 1845).

[kandrathe]

... "The ruling ideas of every epoch in history are the ideas of the ruling class" (Marx, The German Ideology 1845).

You'd think that not every issue in this world needs be re-molded into the nail, thus necessitating the Marxist hammer.

In essence then, power naturally seeks to perpetuate itself. It is an obvious statement. and, "to the victors, go the spoils" -- corollary "and the aggrandizement in the history books". Which is another obvious statement.

In that Rupert Murdoch has built, owns, controls and perpetuates a dominant control over a significant amount of news around the world girds the statements that "He" may be the trouble with news reporting. Maybe his dominance is not the only one, but certainly important enough to be amongst the leading issues, if not the leading issue.

As a society in the US, we have acknowledged the issues of Capitalism run amok, about a hundred years ago (Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914). The regulation of that unrestrained power began in earnest just 7 years after Marx death.

The former leading Yugoslav communist, diplomat, author, Leo Mates, once remarked, "If we had had Sen. Sherman, we never would have needed Karl Marx."

You might look at abusive monarchs and say the problem is due to monarchy. Britain's answer was Parliamentary democracy. There are problems with unrestrained anything, which are dealt with by legal societal checks on that "unrestrained" power.

[FireIceTalon]

You'd think that not every issue in this world needs be re-molded into the nail, thus necessitating the Marxist hammer.

That's because any other way of looking at capitalism, outside of a Marxist lens, is one-dimensional at best. In my humble opinion anyway. I see flaws of mainstream analysis of capitalism everyday in my political science classes (I know u think my classes are promoting socialist ideologies and "indoctrinating" us with Marxism - but it is quite the opposite actually: they assume the student accepts a pro-capitalist framework and free market values). I'm not mad about that, and in fact, it is what I expected going in. But that doesn't change the fact that Marxism is the most empirical, comprehensive, objective, and most importantly, honest, way of studying the capitalist system and how it works - to date anyways. I don't say that because it is Marx who formulated the theory - cause it could have been anybody. But the truthisms within it are undeniable, however inconvenient they are to justification of bourgeois hegemony. Capitalists and right-wingers know this too, which is why they have gone to such great lengths to demonizing Marxism, vulgarizing it, misrepresenting it. They know it is truth, their fear and demonization of it, is confirmation of that. If there was little or no truth in it, they'd have nothing to fear, but very clearly they do

In that Rupert Murdoch has built, owns, controls and perpetuates a dominant control over a significant amount of news around the world girds the statements that "He" may be the trouble with news reporting. Maybe his dominance is not the only one, but certainly important enough to be amongst the leading issues, if not the leading issue.

RM is a symptom of material conditions though, not a cause (even if he certainly helps to reinforce the status quo). Do you really think if he had never been born, or somehow was removed from having control of many news outlets across the globe, that things would change? I don't see any reason why they would. And I'm not being pessimistic here, just acknowledging how the world really works. Capitalism, its corresponding institutions, and culture were the central issue long before RM was even a thought, and they still are today. RM obviously represents the most extreme and reactionary of neoliberal thought today, but at the end of the day it is necessary for the expression of ruling class ideas to dominate the media, otherwise capitalism goes caput (or is at least vulnerable to doing so). This is equally applicable to so-called more liberal media outlets like MSNBC, which is also dangerous for the fact that it provides an illusion of choice. It would be impossible for me for instance, even if I had the financial resources to do so, to start a Marxist news outlet as an alternative to liberal and conservative outlets. Even if I received enough funding to get it going (which in itself would be quite unlikely since corporations ain't gonna sponsor a Marxist ), it is unlikely I would be able to keep it going for any meaningful length of time - as I would most likely be shut down very quickly for the promotion of "radical" or "extremist" views that are against the interests of the entire social order. It would be like trying to promote Christianity or other western values through the media in say Afghanistan - it just ain't gonna happen.

As a society in the US, we have acknowledged the issues of Capitalism run amok, about a hundred years ago (Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914). The regulation of that unrestrained power began in earnest just 7 years after Marx death.

I tend to agree with The Impossibilists.

The state is an instrument of class rulership, thus such policies are not made to constrain capitalism. They are made to PRESERVE the social relationships that make up its composition. If that means busting monopolies, so be it. Capitalists may hate it because it hurts their short-term interests, but they get over it since it certainly protects their long-term ones. The welfare state and piecemeal reforms were capitalism's "answer" to Marx. Unfortunately, they fall miserably short - due to the inherent contradictions with the capitalist system, and the fact that reformism is designed to ultimately preserve the social order. And even if they weren't intended to do so, it hardly matters, since rollbacks as history has shown, can very easily occur. Which explains all the austerity that is taking place right now around the world. Piecemeal reforms do not advance the cause of socialism, and in fact, they only strengthen the capitalist system most of the time. Of course, if I were a social democrat or some type of utopian socialist, I would be ok with that. But I'm neither.

The former leading Yugoslav communist, diplomat, author, Leo Mates, once remarked, "If we had had Sen. Sherman, we never would have needed Karl Marx."

Sounds like more Great Man theories to me. But moreover, it's also a contradictory statement anyways, since Sen. Sherman was a bourgeois liberal politician that wanted reform policies to put a "happy face" on capitalism, where as Marx advocated a complete overhaul of the system. Given capitalism's history and the current material conditions, I'd say Mates' comment has been proven wrong, but moreover, it is useless.

You might look at abusive monarchs and say the problem is due to monarchy. Britain's answer was Parliamentary democracy. There are problems with unrestrained anything, which are dealt with by legal societal checks on that "unrestrained" power.

Capitalism is capitalism, unrestrained or highly regulated - it is the same drivel that liberals use when they try to push the false dichotomy of "good" capitalism and "crony" capitalism, lol. I don't buy it, and there is a good reason I don't - because it has proven to be exploitative regardless of how much it is regulated, or not. Reform policies and social welfare programs do not reconcile the antagonisms of capital and wage labor (both of which communists want to abolish), the extraction of surplus value from labor that results in unpaid labor time for the worker, falling rates of profit, etc. This is because they are inherent features of the capitalist system, that cannot be materially altered.

Are workers today better off than they were during Marx's time? Sure. But more to the point, it has nothing to do with capitalism becoming more humane over the years (because in reality, it hasn't), and everything to do with workers organizing and struggling for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. Without these struggles, capitalism would be the same otherwise. These struggles were small victories, and many of them are being rolled back now anyways....capitalists, on the other hand, are doing as well as they ever have, in some cases even better than ever while the rest of us get more austerity, financial insecurity, and debt. These material factors pretty much debunk the popular myths that "capitalism raises the standard of living for everyone" or "capitalism generates the most wealth for all" (nope, it generates the most wealth for those who own private capital - even though it is labor of the working class that produces all of said wealth).

[kandrathe]

You'd think that not every issue in this world needs be re-molded into the nail, thus necessitating the Marxist hammer.

That's because any other way of looking at capitalism, outside of a Marxist lens, is one-dimensional at best.

You have a strange definition of one dimensional. I think it is more akin to viewing every issue as an 1800's struggle of the proletariat shedding the yokes of their Capitalist masters.

I see it everyday in my political science classes (I know u think my classes are promoting socialist ideologies and "indoctrinating" us with Marxism - but it is quite the opposite actually: they assume the student accepts a pro-capitalist framework and free market values).

Well, the classroom, and the opinions of students or professors, is pretty far hike from "The Real World" where people work for a living and are responsible for raising families.

I'm not mad about that, and in fact, it is what I expected going in.

Instead, you are dismissive of the sheeple surrounding you, and your superior enlightened attitude is off putting at best. They couldn't possibly be aware of their indoctrination in the free market capitalist society into which they were born. Heaven forbid they ascribe to non-Marxist concepts like owning property, or free choice.

But that doesn't change the fact that Marxism is the most empirical, comprehensive, objective, and most importantly, honest, way of studying the capitalist system and how it works - to date anyways. I don't say that because it is Marx who formulated the theory - cause it could have been anybody.

Maybe a different great man. Or, perhaps due to its perfection, it was divinely inspired.

But the truthisms within it are undeniable, however inconvenient they are to justification of bourgeois hegemony.

Yes, V.I.K.I. Undeniable. I can see now. The Marxists must sometimes protect the society. Even against the will of that misguided society.

Capitalists and right-wingers know this too, which is why they have gone to such great lengths to demonizing Marxism, vulgarizing it, misrepresenting it. They know it is truth, their fear and demonization of it, is confirmation of that - if there was no or little truth in it, they'd have nothing to fear, but very clearly they do

Or, maybe they are correct, and just seek to point out a big steamy pile of crap when they see one lest an unsuspecting political science student step in it and get it all over their post-graduate potential.

RM is a symptom of material conditions though, not a cause (even if he certainly helps to reinforce the status quo). Do you really think if he had never been born, or somehow was removed from having control of many news outlets across the globe, that things would change? I don't see any reason why they would.

You've assumed a false premise, and presented a straw man argument. I've never suggested that removing him would change anything. Yes, it is probable that some other tycoon would fill the gap. What I said was that society acts, when it works correctly, to fix conditions where power is unchecked. Often, in order to get "the people" upset enough to act, they need some hard examples of why they must. So it was in the early 1900's with restraining capitalist monopolies. Do you think those powerful agencies fought against those changes to check their power?

It would be impossible for me for instance, even if I had the financial resources to do so, to start a Marxist news outlet as an alternative to liberal and conservative outlets. Even if I received enough funding to get it going (which in itself would be quite unlikely since corporations ain't gonna sponsor a Marxist ), it is unlikely I would be able to keep it going for any meaningful length of time - as I would most likely be shut down very quickly for the promotion of "radical" or "extremist" views that are against the interests of the entire social order. It would be like trying to promote Christianity or other western values through the media in say Afghanistan - it just ain't gonna happen.

Besides the fact that the very models upon which these organizations are based are anathema to the premises of Marxism. Advertising? Sponsors? Investors? What are you, Capitalists? No, the communist venue of choice is indoctrination at re-education camps.

I tend to agree with The Impossibilists.

So, then, a fringe of the political Marxist fringe. At some point, you become a party of one.

The state... Piecemeal reforms do not advance the cause of socialism, and in fact, they only strengthen the capitalist system most of the time.

In other words, the broken vessel cannot be repaired. You advocate a new vessel, but cannot describe what that looks like. But, you'll know it when you see it. And... it involves a revolution.

Sounds like more Great Man theories to me. But moreover, it's also a contradictory statement anyways, since Sen. Sherman was a bourgeois liberal politician that wanted reform policies to put a "happy face" on capitalism, where as Marx advocated a complete overhaul of the system. Given capitalism's history and the current material conditions, I'd say Mates' comment has been proven wrong, but moreover, it is useless.

Of course. It doesn't support your POV.

... even though it is labor of the working class that produces all of said wealth).

Ok, let us descend into the 1800's model of the Marxian worker mindset. What does labor do without a factory in which to work? What do they make without understanding demands, and supply? Anarchy is not a management strategy that yields an economy.

[FireIceTalon]

You have a strange definition of one dimensional. I think it is more akin to viewing every issue as an 1800's struggle of the proletariat shedding the yokes of their Capitalist masters.

So you deny that there is a class struggle in capitalism today (or at any point in capitalism's history for that matter), despite all the insurmountable evidence to the contrary? It isn't an "1800's" struggle, it is an on-going, observable, and contingent historical process. The class struggle is most definitely real......very, very real, in fact. The mere presence of wage labor and capital, and the presence of the State, and artificially constructed borders, is as much evidence of this struggle as the existence of life itself on this planet confirming the existence of the sun.

Every social issue in society has a class element to it. EVERY single one. Because that is how people are fundamentally divided, and have been for the better part of the last 10k or so years. Not by race, or nationality. Not by gender. Not by religion or culture. Not by sexual orientation. Not by fat or thin, or blonde or brunette. Not even by political ideology. But by class. That isn't one dimensional, that is just an observation of objective social phenomena. Sure, there is clearly oppression and social stratification of ethnic minorities, women, gays/transgender, or religious minorities - but they are the divisions of labor that have been socially constructed to further stratify the working class. You cannot talk about any social problem in society without understanding its intersection and relationship to class, or you get a incomplete view of the problem and how it is manifested. If you take racism for instance, I don't think any rational person will deny that racial barriers and discrimination exist. But to understand how this type of oppression operates in a society, a necessary understanding of its intersection with class struggle is crucial.

Instead, you are dismissive of the sheeple surrounding you, and your superior enlightened attitude is off putting at best. They couldn't possibly be aware of their indoctrination in the free market capitalist society into which they were born. Heaven forbid they ascribe to non-Marxist concepts like owning property, or free choice.

Just one problem: they don't own property, nor do they have free choice. Voting in who your next rulers will that will represent the interests of private capital for the next 4-5 years is not free choice, anymore than a absolute monarch appealing to divine right to rule over you is. The freedom to starve, is not free choice. The freedom to choose which capitalist will extract surplus value from your labor and turn it into a profit for himself is not free choice. Not being able to afford decent healthcare, and watching the health of those you love deteriorate because of the daily stresses of living under capitalism and not being able to afford to reverse it, IS NOT FUCKING FREE CHOICE (this last one resonates strongly with me, thus the extra emphasis). And you say I have strange definitions of things? What you call freedom, I call tyranny, and that is why you will NEVER catch me saluting those stars and stripes, which are the ultimate symbol of oppression. No patriotism in this boy here, and there never will be. Wage slavery is no better than chattel slavery.

And my views can hardly be off putting, since a majority of the time I keep them private in a classroom setting. If anyone would be the victim here, it would be me, since my views are the one that would be marginalized and "ganged up on", depending on the composition of the class. Last semester I had a class were I was able to articulate the Marxist viewpoint and the class and professor was receptive towards it (even if they didn't necessarily agree with it) - but I was comfortable in being able to express myself without being scorned or harassed. In my classes this semester, I can't read how they would react so I have generally kept my views under wraps for now. I've had classes in the past where it was clear I would be uncomfortable with being able to express my views.

Maybe a different great man. Or, perhaps due to its perfection, it was divinely inspired.

Sounds like a far better description of capitalism and its quack mythologies (such as the concept of the so-called "invisible hand" - buhahahaha), as described by capitalists.

Or, maybe they are correct, and just seek to point out a big steamy pile of crap when they see one lest an unsuspecting political science student step in it and get it all over their post-graduate potential.

This is a pretty childish response, not to mention one that has no merit as a genuine argument. You haven't yet, in any debate with me, past or present, been able to provide one shred of empirical or scientific evidence to disprove Marxism as a credible mode of analysis. Because the truth is, so long as capitalism is the prevailing system, Marxism is relevant. Almost every top classical economist or free-market intellectual has tried their hand at doing this, and none of them have succeeded, what makes you think you can? Again, if it were the "steaming pile of crap" you claim, it would have no credibility and the capitalists wouldn't have to continue to take such measures to demonize it - there would be no reason for them to. Much in the same way religious fundamentalists still try to deny that evolution is a real phenomena.

You've assumed a false premise, and presented a straw man argument. I've never suggested that removing him would change anything. Yes, it is probable that some other tycoon would fill the gap. What I said was that society acts, when it works correctly, to fix conditions where power is unchecked. Often, in order to get "the people" upset enough to act, they need some hard examples of why they must. So it was in the early 1900's with restraining capitalist monopolies. Do you think those powerful agencies fought against those changes to check their power?

All well and good. But you are speaking in a political context only. Sure you can provide checks and balances on a government, but for a media figure this is much tougher to do since they do not "officially" make any laws, even if they do an outstanding job of mind control and manipulating public opinions. You can change governments or regimes if they are inept (all of them are inept anyways since they are designed to serve the ruling class, but I am playing your game here for a moment), but cultural hegemony is a another animal entirely - since it is simply an abstract social phenomenon and not a tangible institution or individual. You can't vote out someone like RM because he isn't a government official, even if he effectively has as much or even more power than one.

Besides, your analysis makes no mention of class conflict, which is what is at the heart of all this. Constraining capitalism, as I mentioned before, only shrouds it in a happy face and at the very best, it is a band-aid. It doesn't remove the inherent exploitative social relations that makes it what it is. Wars, poverty/economic and social inequality, alienation, and the stratification of many identity groups within the working class, are permanent fixtures in the capitalist system. If Marxists thought reforming capitalism was good enough, well, we wouldn't be Marxists anymore - social democracy would suffice. Or if we thought that socialism could gradually be achieved through a bourgeois election process, again, we wouldn't be Marxists (or anarchists, for our anarchist friends out there), we would be utopian socialists. We disagree with both of these propositions, and as much as you'd like to deny it, I'd say history has done a pretty solid job of proving us right. This includes the fall of the fUSSR and its State Capitalist regime, which contrary to popular belief, didn't prove Marx wrong, but actually, in many ways, proved him RIGHT. All it did was prove that 'socialism in one country' (Stalinism) is not feasible (which most Marxists knew long before Stalin or even Lenin was ever a thought), and that Stalin used a vulgarized, dogmatic interpretation of Marxism to justify the material conditions of his rulership. But we don't point to Marxism as being the problem here any more (or less) than we do Darwinism for being used in unscientific and dogmatic social context to justify Hitler's racist ideology and the Holocaust. To do so in either case, is ahistorical, and very much intellectual dishonesty.

Besides the fact that the very models upon which these organizations are based are anathema to the premises of Marxism. Advertising? Sponsors? Investors? What are you, Capitalists? No, the communist venue of choice is indoctrination at re-education camps.

Obvious troll is obvious. The Cold War politics/Mcarthyism kool-aid tastes great to some still, I see?

So, then, a fringe of the political Marxist fringe. At some point, you become a party of one.

Do you have legitimate evidence to objectively quantify Impossibilism as being fringe within Marxist tendencies, or is this just another assumption that you pulled out of thin air? From what I can gather, it seems to overlap into a substantial amount (solid majority?) of them. They differentiate quantitatively - some feel that reforms are merely irrelevant in the long run, while others see them as directly bolstering the capitalist system, with everything in between. I personally tend to lean more toward the former since the latter is a much stronger and more cynical view, though it is at times, right.

And even if it is "fringe", I'm not sure how this invalidates it, since there is no scientific law that says any sort of "fringe politics" is automatically wrong or invalid. Oh wait, because it is "safe" by cultural norms, and logical to always take the middle road, right?

In other words, the broken vessel cannot be repaired. You advocate a new vessel, but cannot describe what that looks like. But, you'll know it when you see it. And... it involves a revolution.

Like so many people have in the past and still do, you make the same serious error over and over in presenting Marx as some 19th century Nostradamus whose goal was to predict the future - which very clearly was not his agenda. Nor is it how Marxism (a materialist interpretation of history, analysis of the development of human social relations, and the material conditions/productive forces of society shape this development) should be used. Any theoretical system (valid or not) used to predict the future is bound to fail in doing so, which is why Marxism doesn't concern itself to describing a future socialist society in great detail. He left that for the idealist, utopian socialists who thought some utopia was right around the corner, whereas Marx and Engels were interested in the system we live in NOW - capitalism, as being the key for understanding how socialism was a possibility, as well as why it should come about.

His goal was to understand the economic laws of capitalism and how the system works in the most comprehensive and scientific way possible, although Marxism as a system was developed after his death. It is also used as a system to create a scientific revolutionary programme based on the analysis of the capitalist system and its processes. By understanding the problems intrinsic to capitalism and what makes it objectionable to the interests of the proletarian, it is enough to create the building blocks for socialism, the anti-thesis to capitalism and wage labour. I would say it is pretty arguable that not only was an understanding of capitalism sufficient for building socialism, but that such an understanding could very well be a prerequisite.

In short, Marxism as a theoretical system is fine, and is not the problem. But your idealistic interpretation of it or what you think it should be, and thus your incompetence in understanding what it effectively is, is actually the problem. Not the theory itself.

Of course. It doesn't support your POV.

It has nothing to do with my PoV. If I were pro-capitalist, it wouldn't change that his statement is factually incorrect, and ultimately, irrelevant in a historical context. "If we have the Bible, we have no need of Darwin"....

Ok, let us descend into the 1800's model of the Marxian worker mindset. What does labor do without a factory in which to work? What do they make without understanding demands, and supply? Anarchy is not a management strategy that yields an economy.

So you assume a class conscious/educated proletarian doesn't understand economics or how to meet their own class interests, or that workers somehow need capitalists in order to survive? Gee willikers, by your logic, we ought to have become extinct long ago in that case - like, thousands of years ago. Yet here we are. Ironically, you are as elitist as Lenin ever was. Maybe more so. But....

Thankfully, we know for a cold hard fact that we don't need capitalists and bureaucrats in order for people to produce the things they need to survive, or for the people who make it run to be able to run it. Maybe in your 'Great Man theory' conception of the world, you need someone telling you when to clock in to work, how long to work, what to produce, how to produce it, what benefits you can have, what your wage will be, and that their ideas are the only legitimate ideas and should never be questioned because they know best....but that certainly isn't the case in the real world.

If anything, it is capitalism that has a lot of splainin' to do....it constantly over-produces commodities, mismanages peoples talents, misallocates resources (especially on the production useless luxury goods), and in general, it is a pretty wasteful system.... in addition to all its exploitation and contradictions.

Bottomline: Workers do not need capitalists to survive - in fact, it can be pretty easily argued that the capitalist class is a threat and detriment to our survival, and even if it isnt, it certainly is to our livelihood, and our dignity. Which is more than enough to justify their destruction as a class, and ultimately this signals the end of our class as well, which is what we want: a classless society. Their very position in society makes them parasitic, and if they all somehow magically disappeared tomorrow, believe me, the world would continue, and the rest of us would survive just fine without submitting ourselves to bourgeois idealism.

[Hammerskjold]

That's because any other way of looking at capitalism, outside of a Marxist lens, is one-dimensional at best.
.
.
.
.
.

And my views can hardly be off putting, since a majority of the time I keep them private in a classroom setting.

^
|
|

[Jester]

How surprising, that this argument comes up in yet another thread.

-Jester

[shoju]

How surprising, that this argument comes up in yet another thread.

-Jester

Not applicable in this situation.

[kandrathe]

...
You haven't yet, in any debate with me, past or present, been able to provide one shred of empirical or scientific evidence to disprove Marxism as a credible mode of analysis.
...

Not to your satisfaction. Which I would say is because you are 100% close minded on any other point of view. Now, I ask myself, "which is more productive, continuing this pointless discussion, or banging my head against the wall?"



Hey! I'm losing weight! Besides, I've totally sold out to the capitalist system. When your revolution comes, I should be the first of those up against the wall. Really.

[shoju]

[FireIceTalon]

We agree on something: It would be pointless to continue, since I can make the same argument that you are 100% closed minded to the Marxist viewpoint. You have been since day 1.

As far as you being the first to be "targeted" in any sort of revolution, all I can say to that is: don't flatter yourself.

[shoju]

Well, if we finally ALL FREAKING AGREE that it's senseless to keep



in every single thread can we just move on, and not have it brought it in the vast majority of threads? It kills a good conversation, and it's getting to the point where I want to start doing things like this:




Because damn... I'm burnt out on hearing the same thing over and over and over and over.

[FireIceTalon]

Well, if we finally ALL FREAKING AGREE that it's senseless to keep



in every single thread can we just move on, and not have it brought it in the vast majority of threads? It kills a good conversation, and it's getting to the point where I want to start doing things like this:




Because damn... I'm burnt out on hearing the same thing over and over and over and over.

translation: all viewpoints are welcome to the table in any political discussion (except the Marxist one).

[shoju]

NO.

Translation: Dude, Try some new material. It's not just that you are a marxist, it's that in EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THREAD You regurgitate the SAME SHIT It's like you are a cow with a favorite Cud, and you JUST CAN'T MOVE ON.

How many times can you say

That's because any other way of looking at capitalism, outside of a Marxist lens, is one-dimensional at best.

I swear, you have these little quips macro'd to your keyboard, and you just have to Alt in the code, and TADA! A NEW WAY TO SAY THAT FIT AND MARXISM IS TEH SOOPERIUH VIZUN.

Seriously. That's the basic jist of every damn thing you ever say. Different word, and sentence structure, but the same thing, every time.

EVERY TIME

Because seriously:

Who didn't see this coming when you started in the conversation? I sure as shit did.
And You really do just repeat the same things over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

This wasn't even about CAPITALISM to being with, but where the FUCK did we end up at, YET FUCKING AGAIN?!

KKKAPITALIZM, and how it's the worstest, and if we'd all just look at it this way, we'd have our blinders removed, no longer be lemmings, and puppets, and muppets, and blind sheep followers, and every other thing you have said over the years to try and make sure that you can make yourself feel good.

Well Congratulations.

You win!
You are TEH MARXIST SUHPREEM
And we all know it.

So stop derailing shit. God, I wouldn't mind your viewpoint, if you didn't just

"Bring it around town!"


To the same thing every time.

[FireIceTalon]

NO.

Translation: Dude, Try some new material. It's not just that you are a marxist, it's that in EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THREAD You regurgitate the SAME SHIT It's like you are a cow with a favorite Cud, and you JUST CAN'T MOVE ON.

How many times can you say

That's because any other way of looking at capitalism, outside of a Marxist lens, is one-dimensional at best.

I swear, you have these little quips macro'd to your keyboard, and you just have to Alt in the code, and TADA! A NEW WAY TO SAY THAT FIT AND MARXISM IS TEH SOOPERIUH VIZUN.

Seriously. That's the basic jist of every damn thing you ever say. Different word, and sentence structure, but the same thing, every time.

EVERY TIME

Because seriously:

Who didn't see this coming when you started in the conversation? I sure as shit did.
And You really do just repeat the same things over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

This wasn't even about CAPITALISM to being with, but where the FUCK did we end up at, YET FUCKING AGAIN?!

KKKAPITALIZM, and how it's the worstest, and if we'd all just look at it this way, we'd have our blinders removed, no longer be lemmings, and puppets, and muppets, and blind sheep followers, and every other thing you have said over the years to try and make sure that you can make yourself feel good.

Well Congratulations.

You win!
You are TEH MARXIST SUHPREEM
And we all know it.

So stop derailing shit. God, I wouldn't mind your viewpoint, if you didn't just

"Bring it around town!"


To the same thing every time.

translation: all viewpoints are welcome to the table in any political discussion (except the Marxist one).

"God, I wouldn't mind your viewpoint, if you didn't just

"Bring it around town!"

translation: you can have your viewpoint, as long as you keep it to yourself.

Ahhhh the irony. For as much as you cappies love free choice and liberty, you SURE AS HELL hate it when someone with a viewpoint that is inconvenient to your own, and suddenly have a change of heart