The first 60 years of the industrial revolution

a reply to: Isurrender73

Well unions really arent that much better. The unions actually worse working conditions than non union shops as far as on the job daily routine goes. They have a whole bunch of restrictive rules and nonsense in place.

When I'm working on non union jobs I can dresss however I want and do whatever I want as long as my production is enough and it always is

The only real benefits they have aew the pension which I personally don't want. They taken a good chunk of your paycheck for it and I can make more than what my return will be in currency and real estate anyway

The unions really arent that great. Also really what we need is a culture shift where people stop dehumanizing one anothee over small minded pettiness

I think this is the evolution of a society where the mythology of the society has been replaced by the productiveness of the society

We lost our way

a reply to: toysforadults

Modern Unions suck. However, the only way the worker is going to get a fare share is to organize and demand it somehow. I'm not in favor of anything that looks like the unions we have today.

I think the unions position should be only involved in pay. All other things like healthcare and retirement should be left up to the individual. But I do prefer single payer over any other form of healthcare.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I agree today's unions are tyrannical and offer no autonomy. The pay isnt even really higher they have actually lost all their leverage to the market

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Lumenari

It amazes me that anyone thinks anyone has ever tried any of Marx's ideals.

Many people have twisted Marx's concepts to sell their brand of fascism. You can call Fascism Socialism but that doesn't make it Socialism.

Marx said that people should not be forced to accept any of his ideas but that society as a whole would evolve to his ideas.

As long as It's forced by a group of elitists it is Facism. Marx was not a proponent of Facism. He was a proponent of everyone having an equal say.

Marx did not propose government ownership of anything. He believed in the will of the people.

Christ wept.

Marx stole the idea from Hegel and tweaked it a bit. The primary difference?

Marx applied dialectic to “justify” the proletarian revolution and radicalism. Hegel idealized the state through dialectical method and ultimately it culminated to fascism. Marx’s application of dialectic led to the proletarian revolution and establishment of communism. Marx had no interest in metaphysics.

So you are trying to tell me that nobody has tried communism?

What color is the sky in the world you live in?

ETA... I missed your last line where you are attempting to say that Marx believed in the will of the people.

You are so off base it isn't funny... it is actually a little scary.

Karl Marx's theory was all about changing the MINDS, the perception of the people through social engineering.

That was his whole point... that a few people could, through controlling the media and the government, change people's beliefs to the point that they adhered to a totalitarian (benevolent, of course!!) government.

You need to read "Capital", I think.

a reply to: Lumenari

An elite class forcing Communism is not Communism, it is Facism. This is not complicated. The government owning all production is Corporatization which is just a fancy term for Fascism, but it is not Communism. This is also not complicated.

Every philosopher believed that they could and should shape the world view by spreading their philosophy. How is Marx any different from any of the other philosophers of the last 4000 years?

If someone believes in their philosophy they have a duty to try to shape the minds of the masses. Marx was open about his philosophy. Freedom of Speech?

If I use my freedom of speech and stand in front of the world and they accept my brand of government what have I done wrong? If I force my brand of government on everyone I can call it whatever I want, but it is Facism.

Read his words. The people should dictate what Socialism is and when and if they move to Communism. Obviously there would have to be advocates leading the people, but ultimately Marx was not proposing forced conversion to his philosophy.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Lumenari

An elite class forcing Communism is not Communism. It is Facism. This is not complicated. The government owning all production is
Corporatization which is just a fancy term for Fascism. But it is not Communism. This is also not complicated.

Every philosopher believed that they could and should shape the world view by spreading their philosophy. How is Marx any different from any of the other philosophers of the last 4000 years?

If someone believes in their philosophy they have a duty to try to shape the minds of the masses. Marx was open about his philosophy. Freedom of speech anyone?

The truth that Marxism is Communism does not require your belief in it. That's not complicated at all.

Merriam Webster, on the Capitalized definition of Communism...

Definition of communism:

a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.

b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

So if you want to believe that Marxism is Leprechanocracy or Unicority, be my guest.

Still doesn't change the truth.

a reply to: Lumenari

Marx defined Socialism and Communism. I am not arguing that Marx was not a proponent of Communism. But the two are not the same. Marx claimed Socialism was a path to Communism but it doesn't have to be. He most certainly did believe Communism was best for mankind and he was not shy about it. But he was not for forcing Communism but rather was for pursading the masses of the benefits until they accepted it freely.

None of the nations who have claimed to be Communism were Communism as defined by Marx. The state headed by an elite class ruled everything. There is no elite leadership in Communism.

The same can be said about Socialism.

Why does everyone say Socialism and Communism failed when the only brand of government ever tried outside of the US and other similar democracies is Facism/Oligarchy/Monarchy/Dictatorship.

I could say the sky is purple but that doesn't make it purple.

Merriam Webster is wrong. There is no class in Marxes Communism.

Communism as defined by Russia, China and North Korea is what Merriam Webster is referring to, which is not the system that Marx was advocating.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Lumenari

Marx defined Socialism and Communism. I am not arguing that Marx was not a proponent of Communism. But the two are not the same. Marx claimed Socialism was a path to Communism but it doesn't have to be. He most certainly did believe Communism was best for mankind and he was not shy about it. But he was not for forcing Communism but rather was for pursading the masses of the benefits until they accepted it freely.

None of the nations who have claimed to be Communism were Communism as defined by Marx. The state headed by an elite class ruled everything. There is no elite leadership in Communism.

The same can be said about Socialism.

Why does everyone say Socialism and Communism failed when the only brand of government ever tried outside of tge US is Facism.

I could say the sky is purple but that doesn't make it purple.

Merriam Webster is wrong. There is no class in Marxes Communism.

OK... we can agree to just walk away from the conversation now.

You are quite wrong. Redefining a word does not make you right.

It makes you crazy.

Good night!

a reply to: Lumenari

Becasuse you are wrong have a nice read.

Karl Marx agreed with Louis Blanc in how labor and income should be managed: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." However, it seems clear from history that Adam Smith had the correct principle, which is that people work in their own self-interest.

Marx and Engels believed that there was a class struggle between the masses, which Marx referred to as the proletariat, who could only offer their labor, and the owners of the means of production, which included land, raw materials, tools and machines, and especially money. Karl Marx called these members of the ruling class the bourgeoisie. He believed that a political revolution was essential because the state was a central instrument of capitalist society, and since the bourgeoisie had a stranglehold on the government, it would, in many cases, be necessary to use force and violence to overthrow the capitalists.

Although Marx and Engels believed that property should belong to SOCIETY, they did not really give much thought to how economic decisions would be made.

Communist countries, particularly Russia and China, decided on a centrally planned economy (aka command economy). The centrally planned economy had the following major attributes:

The government owns all means of production, which is managed by employees of the state.

www.google.com...

Government ownership was Russia's and China's idea not Marx, which is what I tried to get you to understand. I am tired of these debates. At least I am always right.

I am not the one redefining words. I am simply stating that the words have taken on new meanings that were never given them by Marx and therefore are invalid definitions in my opinion.

It was the industrial age that transformed the United States from an agrarian nation to an urban nation. Among the greatest changes was the detachment of the people from their land to trade for jobs in the city as prices spiraled beyond their ability to keep up on their small holdings. It not only destroyed community but how the people view everything now as commodities.

Was a time when some things simply were not for sale. We preserved our land because we meant to hand it down to our children. When you rent it becomes meaningless. Pollution is somewhere else and some ONE else's problem. Things became disposable, relationships became disposable, people became disposable. Very few farmers are left and a tiny portion of the people actually own their land today.

What kind of spiritual life can be had without ever seeing the stars at night?

a reply to: Asktheanimals

We've lost our mythology as a culture. We have no sense of meaning outside of our bank account. We are a cog in a wheel. In today's culture your life has meaning based on how many dollars you produce.

In the past cultures had a mythology or spiritual sense that gave then meaning ans bonded communities together.

Now, enjoy your slavery. Work more hours son its what I had to do.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
We owe our extended lives to modern science. This whole debate has nothing to do with the OP.

And do you get 'modern science' when everyone is a subsistence dirt farmer?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No one has argued that everyone should be or eas a subsistence farmer.

That's called creating a straw man. You are debating a point no one else has made but you.

a reply to: toysforadults


I understand you're upset with your lot in life as a debt slave but those things are all tied together. Quality of life, the 'living conditions' the Original Poster mentioned, is tied directly to development. I know you don't like footnotes so you can ignore the ones here too.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You can't post or offer insight without condescending someone can you?

Thats indicative of your inability to separate individuals from ideas. This is a projection of your shadow. Due to your own inability to create separation between your own anecdotal experience and an idea you now project that lack of ability onto to others.

Your post above has nothing to do with what I said which was that no one has assert that everyone was a subsitence farmer.

That's your misinformed opinion. Which is normal for you.

Gotta get back to finishing the construction project I'm on. Good luck with your smug condescending low IQ point of view.

a reply to: toysforadults


Don't be jelly of my 65IQ, it got me far in life. The stats which you ignored spell it out, subsistence living lead to lower quality of life, i.e. 'living conditions' which isn't a measured statistic. You'd have known this if you'd done some clicking.

a reply to: [post=23588747]AugustusMasonicus[/pospe]

Whos making an argument for a subsistence living, can you quote the individual so I can read it?

There I spelled it out for you.

a reply to: toysforadults


Anyone who thinks the industrial revolution didn't lead to a higher living standard.

a reply to: Lumenari

Christ Wept. Cool..

I think your Wife is calling for you dude.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

This thread has NOTHING to do with saying they had better living conditions in pre industrialized civilization.

You need to step back from your narcissism and condescending attitude for a second and reread the OPs comments so you can understand what the OP is about.

Its going to be really hars for ya but I believe in you.