Please consider registering
Guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Philosophy
28 August 2019
7.12pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1908
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1521sp_Permalink sp_Print

QuarryMan said
The missing link here seems to be the vast amounts of company revenue which are devoted to the salary of the CEO. That money, redirected, could easily top up the paycheques of the workers without needing to raise prices or disadvantage consumers.

Basically, the hierarchical organisation of business with power concentrated right at the top (this is what Marx meant when he said "private ownership of the means of production") is unnecessary and screws everyone else over. 

  

Marx's philosophy as lovely as it sounds to you has always failed.......And many have died directly because of it. 

You really need to do your reading on this.

The following people thank Wigwam for this post:

Beatlebug
28 August 2019
9.19pm
Avatar
Ahhh Girl
sailing on a winedark open sea
Moderator

Moderators

Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 18607
Member Since:
20 August 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1522sp_Permalink sp_Print

I'm not here to take a side, just to converse.

UK employee-owned companies https://employeeownership.co.u.....50-report/

US employee-owned companies https://www.nceo.org/articles/.....ership-100

Are employee-owned companies Marxist? Or something else entirely?

The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:

QuarryMan
28 August 2019
9.36pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 9929
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1523sp_Permalink sp_Print

I would call them co-operatives, @Ahhh Girl.

"Marxist" (I dislike that term as it's loaded differently depending on the political culture someone has grown up in, along with where they situate themselves within that political culture) would be State ownership.

These are employees getting a share of the company, which incentivizes the employee to invest more in the company and its success because they are rewarded for that than they might if just waged employees.

In its way, it's comparable to the big banks paying bonuses to those in their investment wings.

The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:

QuarryMan

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

 

The Beatles Non-Canon Poll List

28 August 2019
11.16pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1908
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1524sp_Permalink sp_Print

Marxism isn't just a glossy book to adorn your coffee table or add 'right-on gravitas' to a bookshelf....It's not an experiment waiting in a test-tube to be started .

It's not an untried fantasy of wishful thoughts that's never been played out for real in real life.....With real life, 'life and death' consequences.

It's been tried........It always fails.

It fails because the world is made up of humans......Whatever the system humans will always seek status. 

 

 Capitalism is hierarchical and often unfair but it rewards hard work, determination, individuality and innovation.   

Check out the history for yourselves to see the rewards of the other systems. 

29 August 2019
7.43am
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 2756
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1525sp_Permalink sp_Print

Dark Overlord said

As great as that would be, i don't think that's what would happen. The CEO's are filthy rich and are the only ones who would profit off a $15 minimum wage since they're getting paid for the raised prices without having to pay their employees a penny more since most of them will either have hours cut or get laid off. And since most CEO's are rich capitalist pigs, they have no incentive or moral obligation to do so otherwise.

Didn't you say you were a libertarian? a-hard-days-night-john-6And yeah, I don't know how likely it is that CEOs would actually do this, but I believe that it would definitely make life better for the workers themselves. In this video, ex-entrepreneur Emerican Johnson says that while his company was struggling under the 2008 financial crash, his biggest regret was that he didn't share the company ownership with his workers, for a whole host of reasons. 

Wigwam said
Marxism isn't just a glossy book to adorn your coffee table or add 'right-on gravitas' to a bookshelf....It's not an experiment waiting in a test-tube to be started .

It's not an untried fantasy of wishful thoughts that's never been played out for real in real life.....With real life, 'life and death' consequences.

It's been tried........It always fails.

It fails because the world is made up of humans......Whatever the system humans will always seek status. 

Capitalism is hierarchical and often unfair but it rewards hard work, determination, individuality and innovation.   

Check out the history for yourselves to see the rewards of the other systems. 

  

This is what happens when you refuse to look at something with even the slightest degree of nuance. If you had read Marx, read his contemporaries and their objections to his thought, read the histories of governments influenced by Marx and read the contributions of their leaders to the literature and theory, I doubt you would hold such a black and white view of this.

If we look at Marx's ideas themselves and how they played out in reality there is a complexity that you don't seem willing to address. Marx's philosophy consists of three main parts: dialectical materialism, labour theory of value & surplus value and a theory of state & Revolution . Personally, I'm only a Marxist for the first two parts, because it is in the third part that he loses me: Marx thought that after the Revolution there should be a state run as the "dictatorship of a proletariat" to build socialism, by force if necessary (hence the state ownership of industry that RN referred to). Lenin's contribution was the idea of a 'revolutionary vanguard' to run this state in the name of the working classes, in the form of The Party. After this socialism was achieved, this state would then gradually 'wither away' leaving behind a stateless communist society. 

These ideas are nonsense to me, for quite a few reasons. The idea that a state could gradually disappear doesn't make any sense, I am always opposed to dictatorship and in practice any form of a 'revolutionary vanguard' serves the party bureaucracy, not the people. So I pretty much dismiss the whole of Marxism-Leninism, which is the doctrine upon which most 'Marxist' nations are built. But it's not the only option. Libertarian socialism/anarchism is what I would advocate for, and it makes a lot more sense, in my opinion. It's pretty much the worker-cooperative idea applied to whole communities of people who self-organise on a local level without the need for centralised government control. These ideas have been put into practice multiple times, such as in Spain in 1936/37 and they have actually worked pretty well. In Spain, for example, millions of workers and peasants voluntarily collectivised their farms, factories and offices (if you didn't want to collectivise, you weren't forced to like in Russia or China), and their production overall rocketed, and produced a far better quality of life. The book 'Anarchy Works' by Peter Gelderloos and the document 'An Anarchist FAQ' have some very interesting information on this. 

If you're going to talk about violence, then I'd remind you that violence is present in every single political system, whether implicit or explicit. Liberal capitalism is built on the back of slavery, colonialism and destruction of the environment, as well as countless wars fought around the globe in its interest. If anyone suggesting alternatives has to account for deaths in their name, then people advocating for the preservation of the current system should also do the same. 

As for capitalism's rewards for hard work, determination, individuality and innovation.. studies from institutions such as MIT have shown that the profit motive capitalism provides is insufficient and ineffective in these regards. Profits are shown to be an effective incentive only for simple, physical tasks. For any task requiring a higher level of cognitive ability, the best incentives are autonomy, mastery and purpose. Capitalism isn't great at providing any of these things.  

Aaanyway..... worker co-operatives aren't necessarily Marxist, nor would you have to abandon capitalism to introduce them. They *could* be used as a way to transition to an economy run in an anarchist fashion, but they don't have to. For people not willing to go as far as me, just consider the benefits of Bernie introducing measures to make it easier for workplace democracy along with reforms to healthcare and the criminal justice system. 

Tall, dark-haired QuarryMan likes basketball, music, and naturally, boys. He was a valuable participant on the track team. He is one of Freeport's great contributors to the recording world. As for the immediate future, QuarryMan has no plans, but will take life as it comes. 

Avatar courtesy of Beatlebug; signature courtesy of Mr Lou Reed

29 August 2019
10.32am
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1908
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Don't give me the slavery argument...Slavery has been around as long as humans have. It was the compassionate capitalism of the UK more than any other country that brought about its ending.......1/6th of Britain's GNP was devoted to it's forcible control...And the loans the UK took out then were only finally paid off this century.

Short on arguments the left typically rush to harp on about slavery..... to cast us all in the very worst of bad lights...... but conveniently never mention Britain's role in its demise......... 

 

As for Marx he saw the progression of civilisation  in the stages......Feudalism.....Capitalism.......Socialism.....and finally Communism.......'society perfected'

Implicit in this was that the perfect society can only be brought about by Revolution .......The forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions....'.Let the ruling classes tremble'.......This strain of thought justifies and glorifies violence.....

As for nuance....Communist leaders from Stalin to Mao and up to the present day have talked in nuances...... while the mountains of skulls grow behind them.

I've read enough about the Soviet Union to know that more than it's economic failures and the expansion and violence to its own citizens of the Red Army it was it's hostility to the married family and personal life that was so chilling....This is becoming 'observable in movements of the cultural left in the west'

I read recently that China has recently started to keep a scored index on its population's suitability as citizen.....Terrifying......

Capitalism may not be the best system there could be but it's foolish at best and criminal at worst to suggest that there is any merit that has been born out by history in the works of Comrade Marx.......

 

Quarryman said: 

As for capitalism's rewards for hard work, determination, individuality and innovation.. studies from institutions such as MIT have shown that the profit motive capitalism provides is insufficient and ineffective in these regards. Profits are shown to be an effective incentive only for simple, physical tasks. For any task requiring a higher level of cognitive ability, the best incentives are autonomy, mastery and purpose. Capitalism isn't great at providing any of these things.  

You really need to think that through.......

The Iron Curtain was built to keep people East of it in. 

 

Any way.....The Sinquefield Cup playoff is live fro Saint Louis .....Got to go.

29 August 2019
3.46pm
Avatar
Dark Overlord
Nowhere Land
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 4084
Member Since:
9 March 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1527sp_Permalink sp_Print

QuarryMan said
Didn't you say you were a libertarian?

I definitely am but that doesn't mean i won't criticize CEO's for hogging all the money.

Aaanyway..... worker co-operatives aren't necessarily Marxist, nor would you have to abandon capitalism to introduce them. They *could* be used as a way to transition to an economy run in an anarchist fashion, but they don't have to. For people not willing to go as far as me, just consider the benefits of Bernie introducing measures to make it easier for workplace democracy along with reforms to healthcare and the criminal justice system.  

It's kind of funny you say that because Bernie recently cut staffers' hours so he could pay his employees $15/hour without paying them a penny more.

Wigwam said
Capitalism may not be the best system there could be but it's foolish at best and criminal at worst to suggest that there is any merit that has been born out by history in the works of Comrade Marx.......

We could take elements of socialism and incorporate them into capitalism like Denmark. That way, we could have the benefits of Marxism without turning our country into another USSR or Venezuela.

The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:

Wigwam

If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.

29 August 2019
4.57pm
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 2756
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1528sp_Permalink sp_Print

Wigwam said
Don't give me the slavery argument...Slavery has been around as long as humans have. It was the compassionate capitalism of the UK more than any other country that brought about its ending.......1/6th of Britain's GNP was devoted to it's forcible control...And the loans the UK took out then were only finally paid off this century.

Short on arguments the left typically rush to harp on about slavery..... to cast us all in the very worst of bad lights...... but conveniently never mention Britain's role in its demise......... 

Are you serious? The UK's 'compassionate capitalism' wouldn't have had to end the Transatlantic slave trade if it hadn't, you know, started it in the first place... (along with Portugal and France; I believe it was Portugal who first kidnapped African people). Are you seriously expecting us to applaud the UK for that? It's like saying "actually, Hitler was a pretty good guy. After all, he did kill Hitler".  Ridding the world of an evil you created doesn't make you a saint, it makes you the bare minimum. 

As for Marx he saw the progression of civilisation  in the stages......Feudalism.....Capitalism.......Socialism.....and finally Communism.......'society perfected'

Implicit in this was that the perfect society can only be brought about by Revolution .......The forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions....'.Let the ruling classes tremble'.......This strain of thought justifies and glorifies violence.....

As for nuance....Communist leaders from Stalin to Mao and up to the present day have talked in nuances...... while the mountains of skulls grow behind them.

I've read enough about the Soviet Union to know that more than it's economic failures and the expansion and violence to its own citizens of the Red Army it was it's hostility to the married family and personal life that was so chilling....This is becoming 'observable in movements of the cultural left in the west'

Again, this is the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of Marx's works, which I explained pretty clearly I'm against. Attack ML's all you like, you haven't engaged with my points at all.

Quarryman said: 

As for capitalism's rewards for hard work, determination, individuality and innovation.. studies from institutions such as MIT have shown that the profit motive capitalism provides is insufficient and ineffective in these regards. Profits are shown to be an effective incentive only for simple, physical tasks. For any task requiring a higher level of cognitive ability, the best incentives are autonomy, mastery and purpose. Capitalism isn't great at providing any of these things.  

You really need to think that through.......

Do I? I cited an academic source for what I've said, do you take issue with their conclusions? I can link the study, if you like. 

Tall, dark-haired QuarryMan likes basketball, music, and naturally, boys. He was a valuable participant on the track team. He is one of Freeport's great contributors to the recording world. As for the immediate future, QuarryMan has no plans, but will take life as it comes. 

Avatar courtesy of Beatlebug; signature courtesy of Mr Lou Reed

29 August 2019
5.19pm
Avatar
Ahhh Girl
sailing on a winedark open sea
Moderator

Moderators

Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 18607
Member Since:
20 August 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1529sp_Permalink sp_Print

I'd like a link to the study.

29 August 2019
7.19pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1908
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1530sp_Permalink sp_Print

Dark Overlord said

QuarryMan said

Didn't you say you were a libertarian?

I definitely am but that doesn't mean i won't criticize CEO's for hogging all the money.

Aaanyway..... worker co-operatives aren't necessarily Marxist, nor would you have to abandon capitalism to introduce them. They *could* be used as a way to transition to an economy run in an anarchist fashion, but they don't have to. For people not willing to go as far as me, just consider the benefits of Bernie introducing measures to make it easier for workplace democracy along with reforms to healthcare and the criminal justice system.  

It's kind of funny you say that because Bernie recently cut staffers' hours so he could pay his employees $15/hour without paying them a penny more.

Wigwam said

Capitalism may not be the best system there could be but it's foolish at best and criminal at worst to suggest that there is any merit that has been born out by history in the works of Comrade Marx.......

We could take elements of socialism and incorporate them into capitalism like Denmark. That way, we could have the benefits of Marxism without turning our country into another USSR or Venezuela.

  

Agree strongly with you here Your royal Darkness ..... compassionate capitalism seems to me to do the least damage and the most good.........

29 August 2019
8.01pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1908
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

QuarryMan said

Wigwam said

Don't give me the slavery argument...Slavery has been around as long as humans have. It was the compassionate capitalism of the UK more than any other country that brought about its ending.......1/6th of Britain's GNP was devoted to it's forcible control...And the loans the UK took out then were only finally paid off this century.

Short on arguments the left typically rush to harp on about slavery..... to cast us all in the very worst of bad lights...... but conveniently never mention Britain's role in its demise......... 

Are you serious? The UK's 'compassionate capitalism' wouldn't have had to end the Transatlantic slave trade if it hadn't, you know, started it in the first place... (along with Portugal and France; I believe it was Portugal who first kidnapped African people). Are you seriously expecting us to applaud the UK for that? It's like saying "actually, Hitler was a pretty good guy. After all, he did kill Hitler".  Ridding the world of an evil you created doesn't make you a saint, it makes you the bare minimum. 

As for Marx he saw the progression of civilisation  in the stages......Feudalism.....Capitalism.......Socialism.....and finally Communism.......'society perfected'

Implicit in this was that the perfect society can only be brought about by Revolution .......The forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions....'.Let the ruling classes tremble'.......This strain of thought justifies and glorifies violence.....

As for nuance....Communist leaders from Stalin to Mao and up to the present day have talked in nuances...... while the mountains of skulls grow behind them.

I've read enough about the Soviet Union to know that more than it's economic failures and the expansion and violence to its own citizens of the Red Army it was it's hostility to the married family and personal life that was so chilling....This is becoming 'observable in movements of the cultural left in the west'

Again, this is the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of Marx's works, which I explained pretty clearly I'm against. Attack ML's all you like, you haven't engaged with my points at all.

Quarryman said: 

As for capitalism's rewards for hard work, determination, individuality and innovation.. studies from institutions such as MIT have shown that the profit motive capitalism provides is insufficient and ineffective in these regards. Profits are shown to be an effective incentive only for simple, physical tasks. For any task requiring a higher level of cognitive ability, the best incentives are autonomy, mastery and purpose. Capitalism isn't great at providing any of these things.  

You really need to think that through.......

Do I? I cited an academic source for what I've said, do you take issue with their conclusions? I can link the study, if you like. 

  

Slavery didn't begin with the Portuguese or the British...Though I can see how you might think so......

Any cursory search on Google such as 'When did slavery begin?' takes you mysteriously to summaries that begin that way and always relate directly to the US slave trade.....As though slavery wasn't an established practice throughout the world predating the wearing of 'wode' in the British Isles. It is only for the British and Americans to bear responsibility...It suggests slavery began with them...It didn't...You do know that!?

'White guilt' which I don't have any time for.....(I don't believe in racial guilt)  is always the left's objective and the truth of the matter is completely ignored because it wouldn't serve that purpose...

Yes.... I do expect you to recognise that slavery has always been a blight on humanity, that not a single slave would have left Africa without the active cooperation of Africans..And to applaud loudly or at the very least give some credit to the only country in history that expended its blood and treasure to bring about its end.......Although I should mention the US did contribute too 'later in the day' 

As for the Hitler comparison? (A National Socialist by-the-way).....It does you no favours and the less said the better.  

 

Back to the failures of Marxism.......

It's often claimed by 'Marxists' that other Marxists or leaders that use Marxist doctrines used the wrong type of Marxism and that it wasn't pure Marxism....Ergo the failures and the deaths can't be attributed to Marx.....

Whether that claim is right or wrong borders on belief either way.....I just go by the history.

Despite the inequalities and its many faults Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any other system in history......Fact.

Cheers

30 August 2019
3.40am
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 2756
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1532sp_Permalink sp_Print

Oh dear. If you read my last response, you'll see that I specified I was talking about the Transatlantic slave trade, which was started by the Portuguese and intensified with the involvement of other European countries, primarily us Brits, who apparently deserve a gold medal for realising several hundred years later that forcibly kidnapping millions of people and shipping them across the ocean to work in appalling conditions wasn't the most morally defensible thing to do. The UK doesn't even really deserve that defence anyway, since it had lost much of its profitability by 1833 regardless, so it was in the UK's interests to move away from it even without all the work of the abolitionists. 

Anyways, the older examples of slavery aren't related to capitalism because they existed pre-industrial Revolution . The development of capitalism was directly tied to this slave trade, because it helped finance the industrial Revolution in the UK and elsewhere (in the UK, it wasn't so much a contributor to the industrial Revolution as colonialism in Africa was, but the two are directly related for obvious reasons). In the US for example, historians often downplay the role of slavery in the nation's early prosperity that established it as a great power, but more than half of its exports before the 1860s were cotton, the vast majority of which was grown in slave plantations. 

If Hitler was a socialist because it was in the name, then the Democratic Republic of North Korea is a democracy. In reality, that name was chosen very early on to attract working class people, but the socialist faction in the party (The Strasserists) were purged during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934. Socialism in its simplest form simply means public or worker's control of the means of production, which isn't the same thing as state control. In Nazi Germany, Hitler actually privatised large amounts of industry (the term privatisation was coined to describe his policies), consolidating them with state power in a military-industrial complex. 

Nowhere have I claimed that the failures and deaths of past regimes can't be attributed to Marx - you can justify dictatorship from his writings, and that was most likely a considered factor in the makeup of the states inspired by his works, who mostly were controlled by small groups of extremely powerful individuals. For that, I am as critical of Marx as you are. The difference is that you just switch off at even the mention of the term, assuming that Marxism-Leninism is the only possible way to interpret his writings, when there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. 

The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:

Tony Japanese, ScarlettFieldsForever

Tall, dark-haired QuarryMan likes basketball, music, and naturally, boys. He was a valuable participant on the track team. He is one of Freeport's great contributors to the recording world. As for the immediate future, QuarryMan has no plans, but will take life as it comes. 

Avatar courtesy of Beatlebug; signature courtesy of Mr Lou Reed

30 August 2019
5.51am
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1908
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

QuarryMan said
Oh dear. If you read my last response, you'll see that I specified I was talking about the Transatlantic slave trade, which was started by the Portuguese and intensified with the involvement of other European countries, primarily us Brits, who apparently deserve a gold medal for realising several hundred years later that forcibly kidnapping millions of people and shipping them across the ocean to work in appalling conditions wasn't the most morally defensible thing to do. The UK doesn't even really deserve that defence anyway, since it had lost much of its profitability by 1833 regardless, so it was in the UK's interests to move away from it even without all the work of the abolitionists. 

Anyways, the older examples of slavery aren't related to capitalism because they existed pre-industrial Revolution . The development of capitalism was directly tied to this slave trade, because it helped finance the industrial Revolution in the UK and elsewhere (in the UK, it wasn't so much a contributor to the industrial Revolution as colonialism in Africa was, but the two are directly related for obvious reasons). In the US for example, historians often downplay the role of slavery in the nation's early prosperity that established it as a great power, but more than half of its exports before the 1860s were cotton, the vast majority of which was grown in slave plantations. 

If Hitler was a socialist because it was in the name, then the Democratic Republic of North Korea is a democracy. In reality, that name was chosen very early on to attract working class people, but the socialist faction in the party (The Strasserists) were purged during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934. Socialism in its simplest form simply means public or worker's control of the means of production, which isn't the same thing as state control. In Nazi Germany, Hitler actually privatised large amounts of industry (the term privatisation was coined to describe his policies), consolidating them with state power in a military-industrial complex. 

Nowhere have I claimed that the failures and deaths of past regimes can't be attributed to Marx - you can justify dictatorship from his writings, and that was most likely a considered factor in the makeup of the states inspired by his works, who mostly were controlled by small groups of extremely powerful individuals. For that, I am as critical of Marx as you are. The difference is that you just switch off at even the mention of the term, assuming that Marxism-Leninism is the only possible way to interpret his writings, when there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. 

  

1.Yes you were referring selectively to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade but in doing so you ignored the much longer history of slavery and acceptance over centuries of the reality of slavery.

Check out white slavery and the Corsairs......Perhaps Europeans should claim reparations from the Ottomans 

2. I partially agree some of the profit from slavery had been reduced......But a good deal of the cost of ending the slave trade to the US and the Caribbean was the cost of compensation to slave 'dealers' for their losses. 

3.That you continues to churlishly refuse to give the only country that decided the slave trade was immoral and set about stopping it; at enormous cost to its exchequer and diverting it's fleet during times of war ........is for your conscience to balance.

4.If capitalism was directly the cause of slavery then capitalism has existed as long as slavery has and it hasn't.......But perhaps it's worth noting it was a capitalist country that put an end to it.

5. If Britain's and the US' wealth was due to slavery why isn't Brazil, who imported 4 times as many slaves 4 times as wealthy?...And why is it that the two main countries that put an end to slavery are held in such contempt while Brazil's record never gets a mention??

6. Your Hitler reference sounds like a cut-and-paste to me and should really be in quotation marks.......But you're right in that Hitler was a socialist in name only.......However, like Mussolini's fascist party both was was born out of socialism.....Not from right wing politics......That's often forgotten or conveniently ignored.

The National Socialist party was spawned by the terrible conditions imposed on Germany's population, mostly by France after WWI......The unrest and discontent that stemmed from these impositions particularly coal shortages was used by Hitler to build his power and influence. 

7. Many have interpreted Marx...... not least Lenin who as an agent of Imperial Germany violently put down the first Russian Revolution in 1917 in admittedly an almost bloodless putsch but led on directly on to a sea of blood, secret police repression and internment camps....The Revolution of 1917 had ironically been  designed at turning  Russia for the first time by a fair election into a liberal democracy........The dead hand of socialist Lenin suppressed the results and brutally clamped down on the population......bastard!

 

I take you argument that maybe Marx's words lend themselves to being twisted ....(like religions are).....but a large number of socialist by name leaders that have invoked the name of Marx ......And the results are ALWAYS the same......Socialism/communism  has never worked and I believe given the proof of so many failures and the frailty of our species it never will.

You're welcome to a different view.....

But.......

Please don't say I don't even try to engage with you.

Cheers 

30 August 2019
11.31am
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 2756
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1534sp_Permalink sp_Print

Heh. I don't actually disagree with much of what you say here. A couple things:

Firstly, the reason we're talking about slavery, specifically the Transatlantic slave trade, in the first place is because I mentioned that it's part of the history of liberal capitalism. I'm not trying to say that this is the only example of slavery or anything like that, just that it was an important part of the establishment of modern capitalism. I didn't say that it was the direct cause of slavery, either. It's the other way around, if anything. 

I'm still not willing to congratulate the UK much, either. *Not* taking part in a system based on the ownership and trafficking of human beings is the bare minimum of morality to me, not something that should be applauded. 

I don't know much about the history of Brazil, so I can't really answer your question there.. For a start, Britain's wealth was more due to colonialism than slavery, but they're quite closely related. Taking the people out of Africa was just the first step for the colonial European powers. Only a few decades after slavery was abolished they divided the continent between them and continued to take advantage of the continent's natural resources for themselves. The same is true with the British in India. 

And if you're suggesting that I plagiarised what I said about Hitler... no, I'm just interested in history mccartney-shrug_01_gif

Tall, dark-haired QuarryMan likes basketball, music, and naturally, boys. He was a valuable participant on the track team. He is one of Freeport's great contributors to the recording world. As for the immediate future, QuarryMan has no plans, but will take life as it comes. 

Avatar courtesy of Beatlebug; signature courtesy of Mr Lou Reed

30 August 2019
8.01pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1908
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Let's leave it there then ....Thanks for the engagement and we can announce an amicable divorce....5555

....and hope the cold gets better......Zinc and fruit my friend.

The following people thank Wigwam for this post:

QuarryMan, Beatlebug
31 August 2019
10.13am
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 2756
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1536sp_Permalink sp_Print

Haha thanks! I've tried hot water bottles and spending a lot of time in bed but fruit is probably the best idea. 

The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:

Beatlebug

Tall, dark-haired QuarryMan likes basketball, music, and naturally, boys. He was a valuable participant on the track team. He is one of Freeport's great contributors to the recording world. As for the immediate future, QuarryMan has no plans, but will take life as it comes. 

Avatar courtesy of Beatlebug; signature courtesy of Mr Lou Reed

6 September 2019
6.54pm
Avatar
Ahhh Girl
sailing on a winedark open sea
Moderator

Moderators

Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 18607
Member Since:
20 August 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

https://www.google.com/amp/s/w.....iform.html

Discuss gender-neutral uniforms.

The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:

Dark Overlord
6 September 2019
7.15pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1908
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1538sp_Permalink sp_Print

I'm all for uniforms.......As far as education is concerned for inspiration I look to the transformation wrought by Fredrick III of Prussia on his ragtag army .....

He stuck them in uniform......Frightened the shit out of them with petty draconian rules....Drilled them constantly....

And I'd add for good measure stick a few severed heads on the gates outside the front of the school.....

6 September 2019
7.16pm
Avatar
Dark Overlord
Nowhere Land
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 4084
Member Since:
9 March 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1539sp_Permalink sp_Print

I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand, i hate the idea of a school uniform and i think students should be allowed to wear whatever they want as long as it's appropriate. On the other hand, the rule is non-discriminatory, which is greatly appreciated considering many would've said that only cis girls can wear dresses/skirts.

The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:

The Hole Got Fixed

If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.

6 September 2019
7.30pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 9929
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1540sp_Permalink sp_Print

The main problem I have with it is that all the items are branded with the school logo, meaning they can only the uniform from one supplier, and the uniform comes in at over £100 - which is a strain on poorer families and those with more than one child. And this is after the Government has issued guidance that only jumpers and/or blazers should be school branded.

The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:

Beatlebug, The Hole Got Fixed, Dark Overlord

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

 

The Beatles Non-Canon Poll List

Forum Timezone: America/Chicago
Most Users Ever Online: 700
Currently Online: AppleScruffJunior, The Hole Got Fixed
1
Guest(s)
Top Posters:
Starr Shine?: 15607
Ron Nasty: 9929
50yearslate: 7897
Necko: 7859
parlance: 7111
AppleScruffJunior: 6490
mr. Sun king coming together: 6403
Mr. Kite: 6147
trcanberra: 6063
mithveaen: 4621
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 2730
Moderators: 6
Admins: 2
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 44
Topics: 4791
Posts: 331865
Newest Members:
dj_lithium, TangerineTrees, thekindofgirl, ohgirl, BeatOfTheBrass
Moderators: Joe: 5071, Zig: 9807, meanmistermustard: 22325, Ahhh Girl: 18607, Beatlebug: 15572, The Hole Got Fixed: 7157
Administrators: Joe: 5071, Ellie: 4