Karl Marx 1848 Communist Manifesto

This is an Admin / Moderator NO GO ZONE. You're on your own.

Moderator: Team

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4247
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Karl Marx 1848 Communist Manifesto

Post by exhaustgases » Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:43 pm

And number 1 is to abolish private property, not to be confused with real property.
Now lets sing the song "Imagine no possessions"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfJ7XzywiWg
This shows a list of what all demoncrats strive for in the Marx manifesto, and should be the main topic in anti demoncrat political ads. Lets hammer this into the minds of the unsuspecting idiots that seem to love this new socialist crap.

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4247
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Karl Marx 1848 Communist Manifesto

Post by exhaustgases » Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:29 pm

Lets all sing the song together now. Imagine no possessions...............

Firedome8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4199
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:16 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Karl Marx 1848 Communist Manifesto

Post by Firedome8 » Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:46 pm

when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Sounds communist to me spoken by a true cult leader.

user-23911

Re: Karl Marx 1848 Communist Manifesto

Post by user-23911 » Sun Jul 22, 2018 5:26 pm

Karl Marx was a jew, as was Jesus.

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4247
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Karl Marx 1848 Communist Manifesto

Post by exhaustgases » Sun Jul 22, 2018 10:25 pm

Firedome8 wrote:
Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:46 pm
when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Sounds communist to me spoken by a true cult leader.
Again only his devote disciples can follow him to heaven. Jesus knew that HE / HIM was not a devote disciple and proved it to Him, and showed what a true devote person is going to do. Compared to the world of people its only a handful that is truly devote, and will give up all earthy everything to follow Jesus. All described the best I can in my words.

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4247
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Karl Marx 1848 Communist Manifesto

Post by exhaustgases » Sun Jul 22, 2018 10:26 pm

joe 90 wrote:
Sun Jul 22, 2018 5:26 pm
Karl Marx was a jew, as was Jesus.
In the book he says they are spread as the sands of the seas. There is no distinction between Jew and gentile. After Jesus times.

user-23911

Re: Karl Marx 1848 Communist Manifesto

Post by user-23911 » Mon Jul 23, 2018 1:40 am

exhaustgases wrote:
Sun Jul 22, 2018 10:26 pm


In the book he says

Who's version of which book?

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Karl Marx 1848 Communist Manifesto

Post by GRTfast » Mon Jul 23, 2018 6:40 am

exhaustgases wrote:
Sun Jul 22, 2018 10:25 pm
Firedome8 wrote:
Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:46 pm
when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Sounds communist to me spoken by a true cult leader.
Again only his devote disciples can follow him to heaven. Jesus knew that HE / HIM was not a devote disciple and proved it to Him, and showed what a true devote person is going to do. Compared to the world of people its only a handful that is truly devote, and will give up all earthy everything to follow Jesus. All described the best I can in my words.
Attachments
crazy eyes.PNG
crazy eyes.PNG (120.5 KiB) Viewed 475 times

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Karl Marx 1848 Communist Manifesto

Post by j-c-c » Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:51 am

exhaustgases wrote:
Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:43 pm
And number 1 is to abolish private property, not to be confused with real property.
Now lets sing the song "Imagine no possessions"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfJ7XzywiWg
This shows a list of what all demoncrats strive for in the Marx manifesto, and should be the main topic in anti demoncrat political ads. Lets hammer this into the minds of the unsuspecting idiots that seem to love this new socialist crap.
"Imagine no possessions"

So lets focus on this single simplistic idea to explain our resident "there is a communist under every bed" fellow member's statement.

1. There has never been a pure Communist system, and nor likely a pure capitalist system
2. Reason being, they are instituted always by man, and man has always been flawed, and quickly leans to individually self serving, by distorting the pure system.
3. If Communism can be defined here as "Imagine no possessions", then it is no leap to define Capitalism as the acquiring of possessions thru any means possible, until reaching the ultimate goal, no one has has any possessions, except one person having them all. ( in the recent movie, P Getty, "all the money in the World", the richest man in world history, at the time, is asked how much money does he need, "More")
4. How each of the goals above is achieved, the end result is somewhat similar, and the justifiable basis often is, the "ends justifies the means".
5. Depending which side of the curve one is on in owning "possessions", it usually indicates which system they favor.

Firedome8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4199
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:16 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Karl Marx 1848 Communist Manifesto

Post by Firedome8 » Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:04 am

j-c-c wrote:
Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:51 am
exhaustgases wrote:
Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:43 pm
And number 1 is to abolish private property, not to be confused with real property.
Now lets sing the song "Imagine no possessions"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfJ7XzywiWg
This shows a list of what all demoncrats strive for in the Marx manifesto, and should be the main topic in anti demoncrat political ads. Lets hammer this into the minds of the unsuspecting idiots that seem to love this new socialist crap.
"Imagine no possessions"

So lets focus on this single simplistic idea to explain our resident "there is a communist under every bed" fellow member's statement.

1. There has never been a pure Communist system, and nor likely a pure capitalist system
2. Reason being, they are instituted always by man, and man has always been flawed, and quickly leans to individually self serving, by distorting the pure system.
3. If Communism can be defined here as "Imagine no possessions", then it is no leap to define Capitalism as the acquiring of possessions thru any means possible, until reaching the ultimate goal, no one has has any possessions, except one person having them all. ( in the recent movie, P Getty, "all the money in the World", the richest man in world history, at the time, is asked how much money does he need, "More")
4. How each of the goals above is achieved, the end result is somewhat similar, and the justifiable basis often is, the "ends justifies the means".
5. Depending which side of the curve one is on in owning "possessions", it usually indicates which system they favor.
Possessions do not define a man...take rumplelieskn all the possessions in the world and still a liein POS.

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6644
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Karl Marx 1848 Communist Manifesto

Post by David Redszus » Mon Jul 23, 2018 11:28 am

1. There has never been a pure Communist system, and nor likely a pure capitalist system
We have seen several attempts at Communist systems. All have failed or are failing. What is a capitalist system? I have never heard of one. Do you mean free enterprise?
2. Reason being, they are instituted always by man, and man has always been flawed, and quickly leans to individually self serving, by distorting the pure system.
What makes you think the system itself was not fatally flawed? Only man can correct a fatally flawed system.
3. If Communism can be defined here as "Imagine no possessions", then it is no leap to define Capitalism as the acquiring of possessions thru any means possible, until reaching the ultimate goal, no one has has any possessions, except one person having them all.
Pure nonsense. Free enterprise incorporates competition which prevents the acquiring of excess possessions. Even if a man were to become very, very rich, what's wrong with that? What difference would it make?
4. How each of the goals above is achieved, the end result is somewhat similar, and the justifiable basis often is, the "ends justifies the means".
There is a very large difference between acquiring riches by providing goods and services that are in demand, compared to the use of force as an end to justify the means. Only command economies have used force to accomplish their objectives. Stalin had the army, not Rockefeller or Gates.
5. Depending which side of the curve one is on in owning "possessions", it usually indicates which system they favor.
Prior to private property, the world was in a rather poor and miserable state. The distribution of wealth to the masses resulted, not from government, but from the benefits of private property.

Econ 101 should be taught in third grade.

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Karl Marx 1848 Communist Manifesto

Post by j-c-c » Mon Jul 23, 2018 12:46 pm

David Redszus wrote:
Mon Jul 23, 2018 11:28 am
1. There has never been a pure Communist system, and nor likely a pure capitalist system
We have seen several attempts at Communist systems. All have failed or are failing. What is a capitalist system? I have never heard of one. Do you mean free enterprise?

We are talking about in this context the acquiring of possessions, ie capital.
2. Reason being, they are instituted always by man, and man has always been flawed, and quickly leans to individually self serving, by distorting the pure system.
What makes you think the system itself was not fatally flawed? Only man can correct a fatally flawed system.

Well people always referred to past failed examples as meaning it is flawed, and seldom mention man never implemented the system correctly/fully, which would lead to the suspicion man is the problem, not always the system. Counter with any proof you care to share.
3. If Communism can be defined here as "Imagine no possessions", then it is no leap to define Capitalism as the acquiring of possessions thru any means possible, until reaching the ultimate goal, no one has has any possessions, except one person having them all.
Pure nonsense. Free enterprise incorporates competition which prevents the acquiring of excess possessions. Even if a man were to become very, very rich, what's wrong with that? What difference would it make?

With that question, Obviously your reading comprehension, acknowledgement of monopolies, and the Getty example went over your head.
4. How each of the goals above is achieved, the end result is somewhat similar, and the justifiable basis often is, the "ends justifies the means".
There is a very large difference between acquiring riches by providing goods and services that are in demand, compared to the use of force as an end to justify the means. Only command economies have used force to accomplish their objectives. Stalin had the army, not Rockefeller or Gates.

Gaining wealth at the expenses of others misfortune, crony capitalism, etc, is not the proverbial earning your way and advancement thru effort and sweat.
5. Depending which side of the curve one is on in owning "possessions", it usually indicates which system they favor.
Prior to private property, the world was in a rather poor and miserable state. The distribution of wealth to the masses resulted, not from government, but from the benefits of private property.

I suspect you might find it hard to prove in earlier times the world was less content, less dependence on addictions, less suicides, etc, you appear to attach progress of mankind to the amount of material possessions,

Econ 101 should be taught in third grade.
As long as values are learned in 1st and 2nd.

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6644
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Karl Marx 1848 Communist Manifesto

Post by David Redszus » Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:29 pm

1. There has never been a pure Communist system, and nor likely a pure capitalist system
We have seen several attempts at Communist systems. All have failed or are failing. What is a capitalist system? I have never heard of one. Do you mean free enterprise?

We are talking about in this context the acquiring of possessions, ie capital.
To which I say: go for it. Acquire as much as you can.
2. Reason being, they are instituted always by man, and man has always been flawed, and quickly leans to individually self serving, by distorting the pure system.
What makes you think the system itself was not fatally flawed? Only man can correct a fatally flawed system.

Well people always referred to past failed examples as meaning it is flawed, and seldom mention man never implemented the system correctly/fully, which would lead to the suspicion man is the problem, not always the system. Counter with any proof you care to share.
History presents all the proof needed. Where is yours? Centralized systems, designed by man are always flawed. But only man can correct the problem, but not by doubling down on a failed system.
3. If Communism can be defined here as "Imagine no possessions", then it is no leap to define Capitalism as the acquiring of possessions thru any means possible, until reaching the ultimate goal, no one has has any possessions, except one person having them all.
Pure nonsense. Free enterprise incorporates competition which prevents the acquiring of excess possessions. Even if a man were to become very, very rich, what's wrong with that? What difference would it make?

With that question, Obviously your reading comprehension, acknowledgement of monopolies, and the Getty example went over your head.
My reading comprehension is very far above yours simply based on subject matter and understanding. Prove to me that a monopoly is always bad, that they last very long. The pursuit of a business monopoly should be the goal of every entrepeneur.
4. How each of the goals above is achieved, the end result is somewhat similar, and the justifiable basis often is, the "ends justifies the means".
There is a very large difference between acquiring riches by providing goods and services that are in demand, compared to the use of force as an end to justify the means. Only command economies have used force to accomplish their objectives. Stalin had the army, not Rockefeller or Gates.

Gaining wealth at the expenses of others misfortune, crony capitalism, etc, is not the proverbial earning your way and advancement thru effort and sweat.How would you know? Becoming wealthy does not result in others misfortune; they are unrelated (except for armed robbery and taxation). What do you know about effort and sweat; how does that lead to wealth?
5. Depending which side of the curve one is on in owning "possessions", it usually indicates which system they favor.
Prior to private property, the world was in a rather poor and miserable state. The distribution of wealth to the masses resulted, not from government, but from the benefits of private property.
I suspect you might find it hard to prove in earlier times the world was less content, less dependence on addictions, less suicides, etc, you appear to attach progress of mankind to the amount of material possession
s,
Well of course I do; possessions such as a roof overhead, transportation, a library full of books, a refrigerator full of food are all very worth while.
Drug addictions have been much higher in previous times in many parts of the world, and suicides are still lower than homicides. You observe the highest standard of living in the history of the world and try to find fault with it. Your diet must consist of eating the flyshit you pick out of pepper.

Econ 101 should be taught in third grade.
As long as values are learned in 1st and 2nd.
Where, and when and why do you think values are ever learned? Look at the pathetic Democrat lefty liberal loonies behavior and tell me what they have learned.

Go tell it on the mountain where you will find your utopia and bliss. The real world knows better.

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4247
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Karl Marx 1848 Communist Manifesto

Post by exhaustgases » Mon Jul 23, 2018 8:31 pm

So in the end do all you lovers of demoncrat isim wish to give up all your earthly possessions? Hmmm the more I think about it the more religious you people are than you thought.
Just keep playing the song over and over let it sink in.

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Karl Marx 1848 Communist Manifesto

Post by j-c-c » Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:30 pm

David Redszus wrote:
Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:29 pm
1. There has never been a pure Communist system, and nor likely a pure capitalist system
We have seen several attempts at Communist systems. All have failed or are failing. What is a capitalist system? I have never heard of one. Do you mean free enterprise?

We are talking about in this context the acquiring of possessions, ie capital.
To which I say: go for it. Acquire as much as you can.
2. Reason being, they are instituted always by man, and man has always been flawed, and quickly leans to individually self serving, by distorting the pure system.
What makes you think the system itself was not fatally flawed? Only man can correct a fatally flawed system.
I didn't say that, I said others implied its was, without any conclusive proof, Pay attention.

Well people always referred to past failed examples as meaning it is flawed, and seldom mention man never implemented the system correctly/fully, which would lead to the suspicion man is the problem, not always the system. Counter with any proof you care to share.
History presents all the proof needed. Where is yours? Centralized systems, designed by man are always flawed. But only man can correct the problem, but not by doubling down on a failed system.
Did I even say that? Jumping to conclusions
3. If Communism can be defined here as "Imagine no possessions", then it is no leap to define Capitalism as the acquiring of possessions thru any means possible, until reaching the ultimate goal, no one has has any possessions, except one person having them all.
Pure nonsense. Free enterprise incorporates competition which prevents the acquiring of excess possessions. Even if a man were to become very, very rich, what's wrong with that? What difference would it make?
When say "pure nonsense" on;y the stupid swallow that line. "Competition" awards mainly to the winner, everyone else is a loser. "winners" then acquire greater influence on rule making, and then acquire greater wealth, and so on.. The Very, Very rich at the expense of others by having excess influence, is inherently unfair. Like if I bought this website and banned you, because i have more money then you type of example.

With that question, Obviously your reading comprehension, acknowledgement of monopolies, and the Getty example went over your head.
My reading comprehension is very far above yours simply based on subject matter and understanding. Prove to me that a monopoly is always bad, that they last very long. The pursuit of a business monopoly should be the goal of every entrepeneur.

If you believe your reward was fairly earned, but often it is not, and in our system, a monopoly is almost always considered "bad", We have different values if you think every entrepaurs goal should be a monopoly
4. How each of the goals above is achieved, the end result is somewhat similar, and the justifiable basis often is, the "ends justifies the means".
There is a very large difference between acquiring riches by providing goods and services that are in demand, compared to the use of force as an end to justify the means. Only command economies have used force to accomplish their objectives. Stalin had the army, not Rockefeller or Gates.
Intellectual force is just as powerful and effective, and often by design operates without impunity under the umbrella of law, but with nearly the same result

Gaining wealth at the expenses of others misfortune, crony capitalism, etc, is not the proverbial earning your way and advancement thru effort and sweat.How would you know? Becoming wealthy does not result in others misfortune; they are unrelated (except for armed robbery and taxation). What do you know about effort and sweat; how does that lead to wealth?
I guess the recent price gouging increase with the long on the market Epipen would not ring a bell? I did not say becoming wealthy causes others misfortune, even though it often does, (slum landlords?), I said taking advantage of other's misfortunes is a common path to wealth. We also still disagree on your reading comprehension. My knowledge of sweat and effort is considerable.
5. Depending which side of the curve one is on in owning "possessions", it usually indicates which system they favor.
Prior to private property, the world was in a rather poor and miserable state. The distribution of wealth to the masses resulted, not from government, but from the benefits of private property.
Never said it was from the government, you are adding your own message there.
I suspect you might find it hard to prove in earlier times the world was less content, less dependence on addictions, less suicides, etc, you appear to attach progress of mankind to the amount of material possession
s,
Well of course I do; possessions such as a roof overhead, transportation, a library full of books, a refrigerator full of food are all very worth while.
Drug addictions have been much higher in previous times in many parts of the world, and suicides are still lower than homicides. You observe the highest standard of living in the history of the world and try to find fault with it. Your diet must consist of eating the flyshit you pick out of pepper.

Standard of living defined as happiness by those who strive for material possessions live in a rather shallow world. You appear to be in good company, but Sad

Econ 101 should be taught in third grade.
As long as values are learned in 1st and 2nd.
Where, and when and why do you think values are ever learned? Look at the pathetic Democrat lefty liberal loonies behavior and tell me what they have learned.

Go tell it on the mountain where you will find your utopia and bliss. The real world knows better.
If you have to ask where values are learned, you would not likely know them if they sat on your face.


Post Reply