Teachers Flock to Northwestern University for 'Marxist Conference'

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Capitalism is an exploitative economic system based on property ownership.



I think the sad truth is that a lot of people accept this - and fantasize about one day being the one doing the exploiting.




posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


They threw him out of a journalist meeting that he was invited to for no reason.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by mark1167
 


Of course it doesn't work... or you could ask scandinavians...



Scandinavians are not marxist.

Nice try.

What about China,Cuba and the USSR.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


What do you think about stateless socialism?

Is it not better than statist socialism(marxist socialism).



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
That's the great thing about america....you can gather to promote whatever agenda you want to.
The religious gather to figure out how to instill religion onto our chilren, and the socialists get to gather to figure out hot to instill socialism onto our children.....
That's America, baby. Freedom of expression to whomever you want to express your beliefs to.
edit on 13-11-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-11-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I think anyone who supports socialism, marxism, or communism should be treated like the virus they are and eradicated.

They are a danger to the lives, liberties, and well being of others.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
I think anyone who supports socialism, marxism, or communism should be treated like the virus they are and eradicated.

They are a danger to the lives, liberties, and well being of others.

and I think the world would be a better place without people who want to "eradicate" others solely for their beliefs.
edit on 13-11-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

and I think the world would be a better place without people who want to "eradicate" others solely for their beliefs.
edit on 13-11-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


When their goal is to get their "beliefs" into public policy, they become a threat and deserve to be removed.

When those "beliefs" make their way into their teaching, that becomes indoctrination.

Would the world be worse off if people like those in the OP simply vanished? Of course not. Hell, it would probably be a benefit.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm

Originally posted by Ghost375

and I think the world would be a better place without people who want to "eradicate" others solely for their beliefs.
edit on 13-11-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


When their goal is to get their "beliefs" into public policy, they become a threat and deserve to be removed.

When those "beliefs" make their way into their teaching, that becomes indoctrination.

Are you talking about Creationists, or Marxists?

Christians do EXACTLY what the people in the OP are doing, EXACTLY.
People are ALLOWED to do that in America. There's no law against indoctrination, there's no law against brainwashing.

You don't like it, GTFO or have them change the laws. You don't start saying the world would be better off without those types of people.


edit on 13-11-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


The world would in fact be better off without creationists and marxists. They both believe in insane ideas that have no place in public policy.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trustfund
Socialism is the main enemy of TPTB. They would never want the worker to actually have full control over their own lives.

This is why when unions (a product of capitalism) were newly forming they murdered the workers.

If the right wing studied history, very few of them would still be on the right.


Perhaps some history would be of use. Stalin, Mao, Castro. Now, socialism in and of itself does not espouse totalitarianism, however as socialism does initially concentrate absolute power in a very small circle (someone has to lead the dictatorship of the proletariat) and provides a very fertile field for totalitarian results. As I mentioned earlier (and I notice no one bothered to read LOL) the problem with socialism and communism (yes they ARE two separate things much as a caterpillar and a butterfly are not identical) is that they both ignore how people actually behave in real life. Which is why a rule of laws, not a rule of men, is the only path that works fairly over long periods of time.
edit on 13-11-2012 by HabiruThorstein because: spelling
edit on 13-11-2012 by HabiruThorstein because: grammar



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Maybe some quotes from the "Masterpiece" books themselves might help.

Where in "the books" are the "transitions" explained ?

And how do the "transitions" begin ?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher

What you are saying makes no sense though. I think you are more obsessed with the names, kind of like someone saying it's not green it's chartreuse. Just look at that paragraph starting with the word communism and ending with Marxism, you're tripping over all these titles that are really meaningless. Throw them around if they make you happy but in the end its just empty rhetoric. Like telling your girlftriend or wife you are cooking her a special dinner and then bring out a plate with a boiled pea on it and expecting her to not notice the difference.


What are you talking about?

All I am doing is trying to explain the common myths of what socialism is are not true.

I am not tripping up over anything.

Socialism and communism are the same thing, I use them both depending on the discussion. Anarchists are socialists, so I mention them to try get people to see the reality of what socialism is.

The fact that anarchists are socialists completely blows away the argument of socialism being either social programs, or some kind of state ran authoritarian system.

If you can't follow along and get confused by the terms I am using, that is your lack of understanding not mine.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by UmbraSumus

I think the sad truth is that a lot of people accept this - and fantasize about one day being the one doing the exploiting.


Yes I think you are right.

It's simply the donkey trying to catch the carrot on the end of the stick. It's there, but mostly unreachable.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by ANOK
 


What do you think about stateless socialism?

Is it not better than statist socialism(marxist socialism).


I am not a Marxist, why do people keep thinking that?

Yes stateless socialism is the ideal. Marxism is not actually state-socialism either though. The Marxist state was a temporary period of a worker ran state, which is supposed to eventually dissolve once industry is moved from capitalist to socialist.

The goal of all the socialist movements, from Marxism to Anarchism, was the same thing, 'free association'.
The difference is in the method to achieve that goal, Marxism being a political path, Anarchism being a direct action path.

What is important is the final goal, worker ownership. We don't need to follow Marx, or anyone, to achieve that gaol. But people want to argue against that based on misinterpretations and lies, so I end up having to explain Marx in order to explain what socialism/communism is. You can't really discuss socialism without bringing up Marx, and other socialists.


In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.


Free association (communism and anarchism)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by ANOK
 


Maybe some quotes from the "Masterpiece" books themselves might help.

Where in "the books" are the "transitions" explained ?

And how do the "transitions" begin ?


You mean the 'transition period'. Why do want me to keep explaining Marx? We were discusing worker ownership I thought? You can buy the book yourself and find out all about it mate, and stop trying to pretend you know anything about it. Go read it, and then you come back and tell me I was right.

I am not a supporter of the Marxist transition period, I just explained what it was, and why people are confused.
So stop trying to get me to espouse Marxism.

“Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” K. Marx, From "Critique of the Gotha Program", 1875.

As I said the Commie Festo is not an explanation of communism. I even quoted what it says on the cover of my copy, did you read that? Do you just simply dismiss anything that doesn't fit your preconceived assumptions?

BTW "Critique of the Gotha Program" Is the book where Marx talks about what communism could look like. It's only 23 pages long, but is also filled with letters from people to Marx who failed to understand those 23 pages. Marx was even misunderstood by most people in his own lifetime, let alone a hundred odd years later.

edit on 11/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
So many posts by people who have no idea about living as an adult in the real world.
Basically if you have power those who have no power are your slaves.
If you have no power...you can choose between abject poverty or worse or working for the man.
Its not about labels..thats for ignorant university so called educated slaves.
Its about reality.
Reality.
Reality.
Reality.
Yes Reality.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Expired
 


But to understand the reality you have to understand these terms imo. If people don't understand what socialism is then they will simply keep believing what the state says it is. That makes you just as much a slave as working for the man.

An educated working class is a real threat to the 'man', that is why society has been conditioned to dismiss socialism and support capitalism, against their best interest.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
I have a question, or two, for all of you. If Europe is socialist then why do they have anti-capitalist protests?

Why do they have a labour movement and union if they are socialist? They wouldn't need them anymore.


'The executive committee of Athens Labour centre...decided to take part in the European demonstration on S26 in Prague, on the occasion of the IMF/World Bank conference. We decided to sponsor the demonstration by paying for buses and asking our member unions to have buses themselves to Prague... Our participation will be a step forward for the widening and strengthening of this campaign that gives the opportunity to the labour movement all around Europe to demonstrate there is a global resistance against the forces of capital. We hope all the trade unions in Europe will be present at this big mobilisation in order to make Prague the new Seattle.'


Issue 244 of SOCIALIST REVIEW Published September 2000 Copyright © Socialist Review

Pay attention to the source.

Actually on a couple of seconds reflection I realise that is probably a stupid question to ask


We'll see I guess.

edit on 11/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join