# Late Stage Socialism: Venezuela Kidnaps Chevron Execs



## Weatherman2020

Bite the hand.

Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]

I think the word is “kidnapped”.

The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.


Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge


----------



## martybegan

Weatherman2020 said:


> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge



The companies won't freak until non-venezuelan employees are the ones being pinched. 

Then it depends on which nationality they are.

Western Europe would probably try to talk their way out of it (except the French, they look poorly on their citizens getting railroaded)

Wonder what Trump would do if a US Citizen got arrested.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Socialism will work here just as well


----------



## TNHarley

I cant wait for that to happen here!
Maybe this incoming blue wave will bring us that! Get out and vote people!


----------



## Crepitus

Weatherman2020 said:


> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge


I got news for ya: .whatever you call it that ain't socialism.


----------



## DGS49

And ironically, in the other Worker's Paradise in our hemisphere, the Cubans have "elected" their next President for Life, and the Leftist MSM is positively effusive in praising the regime because the new Dictator In Waiting is not named "Castro"!


----------



## TNHarley

Crepitus said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> I got news for ya: .whatever you call it that ain't socialism.
Click to expand...

Neither was stalinism. Or maoism.. but thats the shit that happens when the central govt can do whatever in the fuck they want.
Humans always forget history and it blows my goddamn mind.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge



No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."


----------



## TNHarley

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
Click to expand...

Of course it isnt a surprise. Thats what strong govts get you, eventually.
If the people have power, the people do well.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Crepitus said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> I got news for ya: .whatever you call it that ain't socialism.
Click to expand...

Ah, the they just aren't doing socialism the right way excuse.  That didn't take long.


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
Click to expand...

Yes, Venezuela would be a workers paradise but for America.


----------



## martybegan

Weatherman2020 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> I got news for ya: .whatever you call it that ain't socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, they just aren't doing socialism the right way excuse.  That didn't take long.
Click to expand...


Socialists proponents always remind me of the old Sci-fi trope of some guy trying to fix the past/future over and over again and never getting it right.


----------



## martybegan

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Venezuela would be a workers paradise but for America.
Click to expand...


Standard socialist excuse #2:  "it's not our fault, its country X trying to ruin us!"


----------



## Weatherman2020

martybegan said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Venezuela would be a workers paradise but for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standard socialist excuse #2:  "it's not our fault, its country X trying to ruin us!"
Click to expand...

Like Cuba.  Every other nation could trade with Cuba, but it was evil Amerikkka not trading that created the hell hole.


----------



## Toro

Kidnapping is one way to retain talent in a collapsing economy.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

martybegan said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Venezuela would be a workers paradise but for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standard socialist excuse #2:  "it's not our fault, its country X trying to ruin us!"
Click to expand...


Are you saying the CIA in not in Venezuela trying to screw things over?


----------



## Votto

TNHarley said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> I got news for ya: .whatever you call it that ain't socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither was stalinism. Or maoism.. but thats the shit that happens when the central govt can do whatever in the fuck they want.
> Humans always forget history and it blows my goddamn mind.
Click to expand...


Yes, but it can work, only if...............................


Any day now........................


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

TNHarley said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it isnt a surprise. Thats what strong govts get you, eventually.
> If the people have power, the people do well.
Click to expand...


I hope you are not thinking that the US government has been screwing with governments in Central and South America for the last several decades so that the people of those countries can have power.  If you are, you have not been paying attention.

They do it so large American corporations can steal their natural resources.


----------



## Votto

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Venezuela would be a workers paradise but for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standard socialist excuse #2:  "it's not our fault, its country X trying to ruin us!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the CIA in not in Venezuela trying to screw things over?
Click to expand...


Yes, it's the CIA's fault.  Yes, an organization that said that WMD's were in Iraq and Trump colluded with Putin but can't seem to produce the documents.

 Well done rube.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
Click to expand...


Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility of course


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Votto said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Venezuela would be a workers paradise but for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standard socialist excuse #2:  "it's not our fault, its country X trying to ruin us!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the CIA in not in Venezuela trying to screw things over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's the CIA's fault.  Yes, an organization that said that WMD's were in Iraq and Trump colluded with Putin but can't seem to produce the documents.
> 
> Well done rube.
Click to expand...


We already have sanctions against Venezuela, so the outside part is true.  For the inside part, go to the article, "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government" with the subtitle, "The US has a long and bloody history of meddling in Latin America's affairs."


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Crepitus said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> I got news for ya: .whatever you call it that ain't socialism.
Click to expand...


What is it then? LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Venezuela would be a workers paradise but for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standard socialist excuse #2:  "it's not our fault, its country X trying to ruin us!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the CIA in not in Venezuela trying to screw things over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's the CIA's fault.  Yes, an organization that said that WMD's were in Iraq and Trump colluded with Putin but can't seem to produce the documents.
> 
> Well done rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already have sanctions against Venezuela, so the outside part is true.  For the inside part, go to the article, "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government" with the subtitle, "The US has a long and bloody history of meddling in Latin America's affairs."
Click to expand...


Venezuela needs a Pinochet in the worst way


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

CrusaderFrank said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility of course
Click to expand...


About "Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility", all people and governments are responsible.  Yet, America has never taken responsibility for what it has done in South and Central America.  Or maybe you are proud of the way Reagan supported "death Squads" in Central America.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility of course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility", all people and governments are responsible.  Yet, America has never taken responsibility for what it has done in South and Central America.  Or maybe you are proud of the way Reagan supported "death Squads" in Central America.
Click to expand...


I used to think Pinochet was an evil prick, then I saw what he saw and how truly fucking evil Socialist/Communist are.


----------



## martybegan

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Venezuela would be a workers paradise but for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standard socialist excuse #2:  "it's not our fault, its country X trying to ruin us!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the CIA in not in Venezuela trying to screw things over?
Click to expand...


I'm saying the Venezuelans are more than capable of screwing themselves.

The CIA had better have people there, or they are not doing their jobs.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

CrusaderFrank said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Venezuela would be a workers paradise but for America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard socialist excuse #2:  "it's not our fault, its country X trying to ruin us!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the CIA in not in Venezuela trying to screw things over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's the CIA's fault.  Yes, an organization that said that WMD's were in Iraq and Trump colluded with Putin but can't seem to produce the documents.
> 
> Well done rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already have sanctions against Venezuela, so the outside part is true.  For the inside part, go to the article, "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government" with the subtitle, "The US has a long and bloody history of meddling in Latin America's affairs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela needs a Pinochet in the worst way
Click to expand...


You have to remember that Pinochet's government embrace the most extreme form of Neoliberal capitalism - that is, it adamantly opposed socialism.  If you read the Thatcher memo, you also find that form of government was opposed to democracy.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

martybegan said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Venezuela would be a workers paradise but for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standard socialist excuse #2:  "it's not our fault, its country X trying to ruin us!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the CIA in not in Venezuela trying to screw things over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying the Venezuelans are more than capable of screwing themselves.
> 
> The CIA had better have people there, or they are not doing their jobs.
Click to expand...


About "the Venezuelans are more than capable of screwing themselves", oh I get it.  You think these people are incapable of making their own decisions and deciding for themselves what their future should be.  That is, you don't believe in democracy for others.  So, America steps in and steals their resources.


----------



## Votto

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standard socialist excuse #2:  "it's not our fault, its country X trying to ruin us!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the CIA in not in Venezuela trying to screw things over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's the CIA's fault.  Yes, an organization that said that WMD's were in Iraq and Trump colluded with Putin but can't seem to produce the documents.
> 
> Well done rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already have sanctions against Venezuela, so the outside part is true.  For the inside part, go to the article, "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government" with the subtitle, "The US has a long and bloody history of meddling in Latin America's affairs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela needs a Pinochet in the worst way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to remember that Pinochet's government embrace the most extreme form of Neoliberal capitalism - that is, it adamantly opposed socialism.  If you read the Thatcher memo, you also find that form of government was opposed to democracy.
Click to expand...


Any top heavy dictatorship is a collectivist one.

There are all sorts of flavors, communism, socialism, fascism, etc.  All fail for that same reason.

Then again, not even Pinochet's government saw 4000% inflation and people eating out of garbage cans, so maybe it was a better flavor of collectivism.


----------



## martybegan

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Venezuela would be a workers paradise but for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standard socialist excuse #2:  "it's not our fault, its country X trying to ruin us!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the CIA in not in Venezuela trying to screw things over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying the Venezuelans are more than capable of screwing themselves.
> 
> The CIA had better have people there, or they are not doing their jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "the Venezuelans are more than capable of screwing themselves", oh I get it.  You think these people are incapable of making their own decisions and deciding for themselves what their future should be.  That is, you don't believe in democracy for others.  So, America steps in and steals their resources.
Click to expand...


Do they currently have a functioning democratic republic down there?

Yes or no?

My god are some moron college student being spoon fed garbage from some lefty professor?


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Votto said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the CIA in not in Venezuela trying to screw things over?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's the CIA's fault.  Yes, an organization that said that WMD's were in Iraq and Trump colluded with Putin but can't seem to produce the documents.
> 
> Well done rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already have sanctions against Venezuela, so the outside part is true.  For the inside part, go to the article, "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government" with the subtitle, "The US has a long and bloody history of meddling in Latin America's affairs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela needs a Pinochet in the worst way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to remember that Pinochet's government embrace the most extreme form of Neoliberal capitalism - that is, it adamantly opposed socialism.  If you read the Thatcher memo, you also find that form of government was opposed to democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any top heavy dictatorship is a collectivist one.
> 
> There are all sorts of flavors, communism, socialism, fascism, etc.  All fail for that same reason.
> 
> Then again, not even Pinochet's government saw 4000% inflation and people eating out of garbage cans, so maybe it was a better flavor of collectivism.
Click to expand...


To say that "dictatorships" include "communism" and "socialism" means you do not understand the definitions of those words.  Dictatorship is a form of government.  Communism and socialism are economic systems.  If they become totalitarian the sharing the was advocated in socialism is soon gone, and it is no longer socialism (e.g. the old Soviet Union and China today!)


----------



## martybegan

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's the CIA's fault.  Yes, an organization that said that WMD's were in Iraq and Trump colluded with Putin but can't seem to produce the documents.
> 
> Well done rube.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have sanctions against Venezuela, so the outside part is true.  For the inside part, go to the article, "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government" with the subtitle, "The US has a long and bloody history of meddling in Latin America's affairs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela needs a Pinochet in the worst way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to remember that Pinochet's government embrace the most extreme form of Neoliberal capitalism - that is, it adamantly opposed socialism.  If you read the Thatcher memo, you also find that form of government was opposed to democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any top heavy dictatorship is a collectivist one.
> 
> There are all sorts of flavors, communism, socialism, fascism, etc.  All fail for that same reason.
> 
> Then again, not even Pinochet's government saw 4000% inflation and people eating out of garbage cans, so maybe it was a better flavor of collectivism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say that "dictatorships" include "communism" and "socialism" means you do not understand the definitions of those words.  Dictatorship is a form of government.  Communism and socialism are economic systems.  If they become totalitarian the sharing the was advocated in socialism is soon gone, and it is no longer socialism (e.g. the old Soviet Union and China today!)
Click to expand...


Nice try, but those were still socialist systems, and more often than not, they end up as oppressive authoritarian states because when you put all that power in one group's hands, they tend to over-use it. 

Human nature.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

martybegan said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Venezuela would be a workers paradise but for America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard socialist excuse #2:  "it's not our fault, its country X trying to ruin us!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the CIA in not in Venezuela trying to screw things over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying the Venezuelans are more than capable of screwing themselves.
> 
> The CIA had better have people there, or they are not doing their jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "the Venezuelans are more than capable of screwing themselves", oh I get it.  You think these people are incapable of making their own decisions and deciding for themselves what their future should be.  That is, you don't believe in democracy for others.  So, America steps in and steals their resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they currently have a functioning democratic republic down there?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> My god are some moron college student being spoon fed garbage from some lefty professor?
Click to expand...


About "Do they currently have a functioning democratic republic down there?"  It varies from country to country.  Yet, let me return a question, Does America currently have a functioning democratic republic?  Answer:  No!


----------



## martybegan

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standard socialist excuse #2:  "it's not our fault, its country X trying to ruin us!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the CIA in not in Venezuela trying to screw things over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying the Venezuelans are more than capable of screwing themselves.
> 
> The CIA had better have people there, or they are not doing their jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "the Venezuelans are more than capable of screwing themselves", oh I get it.  You think these people are incapable of making their own decisions and deciding for themselves what their future should be.  That is, you don't believe in democracy for others.  So, America steps in and steals their resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they currently have a functioning democratic republic down there?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> My god are some moron college student being spoon fed garbage from some lefty professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Do they currently have a functioning democratic republic down there?"  It varies from country to country.  Yet, let me return a question, Does America currently have a functioning democratic republic?  Answer:  No!
Click to expand...


Yes, it does. Please tell me why it doesn't.

What is non-functional about our current republic?


----------



## Votto

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's the CIA's fault.  Yes, an organization that said that WMD's were in Iraq and Trump colluded with Putin but can't seem to produce the documents.
> 
> Well done rube.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have sanctions against Venezuela, so the outside part is true.  For the inside part, go to the article, "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government" with the subtitle, "The US has a long and bloody history of meddling in Latin America's affairs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela needs a Pinochet in the worst way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to remember that Pinochet's government embrace the most extreme form of Neoliberal capitalism - that is, it adamantly opposed socialism.  If you read the Thatcher memo, you also find that form of government was opposed to democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any top heavy dictatorship is a collectivist one.
> 
> There are all sorts of flavors, communism, socialism, fascism, etc.  All fail for that same reason.
> 
> Then again, not even Pinochet's government saw 4000% inflation and people eating out of garbage cans, so maybe it was a better flavor of collectivism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say that "dictatorships" include "communism" and "socialism" means you do not understand the definitions of those words.  Dictatorship is a form of government.  Communism and socialism are economic systems.  If they become totalitarian the sharing the was advocated in socialism is soon gone, and it is no longer socialism (e.g. the old Soviet Union and China today!)
Click to expand...


But the economic conditions are what form dictatorships.  It's all about control over the pocket book.

In fact, that is why socialism and communism have historically been so appealing to dictators such as Hitler.  He called his party the socialist party as he micromanaged the economic activity of the populace so that he could siphon the money to two entities, the military and the welfare system.

Hitler's only goal was the conquest of the world, but he feared the internal uprisings that occurred during WW1 due to poor living standards, so he created a massive nanny state that gave the German people a higher standard of living throughout the war that was even better than the US and UK.  Shrug, it worked.  He bought off the people of Germany as he purchased their souls so that they would overlook mass genocide and never ending war.  There were no uprisings like they saw during WW1

Both socialism and communism demand a never ending micromanagement of every aspect of society.  Both systems are the most oppressive ever created.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

martybegan said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the CIA in not in Venezuela trying to screw things over?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying the Venezuelans are more than capable of screwing themselves.
> 
> The CIA had better have people there, or they are not doing their jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "the Venezuelans are more than capable of screwing themselves", oh I get it.  You think these people are incapable of making their own decisions and deciding for themselves what their future should be.  That is, you don't believe in democracy for others.  So, America steps in and steals their resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they currently have a functioning democratic republic down there?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> My god are some moron college student being spoon fed garbage from some lefty professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Do they currently have a functioning democratic republic down there?"  It varies from country to country.  Yet, let me return a question, Does America currently have a functioning democratic republic?  Answer:  No!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. Please tell me why it doesn't.
> 
> What is non-functional about our current republic?
Click to expand...


Well, the Princeton study "Testing Theories of American Politics:  Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" says in the abstract:

(Quote)

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralis.

(End quote)

In other words, America does not have a functioning democratic republic!


----------



## martybegan

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying the Venezuelans are more than capable of screwing themselves.
> 
> The CIA had better have people there, or they are not doing their jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "the Venezuelans are more than capable of screwing themselves", oh I get it.  You think these people are incapable of making their own decisions and deciding for themselves what their future should be.  That is, you don't believe in democracy for others.  So, America steps in and steals their resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they currently have a functioning democratic republic down there?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> My god are some moron college student being spoon fed garbage from some lefty professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Do they currently have a functioning democratic republic down there?"  It varies from country to country.  Yet, let me return a question, Does America currently have a functioning democratic republic?  Answer:  No!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. Please tell me why it doesn't.
> 
> What is non-functional about our current republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Princeton study "Testing Theories of American Politics:  Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" says in the abstract:
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralis.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> In other words, America does not have a functioning democratic republic!
Click to expand...


So some eggheads opinion is being taken as fact by a mouth breather like you....

So no real proof.

Thanks for playing, have fun being made fun of.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Votto said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already have sanctions against Venezuela, so the outside part is true.  For the inside part, go to the article, "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government" with the subtitle, "The US has a long and bloody history of meddling in Latin America's affairs."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela needs a Pinochet in the worst way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to remember that Pinochet's government embrace the most extreme form of Neoliberal capitalism - that is, it adamantly opposed socialism.  If you read the Thatcher memo, you also find that form of government was opposed to democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any top heavy dictatorship is a collectivist one.
> 
> There are all sorts of flavors, communism, socialism, fascism, etc.  All fail for that same reason.
> 
> Then again, not even Pinochet's government saw 4000% inflation and people eating out of garbage cans, so maybe it was a better flavor of collectivism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say that "dictatorships" include "communism" and "socialism" means you do not understand the definitions of those words.  Dictatorship is a form of government.  Communism and socialism are economic systems.  If they become totalitarian the sharing the was advocated in socialism is soon gone, and it is no longer socialism (e.g. the old Soviet Union and China today!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the economic conditions are what form dictatorships.  It's all about control over the pocket book.
> 
> In fact, that is why socialism and communism have historically been so appealing to dictators such as Hitler.  He called his party the socialist party as he micromanaged the economic activity of the populace so that he could siphon the money to two entities, the military and the welfare system.
> 
> Hitler's only goal was the conquest of the world, but he feared the internal uprisings that occurred during WW1 due to poor living standards, so he created a massive nanny state that gave the German people a higher standard of living throughout the war that was even better than the US and UK.  Shrug, it worked.  He bought off the people of Germany as he purchased their souls so that they would overlook mass genocide and never ending war.  There were no uprisings like they saw during WW1
> 
> Both socialism and communism demand a never ending micromanagement of every aspect of society.  Both systems are the most oppressive ever created.
Click to expand...


About "socialism demand a never ending micromanagement", this is not true, if you have read on all forms of socialism.  Remember "farmer cooperatives" are a form of socialism.


----------



## Votto

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela needs a Pinochet in the worst way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to remember that Pinochet's government embrace the most extreme form of Neoliberal capitalism - that is, it adamantly opposed socialism.  If you read the Thatcher memo, you also find that form of government was opposed to democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any top heavy dictatorship is a collectivist one.
> 
> There are all sorts of flavors, communism, socialism, fascism, etc.  All fail for that same reason.
> 
> Then again, not even Pinochet's government saw 4000% inflation and people eating out of garbage cans, so maybe it was a better flavor of collectivism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say that "dictatorships" include "communism" and "socialism" means you do not understand the definitions of those words.  Dictatorship is a form of government.  Communism and socialism are economic systems.  If they become totalitarian the sharing the was advocated in socialism is soon gone, and it is no longer socialism (e.g. the old Soviet Union and China today!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the economic conditions are what form dictatorships.  It's all about control over the pocket book.
> 
> In fact, that is why socialism and communism have historically been so appealing to dictators such as Hitler.  He called his party the socialist party as he micromanaged the economic activity of the populace so that he could siphon the money to two entities, the military and the welfare system.
> 
> Hitler's only goal was the conquest of the world, but he feared the internal uprisings that occurred during WW1 due to poor living standards, so he created a massive nanny state that gave the German people a higher standard of living throughout the war that was even better than the US and UK.  Shrug, it worked.  He bought off the people of Germany as he purchased their souls so that they would overlook mass genocide and never ending war.  There were no uprisings like they saw during WW1
> 
> Both socialism and communism demand a never ending micromanagement of every aspect of society.  Both systems are the most oppressive ever created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "socialism demand a never ending micromanagement", this is not true, if you have read on all forms of socialism.  Remember "farmer cooperatives" are a form of socialism.
Click to expand...


There are some forms that work, such as the Amish.  Here though you have the option of "getting out" and not being Amish.

But from a secular government model, there is no way out.  In fact, we see with Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure as if socialism can only work if it is world wide or something. 

No, with socialism/communism, you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Votto said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to remember that Pinochet's government embrace the most extreme form of Neoliberal capitalism - that is, it adamantly opposed socialism.  If you read the Thatcher memo, you also find that form of government was opposed to democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any top heavy dictatorship is a collectivist one.
> 
> There are all sorts of flavors, communism, socialism, fascism, etc.  All fail for that same reason.
> 
> Then again, not even Pinochet's government saw 4000% inflation and people eating out of garbage cans, so maybe it was a better flavor of collectivism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say that "dictatorships" include "communism" and "socialism" means you do not understand the definitions of those words.  Dictatorship is a form of government.  Communism and socialism are economic systems.  If they become totalitarian the sharing the was advocated in socialism is soon gone, and it is no longer socialism (e.g. the old Soviet Union and China today!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the economic conditions are what form dictatorships.  It's all about control over the pocket book.
> 
> In fact, that is why socialism and communism have historically been so appealing to dictators such as Hitler.  He called his party the socialist party as he micromanaged the economic activity of the populace so that he could siphon the money to two entities, the military and the welfare system.
> 
> Hitler's only goal was the conquest of the world, but he feared the internal uprisings that occurred during WW1 due to poor living standards, so he created a massive nanny state that gave the German people a higher standard of living throughout the war that was even better than the US and UK.  Shrug, it worked.  He bought off the people of Germany as he purchased their souls so that they would overlook mass genocide and never ending war.  There were no uprisings like they saw during WW1
> 
> Both socialism and communism demand a never ending micromanagement of every aspect of society.  Both systems are the most oppressive ever created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "socialism demand a never ending micromanagement", this is not true, if you have read on all forms of socialism.  Remember "farmer cooperatives" are a form of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are some forms that work, such as the Amish.  Here though you have the option of "getting out" and not being Amish.
> 
> But from a secular government model, there is no way out.  In fact, we see with Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure as if socialism can only work if it is world wide or something.
> 
> No, with socialism/communism, you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating.
Click to expand...


About "getting out", ask the poor of America how they get out!  There is no way for them to get out of this failing economy - and yes, for them, it has failed.  Thus it is true that for capitalism "you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating."

About "Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure", you are trying to pretend that the US government is not trying to screw them over - and as such - you have no idea how much damage we are doing.

Add to this, some of Venezuela's problems are directly from features of capitalism.  Much is made of the hunger in Venezuela.  Yet, their agriculture was destroyed by "Dutch Disease", a well understood feature of capitalism.


----------



## Weatherman2020

martybegan said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "the Venezuelans are more than capable of screwing themselves", oh I get it.  You think these people are incapable of making their own decisions and deciding for themselves what their future should be.  That is, you don't believe in democracy for others.  So, America steps in and steals their resources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they currently have a functioning democratic republic down there?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> My god are some moron college student being spoon fed garbage from some lefty professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Do they currently have a functioning democratic republic down there?"  It varies from country to country.  Yet, let me return a question, Does America currently have a functioning democratic republic?  Answer:  No!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. Please tell me why it doesn't.
> 
> What is non-functional about our current republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Princeton study "Testing Theories of American Politics:  Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" says in the abstract:
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralis.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> In other words, America does not have a functioning democratic republic!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So some eggheads opinion is being taken as fact by a mouth breather like you....
> 
> So no real proof.
> 
> Thanks for playing, have fun being made fun of.
Click to expand...

You say "professor" and the leftards turn off what little brain cells they had.


----------



## Aba Incieni

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any top heavy dictatorship is a collectivist one.
> 
> There are all sorts of flavors, communism, socialism, fascism, etc.  All fail for that same reason.
> 
> Then again, not even Pinochet's government saw 4000% inflation and people eating out of garbage cans, so maybe it was a better flavor of collectivism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say that "dictatorships" include "communism" and "socialism" means you do not understand the definitions of those words.  Dictatorship is a form of government.  Communism and socialism are economic systems.  If they become totalitarian the sharing the was advocated in socialism is soon gone, and it is no longer socialism (e.g. the old Soviet Union and China today!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the economic conditions are what form dictatorships.  It's all about control over the pocket book.
> 
> In fact, that is why socialism and communism have historically been so appealing to dictators such as Hitler.  He called his party the socialist party as he micromanaged the economic activity of the populace so that he could siphon the money to two entities, the military and the welfare system.
> 
> Hitler's only goal was the conquest of the world, but he feared the internal uprisings that occurred during WW1 due to poor living standards, so he created a massive nanny state that gave the German people a higher standard of living throughout the war that was even better than the US and UK.  Shrug, it worked.  He bought off the people of Germany as he purchased their souls so that they would overlook mass genocide and never ending war.  There were no uprisings like they saw during WW1
> 
> Both socialism and communism demand a never ending micromanagement of every aspect of society.  Both systems are the most oppressive ever created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "socialism demand a never ending micromanagement", this is not true, if you have read on all forms of socialism.  Remember "farmer cooperatives" are a form of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are some forms that work, such as the Amish.  Here though you have the option of "getting out" and not being Amish.
> 
> But from a secular government model, there is no way out.  In fact, we see with Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure as if socialism can only work if it is world wide or something.
> 
> No, with socialism/communism, you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "getting out", ask the poor of America how they get out!  There is no way for them to get out of this failing economy - and yes, for them, it has failed.  Thus it is true that for capitalism "you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating."
> 
> About "Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure", you are trying to pretend that the US government is not trying to screw them over - and as such - you have no idea how much damage we are doing.
> 
> Add to this, some of Venezuela's problems are directly from features of capitalism.  Much is made of the hunger in Venezuela.  Yet, their agriculture was destroyed by "Dutch Disease", a well understood feature of capitalism.
Click to expand...

The dirt poor can become very well off in America. I'm living proof. They have a way out of poverty. Whether they take it or not is their choice.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Aba Incieni said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say that "dictatorships" include "communism" and "socialism" means you do not understand the definitions of those words.  Dictatorship is a form of government.  Communism and socialism are economic systems.  If they become totalitarian the sharing the was advocated in socialism is soon gone, and it is no longer socialism (e.g. the old Soviet Union and China today!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the economic conditions are what form dictatorships.  It's all about control over the pocket book.
> 
> In fact, that is why socialism and communism have historically been so appealing to dictators such as Hitler.  He called his party the socialist party as he micromanaged the economic activity of the populace so that he could siphon the money to two entities, the military and the welfare system.
> 
> Hitler's only goal was the conquest of the world, but he feared the internal uprisings that occurred during WW1 due to poor living standards, so he created a massive nanny state that gave the German people a higher standard of living throughout the war that was even better than the US and UK.  Shrug, it worked.  He bought off the people of Germany as he purchased their souls so that they would overlook mass genocide and never ending war.  There were no uprisings like they saw during WW1
> 
> Both socialism and communism demand a never ending micromanagement of every aspect of society.  Both systems are the most oppressive ever created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "socialism demand a never ending micromanagement", this is not true, if you have read on all forms of socialism.  Remember "farmer cooperatives" are a form of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are some forms that work, such as the Amish.  Here though you have the option of "getting out" and not being Amish.
> 
> But from a secular government model, there is no way out.  In fact, we see with Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure as if socialism can only work if it is world wide or something.
> 
> No, with socialism/communism, you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "getting out", ask the poor of America how they get out!  There is no way for them to get out of this failing economy - and yes, for them, it has failed.  Thus it is true that for capitalism "you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating."
> 
> About "Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure", you are trying to pretend that the US government is not trying to screw them over - and as such - you have no idea how much damage we are doing.
> 
> Add to this, some of Venezuela's problems are directly from features of capitalism.  Much is made of the hunger in Venezuela.  Yet, their agriculture was destroyed by "Dutch Disease", a well understood feature of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dirt poor can become very well off in America. I'm living proof. They have a way out of poverty. Whether they take it or not is their choice.
Click to expand...



Now, what kind of a person draws a conclusion about a society from a sample space of ONE  - that is, from themself?  This is little different from those who decide how the world is doing by looking at what is happening down the block from them.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they currently have a functioning democratic republic down there?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> My god are some moron college student being spoon fed garbage from some lefty professor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "Do they currently have a functioning democratic republic down there?"  It varies from country to country.  Yet, let me return a question, Does America currently have a functioning democratic republic?  Answer:  No!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. Please tell me why it doesn't.
> 
> What is non-functional about our current republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Princeton study "Testing Theories of American Politics:  Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" says in the abstract:
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralis.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> In other words, America does not have a functioning democratic republic!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So some eggheads opinion is being taken as fact by a mouth breather like you....
> 
> So no real proof.
> 
> Thanks for playing, have fun being made fun of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say "professor" and the leftards turn off what little brain cells they had.
Click to expand...


A sign of those who "turn off what little brain cells they have" is found when evidence is offered, and the person decides to ignore or denigrate it, because it does not fit with what they want to believe.  They would rather say, "We know nothing!"


----------



## Aba Incieni

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the economic conditions are what form dictatorships.  It's all about control over the pocket book.
> 
> In fact, that is why socialism and communism have historically been so appealing to dictators such as Hitler.  He called his party the socialist party as he micromanaged the economic activity of the populace so that he could siphon the money to two entities, the military and the welfare system.
> 
> Hitler's only goal was the conquest of the world, but he feared the internal uprisings that occurred during WW1 due to poor living standards, so he created a massive nanny state that gave the German people a higher standard of living throughout the war that was even better than the US and UK.  Shrug, it worked.  He bought off the people of Germany as he purchased their souls so that they would overlook mass genocide and never ending war.  There were no uprisings like they saw during WW1
> 
> Both socialism and communism demand a never ending micromanagement of every aspect of society.  Both systems are the most oppressive ever created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "socialism demand a never ending micromanagement", this is not true, if you have read on all forms of socialism.  Remember "farmer cooperatives" are a form of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are some forms that work, such as the Amish.  Here though you have the option of "getting out" and not being Amish.
> 
> But from a secular government model, there is no way out.  In fact, we see with Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure as if socialism can only work if it is world wide or something.
> 
> No, with socialism/communism, you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "getting out", ask the poor of America how they get out!  There is no way for them to get out of this failing economy - and yes, for them, it has failed.  Thus it is true that for capitalism "you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating."
> 
> About "Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure", you are trying to pretend that the US government is not trying to screw them over - and as such - you have no idea how much damage we are doing.
> 
> Add to this, some of Venezuela's problems are directly from features of capitalism.  Much is made of the hunger in Venezuela.  Yet, their agriculture was destroyed by "Dutch Disease", a well understood feature of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dirt poor can become very well off in America. I'm living proof. They have a way out of poverty. Whether they take it or not is their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now, what kind of a person draws a conclusion about a society from a sample space of ONE  - that is, from themself?  This is little different from those who decide how the world is doing by looking at what is happening down the block from them.
Click to expand...

You pretend to speak for entire countries and governments, but I can't?

Eat less sugar.


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "Do they currently have a functioning democratic republic down there?"  It varies from country to country.  Yet, let me return a question, Does America currently have a functioning democratic republic?  Answer:  No!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. Please tell me why it doesn't.
> 
> What is non-functional about our current republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Princeton study "Testing Theories of American Politics:  Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" says in the abstract:
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralis.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> In other words, America does not have a functioning democratic republic!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So some eggheads opinion is being taken as fact by a mouth breather like you....
> 
> So no real proof.
> 
> Thanks for playing, have fun being made fun of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say "professor" and the leftards turn off what little brain cells they had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A sign of those who "turn off what little brain cells they have" is found when evidence is offered, and the person decides to ignore or denigrate it, because it does not fit with what they want to believe.  They would rather say, "We know nothing!"
Click to expand...

Other than inflation being 6 digits, people eating their pets for food, gangs controlling landfills because it’s a food source, what’s not to love about socialism in Venezuela!


----------



## Weatherman2020

Aba Incieni said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say that "dictatorships" include "communism" and "socialism" means you do not understand the definitions of those words.  Dictatorship is a form of government.  Communism and socialism are economic systems.  If they become totalitarian the sharing the was advocated in socialism is soon gone, and it is no longer socialism (e.g. the old Soviet Union and China today!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the economic conditions are what form dictatorships.  It's all about control over the pocket book.
> 
> In fact, that is why socialism and communism have historically been so appealing to dictators such as Hitler.  He called his party the socialist party as he micromanaged the economic activity of the populace so that he could siphon the money to two entities, the military and the welfare system.
> 
> Hitler's only goal was the conquest of the world, but he feared the internal uprisings that occurred during WW1 due to poor living standards, so he created a massive nanny state that gave the German people a higher standard of living throughout the war that was even better than the US and UK.  Shrug, it worked.  He bought off the people of Germany as he purchased their souls so that they would overlook mass genocide and never ending war.  There were no uprisings like they saw during WW1
> 
> Both socialism and communism demand a never ending micromanagement of every aspect of society.  Both systems are the most oppressive ever created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "socialism demand a never ending micromanagement", this is not true, if you have read on all forms of socialism.  Remember "farmer cooperatives" are a form of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are some forms that work, such as the Amish.  Here though you have the option of "getting out" and not being Amish.
> 
> But from a secular government model, there is no way out.  In fact, we see with Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure as if socialism can only work if it is world wide or something.
> 
> No, with socialism/communism, you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "getting out", ask the poor of America how they get out!  There is no way for them to get out of this failing economy - and yes, for them, it has failed.  Thus it is true that for capitalism "you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating."
> 
> About "Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure", you are trying to pretend that the US government is not trying to screw them over - and as such - you have no idea how much damage we are doing.
> 
> Add to this, some of Venezuela's problems are directly from features of capitalism.  Much is made of the hunger in Venezuela.  Yet, their agriculture was destroyed by "Dutch Disease", a well understood feature of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dirt poor can become very well off in America. I'm living proof. They have a way out of poverty. Whether they take it or not is their choice.
Click to expand...

Yep. I grew up in poverty and now retired early with a healthy bank account all because America allowed me the opportunity to succeed.


----------



## xyz

martybegan said:


> Wonder what Trump would do if a US Citizen got arrested.


Probably nothing. Venezuela has close ties to Russia.


----------



## westwall

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
Click to expand...







Yeah sure.  It has nothing to do with idiots running the country to benefit themselves while telling the peons to piss off.  A sure recipe for a caring, loving, benevolent dictatorship!


----------



## martybegan

xyz said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder what Trump would do if a US Citizen got arrested.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably nothing. Venezuela has close ties to Russia.
Click to expand...


Lol, the whole Russia thing?

Really?

Ask Syria how much Russian protection helped them recently.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the economic conditions are what form dictatorships.  It's all about control over the pocket book.
> 
> In fact, that is why socialism and communism have historically been so appealing to dictators such as Hitler.  He called his party the socialist party as he micromanaged the economic activity of the populace so that he could siphon the money to two entities, the military and the welfare system.
> 
> Hitler's only goal was the conquest of the world, but he feared the internal uprisings that occurred during WW1 due to poor living standards, so he created a massive nanny state that gave the German people a higher standard of living throughout the war that was even better than the US and UK.  Shrug, it worked.  He bought off the people of Germany as he purchased their souls so that they would overlook mass genocide and never ending war.  There were no uprisings like they saw during WW1
> 
> Both socialism and communism demand a never ending micromanagement of every aspect of society.  Both systems are the most oppressive ever created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "socialism demand a never ending micromanagement", this is not true, if you have read on all forms of socialism.  Remember "farmer cooperatives" are a form of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are some forms that work, such as the Amish.  Here though you have the option of "getting out" and not being Amish.
> 
> But from a secular government model, there is no way out.  In fact, we see with Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure as if socialism can only work if it is world wide or something.
> 
> No, with socialism/communism, you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "getting out", ask the poor of America how they get out!  There is no way for them to get out of this failing economy - and yes, for them, it has failed.  Thus it is true that for capitalism "you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating."
> 
> About "Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure", you are trying to pretend that the US government is not trying to screw them over - and as such - you have no idea how much damage we are doing.
> 
> Add to this, some of Venezuela's problems are directly from features of capitalism.  Much is made of the hunger in Venezuela.  Yet, their agriculture was destroyed by "Dutch Disease", a well understood feature of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dirt poor can become very well off in America. I'm living proof. They have a way out of poverty. Whether they take it or not is their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. I grew up in poverty and now retired early with a healthy bank account all because America allowed me the opportunity to succeed.
Click to expand...


About "America allowed me the opportunity to succeed", oh yes, "social mobility" is something America once had, but no more.  Have a look at the graph and you find that things have changed.  America now has dismal opportunities for the next generation.


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "socialism demand a never ending micromanagement", this is not true, if you have read on all forms of socialism.  Remember "farmer cooperatives" are a form of socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some forms that work, such as the Amish.  Here though you have the option of "getting out" and not being Amish.
> 
> But from a secular government model, there is no way out.  In fact, we see with Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure as if socialism can only work if it is world wide or something.
> 
> No, with socialism/communism, you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "getting out", ask the poor of America how they get out!  There is no way for them to get out of this failing economy - and yes, for them, it has failed.  Thus it is true that for capitalism "you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating."
> 
> About "Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure", you are trying to pretend that the US government is not trying to screw them over - and as such - you have no idea how much damage we are doing.
> 
> Add to this, some of Venezuela's problems are directly from features of capitalism.  Much is made of the hunger in Venezuela.  Yet, their agriculture was destroyed by "Dutch Disease", a well understood feature of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dirt poor can become very well off in America. I'm living proof. They have a way out of poverty. Whether they take it or not is their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. I grew up in poverty and now retired early with a healthy bank account all because America allowed me the opportunity to succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "America allowed me the opportunity to succeed", oh yes, "social mobility" is something America once had, but no more.  Have a look at the graph and you find that things have changed.  America now has dismal opportunities for the next generation.
Click to expand...

You need to get out more.  I know dozens of people under 35 who once lived in low income homes and are now white collar workers owning nice homes.

Your hatred of America shows you have spent sufficient time in universities to get brainwashed into being totally ignorant of reality.

PS - learn how to post graphics.


----------



## jasonnfree

Some pictures of our great depression due to capitalism run amuck.  Happens often but the capitalists always get a bailout from the government they profess to hate.

pictures of depression era america - Google Search:


----------



## Weatherman2020

jasonnfree said:


> Some pictures of our great depression due to capitalism run amuck.  Happens often but the capitalists always get a bailout from the government they profess to hate.
> 
> pictures of depression era america - Google Search:


The Depression was a worldwide event, dufus, affecting every form of government on the planet.

Your ignorance is amazing.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Easy to go grocery shopping in Venezuela now.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are some forms that work, such as the Amish.  Here though you have the option of "getting out" and not being Amish.
> 
> But from a secular government model, there is no way out.  In fact, we see with Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure as if socialism can only work if it is world wide or something.
> 
> No, with socialism/communism, you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "getting out", ask the poor of America how they get out!  There is no way for them to get out of this failing economy - and yes, for them, it has failed.  Thus it is true that for capitalism "you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating."
> 
> About "Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure", you are trying to pretend that the US government is not trying to screw them over - and as such - you have no idea how much damage we are doing.
> 
> Add to this, some of Venezuela's problems are directly from features of capitalism.  Much is made of the hunger in Venezuela.  Yet, their agriculture was destroyed by "Dutch Disease", a well understood feature of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dirt poor can become very well off in America. I'm living proof. They have a way out of poverty. Whether they take it or not is their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. I grew up in poverty and now retired early with a healthy bank account all because America allowed me the opportunity to succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "America allowed me the opportunity to succeed", oh yes, "social mobility" is something America once had, but no more.  Have a look at the graph and you find that things have changed.  America now has dismal opportunities for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to get out more.  I know dozens of people under 35 who once lived in low income homes and are now white collar workers owning nice homes.
> 
> Your hatred of America shows you have spent sufficient time in universities to get brainwashed into being totally ignorant of reality.
> 
> PS - learn how to post graphics.
Click to expand...


About "get out more", I have!  Yet, beyond that I see you do not like facts that get in the way of what you want to believe.  It is a fact that social mobility has declined in America, and, looking at more than a few individuals (which is a dumb way to come to a conclusion), the youth of today do not have the same opportunities you had.

About "Universities", I see you "don't want any of that book learning stuff!"

Incidentally, I am probably just as old, if not older, than you!  And I still like learning things from books, reading research, and listening to people who have spent their lives studying a topic.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some pictures of our great depression due to capitalism run amuck.  Happens often but the capitalists always get a bailout from the government they profess to hate.
> 
> pictures of depression era america - Google Search:
> 
> 
> 
> The Depression was a worldwide event, dufus, affecting every form of government on the planet.
> 
> Your ignorance is amazing.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, the depression was worldwide, because capitalism was world wide!

After the 1929 crash, Roosevelt regulated the economy - as in the Glass-Steagall Act.  The rich hated the regulations and set about undoing the regulations.  Fast forward to 2008, and unregulated capitalism crashes the economy - and again, it was a worldwide crash!


----------



## xyz

martybegan said:


> xyz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder what Trump would do if a US Citizen got arrested.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably nothing. Venezuela has close ties to Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol, the whole Russia thing?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Ask Syria how much Russian protection helped them recently.
Click to expand...


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some pictures of our great depression due to capitalism run amuck.  Happens often but the capitalists always get a bailout from the government they profess to hate.
> 
> pictures of depression era america - Google Search:
> 
> 
> 
> The Depression was a worldwide event, dufus, affecting every form of government on the planet.
> 
> Your ignorance is amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the depression was worldwide, because capitalism was world wide!
> 
> After the 1929 crash, Roosevelt regulated the economy - as in the Glass-Steagall Act.  The rich hated the regulations and set about undoing the regulations.  Fast forward to 2008, and unregulated capitalism crashes the economy - and again, it was a worldwide crash!
Click to expand...

Shitforbrains thinks the USSR was capitalist.


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "getting out", ask the poor of America how they get out!  There is no way for them to get out of this failing economy - and yes, for them, it has failed.  Thus it is true that for capitalism "you either are forced into the system or you are oppressed by not participating."
> 
> About "Venezuela socialists blaming the US for their failure", you are trying to pretend that the US government is not trying to screw them over - and as such - you have no idea how much damage we are doing.
> 
> Add to this, some of Venezuela's problems are directly from features of capitalism.  Much is made of the hunger in Venezuela.  Yet, their agriculture was destroyed by "Dutch Disease", a well understood feature of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> The dirt poor can become very well off in America. I'm living proof. They have a way out of poverty. Whether they take it or not is their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. I grew up in poverty and now retired early with a healthy bank account all because America allowed me the opportunity to succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "America allowed me the opportunity to succeed", oh yes, "social mobility" is something America once had, but no more.  Have a look at the graph and you find that things have changed.  America now has dismal opportunities for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to get out more.  I know dozens of people under 35 who once lived in low income homes and are now white collar workers owning nice homes.
> 
> Your hatred of America shows you have spent sufficient time in universities to get brainwashed into being totally ignorant of reality.
> 
> PS - learn how to post graphics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "get out more", I have!  Yet, beyond that I see you do not like facts that get in the way of what you want to believe.  It is a fact that social mobility has declined in America, and, looking at more than a few individuals (which is a dumb way to come to a conclusion), the youth of today do not have the same opportunities you had.
> 
> About "Universities", I see you "don't want any of that book learning stuff!"
> 
> Incidentally, I am probably just as old, if not older, than you!  And I still like learning things from books, reading research, and listening to people who have spent their lives studying a topic.
Click to expand...

That's funny, because the only nations were people have starved to death in the past century are nations that are not capitalist.


----------



## basquebromance

‘Yes, I’m Running as a Socialist.’ Why Candidates Are Embracing the Label in 2018


----------



## Weatherman2020

basquebromance said:


> ‘Yes, I’m Running as a Socialist.’ Why Candidates Are Embracing the Label in 2018


Yes, education has sufficiently turned Millenials into ignorant sheep.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Crepitus said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> I got news for ya: .whatever you call it that ain't socialism.
Click to expand...

Of course it is.


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
Click to expand...


OF course it would have nothing to do with the same failures which socialism always demonstrates.

But I will take your bet.

Provide some evidence.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OF course it would have nothing to do with the same failures which socialism always demonstrates.
> 
> But I will take your bet.
> 
> Provide some evidence.
Click to expand...

The almighty CIA that brings nations to it's knees.

Good thing the Soviets nor Chicoms never had a government agency to oppose capitalism in America!


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility of course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility", all people and governments are responsible.  Yet, America has never taken responsibility for what it has done in South and Central America.  Or maybe you are proud of the way Reagan supported "death Squads" in Central America.
Click to expand...


One has nothing to do with the other.

Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela.

Since you cannot your claim is childishly naive and the disaster in Venezuela is strictly the fault of their socialist dictatorship


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some pictures of our great depression due to capitalism run amuck.  Happens often but the capitalists always get a bailout from the government they profess to hate.
> 
> pictures of depression era america - Google Search:
> 
> 
> 
> The Depression was a worldwide event, dufus, affecting every form of government on the planet.
> 
> Your ignorance is amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the depression was worldwide, because capitalism was world wide!
> 
> After the 1929 crash, Roosevelt regulated the economy - as in the Glass-Steagall Act.  The rich hated the regulations and set about undoing the regulations.  Fast forward to 2008, and unregulated capitalism crashes the economy - and again, it was a worldwide crash!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitforbrains thinks the USSR was capitalist.
Click to expand...


No, you don't understand!  The Soviet Union failed for the same reason the US economy is now failing.  In Russia, a few people - in the communist party - made all of the economic decision, and did so for their personal benefit.  This lead to a disaster.

In the US, a few people - on the board of directors - make all of the economic decisions, and do so for their personal benefit.  This will lead to the same disaster.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dirt poor can become very well off in America. I'm living proof. They have a way out of poverty. Whether they take it or not is their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. I grew up in poverty and now retired early with a healthy bank account all because America allowed me the opportunity to succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "America allowed me the opportunity to succeed", oh yes, "social mobility" is something America once had, but no more.  Have a look at the graph and you find that things have changed.  America now has dismal opportunities for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to get out more.  I know dozens of people under 35 who once lived in low income homes and are now white collar workers owning nice homes.
> 
> Your hatred of America shows you have spent sufficient time in universities to get brainwashed into being totally ignorant of reality.
> 
> PS - learn how to post graphics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "get out more", I have!  Yet, beyond that I see you do not like facts that get in the way of what you want to believe.  It is a fact that social mobility has declined in America, and, looking at more than a few individuals (which is a dumb way to come to a conclusion), the youth of today do not have the same opportunities you had.
> 
> About "Universities", I see you "don't want any of that book learning stuff!"
> 
> Incidentally, I am probably just as old, if not older, than you!  And I still like learning things from books, reading research, and listening to people who have spent their lives studying a topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny, because the only nations were people have starved to death in the past century are nations that are not capitalist.
Click to expand...


Aside from there being lots of reasons for starvation - including weather- are you saying the capitalism pays no part in disrupting governments and causing chaos?  Plus, American capitalism cannot brag about the lack of hunger in the US.

Even then, Venezuela's food problem is related to Dutch Disease.  When the Dutch discovered natural gas in the 1950s, it destroyed their manufacturing industry.  In Venezuela, it was there domestic agriculture.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OF course it would have nothing to do with the same failures which socialism always demonstrates.
> 
> But I will take your bet.
> 
> Provide some evidence.
Click to expand...


To say "the same failures which socialism always demonstrates" only demonstrates that you do not know what is happening.  The number one socialist organization in America is the numerous "farmer cooperatives", and they are going strong.  The largest socialist corporation in the world is the Mondragon Corporation of Spain, and it has been going strong since the 1950s.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OF course it would have nothing to do with the same failures which socialism always demonstrates.
> 
> But I will take your bet.
> 
> Provide some evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The almighty CIA that brings nations to it's knees.
> 
> Good thing the Soviets nor Chicoms never had a government agency to oppose capitalism in America!
Click to expand...


About "The almighty CIA that brings nations to it's knees", you should read the article "The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War."

Analysis | The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility of course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility", all people and governments are responsible.  Yet, America has never taken responsibility for what it has done in South and Central America.  Or maybe you are proud of the way Reagan supported "death Squads" in Central America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela.
> 
> Since you cannot your claim is childishly naive and the disaster in Venezuela is strictly the fault of their socialist dictatorship
Click to expand...


First, the term "socialist dictatorship", at least according to Marx, is an oxymoron.  About "Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela", I did and you missed it.  But again, try the article "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government."

CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility of course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility", all people and governments are responsible.  Yet, America has never taken responsibility for what it has done in South and Central America.  Or maybe you are proud of the way Reagan supported "death Squads" in Central America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela.
> 
> Since you cannot your claim is childishly naive and the disaster in Venezuela is strictly the fault of their socialist dictatorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, the term "socialist dictatorship", at least according to Marx, is an oxymoron.  About "Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela", I did and you missed it.  But again, try the article "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government."
> 
> CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government
Click to expand...

Oh and how does one change a foreign government so we may know what to look out for.


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some pictures of our great depression due to capitalism run amuck.  Happens often but the capitalists always get a bailout from the government they profess to hate.
> 
> pictures of depression era america - Google Search:
> 
> 
> 
> The Depression was a worldwide event, dufus, affecting every form of government on the planet.
> 
> Your ignorance is amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the depression was worldwide, because capitalism was world wide!
> 
> After the 1929 crash, Roosevelt regulated the economy - as in the Glass-Steagall Act.  The rich hated the regulations and set about undoing the regulations.  Fast forward to 2008, and unregulated capitalism crashes the economy - and again, it was a worldwide crash!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitforbrains thinks the USSR was capitalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't understand!  The Soviet Union failed for the same reason the US economy is now failing.  In Russia, a few people - in the communist party - made all of the economic decision, and did so for their personal benefit.  This lead to a disaster.
> 
> In the US, a few people - on the board of directors - make all of the economic decisions, and do so for their personal benefit.  This will lead to the same disaster.
Click to expand...

Oh really!  Who is this secret group that determines how much Walmart will charge, what products Apple will release, and how much toilet paper Charming will produce?


----------



## August West

DGS49 said:


> And ironically, in the other Worker's Paradise in our hemisphere, the Cubans have "elected" their next President for Life, and the Leftist MSM is positively effusive in praising the regime because the new Dictator In Waiting is not named "Castro"!


Nobody in Cuba wants to move to Honduras or Guatemala. Cubans have food, medicine and schools.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility of course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility", all people and governments are responsible.  Yet, America has never taken responsibility for what it has done in South and Central America.  Or maybe you are proud of the way Reagan supported "death Squads" in Central America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela.
> 
> Since you cannot your claim is childishly naive and the disaster in Venezuela is strictly the fault of their socialist dictatorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, the term "socialist dictatorship", at least according to Marx, is an oxymoron.  About "Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela", I did and you missed it.  But again, try the article "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government."
> 
> CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh and how does one change a foreign government so we may know what to look out for.
Click to expand...


Well, if you want to know "how does one change a foreign government", you can start with the article, "Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup", which is about Pres. Teddy Roosevelt's grandson Kermit, and what he did in Iran.

Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility", all people and governments are responsible.  Yet, America has never taken responsibility for what it has done in South and Central America.  Or maybe you are proud of the way Reagan supported "death Squads" in Central America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela.
> 
> Since you cannot your claim is childishly naive and the disaster in Venezuela is strictly the fault of their socialist dictatorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, the term "socialist dictatorship", at least according to Marx, is an oxymoron.  About "Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela", I did and you missed it.  But again, try the article "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government."
> 
> CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh and how does one change a foreign government so we may know what to look out for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you want to know "how does one change a foreign government", you can start with the article, "Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup", which is about Pres. Teddy Roosevelt's grandson Kermit, and what he did in Iran.
> 
> Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup
Click to expand...

Ah, a single man overthrew a government.  
How interesting to look at the world of a moonbat.


----------



## Weatherman2020

August West said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ironically, in the other Worker's Paradise in our hemisphere, the Cubans have "elected" their next President for Life, and the Leftist MSM is positively effusive in praising the regime because the new Dictator In Waiting is not named "Castro"!
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody in Cuba wants to move to Honduras or Guatemala. Cubans have food, medicine and schools.
Click to expand...

Cubans get shot if they try to leave, Dufus.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some pictures of our great depression due to capitalism run amuck.  Happens often but the capitalists always get a bailout from the government they profess to hate.
> 
> pictures of depression era america - Google Search:
> 
> 
> 
> The Depression was a worldwide event, dufus, affecting every form of government on the planet.
> 
> Your ignorance is amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the depression was worldwide, because capitalism was world wide!
> 
> After the 1929 crash, Roosevelt regulated the economy - as in the Glass-Steagall Act.  The rich hated the regulations and set about undoing the regulations.  Fast forward to 2008, and unregulated capitalism crashes the economy - and again, it was a worldwide crash!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitforbrains thinks the USSR was capitalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't understand!  The Soviet Union failed for the same reason the US economy is now failing.  In Russia, a few people - in the communist party - made all of the economic decision, and did so for their personal benefit.  This lead to a disaster.
> 
> In the US, a few people - on the board of directors - make all of the economic decisions, and do so for their personal benefit.  This will lead to the same disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really!  Who is this secret group that determines how much Walmart will charge, what products Apple will release, and how much toilet paper Charming will produce?
Click to expand...


About "Who is this secret group that determines how much Walmart will charge", it is called the "Board of Directors."  They determine everything that happens in a corporation.  And yes, sometimes there decisions are stupid.

But let me give a better example!  The American farmer is always squeezed between the corporations that sell their inputs and the corporations that buy their products.  If the price of grain goes up and the farmers start to make money, you can bet that the price of their inputs will increase to take that money from the small farmer.  There is a similar story on the output side.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility", all people and governments are responsible.  Yet, America has never taken responsibility for what it has done in South and Central America.  Or maybe you are proud of the way Reagan supported "death Squads" in Central America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela.
> 
> Since you cannot your claim is childishly naive and the disaster in Venezuela is strictly the fault of their socialist dictatorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, the term "socialist dictatorship", at least according to Marx, is an oxymoron.  About "Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela", I did and you missed it.  But again, try the article "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government."
> 
> CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh and how does one change a foreign government so we may know what to look out for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you want to know "how does one change a foreign government", you can start with the article, "Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup", which is about Pres. Teddy Roosevelt's grandson Kermit, and what he did in Iran.
> 
> Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, a single man overthrew a government.
> How interesting to look at the world of a moonbat.
Click to expand...


Your response of "Ah, a single man overthrew a government", is just a denial of history.  And no, he did not do it by himself.  He had lots of money from the US government!

Please get serious, and do not deny a historical event that can be found in numerous sources.


----------



## August West

Weatherman2020 said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ironically, in the other Worker's Paradise in our hemisphere, the Cubans have "elected" their next President for Life, and the Leftist MSM is positively effusive in praising the regime because the new Dictator In Waiting is not named "Castro"!
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody in Cuba wants to move to Honduras or Guatemala. Cubans have food, medicine and schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cubans get shot if they try to leave, Dufus.
Click to expand...

I was making a comparison between the quality of life in Cuba and the neighboring countries with no socialism at all. Pay attention! I see the problems your teachers had with you.


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela.
> 
> Since you cannot your claim is childishly naive and the disaster in Venezuela is strictly the fault of their socialist dictatorship
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, the term "socialist dictatorship", at least according to Marx, is an oxymoron.  About "Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela", I did and you missed it.  But again, try the article "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government."
> 
> CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh and how does one change a foreign government so we may know what to look out for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you want to know "how does one change a foreign government", you can start with the article, "Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup", which is about Pres. Teddy Roosevelt's grandson Kermit, and what he did in Iran.
> 
> Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, a single man overthrew a government.
> How interesting to look at the world of a moonbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response of "Ah, a single man overthrew a government", is just a denial of history.  And no, he did not do it by himself.  He had lots of money from the US government!
> 
> Please get serious, and do not deny a historical event that can be found in numerous sources.
Click to expand...

I assume the CIA who had the oil execs kidnapped by the Venezuelan government.


----------



## Weatherman2020

August West said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ironically, in the other Worker's Paradise in our hemisphere, the Cubans have "elected" their next President for Life, and the Leftist MSM is positively effusive in praising the regime because the new Dictator In Waiting is not named "Castro"!
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody in Cuba wants to move to Honduras or Guatemala. Cubans have food, medicine and schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cubans get shot if they try to leave, Dufus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was making a comparison between the quality of life in Cuba and the neighboring countries with no socialism at all. Pay attention! I see the problems your teachers had with you.
Click to expand...

Read this slowly.
People from Honduras immigrate freely to obtain better opportunities. 

People from Cuba immigrate under the threat of death to escape going to prison for making a penny more than $15 a day.


----------



## danielpalos

Weatherman2020 said:


> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge


I believe we need an, Engineers of the Guard corp, to bailout Puerto Rico, for practice.


----------



## August West

Weatherman2020 said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ironically, in the other Worker's Paradise in our hemisphere, the Cubans have "elected" their next President for Life, and the Leftist MSM is positively effusive in praising the regime because the new Dictator In Waiting is not named "Castro"!
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody in Cuba wants to move to Honduras or Guatemala. Cubans have food, medicine and schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cubans get shot if they try to leave, Dufus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was making a comparison between the quality of life in Cuba and the neighboring countries with no socialism at all. Pay attention! I see the problems your teachers had with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read this slowly.
> People from Honduras immigrate freely to obtain better opportunities.
> 
> People from Cuba immigrate under the threat of death to escape going to prison for making a penny more than $15 a day.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone want to leave that Capitalistic paradise Honduras? You`re avoiding the topic weatherman.


----------



## Weatherman2020

August West said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ironically, in the other Worker's Paradise in our hemisphere, the Cubans have "elected" their next President for Life, and the Leftist MSM is positively effusive in praising the regime because the new Dictator In Waiting is not named "Castro"!
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody in Cuba wants to move to Honduras or Guatemala. Cubans have food, medicine and schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cubans get shot if they try to leave, Dufus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was making a comparison between the quality of life in Cuba and the neighboring countries with no socialism at all. Pay attention! I see the problems your teachers had with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read this slowly.
> People from Honduras immigrate freely to obtain better opportunities.
> 
> People from Cuba immigrate under the threat of death to escape going to prison for making a penny more than $15 a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone want to leave that Capitalistic paradise Honduras? You`re avoiding the topic weatherman.
Click to expand...

Same reason people from every nation wants to move here and leftists never move out - America is the greatest nation on the planet.


----------



## August West

Weatherman2020 said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody in Cuba wants to move to Honduras or Guatemala. Cubans have food, medicine and schools.
> 
> 
> 
> Cubans get shot if they try to leave, Dufus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was making a comparison between the quality of life in Cuba and the neighboring countries with no socialism at all. Pay attention! I see the problems your teachers had with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read this slowly.
> People from Honduras immigrate freely to obtain better opportunities.
> 
> People from Cuba immigrate under the threat of death to escape going to prison for making a penny more than $15 a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone want to leave that Capitalistic paradise Honduras? You`re avoiding the topic weatherman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same reason people from every nation wants to move here and leftists never move out - America is the greatest nation on the planet.
Click to expand...

Good grief. I too once believed America was the greatest nation on earth but that was 1960 and I was 7 years old.


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OF course it would have nothing to do with the same failures which socialism always demonstrates.
> 
> But I will take your bet.
> 
> Provide some evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say "the same failures which socialism always demonstrates" only demonstrates that you do not know what is happening.  The number one socialist organization in America is the numerous "farmer cooperatives", and they are going strong.  The largest socialist corporation in the world is the Mondragon Corporation of Spain, and it has been going strong since the 1950s.
Click to expand...



Wrong.

It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.

A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OF course it would have nothing to do with the same failures which socialism always demonstrates.
> 
> But I will take your bet.
> 
> Provide some evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The almighty CIA that brings nations to it's knees.
> 
> Good thing the Soviets nor Chicoms never had a government agency to oppose capitalism in America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "The almighty CIA that brings nations to it's knees", you should read the article "The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War."
> 
> Analysis | The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War
Click to expand...

When I have time sure but it is opinion only and is not evidence of the CIA causing the failure of socialism in Venezuela.

This thread is about the massive proven monstrosity and failure of socialism in Venezuela it is not about you whining about past misdeeds in other nations.


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility of course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility", all people and governments are responsible.  Yet, America has never taken responsibility for what it has done in South and Central America.  Or maybe you are proud of the way Reagan supported "death Squads" in Central America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela.
> 
> Since you cannot your claim is childishly naive and the disaster in Venezuela is strictly the fault of their socialist dictatorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, the term "socialist dictatorship", at least according to Marx, is an oxymoron.  About "Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela", I did and you missed it.  But again, try the article "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government."
> 
> CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government
Click to expand...

No I did not and you provided none at all.

A hint is not evidence it is interpretation.

Marx preferred other dictatorships it is true but his work does not define dictatorship or socialism.


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela.
> 
> Since you cannot your claim is childishly naive and the disaster in Venezuela is strictly the fault of their socialist dictatorship
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, the term "socialist dictatorship", at least according to Marx, is an oxymoron.  About "Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela", I did and you missed it.  But again, try the article "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government."
> 
> CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh and how does one change a foreign government so we may know what to look out for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you want to know "how does one change a foreign government", you can start with the article, "Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup", which is about Pres. Teddy Roosevelt's grandson Kermit, and what he did in Iran.
> 
> Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, a single man overthrew a government.
> How interesting to look at the world of a moonbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response of "Ah, a single man overthrew a government", is just a denial of history.  And no, he did not do it by himself.  He had lots of money from the US government!
> 
> Please get serious, and do not deny a historical event that can be found in numerous sources.
Click to expand...

Your entire claim is denial of evidence and merely an attempt to derail.

You have no evidence numerous or otherwise.


----------



## EGR one

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some pictures of our great depression due to capitalism run amuck.  Happens often but the capitalists always get a bailout from the government they profess to hate.
> 
> pictures of depression era america - Google Search:
> 
> 
> 
> The Depression was a worldwide event, dufus, affecting every form of government on the planet.
> 
> Your ignorance is amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the depression was worldwide, because capitalism was world wide!
> 
> After the 1929 crash, Roosevelt regulated the economy - as in the Glass-Steagall Act.  The rich hated the regulations and set about undoing the regulations.  Fast forward to 2008, and unregulated capitalism crashes the economy - and again, it was a worldwide crash!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitforbrains thinks the USSR was capitalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't understand!  The Soviet Union failed for the same reason the US economy is now failing.  In Russia, a few people - in the communist party - made all of the economic decision, and did so for their personal benefit.  This lead to a disaster.
> 
> In the US, a few people - on the board of directors - make all of the economic decisions, and do so for their personal benefit.  This will lead to the same disaster.
Click to expand...


Corporate boards do not make my economic decisions, nor do they make the economic decisions of 300 million plus other Americans.  Your ignorance of capitalism is only surpassed by your willingness to share it with the rest of us.  

I, like most Americans only deal with a corporation when we consider it in our self interest to do so.  Consequently, whatever the corporate board decides, has little to no effect on our well being.  

While I fully agree that corporate influence has way to much influence on our political system, corporations will cease to exist if they do not cater to the wants of American consumers.


----------



## EGR one

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility of course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility", all people and governments are responsible.  Yet, America has never taken responsibility for what it has done in South and Central America.  Or maybe you are proud of the way Reagan supported "death Squads" in Central America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela.
> 
> Since you cannot your claim is childishly naive and the disaster in Venezuela is strictly the fault of their socialist dictatorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, the term "socialist dictatorship", at least according to Marx, is an oxymoron.  About "Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela", I did and you missed it.  But again, try the article "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government."
> 
> CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government
Click to expand...


Venezuela has already collapsed, and it is definitely time for regime change while there are still Venezuelan citizens who have not yet starved to death.  You reached for a straw, and you missed.


----------



## EGR one

August West said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cubans get shot if they try to leave, Dufus.
> 
> 
> 
> I was making a comparison between the quality of life in Cuba and the neighboring countries with no socialism at all. Pay attention! I see the problems your teachers had with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read this slowly.
> People from Honduras immigrate freely to obtain better opportunities.
> 
> People from Cuba immigrate under the threat of death to escape going to prison for making a penny more than $15 a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone want to leave that Capitalistic paradise Honduras? You`re avoiding the topic weatherman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same reason people from every nation wants to move here and leftists never move out - America is the greatest nation on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good grief. I too once believed America was the greatest nation on earth but that was 1960 and I was 7 years old.
Click to expand...


Then, why are you still here?


----------



## Weatherman2020

August West said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cubans get shot if they try to leave, Dufus.
> 
> 
> 
> I was making a comparison between the quality of life in Cuba and the neighboring countries with no socialism at all. Pay attention! I see the problems your teachers had with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read this slowly.
> People from Honduras immigrate freely to obtain better opportunities.
> 
> People from Cuba immigrate under the threat of death to escape going to prison for making a penny more than $15 a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone want to leave that Capitalistic paradise Honduras? You`re avoiding the topic weatherman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same reason people from every nation wants to move here and leftists never move out - America is the greatest nation on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good grief. I too once believed America was the greatest nation on earth but that was 1960 and I was 7 years old.
Click to expand...

You have to have an extended university visit to learn to be so stupid to think some other nation is greater than the USA.


----------



## August West

EGR one said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was making a comparison between the quality of life in Cuba and the neighboring countries with no socialism at all. Pay attention! I see the problems your teachers had with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Read this slowly.
> People from Honduras immigrate freely to obtain better opportunities.
> 
> People from Cuba immigrate under the threat of death to escape going to prison for making a penny more than $15 a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone want to leave that Capitalistic paradise Honduras? You`re avoiding the topic weatherman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same reason people from every nation wants to move here and leftists never move out - America is the greatest nation on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good grief. I too once believed America was the greatest nation on earth but that was 1960 and I was 7 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, why are you still here?
Click to expand...

I`m here because my wife doesn`t want to be separated from our adult children. If not for them we would have been in Canada or Costa Rica by now. Any other questions? This isn`t the worst country in the world and neither is it the best.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the term "socialist dictatorship", at least according to Marx, is an oxymoron.  About "Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela", I did and you missed it.  But again, try the article "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government."
> 
> CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and how does one change a foreign government so we may know what to look out for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you want to know "how does one change a foreign government", you can start with the article, "Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup", which is about Pres. Teddy Roosevelt's grandson Kermit, and what he did in Iran.
> 
> Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, a single man overthrew a government.
> How interesting to look at the world of a moonbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response of "Ah, a single man overthrew a government", is just a denial of history.  And no, he did not do it by himself.  He had lots of money from the US government!
> 
> Please get serious, and do not deny a historical event that can be found in numerous sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assume the CIA who had the oil execs kidnapped by the Venezuelan government.
Click to expand...


About "assume the CIA", you may assume whatever you like.  Regarding "oil execs" and the "Venezuelan government", given the track record of exploitation and pollution from the oil companies, you should not assume the oil execs are some innocent nice guys.  They are certainly not viewed that way in much in Central and South America.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OF course it would have nothing to do with the same failures which socialism always demonstrates.
> 
> But I will take your bet.
> 
> Provide some evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say "the same failures which socialism always demonstrates" only demonstrates that you do not know what is happening.  The number one socialist organization in America is the numerous "farmer cooperatives", and they are going strong.  The largest socialist corporation in the world is the Mondragon Corporation of Spain, and it has been going strong since the 1950s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
Click to expand...


About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.

Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OF course it would have nothing to do with the same failures which socialism always demonstrates.
> 
> But I will take your bet.
> 
> Provide some evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The almighty CIA that brings nations to it's knees.
> 
> Good thing the Soviets nor Chicoms never had a government agency to oppose capitalism in America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "The almighty CIA that brings nations to it's knees", you should read the article "The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War."
> 
> Analysis | The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When I have time sure but it is opinion only and is not evidence of the CIA causing the failure of socialism in Venezuela.
> 
> This thread is about the massive proven monstrosity and failure of socialism in Venezuela it is not about you whining about past misdeeds in other nations.
Click to expand...


About "whining about past misdeeds in other nations", well, someone needs to write about them, because you seem to be blind to the truth.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

EGR one said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some pictures of our great depression due to capitalism run amuck.  Happens often but the capitalists always get a bailout from the government they profess to hate.
> 
> pictures of depression era america - Google Search:
> 
> 
> 
> The Depression was a worldwide event, dufus, affecting every form of government on the planet.
> 
> Your ignorance is amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the depression was worldwide, because capitalism was world wide!
> 
> After the 1929 crash, Roosevelt regulated the economy - as in the Glass-Steagall Act.  The rich hated the regulations and set about undoing the regulations.  Fast forward to 2008, and unregulated capitalism crashes the economy - and again, it was a worldwide crash!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitforbrains thinks the USSR was capitalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't understand!  The Soviet Union failed for the same reason the US economy is now failing.  In Russia, a few people - in the communist party - made all of the economic decision, and did so for their personal benefit.  This lead to a disaster.
> 
> In the US, a few people - on the board of directors - make all of the economic decisions, and do so for their personal benefit.  This will lead to the same disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corporate boards do not make my economic decisions, nor do they make the economic decisions of 300 million plus other Americans.  Your ignorance of capitalism is only surpassed by your willingness to share it with the rest of us.
> 
> I, like most Americans only deal with a corporation when we consider it in our self interest to do so.  Consequently, whatever the corporate board decides, has little to no effect on our well being.
> 
> While I fully agree that corporate influence has way to much influence on our political system, corporations will cease to exist if they do not cater to the wants of American consumers.
Click to expand...


You have got to be joking with this line, "Corporate boards do not make my economic decisions."  Yes, they do!  When Wal-Mart comes into your community and forces local businesses to close, they are making your economic decisions. 

And one more, since 2001, the U.S. has lost more than 60,000 factories, because they moved to other countries.  Every move was a decision made by the Board of Directors.  And I could go on and on!

Then you reverse your position with "While I fully agree that corporate influence (in politics)."  Oh, and you think corporations being in politics has nothing what so ever to do with "economic decisions!"  You are approaching the absurd!


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

EGR one said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility of course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility", all people and governments are responsible.  Yet, America has never taken responsibility for what it has done in South and Central America.  Or maybe you are proud of the way Reagan supported "death Squads" in Central America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela.
> 
> Since you cannot your claim is childishly naive and the disaster in Venezuela is strictly the fault of their socialist dictatorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, the term "socialist dictatorship", at least according to Marx, is an oxymoron.  About "Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela", I did and you missed it.  But again, try the article "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government."
> 
> CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela has already collapsed, and it is definitely time for regime change while there are still Venezuelan citizens who have not yet starved to death.  You reached for a straw, and you missed.
Click to expand...


About, "Venezuela has already collapsed, and it is definitely time for regime change", if it is time, the problem is America will not let the people of Venezuela decide for themselves.  Why, because America wants American corporations to control the oil in that country.  The people of Venezuela want public ownership of the oil so that the benefits can go to the country as a whole.  America's capitalism finds that abhorrent!

And about, "Venezuelan citizens who have not yet starved to death", if they are starving, you should explain why we are adding to their misery with sanctions against the country.  You should explain how the "Christian nation" that America calls itself has decided to kick these people when they are down.


----------



## danielpalos

Only lousy management eschews, Pareto Optimality in public policies.


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Depression was a worldwide event, dufus, affecting every form of government on the planet.
> 
> Your ignorance is amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the depression was worldwide, because capitalism was world wide!
> 
> After the 1929 crash, Roosevelt regulated the economy - as in the Glass-Steagall Act.  The rich hated the regulations and set about undoing the regulations.  Fast forward to 2008, and unregulated capitalism crashes the economy - and again, it was a worldwide crash!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitforbrains thinks the USSR was capitalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't understand!  The Soviet Union failed for the same reason the US economy is now failing.  In Russia, a few people - in the communist party - made all of the economic decision, and did so for their personal benefit.  This lead to a disaster.
> 
> In the US, a few people - on the board of directors - make all of the economic decisions, and do so for their personal benefit.  This will lead to the same disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corporate boards do not make my economic decisions, nor do they make the economic decisions of 300 million plus other Americans.  Your ignorance of capitalism is only surpassed by your willingness to share it with the rest of us.
> 
> I, like most Americans only deal with a corporation when we consider it in our self interest to do so.  Consequently, whatever the corporate board decides, has little to no effect on our well being.
> 
> While I fully agree that corporate influence has way to much influence on our political system, corporations will cease to exist if they do not cater to the wants of American consumers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have got to be joking with this line, "Corporate boards do not make my economic decisions."  Yes, they do!  When Wal-Mart comes into your community and forces local businesses to close, they are making your economic decisions.
> 
> And one more, since 2001, the U.S. has lost more than 60,000 factories, because they moved to other countries.  Every move was a decision made by the Board of Directors.  And I could go on and on!
> 
> Then you reverse your position with "While I fully agree that corporate influence (in politics)."  Oh, and you think corporations being in politics has nothing what so ever to do with "economic decisions!"  You are approaching the absurd!
Click to expand...

Dufus thinks Amazon and Starbucks forces him to buy from them.


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and how does one change a foreign government so we may know what to look out for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you want to know "how does one change a foreign government", you can start with the article, "Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup", which is about Pres. Teddy Roosevelt's grandson Kermit, and what he did in Iran.
> 
> Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, a single man overthrew a government.
> How interesting to look at the world of a moonbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response of "Ah, a single man overthrew a government", is just a denial of history.  And no, he did not do it by himself.  He had lots of money from the US government!
> 
> Please get serious, and do not deny a historical event that can be found in numerous sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assume the CIA who had the oil execs kidnapped by the Venezuelan government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "assume the CIA", you may assume whatever you like.  Regarding "oil execs" and the "Venezuelan government", given the track record of exploitation and pollution from the oil companies, you should not assume the oil execs are some innocent nice guys.  They are certainly not viewed that way in much in Central and South America.
Click to expand...

Ah, environmentalism. Socialism has its place in that category too. Socialism gave us Lake Karachy, the most polluted place on earth. So radioactive that 30 seconds in the water is a fatal dose.


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and how does one change a foreign government so we may know what to look out for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you want to know "how does one change a foreign government", you can start with the article, "Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup", which is about Pres. Teddy Roosevelt's grandson Kermit, and what he did in Iran.
> 
> Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, a single man overthrew a government.
> How interesting to look at the world of a moonbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response of "Ah, a single man overthrew a government", is just a denial of history.  And no, he did not do it by himself.  He had lots of money from the US government!
> 
> Please get serious, and do not deny a historical event that can be found in numerous sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assume the CIA who had the oil execs kidnapped by the Venezuelan government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "assume the CIA", you may assume whatever you like.  Regarding "oil execs" and the "Venezuelan government", given the track record of exploitation and pollution from the oil companies, you should not assume the oil execs are some innocent nice guys.  They are certainly not viewed that way in much in Central and South America.
Click to expand...


They are far more innocent than the monstrous government of Venezuela


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bite the hand.
> 
> Chevron said on Tuesday two of its executives were arrested in Venezuela, a rare move likely to spook foreign energy firms still operating in the OPEC nation stricken by hyperinflation, shortages and crime. […]
> 
> I think the word is “kidnapped”.
> 
> The arrests highlight risks for foreign firms in Venezuela. Some insiders say a fracturing ruling elite is using the purge to wage turf wars or settle scores.
> 
> 
> Venezuela arrests two Chevron executives amid oil purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OF course it would have nothing to do with the same failures which socialism always demonstrates.
> 
> But I will take your bet.
> 
> Provide some evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say "the same failures which socialism always demonstrates" only demonstrates that you do not know what is happening.  The number one socialist organization in America is the numerous "farmer cooperatives", and they are going strong.  The largest socialist corporation in the world is the Mondragon Corporation of Spain, and it has been going strong since the 1950s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
Click to expand...

Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.

they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.

Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.

Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,

You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.

A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF course it would have nothing to do with the same failures which socialism always demonstrates.
> 
> But I will take your bet.
> 
> Provide some evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The almighty CIA that brings nations to it's knees.
> 
> Good thing the Soviets nor Chicoms never had a government agency to oppose capitalism in America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "The almighty CIA that brings nations to it's knees", you should read the article "The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War."
> 
> Analysis | The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When I have time sure but it is opinion only and is not evidence of the CIA causing the failure of socialism in Venezuela.
> 
> This thread is about the massive proven monstrosity and failure of socialism in Venezuela it is not about you whining about past misdeeds in other nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "whining about past misdeeds in other nations", well, someone needs to write about them, because you seem to be blind to the truth.
Click to expand...

Then start your own thread on them as this one is not about that,

This is about the truth of Venezuela which has nothing to do with what you are whining about.

Socialism is always a massive failure as venezuela has proven. You cannot distract from that by saying but ...but...but Reagan Death Squads.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF course it would have nothing to do with the same failures which socialism always demonstrates.
> 
> But I will take your bet.
> 
> Provide some evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say "the same failures which socialism always demonstrates" only demonstrates that you do not know what is happening.  The number one socialist organization in America is the numerous "farmer cooperatives", and they are going strong.  The largest socialist corporation in the world is the Mondragon Corporation of Spain, and it has been going strong since the 1950s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
Click to expand...




T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility", all people and governments are responsible.  Yet, America has never taken responsibility for what it has done in South and Central America.  Or maybe you are proud of the way Reagan supported "death Squads" in Central America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela.
> 
> Since you cannot your claim is childishly naive and the disaster in Venezuela is strictly the fault of their socialist dictatorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, the term "socialist dictatorship", at least according to Marx, is an oxymoron.  About "Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela", I did and you missed it.  But again, try the article "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government."
> 
> CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela has already collapsed, and it is definitely time for regime change while there are still Venezuelan citizens who have not yet starved to death.  You reached for a straw, and you missed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About, "Venezuela has already collapsed, and it is definitely time for regime change", if it is time, the problem is America will not let the people of Venezuela decide for themselves.  Why, because America wants American corporations to control the oil in that country.  The people of Venezuela want public ownership of the oil so that the benefits can go to the country as a whole.  America's capitalism finds that abhorrent!
> 
> And about, "Venezuelan citizens who have not yet starved to death", if they are starving, you should explain why we are adding to their misery with sanctions against the country.  You should explain how the "Christian nation" that America calls itself has decided to kick these people when they are down.
Click to expand...



Wrong.

The US has no opposition to the people of Venezuela choosing their own government. It is strictly the current regime which will not allow such democracy which is typical for socialism


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you want to know "how does one change a foreign government", you can start with the article, "Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup", which is about Pres. Teddy Roosevelt's grandson Kermit, and what he did in Iran.
> 
> Kermit Roosevelt; Arranged Iran Coup
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, a single man overthrew a government.
> How interesting to look at the world of a moonbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response of "Ah, a single man overthrew a government", is just a denial of history.  And no, he did not do it by himself.  He had lots of money from the US government!
> 
> Please get serious, and do not deny a historical event that can be found in numerous sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assume the CIA who had the oil execs kidnapped by the Venezuelan government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "assume the CIA", you may assume whatever you like.  Regarding "oil execs" and the "Venezuelan government", given the track record of exploitation and pollution from the oil companies, you should not assume the oil execs are some innocent nice guys.  They are certainly not viewed that way in much in Central and South America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are far more innocent than the monstrous government of Venezuela
Click to expand...


The government of Venezuela is not innocent.  They have made serious mistakes.  Yet, please answer!  What kind of country are we when we try to kick them when they are down - as in sanctions?


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise Venezuela has problems!  You can bet that the CIA and others are working, from both inside and outside of the country, to screw over the government - as in "regime change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF course it would have nothing to do with the same failures which socialism always demonstrates.
> 
> But I will take your bet.
> 
> Provide some evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say "the same failures which socialism always demonstrates" only demonstrates that you do not know what is happening.  The number one socialist organization in America is the numerous "farmer cooperatives", and they are going strong.  The largest socialist corporation in the world is the Mondragon Corporation of Spain, and it has been going strong since the 1950s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
Click to expand...


First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.

About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.

While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."

(Quote from Prof. Wolff)

Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.

(End quote)

That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course it would have nothing to do with the same failures which socialism always demonstrates.
> 
> But I will take your bet.
> 
> Provide some evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> The almighty CIA that brings nations to it's knees.
> 
> Good thing the Soviets nor Chicoms never had a government agency to oppose capitalism in America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "The almighty CIA that brings nations to it's knees", you should read the article "The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War."
> 
> Analysis | The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When I have time sure but it is opinion only and is not evidence of the CIA causing the failure of socialism in Venezuela.
> 
> This thread is about the massive proven monstrosity and failure of socialism in Venezuela it is not about you whining about past misdeeds in other nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "whining about past misdeeds in other nations", well, someone needs to write about them, because you seem to be blind to the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then start your own thread on them as this one is not about that,
> 
> This is about the truth of Venezuela which has nothing to do with what you are whining about.
> 
> Socialism is always a massive failure as venezuela has proven. You cannot distract from that by saying but ...but...but Reagan Death Squads.
Click to expand...


If you do not like what I write, skip my posts!  Beyond that, you do not run the board, and discussions, as they progress, do move into other areas of interest.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course it would have nothing to do with the same failures which socialism always demonstrates.
> 
> But I will take your bet.
> 
> Provide some evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say "the same failures which socialism always demonstrates" only demonstrates that you do not know what is happening.  The number one socialist organization in America is the numerous "farmer cooperatives", and they are going strong.  The largest socialist corporation in the world is the Mondragon Corporation of Spain, and it has been going strong since the 1950s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "Chavez and Maduro bear no responsibility", all people and governments are responsible.  Yet, America has never taken responsibility for what it has done in South and Central America.  Or maybe you are proud of the way Reagan supported "death Squads" in Central America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela.
> 
> Since you cannot your claim is childishly naive and the disaster in Venezuela is strictly the fault of their socialist dictatorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, the term "socialist dictatorship", at least according to Marx, is an oxymoron.  About "Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela", I did and you missed it.  But again, try the article "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government."
> 
> CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela has already collapsed, and it is definitely time for regime change while there are still Venezuelan citizens who have not yet starved to death.  You reached for a straw, and you missed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About, "Venezuela has already collapsed, and it is definitely time for regime change", if it is time, the problem is America will not let the people of Venezuela decide for themselves.  Why, because America wants American corporations to control the oil in that country.  The people of Venezuela want public ownership of the oil so that the benefits can go to the country as a whole.  America's capitalism finds that abhorrent!
> 
> And about, "Venezuelan citizens who have not yet starved to death", if they are starving, you should explain why we are adding to their misery with sanctions against the country.  You should explain how the "Christian nation" that America calls itself has decided to kick these people when they are down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The US has no opposition to the people of Venezuela choosing their own government. It is strictly the current regime which will not allow such democracy which is typical for socialism
Click to expand...


If you believe that US foreign policy is interested in the people of Venezuela choosing their own government, you know nothing of what the US has done in the last 50 years and more. 

The following list is instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. _(* indicates successful ouster of a government)_

China 1949 to early 1960s;  Albania 1949-53;  East Germany 1950s;  Iran 1953 *;  Guatemala 1954 *;  Costa Rica mid-1950s;  Syria 1956-7;  Egypt 1957;  Indonesia 1957-8;  British Guiana 1953-64 *;  Iraq 1963 *;  North Vietnam 1945-73;  Cambodia 1955-70 *;  Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *;  Ecuador 1960-63 *;  Congo 1960 *;  France 1965;  Brazil 1962-64 *;  Dominican Republic 1963 *;  Cuba 1959 to present;  Bolivia 1964 *;  Indonesia 1965 *;  Ghana 1966 *;  Chile 1964-73 *;  Greece 1967 *;  Costa Rica 1970-71;  Bolivia 1971 *;  Australia 1973-75 *;  Angola 1975, 1980s;  Zaire 1975;  Portugal 1974-76 *;  Jamaica 1976-80 *;  Seychelles 1979-81;  Chad 1981-82 *;  Grenada 1983 *;  South Yemen 1982-84;  Suriname 1982-84;  Fiji 1987 *;  Libya 1980s;  Nicaragua 1981-90 *;  Panama 1989 *;  Bulgaria 1990 *;  Albania 1991 *'  Iraq 1991;  Afghanistan 1980s *;  Somalia 1993;  Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *;  Ecuador 2000 *;  Afghanistan 2001 *;  Venezuela 2002 *;  Iraq 2003 *;  Haiti 2004 *;  Somalia 2007 to present;  Honduras 2009 *;  Libya 2011 *;  Syria 2012;  Ukraine 2014 *


----------



## depotoo

Yeah, I would love to know where he has /is going to school so parents can be forewarned.





martybegan said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Venezuela would be a workers paradise but for America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard socialist excuse #2:  "it's not our fault, its country X trying to ruin us!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the CIA in not in Venezuela trying to screw things over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying the Venezuelans are more than capable of screwing themselves.
> 
> The CIA had better have people there, or they are not doing their jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "the Venezuelans are more than capable of screwing themselves", oh I get it.  You think these people are incapable of making their own decisions and deciding for themselves what their future should be.  That is, you don't believe in democracy for others.  So, America steps in and steals their resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they currently have a functioning democratic republic down there?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> My god are some moron college student being spoon fed garbage from some lefty professor?
Click to expand...


----------



## depotoo

Oh, my!  You have really been fed a lot of crumb, my dear.





T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some pictures of our great depression due to capitalism run amuck.  Happens often but the capitalists always get a bailout from the government they profess to hate.
> 
> pictures of depression era america - Google Search:
> 
> 
> 
> The Depression was a worldwide event, dufus, affecting every form of government on the planet.
> 
> Your ignorance is amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the depression was worldwide, because capitalism was world wide!
> 
> After the 1929 crash, Roosevelt regulated the economy - as in the Glass-Steagall Act.  The rich hated the regulations and set about undoing the regulations.  Fast forward to 2008, and unregulated capitalism crashes the economy - and again, it was a worldwide crash!
Click to expand...


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course it would have nothing to do with the same failures which socialism always demonstrates.
> 
> But I will take your bet.
> 
> Provide some evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say "the same failures which socialism always demonstrates" only demonstrates that you do not know what is happening.  The number one socialist organization in America is the numerous "farmer cooperatives", and they are going strong.  The largest socialist corporation in the world is the Mondragon Corporation of Spain, and it has been going strong since the 1950s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.

He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.

Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.

His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.

You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.

Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ". 

So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat  pig Marx and what he wrote.

Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.


----------



## Weatherman2020

depotoo said:


> Oh, my!  You have really been fed a lot of crumb, my dear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some pictures of our great depression due to capitalism run amuck.  Happens often but the capitalists always get a bailout from the government they profess to hate.
> 
> pictures of depression era america - Google Search:
> 
> 
> 
> The Depression was a worldwide event, dufus, affecting every form of government on the planet.
> 
> Your ignorance is amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the depression was worldwide, because capitalism was world wide!
> 
> After the 1929 crash, Roosevelt regulated the economy - as in the Glass-Steagall Act.  The rich hated the regulations and set about undoing the regulations.  Fast forward to 2008, and unregulated capitalism crashes the economy - and again, it was a worldwide crash!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The Dufus unwittingly acknowledged that America is THE world economy and all of the socialist nations are subservient.


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, a single man overthrew a government.
> How interesting to look at the world of a moonbat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your response of "Ah, a single man overthrew a government", is just a denial of history.  And no, he did not do it by himself.  He had lots of money from the US government!
> 
> Please get serious, and do not deny a historical event that can be found in numerous sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assume the CIA who had the oil execs kidnapped by the Venezuelan government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "assume the CIA", you may assume whatever you like.  Regarding "oil execs" and the "Venezuelan government", given the track record of exploitation and pollution from the oil companies, you should not assume the oil execs are some innocent nice guys.  They are certainly not viewed that way in much in Central and South America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are far more innocent than the monstrous government of Venezuela
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government of Venezuela is not innocent.  They have made serious mistakes.  Yet, please answer!  What kind of country are we when we try to kick them when they are down - as in sanctions?
Click to expand...

They have not made serious mistakes they are solely and exclusively responsible for the destruction of a nation and the US has done nothing to harm them.


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The almighty CIA that brings nations to it's knees.
> 
> Good thing the Soviets nor Chicoms never had a government agency to oppose capitalism in America!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "The almighty CIA that brings nations to it's knees", you should read the article "The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War."
> 
> Analysis | The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When I have time sure but it is opinion only and is not evidence of the CIA causing the failure of socialism in Venezuela.
> 
> This thread is about the massive proven monstrosity and failure of socialism in Venezuela it is not about you whining about past misdeeds in other nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "whining about past misdeeds in other nations", well, someone needs to write about them, because you seem to be blind to the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then start your own thread on them as this one is not about that,
> 
> This is about the truth of Venezuela which has nothing to do with what you are whining about.
> 
> Socialism is always a massive failure as venezuela has proven. You cannot distract from that by saying but ...but...but Reagan Death Squads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you do not like what I write, skip my posts!  Beyond that, you do not run the board, and discussions, as they progress, do move into other areas of interest.
Click to expand...


Wrong stick to the topic and do not try to derail to defend your failed ideology.


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say "the same failures which socialism always demonstrates" only demonstrates that you do not know what is happening.  The number one socialist organization in America is the numerous "farmer cooperatives", and they are going strong.  The largest socialist corporation in the world is the Mondragon Corporation of Spain, and it has been going strong since the 1950s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela.
> 
> Since you cannot your claim is childishly naive and the disaster in Venezuela is strictly the fault of their socialist dictatorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, the term "socialist dictatorship", at least according to Marx, is an oxymoron.  About "Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela", I did and you missed it.  But again, try the article "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government."
> 
> CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela has already collapsed, and it is definitely time for regime change while there are still Venezuelan citizens who have not yet starved to death.  You reached for a straw, and you missed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About, "Venezuela has already collapsed, and it is definitely time for regime change", if it is time, the problem is America will not let the people of Venezuela decide for themselves.  Why, because America wants American corporations to control the oil in that country.  The people of Venezuela want public ownership of the oil so that the benefits can go to the country as a whole.  America's capitalism finds that abhorrent!
> 
> And about, "Venezuelan citizens who have not yet starved to death", if they are starving, you should explain why we are adding to their misery with sanctions against the country.  You should explain how the "Christian nation" that America calls itself has decided to kick these people when they are down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The US has no opposition to the people of Venezuela choosing their own government. It is strictly the current regime which will not allow such democracy which is typical for socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that US foreign policy is interested in the people of Venezuela choosing their own government, you know nothing of what the US has done in the last 50 years and more.
> 
> The following list is instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. _(* indicates successful ouster of a government)_
> 
> China 1949 to early 1960s;  Albania 1949-53;  East Germany 1950s;  Iran 1953 *;  Guatemala 1954 *;  Costa Rica mid-1950s;  Syria 1956-7;  Egypt 1957;  Indonesia 1957-8;  British Guiana 1953-64 *;  Iraq 1963 *;  North Vietnam 1945-73;  Cambodia 1955-70 *;  Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *;  Ecuador 1960-63 *;  Congo 1960 *;  France 1965;  Brazil 1962-64 *;  Dominican Republic 1963 *;  Cuba 1959 to present;  Bolivia 1964 *;  Indonesia 1965 *;  Ghana 1966 *;  Chile 1964-73 *;  Greece 1967 *;  Costa Rica 1970-71;  Bolivia 1971 *;  Australia 1973-75 *;  Angola 1975, 1980s;  Zaire 1975;  Portugal 1974-76 *;  Jamaica 1976-80 *;  Seychelles 1979-81;  Chad 1981-82 *;  Grenada 1983 *;  South Yemen 1982-84;  Suriname 1982-84;  Fiji 1987 *;  Libya 1980s;  Nicaragua 1981-90 *;  Panama 1989 *;  Bulgaria 1990 *;  Albania 1991 *'  Iraq 1991;  Afghanistan 1980s *;  Somalia 1993;  Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *;  Ecuador 2000 *;  Afghanistan 2001 *;  Venezuela 2002 *;  Iraq 2003 *;  Haiti 2004 *;  Somalia 2007 to present;  Honduras 2009 *;  Libya 2011 *;  Syria 2012;  Ukraine 2014 *
Click to expand...


Massive fail as you provide no evidence that the US trying to thwart the people of Venezuela from choosing their own government.

The socialist dictatorship of Venezuela is the one preventing it.

your list is largely fiction and irrelevant to the discussion. Stating something happens in the past does not prove it is happening now so provide evidence or shut up and leave.


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course it would have nothing to do with the same failures which socialism always demonstrates.
> 
> But I will take your bet.
> 
> Provide some evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say "the same failures which socialism always demonstrates" only demonstrates that you do not know what is happening.  The number one socialist organization in America is the numerous "farmer cooperatives", and they are going strong.  The largest socialist corporation in the world is the Mondragon Corporation of Spain, and it has been going strong since the 1950s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.

Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.

What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?


----------



## Soupnazi630

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say "the same failures which socialism always demonstrates" only demonstrates that you do not know what is happening.  The number one socialist organization in America is the numerous "farmer cooperatives", and they are going strong.  The largest socialist corporation in the world is the Mondragon Corporation of Spain, and it has been going strong since the 1950s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
> 
> Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight.
> 
> What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
Click to expand...

The AK47


----------



## Weatherman2020

Soupnazi630 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
> 
> Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight.
> 
> What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The AK47
Click to expand...

True.  And the left wish it never existed.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Weatherman2020 said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
> 
> Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight.
> 
> What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The AK47
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.  And the left wish it never existed.
Click to expand...

Even a train wreck like the USSR can occasionally find a gifted engineer to create a masterpiece.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Soupnazi630 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
> 
> Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight.
> 
> What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The AK47
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.  And the left wish it never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even a train wreck like the USSR can occasionally find a gifted engineer to create a masterpiece.
Click to expand...

Still, AK-47 is just a version of an existing technology.  

I can't think of any technological nor even society things socialism has provided.


----------



## Political Junky

CrusaderFrank said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Venezuela would be a workers paradise but for America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard socialist excuse #2:  "it's not our fault, its country X trying to ruin us!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the CIA in not in Venezuela trying to screw things over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's the CIA's fault.  Yes, an organization that said that WMD's were in Iraq and Trump colluded with Putin but can't seem to produce the documents.
> 
> Well done rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already have sanctions against Venezuela, so the outside part is true.  For the inside part, go to the article, "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government" with the subtitle, "The US has a long and bloody history of meddling in Latin America's affairs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela needs a Pinochet in the worst way
Click to expand...

Pinochet, the late stages of Conservatism.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say "the same failures which socialism always demonstrates" only demonstrates that you do not know what is happening.  The number one socialist organization in America is the numerous "farmer cooperatives", and they are going strong.  The largest socialist corporation in the world is the Mondragon Corporation of Spain, and it has been going strong since the 1950s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.
> 
> He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
> 
> Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
> 
> His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
> 
> You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
> 
> Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
> 
> So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat  pig Marx and what he wrote.
> 
> Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
Click to expand...


Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."

Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place.  Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit."  It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system.  Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism.  This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.

(Quote)

Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.

In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.

(End quote)


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the term "socialist dictatorship", at least according to Marx, is an oxymoron.  About "Provide evidence that CIA is attempting regime change in Venezuela", I did and you missed it.  But again, try the article "CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government."
> 
> CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela has already collapsed, and it is definitely time for regime change while there are still Venezuelan citizens who have not yet starved to death.  You reached for a straw, and you missed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About, "Venezuela has already collapsed, and it is definitely time for regime change", if it is time, the problem is America will not let the people of Venezuela decide for themselves.  Why, because America wants American corporations to control the oil in that country.  The people of Venezuela want public ownership of the oil so that the benefits can go to the country as a whole.  America's capitalism finds that abhorrent!
> 
> And about, "Venezuelan citizens who have not yet starved to death", if they are starving, you should explain why we are adding to their misery with sanctions against the country.  You should explain how the "Christian nation" that America calls itself has decided to kick these people when they are down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The US has no opposition to the people of Venezuela choosing their own government. It is strictly the current regime which will not allow such democracy which is typical for socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that US foreign policy is interested in the people of Venezuela choosing their own government, you know nothing of what the US has done in the last 50 years and more.
> 
> The following list is instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. _(* indicates successful ouster of a government)_
> 
> China 1949 to early 1960s;  Albania 1949-53;  East Germany 1950s;  Iran 1953 *;  Guatemala 1954 *;  Costa Rica mid-1950s;  Syria 1956-7;  Egypt 1957;  Indonesia 1957-8;  British Guiana 1953-64 *;  Iraq 1963 *;  North Vietnam 1945-73;  Cambodia 1955-70 *;  Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *;  Ecuador 1960-63 *;  Congo 1960 *;  France 1965;  Brazil 1962-64 *;  Dominican Republic 1963 *;  Cuba 1959 to present;  Bolivia 1964 *;  Indonesia 1965 *;  Ghana 1966 *;  Chile 1964-73 *;  Greece 1967 *;  Costa Rica 1970-71;  Bolivia 1971 *;  Australia 1973-75 *;  Angola 1975, 1980s;  Zaire 1975;  Portugal 1974-76 *;  Jamaica 1976-80 *;  Seychelles 1979-81;  Chad 1981-82 *;  Grenada 1983 *;  South Yemen 1982-84;  Suriname 1982-84;  Fiji 1987 *;  Libya 1980s;  Nicaragua 1981-90 *;  Panama 1989 *;  Bulgaria 1990 *;  Albania 1991 *'  Iraq 1991;  Afghanistan 1980s *;  Somalia 1993;  Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *;  Ecuador 2000 *;  Afghanistan 2001 *;  Venezuela 2002 *;  Iraq 2003 *;  Haiti 2004 *;  Somalia 2007 to present;  Honduras 2009 *;  Libya 2011 *;  Syria 2012;  Ukraine 2014 *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Massive fail as you provide no evidence that the US trying to thwart the people of Venezuela from choosing their own government.
> 
> The socialist dictatorship of Venezuela is the one preventing it.
> 
> your list is largely fiction and irrelevant to the discussion. Stating something happens in the past does not prove it is happening now so provide evidence or shut up and leave.
Click to expand...


This is desperation, "your list is largely fiction and irrelevant to the discussion."  Yet, not a single example of anything on the long list that is fiction!  Plus the US government openly has sanctions against Venezuela, why are we doing that if not to bring down the government.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say "the same failures which socialism always demonstrates" only demonstrates that you do not know what is happening.  The number one socialist organization in America is the numerous "farmer cooperatives", and they are going strong.  The largest socialist corporation in the world is the Mondragon Corporation of Spain, and it has been going strong since the 1950s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
> 
> Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
> 
> What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
Click to expand...


About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism.  That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method.  Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research.  Your iPhone is an example!  Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research.  Capitalism got them for free!

And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new.  He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.


----------



## danielpalos

Let's ask the World Bank, for funds to relocate Venezuelans, to a currently empty city already built by the Chinese.  


Socialism has already, pioneered the way.


----------



## danielpalos

In the US, we need to exercise our Corps of Engineers, to better use.


----------



## depotoo

Capitalism is essentially 
-- Mass Production to fill the needs of the Masses -- 

But Marx always labored under the deceptive conception that the workers are toiling for the sole benefit of an upper class of idle parasites. 

He did not see that the workers themselves consume by far the greater part of all the consumers' goods turned out. 

The millionaires consume an almost negligible part of what is called the national product. 

All branches of big business cater directly or indirectly to the needs of the common man. 

The luxury industries never develop beyond small-scale or medium-size units. 

The evolution of big business is in itself proof of the fact that the masses and not the nabobs are the main consumers. 

Those who deal with the phenomenon of big business under the rubric "concentration of economic power" fail to realize that economic power is vested in the buying public on whose patronage the prosperity of the factories depends. 

In his capacity as buyer,
-- the wage earner is the customer who is "always right." -- 

But Marx [incorrectly] declares that the bourgeoisie "is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery." 

The whole chain of this reasoning is exploded by the establishment of the fact that the progress of capitalism does not pauperize the wage earners increasingly but on the contrary improves their standard of living

-- Ludwig von Mises 


The corollary of the alleged progressive impoverishment of the wage earners is the concentration of all riches in the hands of a class of capitalist exploiters whose membership is continually shrinking. 

In dealing with this issue Marx failed to take into account the fact that the evolution of big business units does not necessarily involve the concentration of wealth in a few hands. The big business enterprises are almost without exception corporations, precisely because they are too big for single individuals to own them entirely. 

The growth of business units has far outstripped the growth of individual fortunes. 

...the common stock of a corporation is as a rule not concentrated in the hands of one man. 

The bigger the corporation, as a rule, the more widely its shares are distributed. 

-- Ludwig von Mises


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
> 
> Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
> 
> What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism.  That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method.  Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research.  Your iPhone is an example!  Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research.  Capitalism got them for free!
> 
> And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new.  He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
Click to expand...

Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.

Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.


----------



## Political Junky

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
> 
> Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
> 
> What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism.  That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method.  Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research.  Your iPhone is an example!  Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research.  Capitalism got them for free!
> 
> And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new.  He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.
> 
> Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.
Click to expand...

Steve jobs was a Democrat.
As far as anti-science, cons deny evolution and climate change.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Thousands of Venezuelan children in Cucuta are not going to school, spending their days alone, following their parents, selling items on the streets or begging.

Every day more arrive. About 40,000 Venezuelans were legally entering Colombia each month at the end of 2017, according to Colombian authorities, with thousands more thought to enter illegally.

All along the Venezuelan border, towns are struggling to cope. Last week, leaders of Brazil’s state of Roraima asked the Supreme Court for permission to close its border temporarily to halt the mass arrival.

While many Venezuelans with the means to migrate legally fled years ago, those leaving today are often seeking jobs to send money to families back home. Few seek political asylum.

Aid groups and authorities warn poverty plus lack of schooling or daily supervision will push children into the ranks of Colombia’s organized crime groups.

“If you don’t educate a child, you can’t correct that. You totally change the trajectory of their life,” said Yadira Galeano, Norwegian Refugee Council manager for Colombia’s border areas.

“Many kids end up being easy subjects for criminal or armed groups.”


----------



## Weatherman2020

Political Junky said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
> 
> Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
> 
> What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism.  That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method.  Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research.  Your iPhone is an example!  Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research.  Capitalism got them for free!
> 
> And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new.  He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.
> 
> Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Steve jobs was a Democrat.
> As far as anti-science, cons deny evolution and climate change.
Click to expand...

Your problem if you think every registered Democrat is a socialist.

And yes, my leftist scientific superiors believe humans can change sex upon a whim and there is no difference between male and female.


----------



## danielpalos

depotoo said:


> Capitalism is essentially
> -- Mass Production to fill the needs of the Masses --
> 
> But Marx always labored under the deceptive conception that the workers are toiling for the sole benefit of an upper class of idle parasites.
> 
> He did not see that the workers themselves consume by far the greater part of all the consumers' goods turned out.
> 
> The millionaires consume an almost negligible part of what is called the national product.
> 
> All branches of big business cater directly or indirectly to the needs of the common man.
> 
> The luxury industries never develop beyond small-scale or medium-size units.
> 
> The evolution of big business is in itself proof of the fact that the masses and not the nabobs are the main consumers.
> 
> Those who deal with the phenomenon of big business under the rubric "concentration of economic power" fail to realize that economic power is vested in the buying public on whose patronage the prosperity of the factories depends.
> 
> In his capacity as buyer,
> -- the wage earner is the customer who is "always right." --
> 
> But Marx [incorrectly] declares that the bourgeoisie "is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery."
> 
> The whole chain of this reasoning is exploded by the establishment of the fact that the progress of capitalism does not pauperize the wage earners increasingly but on the contrary improves their standard of living
> 
> -- Ludwig von Mises
> 
> 
> The corollary of the alleged progressive impoverishment of the wage earners is the concentration of all riches in the hands of a class of capitalist exploiters whose membership is continually shrinking.
> 
> In dealing with this issue Marx failed to take into account the fact that the evolution of big business units does not necessarily involve the concentration of wealth in a few hands. The big business enterprises are almost without exception corporations, precisely because they are too big for single individuals to own them entirely.
> 
> The growth of business units has far outstripped the growth of individual fortunes.
> 
> ...the common stock of a corporation is as a rule not concentrated in the hands of one man.
> 
> The bigger the corporation, as a rule, the more widely its shares are distributed.
> 
> -- Ludwig von Mises


Let's ask for a line of credit from the World Bank.


----------



## danielpalos

Weatherman2020 said:


> Thousands of Venezuelan children in Cucuta are not going to school, spending their days alone, following their parents, selling items on the streets or begging.
> 
> Every day more arrive. About 40,000 Venezuelans were legally entering Colombia each month at the end of 2017, according to Colombian authorities, with thousands more thought to enter illegally.
> 
> All along the Venezuelan border, towns are struggling to cope. Last week, leaders of Brazil’s state of Roraima asked the Supreme Court for permission to close its border temporarily to halt the mass arrival.
> 
> While many Venezuelans with the means to migrate legally fled years ago, those leaving today are often seeking jobs to send money to families back home. Few seek political asylum.
> 
> Aid groups and authorities warn poverty plus lack of schooling or daily supervision will push children into the ranks of Colombia’s organized crime groups.
> 
> “If you don’t educate a child, you can’t correct that. You totally change the trajectory of their life,” said Yadira Galeano, Norwegian Refugee Council manager for Colombia’s border areas.
> 
> “Many kids end up being easy subjects for criminal or armed groups.”


Sound like a job for the Corp of Engineers!


----------



## depotoo

You mean that Marxist institution that is supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?





danielpalos said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is essentially
> -- Mass Production to fill the needs of the Masses --
> 
> But Marx always labored under the deceptive conception that the workers are toiling for the sole benefit of an upper class of idle parasites.
> 
> He did not see that the workers themselves consume by far the greater part of all the consumers' goods turned out.
> 
> The millionaires consume an almost negligible part of what is called the national product.
> 
> All branches of big business cater directly or indirectly to the needs of the common man.
> 
> The luxury industries never develop beyond small-scale or medium-size units.
> 
> The evolution of big business is in itself proof of the fact that the masses and not the nabobs are the main consumers.
> 
> Those who deal with the phenomenon of big business under the rubric "concentration of economic power" fail to realize that economic power is vested in the buying public on whose patronage the prosperity of the factories depends.
> 
> In his capacity as buyer,
> -- the wage earner is the customer who is "always right." --
> 
> But Marx [incorrectly] declares that the bourgeoisie "is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery."
> 
> The whole chain of this reasoning is exploded by the establishment of the fact that the progress of capitalism does not pauperize the wage earners increasingly but on the contrary improves their standard of living
> 
> -- Ludwig von Mises
> 
> 
> The corollary of the alleged progressive impoverishment of the wage earners is the concentration of all riches in the hands of a class of capitalist exploiters whose membership is continually shrinking.
> 
> In dealing with this issue Marx failed to take into account the fact that the evolution of big business units does not necessarily involve the concentration of wealth in a few hands. The big business enterprises are almost without exception corporations, precisely because they are too big for single individuals to own them entirely.
> 
> The growth of business units has far outstripped the growth of individual fortunes.
> 
> ...the common stock of a corporation is as a rule not concentrated in the hands of one man.
> 
> The bigger the corporation, as a rule, the more widely its shares are distributed.
> 
> -- Ludwig von Mises
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask for a line of credit from the World Bank.
Click to expand...


----------



## Toro

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.
> 
> He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
> 
> Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
> 
> His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
> 
> You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
> 
> Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
> 
> So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat  pig Marx and what he wrote.
> 
> Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."
> 
> Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place.  Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit."  It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system.  Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism.  This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
> 
> In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
> 
> (End quote)
Click to expand...


Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious. 

Nobody takes it seriously other than other dyed in the wool Marxists.


----------



## danielpalos

depotoo said:


> You mean that Marxist institution that is supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is essentially
> -- Mass Production to fill the needs of the Masses --
> 
> But Marx always labored under the deceptive conception that the workers are toiling for the sole benefit of an upper class of idle parasites.
> 
> He did not see that the workers themselves consume by far the greater part of all the consumers' goods turned out.
> 
> The millionaires consume an almost negligible part of what is called the national product.
> 
> All branches of big business cater directly or indirectly to the needs of the common man.
> 
> The luxury industries never develop beyond small-scale or medium-size units.
> 
> The evolution of big business is in itself proof of the fact that the masses and not the nabobs are the main consumers.
> 
> Those who deal with the phenomenon of big business under the rubric "concentration of economic power" fail to realize that economic power is vested in the buying public on whose patronage the prosperity of the factories depends.
> 
> In his capacity as buyer,
> -- the wage earner is the customer who is "always right." --
> 
> But Marx [incorrectly] declares that the bourgeoisie "is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery."
> 
> The whole chain of this reasoning is exploded by the establishment of the fact that the progress of capitalism does not pauperize the wage earners increasingly but on the contrary improves their standard of living
> 
> -- Ludwig von Mises
> 
> 
> The corollary of the alleged progressive impoverishment of the wage earners is the concentration of all riches in the hands of a class of capitalist exploiters whose membership is continually shrinking.
> 
> In dealing with this issue Marx failed to take into account the fact that the evolution of big business units does not necessarily involve the concentration of wealth in a few hands. The big business enterprises are almost without exception corporations, precisely because they are too big for single individuals to own them entirely.
> 
> The growth of business units has far outstripped the growth of individual fortunes.
> 
> ...the common stock of a corporation is as a rule not concentrated in the hands of one man.
> 
> The bigger the corporation, as a rule, the more widely its shares are distributed.
> 
> -- Ludwig von Mises
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask for a line of credit from the World Bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Don't believe in Capitalism?


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.
> 
> He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
> 
> Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
> 
> His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
> 
> You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
> 
> Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
> 
> So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat  pig Marx and what he wrote.
> 
> Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."
> 
> Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place.  Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit."  It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system.  Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism.  This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
> 
> In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
> 
> (End quote)
Click to expand...

Marx was  never about freedom and democracy he was about totalitarianism and that is FACT.

The irony here is that you actually helped to prove that fact with the quote you cited.

" we have seen above, that th first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of RULING class to win the battle of democracy".

Read it again SLOWLY as you clearly missed what he was advocating. HE was advocating a RULING class which is not democracy and never democratically elected and never free.

He was preaching TOTALITARIANISM and this is proven by the very quote YOU provided. He never advocated democracy for anyone.

Marx's quote about labor and the fuedal system vs capitalism is garbage. His babbling incoherent claim about workers toiling 3 days a week for themselves and then for others is crap. 

Marx never worked at a job a day in his life and was 100 % ignorant about how peopled work to make a living. He was a bum who begged  and panhandled his whole life like the sick bastard he was and by definition had no knowledge whatsoever about workers or the working class who he wished to enslave.

Communism is about universal slavery and despotism according to Marx and you are proving that correct. He never understood anything about workers or the working class and preach enslavement of all to society which means SOCIALISM.

Socialism ( or communism ) = " From each according to his ability and to each according to his need "

Slavery = " from each according to his ability and to each according to his need, "

Simple fact slaves have nothing to be stolen except their labor which is forced from them. Furthermore since slaves are individuals they each have talents and skills different from each other. This is why some harvest cotton while others are the seamstresses and blacksmiths and butlers. IN other words their ABILITY is what is stolen from them. FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY. 

On the other hand all slave owners make sure and give a slave everything the slave NEEDS to basically stay alive and continue to work. They do you no good if they starve or die of exposure. SO you make sure they have food water clothing and shelter even if it is disgusting scraps, rags, and a bare bones shack. TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED.

You are dreadfully ill informed wrong and ignorant about Marx he was an evil piece of filth who preached exactly what nations world wide practiced when using his ideas. Slavery genocide and poverty.

He never advocated democracy


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela has already collapsed, and it is definitely time for regime change while there are still Venezuelan citizens who have not yet starved to death.  You reached for a straw, and you missed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About, "Venezuela has already collapsed, and it is definitely time for regime change", if it is time, the problem is America will not let the people of Venezuela decide for themselves.  Why, because America wants American corporations to control the oil in that country.  The people of Venezuela want public ownership of the oil so that the benefits can go to the country as a whole.  America's capitalism finds that abhorrent!
> 
> And about, "Venezuelan citizens who have not yet starved to death", if they are starving, you should explain why we are adding to their misery with sanctions against the country.  You should explain how the "Christian nation" that America calls itself has decided to kick these people when they are down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The US has no opposition to the people of Venezuela choosing their own government. It is strictly the current regime which will not allow such democracy which is typical for socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that US foreign policy is interested in the people of Venezuela choosing their own government, you know nothing of what the US has done in the last 50 years and more.
> 
> The following list is instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. _(* indicates successful ouster of a government)_
> 
> China 1949 to early 1960s;  Albania 1949-53;  East Germany 1950s;  Iran 1953 *;  Guatemala 1954 *;  Costa Rica mid-1950s;  Syria 1956-7;  Egypt 1957;  Indonesia 1957-8;  British Guiana 1953-64 *;  Iraq 1963 *;  North Vietnam 1945-73;  Cambodia 1955-70 *;  Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *;  Ecuador 1960-63 *;  Congo 1960 *;  France 1965;  Brazil 1962-64 *;  Dominican Republic 1963 *;  Cuba 1959 to present;  Bolivia 1964 *;  Indonesia 1965 *;  Ghana 1966 *;  Chile 1964-73 *;  Greece 1967 *;  Costa Rica 1970-71;  Bolivia 1971 *;  Australia 1973-75 *;  Angola 1975, 1980s;  Zaire 1975;  Portugal 1974-76 *;  Jamaica 1976-80 *;  Seychelles 1979-81;  Chad 1981-82 *;  Grenada 1983 *;  South Yemen 1982-84;  Suriname 1982-84;  Fiji 1987 *;  Libya 1980s;  Nicaragua 1981-90 *;  Panama 1989 *;  Bulgaria 1990 *;  Albania 1991 *'  Iraq 1991;  Afghanistan 1980s *;  Somalia 1993;  Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *;  Ecuador 2000 *;  Afghanistan 2001 *;  Venezuela 2002 *;  Iraq 2003 *;  Haiti 2004 *;  Somalia 2007 to present;  Honduras 2009 *;  Libya 2011 *;  Syria 2012;  Ukraine 2014 *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Massive fail as you provide no evidence that the US trying to thwart the people of Venezuela from choosing their own government.
> 
> The socialist dictatorship of Venezuela is the one preventing it.
> 
> your list is largely fiction and irrelevant to the discussion. Stating something happens in the past does not prove it is happening now so provide evidence or shut up and leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is desperation, "your list is largely fiction and irrelevant to the discussion."  Yet, not a single example of anything on the long list that is fiction!  Plus the US government openly has sanctions against Venezuela, why are we doing that if not to bring down the government.
Click to expand...


We are doing it to penalize them for their human rights violations and in fact the burden is on you to prove the list.


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is you lacking comprehension of what socialism means and you have failed to challenge what history conclusively demonstrates.
> 
> A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary. Socialism is applied through government force and is never voluntary which is the flaw in yourt premise and in your weak thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
> 
> Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
> 
> What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism.  That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method.  Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research.  Your iPhone is an example!  Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research.  Capitalism got them for free!
> 
> And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new.  He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
Click to expand...

Wrong it is made possible by capitalism.

The Scientific method works unless it is NOT FUNDED.

Science and aerodynamics never made a plane fly FUNDING did.

Sorry but you are wrong capitalism benefits humanity socialism destroys it as marx advocated.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Political Junky said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
> 
> Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
> 
> What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism.  That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method.  Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research.  Your iPhone is an example!  Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research.  Capitalism got them for free!
> 
> And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new.  He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.
> 
> Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Steve jobs was a Democrat.
> As far as anti-science, cons deny evolution and climate change.
Click to expand...

While libs caused the deaths of many by banning DDT, and pushed worthless recycling, and fought against GMOs which could have helped end famine and lately are pushing an idea of a gender spectrum which is counter to science.

IF you are gonna make it a conservative vs liberals thing the left is MORE anti science than the right.

Unlike the right the left actually has casualties from it's war on science.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Toro said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.
> 
> He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
> 
> Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
> 
> His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
> 
> You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
> 
> Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
> 
> So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat  pig Marx and what he wrote.
> 
> Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."
> 
> Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place.  Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit."  It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system.  Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism.  This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
> 
> In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious.
> 
> Nobody takes it seriously other than other dyed in the wool Marxists.
Click to expand...

Very true.

He throws a bunch of math at the question in order to try and convince the reader that he knew what he was talking about.

IF you work it out however you find it is not math at all.

HE also throws around the word science without ever applying the scientific method or even demonstrating comprehension of the scientific method.

No matter how hard he tries he cannot get around the fact that value is strictly SUBJECTIVE and cannot be objectively measured. He needed it to be objectively measured in order to apply his worthless theories of central planning and forced economics.

It is high among his many massive failures.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
> 
> Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
> 
> What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism.  That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method.  Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research.  Your iPhone is an example!  Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research.  Capitalism got them for free!
> 
> And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new.  He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.
> 
> Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.
Click to expand...


This statement assumes, wrongly, that humans are only motivated by the "profit motive" found in capitalism.  The statement is, "So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation."  Again, the technology we enjoy comes from the invention of the scientific method, and most science is cooperation, not competition.


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
> 
> Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
> 
> What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism.  That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method.  Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research.  Your iPhone is an example!  Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research.  Capitalism got them for free!
> 
> And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new.  He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.
> 
> Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This statement assumes, wrongly, that humans are only motivated by the "profit motive" found in capitalism.  The statement is, "So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation."  Again, the technology we enjoy comes from the invention of the scientific method, and most science is cooperation, not competition.
Click to expand...

Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?

Color me shocked.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> Thousands of Venezuelan children in Cucuta are not going to school, spending their days alone, following their parents, selling items on the streets or begging.
> 
> Every day more arrive. About 40,000 Venezuelans were legally entering Colombia each month at the end of 2017, according to Colombian authorities, with thousands more thought to enter illegally.
> 
> All along the Venezuelan border, towns are struggling to cope. Last week, leaders of Brazil’s state of Roraima asked the Supreme Court for permission to close its border temporarily to halt the mass arrival.
> 
> While many Venezuelans with the means to migrate legally fled years ago, those leaving today are often seeking jobs to send money to families back home. Few seek political asylum.
> 
> Aid groups and authorities warn poverty plus lack of schooling or daily supervision will push children into the ranks of Colombia’s organized crime groups.
> 
> “If you don’t educate a child, you can’t correct that. You totally change the trajectory of their life,” said Yadira Galeano, Norwegian Refugee Council manager for Colombia’s border areas.
> 
> “Many kids end up being easy subjects for criminal or armed groups.”



First, if it is so bad in Venezuela, why is America trying to make things worse with sanctions and the CIA, rather than helping.  What kind of jerk is America to kick them when they are down?

About "40,000 Venezuelans were legally entering Colombia", the US had more migrants than this after the 2008 crash of their capitalist system - albeit inside the country.

The compartmentalization in this comment is astounding, "If you don’t educate a child, you can’t correct that.  You totally change the trajectory of their life."  Look at America's disastrous education system - buildings are crumbling, teachers are underpaid and must use their own money for supplies.  When it comes to education, America is far richer and certainly, by comparison, we do a worse job of educating our children.  Yet, part of the reason for that is capitalism and the constant need for tax cuts.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
> 
> Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
> 
> What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism.  That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method.  Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research.  Your iPhone is an example!  Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research.  Capitalism got them for free!
> 
> And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new.  He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.
> 
> Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Steve jobs was a Democrat.
> As far as anti-science, cons deny evolution and climate change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your problem if you think every registered Democrat is a socialist.
> 
> And yes, my leftist scientific superiors believe humans can change sex upon a whim and there is no difference between male and female.
Click to expand...


About "no difference between male and female", you may think that, but science people know about hormones.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

depotoo said:


> You mean that Marxist institution that is supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is essentially
> -- Mass Production to fill the needs of the Masses --
> 
> But Marx always labored under the deceptive conception that the workers are toiling for the sole benefit of an upper class of idle parasites.
> 
> He did not see that the workers themselves consume by far the greater part of all the consumers' goods turned out.
> 
> The millionaires consume an almost negligible part of what is called the national product.
> 
> All branches of big business cater directly or indirectly to the needs of the common man.
> 
> The luxury industries never develop beyond small-scale or medium-size units.
> 
> The evolution of big business is in itself proof of the fact that the masses and not the nabobs are the main consumers.
> 
> Those who deal with the phenomenon of big business under the rubric "concentration of economic power" fail to realize that economic power is vested in the buying public on whose patronage the prosperity of the factories depends.
> 
> In his capacity as buyer,
> -- the wage earner is the customer who is "always right." --
> 
> But Marx [incorrectly] declares that the bourgeoisie "is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery."
> 
> The whole chain of this reasoning is exploded by the establishment of the fact that the progress of capitalism does not pauperize the wage earners increasingly but on the contrary improves their standard of living
> 
> -- Ludwig von Mises
> 
> 
> The corollary of the alleged progressive impoverishment of the wage earners is the concentration of all riches in the hands of a class of capitalist exploiters whose membership is continually shrinking.
> 
> In dealing with this issue Marx failed to take into account the fact that the evolution of big business units does not necessarily involve the concentration of wealth in a few hands. The big business enterprises are almost without exception corporations, precisely because they are too big for single individuals to own them entirely.
> 
> The growth of business units has far outstripped the growth of individual fortunes.
> 
> ...the common stock of a corporation is as a rule not concentrated in the hands of one man.
> 
> The bigger the corporation, as a rule, the more widely its shares are distributed.
> 
> -- Ludwig von Mises
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask for a line of credit from the World Bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Okay, this comment is projection of capitalism onto socialism, "supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?"  Capitalism, as in America, leads to empire building.  I need only point to "the Britain on which the sun never set" and America with its 750 to over 800 overseas military bases and installations.  Those American bases are their in case some government does not do what America's rich people want.  I suggest you read Gen. Smedley Butler's book "War is a Racket!"


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Toro said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.
> 
> He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
> 
> Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
> 
> His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
> 
> You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
> 
> Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
> 
> So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat  pig Marx and what he wrote.
> 
> Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."
> 
> Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place.  Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit."  It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system.  Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism.  This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
> 
> In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious.
> 
> Nobody takes it seriously other than other dyed in the wool Marxists.
Click to expand...


Again, you demonstrate you have not read Marx - or much else of the classical economists with this comment, "Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious."  Try reading John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, and more.  They all talk about it, because they are interested in how much "unearned income" is extracted from the price of a product.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.
> 
> He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
> 
> Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
> 
> His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
> 
> You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
> 
> Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
> 
> So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat  pig Marx and what he wrote.
> 
> Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."
> 
> Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place.  Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit."  It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system.  Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism.  This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
> 
> In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marx was  never about freedom and democracy he was about totalitarianism and that is FACT.
> 
> The irony here is that you actually helped to prove that fact with the quote you cited.
> 
> " we have seen above, that th first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of RULING class to win the battle of democracy".
> 
> Read it again SLOWLY as you clearly missed what he was advocating. HE was advocating a RULING class which is not democracy and never democratically elected and never free.
> 
> He was preaching TOTALITARIANISM and this is proven by the very quote YOU provided. He never advocated democracy for anyone.
> 
> Marx's quote about labor and the fuedal system vs capitalism is garbage. His babbling incoherent claim about workers toiling 3 days a week for themselves and then for others is crap.
> 
> Marx never worked at a job a day in his life and was 100 % ignorant about how peopled work to make a living. He was a bum who begged  and panhandled his whole life like the sick bastard he was and by definition had no knowledge whatsoever about workers or the working class who he wished to enslave.
> 
> Communism is about universal slavery and despotism according to Marx and you are proving that correct. He never understood anything about workers or the working class and preach enslavement of all to society which means SOCIALISM.
> 
> Socialism ( or communism ) = " From each according to his ability and to each according to his need "
> 
> Slavery = " from each according to his ability and to each according to his need, "
> 
> Simple fact slaves have nothing to be stolen except their labor which is forced from them. Furthermore since slaves are individuals they each have talents and skills different from each other. This is why some harvest cotton while others are the seamstresses and blacksmiths and butlers. IN other words their ABILITY is what is stolen from them. FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY.
> 
> On the other hand all slave owners make sure and give a slave everything the slave NEEDS to basically stay alive and continue to work. They do you no good if they starve or die of exposure. SO you make sure they have food water clothing and shelter even if it is disgusting scraps, rags, and a bare bones shack. TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED.
> 
> You are dreadfully ill informed wrong and ignorant about Marx he was an evil piece of filth who preached exactly what nations world wide practiced when using his ideas. Slavery genocide and poverty.
> 
> He never advocated democracy
Click to expand...


Well, you can say that Marx is about "totalitarianism", but you saying it does not make it so.  Regarding "rise of the proletariat", considering that most of the population fall into this class, the rise of the proletariat would mean democracy.  Capitalism is rule by the rich - that is, an oligarchy, which is what America is now!

About that line, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need", that is from the "Critique of the Gotha Programme", and Marx is talking about Socialism producing such abundance that basic needs are met.  Capitalism will never meet the basic needs of a society, because capitalism depends on scarcity and a large supply of desperate workers - which is why Republicans always want to cut the minimum wage and unemployment benefits.

Technology has reached the point where all Americans could have their basic needs of food, shelter, education, and healthcare met, but, sadly, capitalism will not allow it.  Notice in the quote below the phrase, "all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly."  Also, notice how "enslaving" "has vanished!"  If "enslaving" "has vanished" and these are the words of Karl Marx, then you have some catching up to do.

Quote)

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

(End quote)


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About, "Venezuela has already collapsed, and it is definitely time for regime change", if it is time, the problem is America will not let the people of Venezuela decide for themselves.  Why, because America wants American corporations to control the oil in that country.  The people of Venezuela want public ownership of the oil so that the benefits can go to the country as a whole.  America's capitalism finds that abhorrent!
> 
> And about, "Venezuelan citizens who have not yet starved to death", if they are starving, you should explain why we are adding to their misery with sanctions against the country.  You should explain how the "Christian nation" that America calls itself has decided to kick these people when they are down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The US has no opposition to the people of Venezuela choosing their own government. It is strictly the current regime which will not allow such democracy which is typical for socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that US foreign policy is interested in the people of Venezuela choosing their own government, you know nothing of what the US has done in the last 50 years and more.
> 
> The following list is instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. _(* indicates successful ouster of a government)_
> 
> China 1949 to early 1960s;  Albania 1949-53;  East Germany 1950s;  Iran 1953 *;  Guatemala 1954 *;  Costa Rica mid-1950s;  Syria 1956-7;  Egypt 1957;  Indonesia 1957-8;  British Guiana 1953-64 *;  Iraq 1963 *;  North Vietnam 1945-73;  Cambodia 1955-70 *;  Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *;  Ecuador 1960-63 *;  Congo 1960 *;  France 1965;  Brazil 1962-64 *;  Dominican Republic 1963 *;  Cuba 1959 to present;  Bolivia 1964 *;  Indonesia 1965 *;  Ghana 1966 *;  Chile 1964-73 *;  Greece 1967 *;  Costa Rica 1970-71;  Bolivia 1971 *;  Australia 1973-75 *;  Angola 1975, 1980s;  Zaire 1975;  Portugal 1974-76 *;  Jamaica 1976-80 *;  Seychelles 1979-81;  Chad 1981-82 *;  Grenada 1983 *;  South Yemen 1982-84;  Suriname 1982-84;  Fiji 1987 *;  Libya 1980s;  Nicaragua 1981-90 *;  Panama 1989 *;  Bulgaria 1990 *;  Albania 1991 *'  Iraq 1991;  Afghanistan 1980s *;  Somalia 1993;  Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *;  Ecuador 2000 *;  Afghanistan 2001 *;  Venezuela 2002 *;  Iraq 2003 *;  Haiti 2004 *;  Somalia 2007 to present;  Honduras 2009 *;  Libya 2011 *;  Syria 2012;  Ukraine 2014 *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Massive fail as you provide no evidence that the US trying to thwart the people of Venezuela from choosing their own government.
> 
> The socialist dictatorship of Venezuela is the one preventing it.
> 
> your list is largely fiction and irrelevant to the discussion. Stating something happens in the past does not prove it is happening now so provide evidence or shut up and leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is desperation, "your list is largely fiction and irrelevant to the discussion."  Yet, not a single example of anything on the long list that is fiction!  Plus the US government openly has sanctions against Venezuela, why are we doing that if not to bring down the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are doing it to penalize them for their human rights violations and in fact the burden is on you to prove the list.
Click to expand...



This comment would be funny, if it were not so tragic, "We are doing it to penalize them for their human rights violations."  And what about America's human rights violations?  Who punishes America!


----------



## Toro

Venezuela’s new high tech strategy - kidnap Apple executives!


----------



## Toro

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.
> 
> He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
> 
> Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
> 
> His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
> 
> You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
> 
> Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
> 
> So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat  pig Marx and what he wrote.
> 
> Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."
> 
> Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place.  Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit."  It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system.  Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism.  This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
> 
> In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious.
> 
> Nobody takes it seriously other than other dyed in the wool Marxists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you demonstrate you have not read Marx - or much else of the classical economists with this comment, "Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious."  Try reading John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, and more.  They all talk about it, because they are interested in how much "unearned income" is extracted from the price of a product.
Click to expand...


I have. I studied the history of economic thought - Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Say, Walras, Marshall, Keynes, etc.

It’s garbage.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "A coop is not socialist in nature as it is strictly voluntary", it must be nice to be so smart, and yet, never have read the actual writings of Karl Marx.  By Marx's definition, they are socialist.  Plus, America's most noted Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, who has economics degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, also says they are socialist organizations.
> 
> Frankly, you are clueless!  Read Marx, he was advocating bringing democracy to the workplace.  As it is now, your boss is the dictator!
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
> 
> Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
> 
> What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism.  That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method.  Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research.  Your iPhone is an example!  Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research.  Capitalism got them for free!
> 
> And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new.  He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong it is made possible by capitalism.
> 
> The Scientific method works unless it is NOT FUNDED.
> 
> Science and aerodynamics never made a plane fly FUNDING did.
> 
> Sorry but you are wrong capitalism benefits humanity socialism destroys it as marx advocated.
Click to expand...


The argument that capitalism creates technology is "correlation" not "causation."  Capitalism and the scientific method came about at the same time.  Thus, people get caught in the fallacy called "Post hoc ergo propter hoc"  This is a logical fallacy that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to "post hoc fallacy."

Yet, a causal link can be seen from the scientific method to technology.  And again, your iPhone is really a product of government money being applied to the scientific method.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
> 
> Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
> 
> What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism.  That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method.  Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research.  Your iPhone is an example!  Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research.  Capitalism got them for free!
> 
> And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new.  He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.
> 
> Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This statement assumes, wrongly, that humans are only motivated by the "profit motive" found in capitalism.  The statement is, "So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation."  Again, the technology we enjoy comes from the invention of the scientific method, and most science is cooperation, not competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?
> 
> Color me shocked.
Click to expand...


About "Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?"  Depends on you definition of socialist nation.  The Scandinavian countries are doing fine - given the current world situation, and the contributions of their scientists are on par with their population.


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class what socialist nations are famous for contributing to civilization.
> 
> Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains, walking on the moon, planes, recording of music, telephones, radio, supersonic flight, and almost every medical breakthrough.
> 
> What have socialist nations provided? Besides radioactive lakes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism.  That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method.  Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research.  Your iPhone is an example!  Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research.  Capitalism got them for free!
> 
> And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new.  He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.
> 
> Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This statement assumes, wrongly, that humans are only motivated by the "profit motive" found in capitalism.  The statement is, "So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation."  Again, the technology we enjoy comes from the invention of the scientific method, and most science is cooperation, not competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?
> 
> Color me shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?"  Depends on you definition of socialist nation.  The Scandinavian countries are doing fine - given the current world situation, and the contributions of their scientists are on par with their population.
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming socialist nations contribute nothing to civilization and are just parasites that feed off of what capitalism provides as their socialist system whithers away.


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean that Marxist institution that is supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is essentially
> -- Mass Production to fill the needs of the Masses --
> 
> But Marx always labored under the deceptive conception that the workers are toiling for the sole benefit of an upper class of idle parasites.
> 
> He did not see that the workers themselves consume by far the greater part of all the consumers' goods turned out.
> 
> The millionaires consume an almost negligible part of what is called the national product.
> 
> All branches of big business cater directly or indirectly to the needs of the common man.
> 
> The luxury industries never develop beyond small-scale or medium-size units.
> 
> The evolution of big business is in itself proof of the fact that the masses and not the nabobs are the main consumers.
> 
> Those who deal with the phenomenon of big business under the rubric "concentration of economic power" fail to realize that economic power is vested in the buying public on whose patronage the prosperity of the factories depends.
> 
> In his capacity as buyer,
> -- the wage earner is the customer who is "always right." --
> 
> But Marx [incorrectly] declares that the bourgeoisie "is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery."
> 
> The whole chain of this reasoning is exploded by the establishment of the fact that the progress of capitalism does not pauperize the wage earners increasingly but on the contrary improves their standard of living
> 
> -- Ludwig von Mises
> 
> 
> The corollary of the alleged progressive impoverishment of the wage earners is the concentration of all riches in the hands of a class of capitalist exploiters whose membership is continually shrinking.
> 
> In dealing with this issue Marx failed to take into account the fact that the evolution of big business units does not necessarily involve the concentration of wealth in a few hands. The big business enterprises are almost without exception corporations, precisely because they are too big for single individuals to own them entirely.
> 
> The growth of business units has far outstripped the growth of individual fortunes.
> 
> ...the common stock of a corporation is as a rule not concentrated in the hands of one man.
> 
> The bigger the corporation, as a rule, the more widely its shares are distributed.
> 
> -- Ludwig von Mises
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask for a line of credit from the World Bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, this comment is projection of capitalism onto socialism, "supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?"  Capitalism, as in America, leads to empire building.  I need only point to "the Britain on which the sun never set" and America with its 750 to over 800 overseas military bases and installations.  Those American bases are their in case some government does not do what America's rich people want.  I suggest you read Gen. Smedley Butler's book "War is a Racket!"
Click to expand...

Yes, America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire, took the Asian Pacific for no reason but conquest, and America controls what 168 nations do.

Tell us, what pathetic slave nation to America do you live in?


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.
> 
> He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
> 
> Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
> 
> His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
> 
> You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
> 
> Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
> 
> So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat  pig Marx and what he wrote.
> 
> Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."
> 
> Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place.  Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit."  It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system.  Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism.  This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
> 
> In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious.
> 
> Nobody takes it seriously other than other dyed in the wool Marxists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you demonstrate you have not read Marx - or much else of the classical economists with this comment, "Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious."  Try reading John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, and more.  They all talk about it, because they are interested in how much "unearned income" is extracted from the price of a product.
Click to expand...

HE has in fact and understands it better than you do.

There is no such thing as unearned income as extracted from the price of a product.

Marx's surplus value of labor IS hilariously stupid as he ignores the basic fact that the value of labor is strictly subjective.


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have read Marx and understand him better and no they are not socialist at all. Coops are strictly voluntary.
> 
> they are voluntary and nothing about socialism is voluntary according to Marx which you clearly never read. Which proves you a liar.
> 
> Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose the classless, egalitarian, socialist utopia he envisioned. He never once advocated democracy.
> 
> Sorry but the ploy you are trying is a failure which many people who defend Marx try to use and fail at ,
> 
> You are not better informed or enlightened about what he wrote and you are dead wrong as proven by his very writing.
> 
> A marxist economist is by definition a fool with no credibility so you are proven wrong by Marx.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.
> 
> He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
> 
> Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
> 
> His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
> 
> You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
> 
> Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
> 
> So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat  pig Marx and what he wrote.
> 
> Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."
> 
> Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place.  Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit."  It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system.  Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism.  This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
> 
> In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marx was  never about freedom and democracy he was about totalitarianism and that is FACT.
> 
> The irony here is that you actually helped to prove that fact with the quote you cited.
> 
> " we have seen above, that th first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of RULING class to win the battle of democracy".
> 
> Read it again SLOWLY as you clearly missed what he was advocating. HE was advocating a RULING class which is not democracy and never democratically elected and never free.
> 
> He was preaching TOTALITARIANISM and this is proven by the very quote YOU provided. He never advocated democracy for anyone.
> 
> Marx's quote about labor and the fuedal system vs capitalism is garbage. His babbling incoherent claim about workers toiling 3 days a week for themselves and then for others is crap.
> 
> Marx never worked at a job a day in his life and was 100 % ignorant about how peopled work to make a living. He was a bum who begged  and panhandled his whole life like the sick bastard he was and by definition had no knowledge whatsoever about workers or the working class who he wished to enslave.
> 
> Communism is about universal slavery and despotism according to Marx and you are proving that correct. He never understood anything about workers or the working class and preach enslavement of all to society which means SOCIALISM.
> 
> Socialism ( or communism ) = " From each according to his ability and to each according to his need "
> 
> Slavery = " from each according to his ability and to each according to his need, "
> 
> Simple fact slaves have nothing to be stolen except their labor which is forced from them. Furthermore since slaves are individuals they each have talents and skills different from each other. This is why some harvest cotton while others are the seamstresses and blacksmiths and butlers. IN other words their ABILITY is what is stolen from them. FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY.
> 
> On the other hand all slave owners make sure and give a slave everything the slave NEEDS to basically stay alive and continue to work. They do you no good if they starve or die of exposure. SO you make sure they have food water clothing and shelter even if it is disgusting scraps, rags, and a bare bones shack. TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED.
> 
> You are dreadfully ill informed wrong and ignorant about Marx he was an evil piece of filth who preached exactly what nations world wide practiced when using his ideas. Slavery genocide and poverty.
> 
> He never advocated democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you can say that Marx is about "totalitarianism", but you saying it does not make it so.  Regarding "rise of the proletariat", considering that most of the population fall into this class, the rise of the proletariat would mean democracy.  Capitalism is rule by the rich - that is, an oligarchy, which is what America is now!
> 
> About that line, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need", that is from the "Critique of the Gotha Programme", and Marx is talking about Socialism producing such abundance that basic needs are met.  Capitalism will never meet the basic needs of a society, because capitalism depends on scarcity and a large supply of desperate workers - which is why Republicans always want to cut the minimum wage and unemployment benefits.
> 
> Technology has reached the point where all Americans could have their basic needs of food, shelter, education, and healthcare met, but, sadly, capitalism will not allow it.  Notice in the quote below the phrase, "all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly."  Also, notice how "enslaving" "has vanished!"  If "enslaving" "has vanished" and these are the words of Karl Marx, then you have some catching up to do.
> 
> Quote)
> 
> In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
> 
> (End quote)
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Marx is not about totalitarianism because I say he is. Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS.

And he did say it as we have proven here.

Most are not in the working class as he envisioned it and we have no ruling class which you showed that he advocated for.

You can say what he meant all day. I am going off of what he said and the clear obvious meaning. You are avoiding what he said and applying your own views and opinions and attempting to lie and claim that he meant what you say.

You may as well ignore what he wrote and simply post your own opinions because your views are not his.

You keep providing quotes proving me correct.

You just supplied one where he advocates enslaving the individual. Good job proving your ignorance and lack of comprehension.

I will save that quote from you to prove the evils of marx's ideology.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "Capitalism has electricity, the light bulb, cars, trains", that is not capitalism.  That is technology by way of the invention of the scientific method.  Plus, most of the inventions come through government sponsored research.  Your iPhone is an example!  Out of the seven or eight major components (silicon chip to GPS) virtually all were invented by way of govenrment sponsored research.  Capitalism got them for free!
> 
> And one more, it could be said the Steve Jobs invented nothing that is basically new.  He simply took existing components off the shelf and assembled them into a new product.
> 
> 
> 
> Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.
> 
> Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This statement assumes, wrongly, that humans are only motivated by the "profit motive" found in capitalism.  The statement is, "So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation."  Again, the technology we enjoy comes from the invention of the scientific method, and most science is cooperation, not competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?
> 
> Color me shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?"  Depends on you definition of socialist nation.  The Scandinavian countries are doing fine - given the current world situation, and the contributions of their scientists are on par with their population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming socialist nations contribute nothing to civilization and are just parasites that feed off of what capitalism provides as their socialist system whithers away.
Click to expand...


Well, you see nothing "confirming socialist contributions, because you want to see nothing - just as you cannot see the misery caused by capitalism.  America is the richest country in the history of mankind, and capitalism has created a few rich and misery for millions in the form of poor schools, poor healthcare, and poor nutrition, and for far too many it means being pushed into being a "debt slave."

Yet again, do not confuse technological advancement with capitalism.  Capitalism does not like tech changes.  Just look at how hard it is to change from our seventeen century energy system, and to add seatbelts and airbags to cars.  You should look at how the drug industry spends more on advertising than research on new drugs, and on and on it goes.

It is simple, technology boomed with the application of the scientific method.  You know; that thing conservatives do not believe in when it comes to climate change.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean that Marxist institution that is supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is essentially
> -- Mass Production to fill the needs of the Masses --
> 
> But Marx always labored under the deceptive conception that the workers are toiling for the sole benefit of an upper class of idle parasites.
> 
> He did not see that the workers themselves consume by far the greater part of all the consumers' goods turned out.
> 
> The millionaires consume an almost negligible part of what is called the national product.
> 
> All branches of big business cater directly or indirectly to the needs of the common man.
> 
> The luxury industries never develop beyond small-scale or medium-size units.
> 
> The evolution of big business is in itself proof of the fact that the masses and not the nabobs are the main consumers.
> 
> Those who deal with the phenomenon of big business under the rubric "concentration of economic power" fail to realize that economic power is vested in the buying public on whose patronage the prosperity of the factories depends.
> 
> In his capacity as buyer,
> -- the wage earner is the customer who is "always right." --
> 
> But Marx [incorrectly] declares that the bourgeoisie "is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery."
> 
> The whole chain of this reasoning is exploded by the establishment of the fact that the progress of capitalism does not pauperize the wage earners increasingly but on the contrary improves their standard of living
> 
> -- Ludwig von Mises
> 
> 
> The corollary of the alleged progressive impoverishment of the wage earners is the concentration of all riches in the hands of a class of capitalist exploiters whose membership is continually shrinking.
> 
> In dealing with this issue Marx failed to take into account the fact that the evolution of big business units does not necessarily involve the concentration of wealth in a few hands. The big business enterprises are almost without exception corporations, precisely because they are too big for single individuals to own them entirely.
> 
> The growth of business units has far outstripped the growth of individual fortunes.
> 
> ...the common stock of a corporation is as a rule not concentrated in the hands of one man.
> 
> The bigger the corporation, as a rule, the more widely its shares are distributed.
> 
> -- Ludwig von Mises
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask for a line of credit from the World Bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, this comment is projection of capitalism onto socialism, "supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?"  Capitalism, as in America, leads to empire building.  I need only point to "the Britain on which the sun never set" and America with its 750 to over 800 overseas military bases and installations.  Those American bases are their in case some government does not do what America's rich people want.  I suggest you read Gen. Smedley Butler's book "War is a Racket!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire, took the Asian Pacific for no reason but conquest, and America controls what 168 nations do.
> 
> Tell us, what pathetic slave nation to America do you live in?
Click to expand...


About "America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire," America is an empire, and you do not get it.  All empires end the same way.  As they expand, the cost of expansion means they have to let the center of the empire - that's us - rot.  It is also true that the torture and cruelty that is used to expand the empire will eventually come home to be used on its own citizens.  If you take the time to look, you can see both happening now!


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.
> 
> He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
> 
> Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
> 
> His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
> 
> You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
> 
> Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
> 
> So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat  pig Marx and what he wrote.
> 
> Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."
> 
> Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place.  Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit."  It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system.  Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism.  This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
> 
> In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious.
> 
> Nobody takes it seriously other than other dyed in the wool Marxists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you demonstrate you have not read Marx - or much else of the classical economists with this comment, "Marx’s Surplus Value of Labour is hilarious."  Try reading John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, and more.  They all talk about it, because they are interested in how much "unearned income" is extracted from the price of a product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HE has in fact and understands it better than you do.
> 
> There is no such thing as unearned income as extracted from the price of a product.
> 
> Marx's surplus value of labor IS hilariously stupid as he ignores the basic fact that the value of labor is strictly subjective.
Click to expand...


About "There is no such thing as unearned income as extracted from the price of a product."  This comment is just dumb!  Wikipedia says this, and you can find the same in many other places.

(Quote)

Unearned income is a term coined by Henry George to refer to income gained through ownership of land and other monopoly. Today the term often refers to income received by virtue of owning property (known as property income), inheritance, pensions and payments received from public welfare. The three major forms of unearned income based on property ownership are rent, received from the ownership of natural resources; interest, received by virtue of owning financial assets; and profit, received from the ownership of capital equipment.[1] As such, unearned income is often categorized as "passive income".

Unearned income can be discussed from either an economic or accounting perspective, but is more commonly used in economics.

(End quote)


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, socialism may be voluntary - as in farmer coops - or they may be mandatory - as in Social Security.
> 
> About "Marx demanded dictatorship and despotism to impose", I challenge you to find a quote by Karl Marx that says this.  You can't, because Marx wrote no such thing.
> 
> While you are looking for that quote, let me help you with a definition of socialism.  This definition comes from economist Richard Wolff, the foremost Marxist economist in America.  Notice, he called this the "Marxian framework."
> 
> (Quote from Prof. Wolff)
> 
> Socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> That clearly describes a farmer cooperative!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.
> 
> He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
> 
> Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
> 
> His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
> 
> You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
> 
> Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
> 
> So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat  pig Marx and what he wrote.
> 
> Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."
> 
> Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place.  Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit."  It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system.  Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism.  This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
> 
> In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marx was  never about freedom and democracy he was about totalitarianism and that is FACT.
> 
> The irony here is that you actually helped to prove that fact with the quote you cited.
> 
> " we have seen above, that th first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of RULING class to win the battle of democracy".
> 
> Read it again SLOWLY as you clearly missed what he was advocating. HE was advocating a RULING class which is not democracy and never democratically elected and never free.
> 
> He was preaching TOTALITARIANISM and this is proven by the very quote YOU provided. He never advocated democracy for anyone.
> 
> Marx's quote about labor and the fuedal system vs capitalism is garbage. His babbling incoherent claim about workers toiling 3 days a week for themselves and then for others is crap.
> 
> Marx never worked at a job a day in his life and was 100 % ignorant about how peopled work to make a living. He was a bum who begged  and panhandled his whole life like the sick bastard he was and by definition had no knowledge whatsoever about workers or the working class who he wished to enslave.
> 
> Communism is about universal slavery and despotism according to Marx and you are proving that correct. He never understood anything about workers or the working class and preach enslavement of all to society which means SOCIALISM.
> 
> Socialism ( or communism ) = " From each according to his ability and to each according to his need "
> 
> Slavery = " from each according to his ability and to each according to his need, "
> 
> Simple fact slaves have nothing to be stolen except their labor which is forced from them. Furthermore since slaves are individuals they each have talents and skills different from each other. This is why some harvest cotton while others are the seamstresses and blacksmiths and butlers. IN other words their ABILITY is what is stolen from them. FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY.
> 
> On the other hand all slave owners make sure and give a slave everything the slave NEEDS to basically stay alive and continue to work. They do you no good if they starve or die of exposure. SO you make sure they have food water clothing and shelter even if it is disgusting scraps, rags, and a bare bones shack. TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED.
> 
> You are dreadfully ill informed wrong and ignorant about Marx he was an evil piece of filth who preached exactly what nations world wide practiced when using his ideas. Slavery genocide and poverty.
> 
> He never advocated democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you can say that Marx is about "totalitarianism", but you saying it does not make it so.  Regarding "rise of the proletariat", considering that most of the population fall into this class, the rise of the proletariat would mean democracy.  Capitalism is rule by the rich - that is, an oligarchy, which is what America is now!
> 
> About that line, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need", that is from the "Critique of the Gotha Programme", and Marx is talking about Socialism producing such abundance that basic needs are met.  Capitalism will never meet the basic needs of a society, because capitalism depends on scarcity and a large supply of desperate workers - which is why Republicans always want to cut the minimum wage and unemployment benefits.
> 
> Technology has reached the point where all Americans could have their basic needs of food, shelter, education, and healthcare met, but, sadly, capitalism will not allow it.  Notice in the quote below the phrase, "all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly."  Also, notice how "enslaving" "has vanished!"  If "enslaving" "has vanished" and these are the words of Karl Marx, then you have some catching up to do.
> 
> Quote)
> 
> In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marx is not about totalitarianism because I say he is. Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS.
> 
> And he did say it as we have proven here.
> 
> Most are not in the working class as he envisioned it and we have no ruling class which you showed that he advocated for.
> 
> You can say what he meant all day. I am going off of what he said and the clear obvious meaning. You are avoiding what he said and applying your own views and opinions and attempting to lie and claim that he meant what you say.
> 
> You may as well ignore what he wrote and simply post your own opinions because your views are not his.
> 
> You keep providing quotes proving me correct.
> 
> You just supplied one where he advocates enslaving the individual. Good job proving your ignorance and lack of comprehension.
> 
> I will save that quote from you to prove the evils of marx's ideology.
Click to expand...


About "Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS", Marx never talked about totalitarianism.  Try reading Marx

Then, this is just dumb as it applies to America, "we have no ruling class!"  America is an oligarchy!

Next, you cannot read, Marx wrote about "enslaving" having vanished, and you think "he advocates enslaving the individual."  If you are going to have a discussion, at least, "try" to be an honest person.


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got it. So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation.
> 
> Heck, even the internet you are using right now came from capitalism as well as your computer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement assumes, wrongly, that humans are only motivated by the "profit motive" found in capitalism.  The statement is, "So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation."  Again, the technology we enjoy comes from the invention of the scientific method, and most science is cooperation, not competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?
> 
> Color me shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?"  Depends on you definition of socialist nation.  The Scandinavian countries are doing fine - given the current world situation, and the contributions of their scientists are on par with their population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming socialist nations contribute nothing to civilization and are just parasites that feed off of what capitalism provides as their socialist system whithers away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you see nothing "confirming socialist contributions, because you want to see nothing - just as you cannot see the misery caused by capitalism.  America is the richest country in the history of mankind, and capitalism has created a few rich and misery for millions in the form of poor schools, poor healthcare, and poor nutrition, and for far too many it means being pushed into being a "debt slave."
> 
> Yet again, do not confuse technological advancement with capitalism.  Capitalism does not like tech changes.  Just look at how hard it is to change from our seventeen century energy system, and to add seatbelts and airbags to cars.  You should look at how the drug industry spends more on advertising than research on new drugs, and on and on it goes.
> 
> It is simple, technology boomed with the application of the scientific method.  You know; that thing conservatives do not believe in when it comes to climate change.
Click to expand...

How did I know you could not list one contribution to civilization from a socialist nation?

Yes, socialism is just a parasite on capitalism that always eventually collapses.
Hilarious you post BS about the miseries of living in America in a thread about Venezuela.  Talk about tone deaf.  
Poor in America is owning an iPhone 4, your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray and your car is an 98 Toyota.  Millions flood into America for the chance to be poor in America.

Poor in Venezuela is after eating all of your pets your next meal is what you find in the dump if the hoards of gangs let you even look.


----------



## Weatherman2020

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean that Marxist institution that is supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is essentially
> -- Mass Production to fill the needs of the Masses --
> 
> But Marx always labored under the deceptive conception that the workers are toiling for the sole benefit of an upper class of idle parasites.
> 
> He did not see that the workers themselves consume by far the greater part of all the consumers' goods turned out.
> 
> The millionaires consume an almost negligible part of what is called the national product.
> 
> All branches of big business cater directly or indirectly to the needs of the common man.
> 
> The luxury industries never develop beyond small-scale or medium-size units.
> 
> The evolution of big business is in itself proof of the fact that the masses and not the nabobs are the main consumers.
> 
> Those who deal with the phenomenon of big business under the rubric "concentration of economic power" fail to realize that economic power is vested in the buying public on whose patronage the prosperity of the factories depends.
> 
> In his capacity as buyer,
> -- the wage earner is the customer who is "always right." --
> 
> But Marx [incorrectly] declares that the bourgeoisie "is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery."
> 
> The whole chain of this reasoning is exploded by the establishment of the fact that the progress of capitalism does not pauperize the wage earners increasingly but on the contrary improves their standard of living
> 
> -- Ludwig von Mises
> 
> 
> The corollary of the alleged progressive impoverishment of the wage earners is the concentration of all riches in the hands of a class of capitalist exploiters whose membership is continually shrinking.
> 
> In dealing with this issue Marx failed to take into account the fact that the evolution of big business units does not necessarily involve the concentration of wealth in a few hands. The big business enterprises are almost without exception corporations, precisely because they are too big for single individuals to own them entirely.
> 
> The growth of business units has far outstripped the growth of individual fortunes.
> 
> ...the common stock of a corporation is as a rule not concentrated in the hands of one man.
> 
> The bigger the corporation, as a rule, the more widely its shares are distributed.
> 
> -- Ludwig von Mises
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask for a line of credit from the World Bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, this comment is projection of capitalism onto socialism, "supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?"  Capitalism, as in America, leads to empire building.  I need only point to "the Britain on which the sun never set" and America with its 750 to over 800 overseas military bases and installations.  Those American bases are their in case some government does not do what America's rich people want.  I suggest you read Gen. Smedley Butler's book "War is a Racket!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire, took the Asian Pacific for no reason but conquest, and America controls what 168 nations do.
> 
> Tell us, what pathetic slave nation to America do you live in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire," America is an empire, and you do not get it.  All empires end the same way.  As they expand, the cost of expansion means they have to let the center of the empire - that's us - rot.  It is also true that the torture and cruelty that is used to expand the empire will eventually come home to be used on its own citizens.  If you take the time to look, you can see both happening now!
Click to expand...

So why won't you tell us what slave nation shithole to America you live in?


----------



## danielpalos

Where is _management_ on this?


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already quoted Wolff and as i pointed out he is a fool as is any marxist ECONOMIST which is in fact a contradiction.
> 
> He is wrong and there is no if and or but. Socialism is strictly and always about government violence and force it is NEVER voluntary like a cooperative.
> 
> Marx clearly and explicitly described the necessity and inevitability of the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. He meant dictatorship with of the horrors which accompany it. Hanging the words " of the proletariat after the word dictatorship does not clean it up or make it benign.
> 
> His stupidity stems from the idiotic claim that the state ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) would fade away when no longer needed to be replaced by a stateless classless society. Which of course is ludicrous as a dictatorship of the proletariat will fight and kill to remain in power like any other dictatorship.
> 
> You know he said it you merely ignore it and that is one specific quote proving you wrong.
> 
> Another one is directly from the communist manifesto referring to his vision and it states as follows " Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC inroads ".
> 
> So you are now schooled and proven ignorant for claiming I could not provide any such quote. Go hit the books as you are ignorant of the disgusting dead beat  pig Marx and what he wrote.
> 
> Socialism is never voluntary and coops are not examples of socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."
> 
> Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place.  Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit."  It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system.  Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism.  This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
> 
> In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marx was  never about freedom and democracy he was about totalitarianism and that is FACT.
> 
> The irony here is that you actually helped to prove that fact with the quote you cited.
> 
> " we have seen above, that th first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of RULING class to win the battle of democracy".
> 
> Read it again SLOWLY as you clearly missed what he was advocating. HE was advocating a RULING class which is not democracy and never democratically elected and never free.
> 
> He was preaching TOTALITARIANISM and this is proven by the very quote YOU provided. He never advocated democracy for anyone.
> 
> Marx's quote about labor and the fuedal system vs capitalism is garbage. His babbling incoherent claim about workers toiling 3 days a week for themselves and then for others is crap.
> 
> Marx never worked at a job a day in his life and was 100 % ignorant about how peopled work to make a living. He was a bum who begged  and panhandled his whole life like the sick bastard he was and by definition had no knowledge whatsoever about workers or the working class who he wished to enslave.
> 
> Communism is about universal slavery and despotism according to Marx and you are proving that correct. He never understood anything about workers or the working class and preach enslavement of all to society which means SOCIALISM.
> 
> Socialism ( or communism ) = " From each according to his ability and to each according to his need "
> 
> Slavery = " from each according to his ability and to each according to his need, "
> 
> Simple fact slaves have nothing to be stolen except their labor which is forced from them. Furthermore since slaves are individuals they each have talents and skills different from each other. This is why some harvest cotton while others are the seamstresses and blacksmiths and butlers. IN other words their ABILITY is what is stolen from them. FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY.
> 
> On the other hand all slave owners make sure and give a slave everything the slave NEEDS to basically stay alive and continue to work. They do you no good if they starve or die of exposure. SO you make sure they have food water clothing and shelter even if it is disgusting scraps, rags, and a bare bones shack. TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED.
> 
> You are dreadfully ill informed wrong and ignorant about Marx he was an evil piece of filth who preached exactly what nations world wide practiced when using his ideas. Slavery genocide and poverty.
> 
> He never advocated democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you can say that Marx is about "totalitarianism", but you saying it does not make it so.  Regarding "rise of the proletariat", considering that most of the population fall into this class, the rise of the proletariat would mean democracy.  Capitalism is rule by the rich - that is, an oligarchy, which is what America is now!
> 
> About that line, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need", that is from the "Critique of the Gotha Programme", and Marx is talking about Socialism producing such abundance that basic needs are met.  Capitalism will never meet the basic needs of a society, because capitalism depends on scarcity and a large supply of desperate workers - which is why Republicans always want to cut the minimum wage and unemployment benefits.
> 
> Technology has reached the point where all Americans could have their basic needs of food, shelter, education, and healthcare met, but, sadly, capitalism will not allow it.  Notice in the quote below the phrase, "all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly."  Also, notice how "enslaving" "has vanished!"  If "enslaving" "has vanished" and these are the words of Karl Marx, then you have some catching up to do.
> 
> Quote)
> 
> In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marx is not about totalitarianism because I say he is. Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS.
> 
> And he did say it as we have proven here.
> 
> Most are not in the working class as he envisioned it and we have no ruling class which you showed that he advocated for.
> 
> You can say what he meant all day. I am going off of what he said and the clear obvious meaning. You are avoiding what he said and applying your own views and opinions and attempting to lie and claim that he meant what you say.
> 
> You may as well ignore what he wrote and simply post your own opinions because your views are not his.
> 
> You keep providing quotes proving me correct.
> 
> You just supplied one where he advocates enslaving the individual. Good job proving your ignorance and lack of comprehension.
> 
> I will save that quote from you to prove the evils of marx's ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS", Marx never talked about totalitarianism.  Try reading Marx
> 
> Then, this is just dumb as it applies to America, "we have no ruling class!"  America is an oligarchy!
> 
> Next, you cannot read, Marx wrote about "enslaving" having vanished, and you think "he advocates enslaving the individual."  If you are going to have a discussion, at least, "try" to be an honest person.
Click to expand...

He most certainly did and multiple quotes from marx have proven that he did

You are simply lying like a coward at this point as those quotes have been put in your face proving you wrong.

he was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship.

America has no ruling class regardless of how many times you repeat such an ignorantly stupid claim.

I dare you to name such a ruler.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Venezuela malaria cases jump by 69 percent.

At least they have socialized healthcare!

WHO: Venezuela malaria cases jump by 69 percent


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement assumes, wrongly, that humans are only motivated by the "profit motive" found in capitalism.  The statement is, "So socialism produces an anti-science society, since nothing of benefit to civilization ever comes from a socialist nation."  Again, the technology we enjoy comes from the invention of the scientific method, and most science is cooperation, not competition.
> 
> 
> 
> Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?
> 
> Color me shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Still can't find one thing a socialist nation has provided civilization?"  Depends on you definition of socialist nation.  The Scandinavian countries are doing fine - given the current world situation, and the contributions of their scientists are on par with their population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming socialist nations contribute nothing to civilization and are just parasites that feed off of what capitalism provides as their socialist system whithers away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you see nothing "confirming socialist contributions, because you want to see nothing - just as you cannot see the misery caused by capitalism.  America is the richest country in the history of mankind, and capitalism has created a few rich and misery for millions in the form of poor schools, poor healthcare, and poor nutrition, and for far too many it means being pushed into being a "debt slave."
> 
> Yet again, do not confuse technological advancement with capitalism.  Capitalism does not like tech changes.  Just look at how hard it is to change from our seventeen century energy system, and to add seatbelts and airbags to cars.  You should look at how the drug industry spends more on advertising than research on new drugs, and on and on it goes.
> 
> It is simple, technology boomed with the application of the scientific method.  You know; that thing conservatives do not believe in when it comes to climate change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did I know you could not list one contribution to civilization from a socialist nation?
> 
> Yes, socialism is just a parasite on capitalism that always eventually collapses.
> Hilarious you post BS about the miseries of living in America in a thread about Venezuela.  Talk about tone deaf.
> Poor in America is owning an iPhone 4, your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray and your car is an 98 Toyota.  Millions flood into America for the chance to be poor in America.
> 
> Poor in Venezuela is after eating all of your pets your next meal is what you find in the dump if the hoards of gangs let you even look.
Click to expand...


About the contributions of a socialist nation, I wrote that the Scandinavian countries have contributed much.  However, if you want a list, I would offer this list of 10 ideas which are beliefs found in democratic socialism and found in America.

1. Social Security
2.  Public education
3.  Women voters
4.  Civil rights
5.  Progressive income taxes (the fairest system)
6.  The ban on child labor
7.  Public housing as opposed to homeless people
8.  Medicare
9.  America’s highway system
10.  Worker owned businesses such as farmer cooperatives.

About "socialism is just a parasite on capitalism that always eventually collapses", well, I disagree.  Yet, capitalism is a parasite on the workers and environment.  The world is currently at the end-stage of capitalism and we see massive poverty and massive wealth for a few.  We see the planet being destroyed from oceans that are dying to the poisoning of people and the world they live in.  In fact, you should look around.  It is capitalism that is collapsing.

And this is sad!  If you think "Poor in America is owning an iPhone 4" and etc, you do not know about the poor in America.  It starts with going hungry or feeding yourself and feeding your children the poor quality food that results in obesity and diabetes.

Plus, you need to catch up!  Even people in third world countries have smart phones now.  In fact, the planet now has roughly 95 smart phones for every 100 people.  This speaks to what we can produce with our technology.  Yet, because of capitalism and its need for constants scarcity and an army of the desperate, many Americans continue to suffer.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean that Marxist institution that is supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask for a line of credit from the World Bank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, this comment is projection of capitalism onto socialism, "supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?"  Capitalism, as in America, leads to empire building.  I need only point to "the Britain on which the sun never set" and America with its 750 to over 800 overseas military bases and installations.  Those American bases are their in case some government does not do what America's rich people want.  I suggest you read Gen. Smedley Butler's book "War is a Racket!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire, took the Asian Pacific for no reason but conquest, and America controls what 168 nations do.
> 
> Tell us, what pathetic slave nation to America do you live in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire," America is an empire, and you do not get it.  All empires end the same way.  As they expand, the cost of expansion means they have to let the center of the empire - that's us - rot.  It is also true that the torture and cruelty that is used to expand the empire will eventually come home to be used on its own citizens.  If you take the time to look, you can see both happening now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why won't you tell us what slave nation shithole to America you live in?
Click to expand...


About "So why won't you tell us what slave nation shithole to America you live in?", you seem to think America is a great place to live despite America's education that makes you a debt slave, a healthcare system that bankrupts you, roads and more that are awful - not to mention that lack of high speed rail.  In Spain, I road a train going 185 mi/hr, and American trains are lucky to do 100 mi/hr.  And Americans think of Spain as a "sort-of developed country."

I could go on, but what is the point.  America is not the paradise you think it is!


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marx also wrote in the Manifesto, "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."
> 
> Marx was actually about freedom and democracy in the work place.  Here is a quote from Marx from "Value, Price, and Profit."  It shows how Marx viewed capitalism vs. the feudal system.  Clearly, Marx is complaining about capitalism enslaving workers, and this is very far from despotism.  This was about the time workers were struggling for a 10 rather than a 12 hour work day.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Take, on the other hand, the peasant serf, such as he, I might say, until yesterday existed in the whole of East of Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himself on his own field or the field allotted to him, and the three subsequent days he performed compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate of his lord. Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.
> 
> In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> 
> 
> Marx was  never about freedom and democracy he was about totalitarianism and that is FACT.
> 
> The irony here is that you actually helped to prove that fact with the quote you cited.
> 
> " we have seen above, that th first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of RULING class to win the battle of democracy".
> 
> Read it again SLOWLY as you clearly missed what he was advocating. HE was advocating a RULING class which is not democracy and never democratically elected and never free.
> 
> He was preaching TOTALITARIANISM and this is proven by the very quote YOU provided. He never advocated democracy for anyone.
> 
> Marx's quote about labor and the fuedal system vs capitalism is garbage. His babbling incoherent claim about workers toiling 3 days a week for themselves and then for others is crap.
> 
> Marx never worked at a job a day in his life and was 100 % ignorant about how peopled work to make a living. He was a bum who begged  and panhandled his whole life like the sick bastard he was and by definition had no knowledge whatsoever about workers or the working class who he wished to enslave.
> 
> Communism is about universal slavery and despotism according to Marx and you are proving that correct. He never understood anything about workers or the working class and preach enslavement of all to society which means SOCIALISM.
> 
> Socialism ( or communism ) = " From each according to his ability and to each according to his need "
> 
> Slavery = " from each according to his ability and to each according to his need, "
> 
> Simple fact slaves have nothing to be stolen except their labor which is forced from them. Furthermore since slaves are individuals they each have talents and skills different from each other. This is why some harvest cotton while others are the seamstresses and blacksmiths and butlers. IN other words their ABILITY is what is stolen from them. FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY.
> 
> On the other hand all slave owners make sure and give a slave everything the slave NEEDS to basically stay alive and continue to work. They do you no good if they starve or die of exposure. SO you make sure they have food water clothing and shelter even if it is disgusting scraps, rags, and a bare bones shack. TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED.
> 
> You are dreadfully ill informed wrong and ignorant about Marx he was an evil piece of filth who preached exactly what nations world wide practiced when using his ideas. Slavery genocide and poverty.
> 
> He never advocated democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you can say that Marx is about "totalitarianism", but you saying it does not make it so.  Regarding "rise of the proletariat", considering that most of the population fall into this class, the rise of the proletariat would mean democracy.  Capitalism is rule by the rich - that is, an oligarchy, which is what America is now!
> 
> About that line, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need", that is from the "Critique of the Gotha Programme", and Marx is talking about Socialism producing such abundance that basic needs are met.  Capitalism will never meet the basic needs of a society, because capitalism depends on scarcity and a large supply of desperate workers - which is why Republicans always want to cut the minimum wage and unemployment benefits.
> 
> Technology has reached the point where all Americans could have their basic needs of food, shelter, education, and healthcare met, but, sadly, capitalism will not allow it.  Notice in the quote below the phrase, "all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly."  Also, notice how "enslaving" "has vanished!"  If "enslaving" "has vanished" and these are the words of Karl Marx, then you have some catching up to do.
> 
> Quote)
> 
> In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marx is not about totalitarianism because I say he is. Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS.
> 
> And he did say it as we have proven here.
> 
> Most are not in the working class as he envisioned it and we have no ruling class which you showed that he advocated for.
> 
> You can say what he meant all day. I am going off of what he said and the clear obvious meaning. You are avoiding what he said and applying your own views and opinions and attempting to lie and claim that he meant what you say.
> 
> You may as well ignore what he wrote and simply post your own opinions because your views are not his.
> 
> You keep providing quotes proving me correct.
> 
> You just supplied one where he advocates enslaving the individual. Good job proving your ignorance and lack of comprehension.
> 
> I will save that quote from you to prove the evils of marx's ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS", Marx never talked about totalitarianism.  Try reading Marx
> 
> Then, this is just dumb as it applies to America, "we have no ruling class!"  America is an oligarchy!
> 
> Next, you cannot read, Marx wrote about "enslaving" having vanished, and you think "he advocates enslaving the individual."  If you are going to have a discussion, at least, "try" to be an honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He most certainly did and multiple quotes from marx have proven that he did
> 
> You are simply lying like a coward at this point as those quotes have been put in your face proving you wrong.
> 
> he was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship.
> 
> America has no ruling class regardless of how many times you repeat such an ignorantly stupid claim.
> 
> I dare you to name such a ruler.
Click to expand...


Well, there is no amount of evidence that will convince some as they continue to think Marx "was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship."  Yet, somehow the people who hold such views never ask themselves, "Gee, if Marx was so awful, why do economists all over the world still talk about his ideas and what he wrote some 150 years after he wrote his major work "Capital: Critique of Political Economy!"

The problem here is, these people have swallowed - hook, line and sinker - the propaganda from the rich who want continue to exploit the mass of people and the planet.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Weatherman2020 said:


> Venezuela malaria cases jump by 69 percent.
> 
> At least they have socialized healthcare!
> 
> WHO: Venezuela malaria cases jump by 69 percent



About "Venezuela malaria cases jump by 69 percent", and America does nothing to help!  That is because the people who run America - the rich - want to make sure any socialism on the planet is discredited, and they are willing to let people suffer and die to make sure they maintain their control.


----------



## danielpalos

Weatherman2020 said:


> Venezuela malaria cases jump by 69 percent.
> 
> At least they have socialized healthcare!
> 
> WHO: Venezuela malaria cases jump by 69 percent


Hostess management blamed Labor.


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marx was  never about freedom and democracy he was about totalitarianism and that is FACT.
> 
> The irony here is that you actually helped to prove that fact with the quote you cited.
> 
> " we have seen above, that th first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of RULING class to win the battle of democracy".
> 
> Read it again SLOWLY as you clearly missed what he was advocating. HE was advocating a RULING class which is not democracy and never democratically elected and never free.
> 
> He was preaching TOTALITARIANISM and this is proven by the very quote YOU provided. He never advocated democracy for anyone.
> 
> Marx's quote about labor and the fuedal system vs capitalism is garbage. His babbling incoherent claim about workers toiling 3 days a week for themselves and then for others is crap.
> 
> Marx never worked at a job a day in his life and was 100 % ignorant about how peopled work to make a living. He was a bum who begged  and panhandled his whole life like the sick bastard he was and by definition had no knowledge whatsoever about workers or the working class who he wished to enslave.
> 
> Communism is about universal slavery and despotism according to Marx and you are proving that correct. He never understood anything about workers or the working class and preach enslavement of all to society which means SOCIALISM.
> 
> Socialism ( or communism ) = " From each according to his ability and to each according to his need "
> 
> Slavery = " from each according to his ability and to each according to his need, "
> 
> Simple fact slaves have nothing to be stolen except their labor which is forced from them. Furthermore since slaves are individuals they each have talents and skills different from each other. This is why some harvest cotton while others are the seamstresses and blacksmiths and butlers. IN other words their ABILITY is what is stolen from them. FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY.
> 
> On the other hand all slave owners make sure and give a slave everything the slave NEEDS to basically stay alive and continue to work. They do you no good if they starve or die of exposure. SO you make sure they have food water clothing and shelter even if it is disgusting scraps, rags, and a bare bones shack. TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED.
> 
> You are dreadfully ill informed wrong and ignorant about Marx he was an evil piece of filth who preached exactly what nations world wide practiced when using his ideas. Slavery genocide and poverty.
> 
> He never advocated democracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you can say that Marx is about "totalitarianism", but you saying it does not make it so.  Regarding "rise of the proletariat", considering that most of the population fall into this class, the rise of the proletariat would mean democracy.  Capitalism is rule by the rich - that is, an oligarchy, which is what America is now!
> 
> About that line, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need", that is from the "Critique of the Gotha Programme", and Marx is talking about Socialism producing such abundance that basic needs are met.  Capitalism will never meet the basic needs of a society, because capitalism depends on scarcity and a large supply of desperate workers - which is why Republicans always want to cut the minimum wage and unemployment benefits.
> 
> Technology has reached the point where all Americans could have their basic needs of food, shelter, education, and healthcare met, but, sadly, capitalism will not allow it.  Notice in the quote below the phrase, "all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly."  Also, notice how "enslaving" "has vanished!"  If "enslaving" "has vanished" and these are the words of Karl Marx, then you have some catching up to do.
> 
> Quote)
> 
> In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marx is not about totalitarianism because I say he is. Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS.
> 
> And he did say it as we have proven here.
> 
> Most are not in the working class as he envisioned it and we have no ruling class which you showed that he advocated for.
> 
> You can say what he meant all day. I am going off of what he said and the clear obvious meaning. You are avoiding what he said and applying your own views and opinions and attempting to lie and claim that he meant what you say.
> 
> You may as well ignore what he wrote and simply post your own opinions because your views are not his.
> 
> You keep providing quotes proving me correct.
> 
> You just supplied one where he advocates enslaving the individual. Good job proving your ignorance and lack of comprehension.
> 
> I will save that quote from you to prove the evils of marx's ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS", Marx never talked about totalitarianism.  Try reading Marx
> 
> Then, this is just dumb as it applies to America, "we have no ruling class!"  America is an oligarchy!
> 
> Next, you cannot read, Marx wrote about "enslaving" having vanished, and you think "he advocates enslaving the individual."  If you are going to have a discussion, at least, "try" to be an honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He most certainly did and multiple quotes from marx have proven that he did
> 
> You are simply lying like a coward at this point as those quotes have been put in your face proving you wrong.
> 
> he was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship.
> 
> America has no ruling class regardless of how many times you repeat such an ignorantly stupid claim.
> 
> I dare you to name such a ruler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there is no amount of evidence that will convince some as they continue to think Marx "was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship."  Yet, somehow the people who hold such views never ask themselves, "Gee, if Marx was so awful, why do economists all over the world still talk about his ideas and what he wrote some 150 years after he wrote his major work "Capital: Critique of Political Economy!"
> 
> The problem here is, these people have swallowed - hook, line and sinker - the propaganda from the rich who want continue to exploit the mass of people and the planet.
Click to expand...

You have failed to offer or citre such evidence instead the evidence proves IRRFUTABELY that he advocated totalitarianism.

ANd yes he was a pig.

Some ( very few ) economists cite his ideas because they are fools and nothing more.

The propaganda is coming from the marxist professors who dominate schools not from the rich who need no such propaganda.


----------



## depotoo

Where do you actually live?  Where do you live or have visited for any length of time that you claim is much better.   





T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean that Marxist institution that is supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, this comment is projection of capitalism onto socialism, "supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?"  Capitalism, as in America, leads to empire building.  I need only point to "the Britain on which the sun never set" and America with its 750 to over 800 overseas military bases and installations.  Those American bases are their in case some government does not do what America's rich people want.  I suggest you read Gen. Smedley Butler's book "War is a Racket!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire, took the Asian Pacific for no reason but conquest, and America controls what 168 nations do.
> 
> Tell us, what pathetic slave nation to America do you live in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire," America is an empire, and you do not get it.  All empires end the same way.  As they expand, the cost of expansion means they have to let the center of the empire - that's us - rot.  It is also true that the torture and cruelty that is used to expand the empire will eventually come home to be used on its own citizens.  If you take the time to look, you can see both happening now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why won't you tell us what slave nation shithole to America you live in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "So why won't you tell us what slave nation shithole to America you live in?", you seem to think America is a great place to live despite America's education that makes you a debt slave, a healthcare system that bankrupts you, roads and more that are awful - not to mention that lack of high speed rail.  In Spain, I road a train going 185 mi/hr, and American trains are lucky to do 100 mi/hr.  And Americans think of Spain as a "sort-of developed country."
> 
> I could go on, but what is the point.  America is not the paradise you think it is!
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

It is not a failure of socialism, but a failure of government.  Not socialists' fault, government is a form of socialism.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

danielpalos said:


> It is not a failure of socialism, but a failure of government.  Not socialists' fault, government is a form of socialism.



Show us a "success" of Socialism.......

Tried and couldn't?


----------



## danielpalos

BasicHumanUnit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a failure of socialism, but a failure of government.  Not socialists' fault, government is a form of socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us a "success" of Socialism.......
> 
> Tried and couldn't?
Click to expand...

You simply don't understand socialism.  Special pleading was only good, to keep it simple for the right wing, during the Cold War.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

danielpalos said:


> You simply don't understand socialism.  Special pleading was only good, to keep it simple for the right wing, during the Cold War.



I'm positive I understand Socialism far better than you do.

If you really understood, you'd know better.


----------



## danielpalos

BasicHumanUnit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand socialism.  Special pleading was only good, to keep it simple for the right wing, during the Cold War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm positive I understand Socialism far better than you do.
> 
> If you really understood, you'd know better.
Click to expand...

Everybody who tells me that, Only knows a dictionary's definition worth of Socialism.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you can say that Marx is about "totalitarianism", but you saying it does not make it so.  Regarding "rise of the proletariat", considering that most of the population fall into this class, the rise of the proletariat would mean democracy.  Capitalism is rule by the rich - that is, an oligarchy, which is what America is now!
> 
> About that line, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need", that is from the "Critique of the Gotha Programme", and Marx is talking about Socialism producing such abundance that basic needs are met.  Capitalism will never meet the basic needs of a society, because capitalism depends on scarcity and a large supply of desperate workers - which is why Republicans always want to cut the minimum wage and unemployment benefits.
> 
> Technology has reached the point where all Americans could have their basic needs of food, shelter, education, and healthcare met, but, sadly, capitalism will not allow it.  Notice in the quote below the phrase, "all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly."  Also, notice how "enslaving" "has vanished!"  If "enslaving" "has vanished" and these are the words of Karl Marx, then you have some catching up to do.
> 
> Quote)
> 
> In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marx is not about totalitarianism because I say he is. Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS.
> 
> And he did say it as we have proven here.
> 
> Most are not in the working class as he envisioned it and we have no ruling class which you showed that he advocated for.
> 
> You can say what he meant all day. I am going off of what he said and the clear obvious meaning. You are avoiding what he said and applying your own views and opinions and attempting to lie and claim that he meant what you say.
> 
> You may as well ignore what he wrote and simply post your own opinions because your views are not his.
> 
> You keep providing quotes proving me correct.
> 
> You just supplied one where he advocates enslaving the individual. Good job proving your ignorance and lack of comprehension.
> 
> I will save that quote from you to prove the evils of marx's ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS", Marx never talked about totalitarianism.  Try reading Marx
> 
> Then, this is just dumb as it applies to America, "we have no ruling class!"  America is an oligarchy!
> 
> Next, you cannot read, Marx wrote about "enslaving" having vanished, and you think "he advocates enslaving the individual."  If you are going to have a discussion, at least, "try" to be an honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He most certainly did and multiple quotes from marx have proven that he did
> 
> You are simply lying like a coward at this point as those quotes have been put in your face proving you wrong.
> 
> he was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship.
> 
> America has no ruling class regardless of how many times you repeat such an ignorantly stupid claim.
> 
> I dare you to name such a ruler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there is no amount of evidence that will convince some as they continue to think Marx "was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship."  Yet, somehow the people who hold such views never ask themselves, "Gee, if Marx was so awful, why do economists all over the world still talk about his ideas and what he wrote some 150 years after he wrote his major work "Capital: Critique of Political Economy!"
> 
> The problem here is, these people have swallowed - hook, line and sinker - the propaganda from the rich who want continue to exploit the mass of people and the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have failed to offer or citre such evidence instead the evidence proves IRRFUTABELY that he advocated totalitarianism.
> 
> ANd yes he was a pig.
> 
> Some ( very few ) economists cite his ideas because they are fools and nothing more.
> 
> The propaganda is coming from the marxist professors who dominate schools not from the rich who need no such propaganda.
Click to expand...


About "evidence" that "he advocated totalitarianism", you have offered no evidence that Marx did.  Marx did believe that changing government would require a revolution - possibly violent - but Marx viewed capitalism as coming out of the violence of the French Revolution.  It is only recently, by the work of Gene Sharp, that we understand the nonviolent way to overthrow a dictator.

Yet, Marx viewed capitalism as the system that does the enslaving as in this quote from "Wages of Labuor" (1844).

(Quote)

Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work.  It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.

(End quote)

In today's world, this is called "externalizing" problems or costs to another part of society.  For example, the phrase "leave to the poor-house overseer" makes me think "Walmart!"  Yet, in the same writings, Marx shows more humanity than is found in many Americans today.

(Quote)

To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs – they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment.

(End quote)

"Break the bondage to bodily needs!"  Are we talking about supporting food stamps and Medicaid?! And well, "spiritual enjoyment" is what you make of it, but we need it!  And again, Marx sounds more caring than most capitalist employers.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

depotoo said:


> Where do you actually live?  Where do you live or have visited for any length of time that you claim is much better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, this comment is projection of capitalism onto socialism, "supposed to make the world better at every third world countries expense?"  Capitalism, as in America, leads to empire building.  I need only point to "the Britain on which the sun never set" and America with its 750 to over 800 overseas military bases and installations.  Those American bases are their in case some government does not do what America's rich people want.  I suggest you read Gen. Smedley Butler's book "War is a Racket!"
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire, took the Asian Pacific for no reason but conquest, and America controls what 168 nations do.
> 
> Tell us, what pathetic slave nation to America do you live in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire," America is an empire, and you do not get it.  All empires end the same way.  As they expand, the cost of expansion means they have to let the center of the empire - that's us - rot.  It is also true that the torture and cruelty that is used to expand the empire will eventually come home to be used on its own citizens.  If you take the time to look, you can see both happening now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why won't you tell us what slave nation shithole to America you live in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "So why won't you tell us what slave nation shithole to America you live in?", you seem to think America is a great place to live despite America's education that makes you a debt slave, a healthcare system that bankrupts you, roads and more that are awful - not to mention that lack of high speed rail.  In Spain, I road a train going 185 mi/hr, and American trains are lucky to do 100 mi/hr.  And Americans think of Spain as a "sort-of developed country."
> 
> I could go on, but what is the point.  America is not the paradise you think it is!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


About " Where do you . . . claim is much better", I have traveled more than most, and the people in the countries I have visited do just find.  However, the real way to measure the quality of life in a country is with an index, and here are three.  The Human Development Index - HDI - was established to place emphasis on individuals, more precisely on their opportunities to realize satisfying work and lives.

The US ranks 10th after those socialist countries of Norway, which is first, and the Netherlands, which is 7th.

Or you could use the "Satisfaction with Life Index."  The Satisfaction with Life Index attempts to measure happiness directly, by asking people how happy they are with their health, wealth, and education, and assigning a weighting to these answers.  In which case, America comes in at 23rd.  Denmark is first.  Sweden is seventh.  Canada is 10th.  Netherlands is 15th.  New Zealand is 18th.

The best rating for America is in the "Quality of Life" index.  America is 9th after the following which are in order:  Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand.

The point, there is nothing special about living in America, and many people around the world have more satisfying lives.  Not to mention most of those people think our healthcare is horrifying, our educational costs are insane, and our infrastructure is pathetic.


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marx is not about totalitarianism because I say he is. Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS.
> 
> And he did say it as we have proven here.
> 
> Most are not in the working class as he envisioned it and we have no ruling class which you showed that he advocated for.
> 
> You can say what he meant all day. I am going off of what he said and the clear obvious meaning. You are avoiding what he said and applying your own views and opinions and attempting to lie and claim that he meant what you say.
> 
> You may as well ignore what he wrote and simply post your own opinions because your views are not his.
> 
> You keep providing quotes proving me correct.
> 
> You just supplied one where he advocates enslaving the individual. Good job proving your ignorance and lack of comprehension.
> 
> I will save that quote from you to prove the evils of marx's ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS", Marx never talked about totalitarianism.  Try reading Marx
> 
> Then, this is just dumb as it applies to America, "we have no ruling class!"  America is an oligarchy!
> 
> Next, you cannot read, Marx wrote about "enslaving" having vanished, and you think "he advocates enslaving the individual."  If you are going to have a discussion, at least, "try" to be an honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He most certainly did and multiple quotes from marx have proven that he did
> 
> You are simply lying like a coward at this point as those quotes have been put in your face proving you wrong.
> 
> he was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship.
> 
> America has no ruling class regardless of how many times you repeat such an ignorantly stupid claim.
> 
> I dare you to name such a ruler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there is no amount of evidence that will convince some as they continue to think Marx "was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship."  Yet, somehow the people who hold such views never ask themselves, "Gee, if Marx was so awful, why do economists all over the world still talk about his ideas and what he wrote some 150 years after he wrote his major work "Capital: Critique of Political Economy!"
> 
> The problem here is, these people have swallowed - hook, line and sinker - the propaganda from the rich who want continue to exploit the mass of people and the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have failed to offer or citre such evidence instead the evidence proves IRRFUTABELY that he advocated totalitarianism.
> 
> ANd yes he was a pig.
> 
> Some ( very few ) economists cite his ideas because they are fools and nothing more.
> 
> The propaganda is coming from the marxist professors who dominate schools not from the rich who need no such propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "evidence" that "he advocated totalitarianism", you have offered no evidence that Marx did.  Marx did believe that changing government would require a revolution - possibly violent - but Marx viewed capitalism as coming out of the violence of the French Revolution.  It is only recently, by the work of Gene Sharp, that we understand the nonviolent way to overthrow a dictator.
> 
> Yet, Marx viewed capitalism as the system that does the enslaving as in this quote from "Wages of Labuor" (1844).
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work.  It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> In today's world, this is called "externalizing" problems or costs to another part of society.  For example, the phrase "leave to the poor-house overseer" makes me think "Walmart!"  Yet, in the same writings, Marx shows more humanity than is found in many Americans today.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs – they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> "Break the bondage to bodily needs!"  Are we talking about supporting food stamps and Medicaid?! And well, "spiritual enjoyment" is what you make of it, but we need it!  And again, Marx sounds more caring than most capitalist employers.
Click to expand...

I demonstrated absolute evidence that he advocated it and you saw it and are lying.

I quoted him word for word advocating despotism and dictatorship.


----------



## depotoo

Not an answer.





T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you actually live?  Where do you live or have visited for any length of time that you claim is much better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire, took the Asian Pacific for no reason but conquest, and America controls what 168 nations do.
> 
> Tell us, what pathetic slave nation to America do you live in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "America fought two crusades in Europe to expand our Empire," America is an empire, and you do not get it.  All empires end the same way.  As they expand, the cost of expansion means they have to let the center of the empire - that's us - rot.  It is also true that the torture and cruelty that is used to expand the empire will eventually come home to be used on its own citizens.  If you take the time to look, you can see both happening now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why won't you tell us what slave nation shithole to America you live in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "So why won't you tell us what slave nation shithole to America you live in?", you seem to think America is a great place to live despite America's education that makes you a debt slave, a healthcare system that bankrupts you, roads and more that are awful - not to mention that lack of high speed rail.  In Spain, I road a train going 185 mi/hr, and American trains are lucky to do 100 mi/hr.  And Americans think of Spain as a "sort-of developed country."
> 
> I could go on, but what is the point.  America is not the paradise you think it is!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About " Where do you . . . claim is much better", I have traveled more than most, and the people in the countries I have visited do just find.  However, the real way to measure the quality of life in a country is with an index, and here are three.  The Human Development Index - HDI - was established to place emphasis on individuals, more precisely on their opportunities to realize satisfying work and lives.
> 
> The US ranks 10th after those socialist countries of Norway, which is first, and the Netherlands, which is 7th.
> 
> Or you could use the "Satisfaction with Life Index."  The Satisfaction with Life Index attempts to measure happiness directly, by asking people how happy they are with their health, wealth, and education, and assigning a weighting to these answers.  In which case, America comes in at 23rd.  Denmark is first.  Sweden is seventh.  Canada is 10th.  Netherlands is 15th.  New Zealand is 18th.
> 
> The best rating for America is in the "Quality of Life" index.  America is 9th after the following which are in order:  Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand.
> 
> The point, there is nothing special about living in America, and many people around the world have more satisfying lives.  Not to mention most of those people think our healthcare is horrifying, our educational costs are insane, and our infrastructure is pathetic.
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

New cities, is what they need!


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "Marx was all about totalitarianism because HE SAID HE WAS", Marx never talked about totalitarianism.  Try reading Marx
> 
> Then, this is just dumb as it applies to America, "we have no ruling class!"  America is an oligarchy!
> 
> Next, you cannot read, Marx wrote about "enslaving" having vanished, and you think "he advocates enslaving the individual."  If you are going to have a discussion, at least, "try" to be an honest person.
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly did and multiple quotes from marx have proven that he did
> 
> You are simply lying like a coward at this point as those quotes have been put in your face proving you wrong.
> 
> he was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship.
> 
> America has no ruling class regardless of how many times you repeat such an ignorantly stupid claim.
> 
> I dare you to name such a ruler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there is no amount of evidence that will convince some as they continue to think Marx "was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship."  Yet, somehow the people who hold such views never ask themselves, "Gee, if Marx was so awful, why do economists all over the world still talk about his ideas and what he wrote some 150 years after he wrote his major work "Capital: Critique of Political Economy!"
> 
> The problem here is, these people have swallowed - hook, line and sinker - the propaganda from the rich who want continue to exploit the mass of people and the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have failed to offer or citre such evidence instead the evidence proves IRRFUTABELY that he advocated totalitarianism.
> 
> ANd yes he was a pig.
> 
> Some ( very few ) economists cite his ideas because they are fools and nothing more.
> 
> The propaganda is coming from the marxist professors who dominate schools not from the rich who need no such propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "evidence" that "he advocated totalitarianism", you have offered no evidence that Marx did.  Marx did believe that changing government would require a revolution - possibly violent - but Marx viewed capitalism as coming out of the violence of the French Revolution.  It is only recently, by the work of Gene Sharp, that we understand the nonviolent way to overthrow a dictator.
> 
> Yet, Marx viewed capitalism as the system that does the enslaving as in this quote from "Wages of Labuor" (1844).
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work.  It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> In today's world, this is called "externalizing" problems or costs to another part of society.  For example, the phrase "leave to the poor-house overseer" makes me think "Walmart!"  Yet, in the same writings, Marx shows more humanity than is found in many Americans today.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs – they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> "Break the bondage to bodily needs!"  Are we talking about supporting food stamps and Medicaid?! And well, "spiritual enjoyment" is what you make of it, but we need it!  And again, Marx sounds more caring than most capitalist employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I demonstrated absolute evidence that he advocated it and you saw it and are lying.
> 
> I quoted him word for word advocating despotism and dictatorship.
Click to expand...


You have demonstrated nothing except that you can quote Marx out of context.  I have already pointed out that Marx and Engels have always appreciated the value of the vote. Again, in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto they wrote:

(Quote)

"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."

(End quote)

Looking back, half a century later, Frederick Engels said in the " Introduction to Class Struggles in France": (1895)

(Quote)

"The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the struggle for the general franchise, for democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat . . .

(End quote)

And then, only four years after the Communist Manifesto Marx emphasized his support for democracy in an article in the New York Tribune (25 August 1852), which says:

(Quote)

"The carrying of universal suffrage in England would . . . be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent.  It's inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class."

(End quote)

You need to read what Marx actually wrote rather than listening only to the capitalist propaganda put out by the rich.  The propaganda is designed to fool you so they can keep stealing the wealth you create.

PS:  Remember, NeoMarxist are "currently" advocating businesses based on the "farmer cooperative" model - that is, worker owned and run businesses.  This adds democracy to the workplace.  That is, it replaces the current workplace dictatorship with democracy!


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly did and multiple quotes from marx have proven that he did
> 
> You are simply lying like a coward at this point as those quotes have been put in your face proving you wrong.
> 
> he was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship.
> 
> America has no ruling class regardless of how many times you repeat such an ignorantly stupid claim.
> 
> I dare you to name such a ruler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there is no amount of evidence that will convince some as they continue to think Marx "was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship."  Yet, somehow the people who hold such views never ask themselves, "Gee, if Marx was so awful, why do economists all over the world still talk about his ideas and what he wrote some 150 years after he wrote his major work "Capital: Critique of Political Economy!"
> 
> The problem here is, these people have swallowed - hook, line and sinker - the propaganda from the rich who want continue to exploit the mass of people and the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have failed to offer or citre such evidence instead the evidence proves IRRFUTABELY that he advocated totalitarianism.
> 
> ANd yes he was a pig.
> 
> Some ( very few ) economists cite his ideas because they are fools and nothing more.
> 
> The propaganda is coming from the marxist professors who dominate schools not from the rich who need no such propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "evidence" that "he advocated totalitarianism", you have offered no evidence that Marx did.  Marx did believe that changing government would require a revolution - possibly violent - but Marx viewed capitalism as coming out of the violence of the French Revolution.  It is only recently, by the work of Gene Sharp, that we understand the nonviolent way to overthrow a dictator.
> 
> Yet, Marx viewed capitalism as the system that does the enslaving as in this quote from "Wages of Labuor" (1844).
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work.  It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> In today's world, this is called "externalizing" problems or costs to another part of society.  For example, the phrase "leave to the poor-house overseer" makes me think "Walmart!"  Yet, in the same writings, Marx shows more humanity than is found in many Americans today.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs – they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> "Break the bondage to bodily needs!"  Are we talking about supporting food stamps and Medicaid?! And well, "spiritual enjoyment" is what you make of it, but we need it!  And again, Marx sounds more caring than most capitalist employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I demonstrated absolute evidence that he advocated it and you saw it and are lying.
> 
> I quoted him word for word advocating despotism and dictatorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have demonstrated nothing except that you can quote Marx out of context.  I have already pointed out that Marx and Engels have always appreciated the value of the vote. Again, in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto they wrote:
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Looking back, half a century later, Frederick Engels said in the " Introduction to Class Struggles in France": (1895)
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the struggle for the general franchise, for democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat . . .
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> And then, only four years after the Communist Manifesto Marx emphasized his support for democracy in an article in the New York Tribune (25 August 1852), which says:
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "The carrying of universal suffrage in England would . . . be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent.  It's inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class."
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> You need to read what Marx actually wrote rather than listening only to the capitalist propaganda put out by the rich.  The propaganda is designed to fool you so they can keep stealing the wealth you create.
> 
> PS:  Remember, NeoMarxist are "currently" advocating businesses based on the "farmer cooperative" model - that is, worker owned and run businesses.  This adds democracy to the workplace.  That is, it replaces the current workplace dictatorship with democracy!
Click to expand...

I have read what he wrote you have not.

Once again dictatorship of the proletariat is not a democracy he meant DICTATORSHIP. Oh sure he supported universal suffrage in the mean time but his revolutionary vision which he advocated required DESPOTISM as I have proven.

It is YOU lacking in comprehension of what Marx wrote like all of his foolish acolytes.


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there is no amount of evidence that will convince some as they continue to think Marx "was a pig who advocated a totalitarian dictatorship."  Yet, somehow the people who hold such views never ask themselves, "Gee, if Marx was so awful, why do economists all over the world still talk about his ideas and what he wrote some 150 years after he wrote his major work "Capital: Critique of Political Economy!"
> 
> The problem here is, these people have swallowed - hook, line and sinker - the propaganda from the rich who want continue to exploit the mass of people and the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> You have failed to offer or citre such evidence instead the evidence proves IRRFUTABELY that he advocated totalitarianism.
> 
> ANd yes he was a pig.
> 
> Some ( very few ) economists cite his ideas because they are fools and nothing more.
> 
> The propaganda is coming from the marxist professors who dominate schools not from the rich who need no such propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "evidence" that "he advocated totalitarianism", you have offered no evidence that Marx did.  Marx did believe that changing government would require a revolution - possibly violent - but Marx viewed capitalism as coming out of the violence of the French Revolution.  It is only recently, by the work of Gene Sharp, that we understand the nonviolent way to overthrow a dictator.
> 
> Yet, Marx viewed capitalism as the system that does the enslaving as in this quote from "Wages of Labuor" (1844).
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work.  It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> In today's world, this is called "externalizing" problems or costs to another part of society.  For example, the phrase "leave to the poor-house overseer" makes me think "Walmart!"  Yet, in the same writings, Marx shows more humanity than is found in many Americans today.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs – they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> "Break the bondage to bodily needs!"  Are we talking about supporting food stamps and Medicaid?! And well, "spiritual enjoyment" is what you make of it, but we need it!  And again, Marx sounds more caring than most capitalist employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I demonstrated absolute evidence that he advocated it and you saw it and are lying.
> 
> I quoted him word for word advocating despotism and dictatorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have demonstrated nothing except that you can quote Marx out of context.  I have already pointed out that Marx and Engels have always appreciated the value of the vote. Again, in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto they wrote:
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Looking back, half a century later, Frederick Engels said in the " Introduction to Class Struggles in France": (1895)
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the struggle for the general franchise, for democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat . . .
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> And then, only four years after the Communist Manifesto Marx emphasized his support for democracy in an article in the New York Tribune (25 August 1852), which says:
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "The carrying of universal suffrage in England would . . . be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent.  It's inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class."
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> You need to read what Marx actually wrote rather than listening only to the capitalist propaganda put out by the rich.  The propaganda is designed to fool you so they can keep stealing the wealth you create.
> 
> PS:  Remember, NeoMarxist are "currently" advocating businesses based on the "farmer cooperative" model - that is, worker owned and run businesses.  This adds democracy to the workplace.  That is, it replaces the current workplace dictatorship with democracy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read what he wrote you have not.
> 
> Once again dictatorship of the proletariat is not a democracy he meant DICTATORSHIP. Oh sure he supported universal suffrage in the mean time but his revolutionary vision which he advocated required DESPOTISM as I have proven.
> 
> It is YOU lacking in comprehension of what Marx wrote like all of his foolish acolytes.
Click to expand...


Now this is an oxymoron if there ever was one, "dictatorship of the proletariat."  The proletariat is not just the workers, but is the largest group of people in the population of a country.  If you have the majority of the people running a country, they do not call it a dictatorship.  They call it a democracy or a representative democracy; maybe even a republic.  However, you cannot, by any definition anywhere, call such a government a dictatorship.

In fact, capitalists are afraid of real democracies, which is why they have spent so much converting America into an "inverted democracy" (a.k.a: a managed democracy or illiberal democracy) - which is (a quote) "a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics.  Every natural resource and living being is commodified and exploited to the point of collapse, as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism."

The rich fear democracy, because the majority - the proletariat - may just decide to tax them to pay for the needs of the society such as schools, roads, healthcare, and more.  This is exactly what FDR did in the middle of the Great Depression, when the government had no money.  FDR told the rich, you are going to pay for unemployment benefits, Social Security, and a whole lot more.

Sadly, after FDR's death, the rich decided to take all of that back, so they have been steadily undoing the New Deal programs and laws such as Glass-Steagall.  The net result is the 1930s are back - albeit in a different form.

To save capitalism from itself - which FDR claimed he did - you would have to reinstitute the New Deal, but sadly it would fail!  It took the rich 70 years to get rid of the regulations and programs of the New Deal.  Now that the rich know how this is done, if we put the New Deal back in place, the rich would undo it again, but in probably 30 years.

So save capitalism if you wish, and revive the economy if you can, but understand, capitalism will return you to something that looks like the Great Depression over, and over and over again.

PS:  Yes, I have read Marx!  That is how I know about all of those quotes!


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have failed to offer or citre such evidence instead the evidence proves IRRFUTABELY that he advocated totalitarianism.
> 
> ANd yes he was a pig.
> 
> Some ( very few ) economists cite his ideas because they are fools and nothing more.
> 
> The propaganda is coming from the marxist professors who dominate schools not from the rich who need no such propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About "evidence" that "he advocated totalitarianism", you have offered no evidence that Marx did.  Marx did believe that changing government would require a revolution - possibly violent - but Marx viewed capitalism as coming out of the violence of the French Revolution.  It is only recently, by the work of Gene Sharp, that we understand the nonviolent way to overthrow a dictator.
> 
> Yet, Marx viewed capitalism as the system that does the enslaving as in this quote from "Wages of Labuor" (1844).
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work.  It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> In today's world, this is called "externalizing" problems or costs to another part of society.  For example, the phrase "leave to the poor-house overseer" makes me think "Walmart!"  Yet, in the same writings, Marx shows more humanity than is found in many Americans today.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs – they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> "Break the bondage to bodily needs!"  Are we talking about supporting food stamps and Medicaid?! And well, "spiritual enjoyment" is what you make of it, but we need it!  And again, Marx sounds more caring than most capitalist employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I demonstrated absolute evidence that he advocated it and you saw it and are lying.
> 
> I quoted him word for word advocating despotism and dictatorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have demonstrated nothing except that you can quote Marx out of context.  I have already pointed out that Marx and Engels have always appreciated the value of the vote. Again, in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto they wrote:
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Looking back, half a century later, Frederick Engels said in the " Introduction to Class Struggles in France": (1895)
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the struggle for the general franchise, for democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat . . .
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> And then, only four years after the Communist Manifesto Marx emphasized his support for democracy in an article in the New York Tribune (25 August 1852), which says:
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "The carrying of universal suffrage in England would . . . be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent.  It's inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class."
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> You need to read what Marx actually wrote rather than listening only to the capitalist propaganda put out by the rich.  The propaganda is designed to fool you so they can keep stealing the wealth you create.
> 
> PS:  Remember, NeoMarxist are "currently" advocating businesses based on the "farmer cooperative" model - that is, worker owned and run businesses.  This adds democracy to the workplace.  That is, it replaces the current workplace dictatorship with democracy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read what he wrote you have not.
> 
> Once again dictatorship of the proletariat is not a democracy he meant DICTATORSHIP. Oh sure he supported universal suffrage in the mean time but his revolutionary vision which he advocated required DESPOTISM as I have proven.
> 
> It is YOU lacking in comprehension of what Marx wrote like all of his foolish acolytes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now this is an oxymoron if there ever was one, "dictatorship of the proletariat."  The proletariat is not just the workers, but is the largest group of people in the population of a country.  If you have the majority of the people running a country, they do not call it a dictatorship.  They call it a democracy or a representative democracy; maybe even a republic.  However, you cannot, by any definition anywhere, call such a government a dictatorship.
> 
> In fact, capitalists are afraid of real democracies, which is why they have spent so much converting America into an "inverted democracy" (a.k.a: a managed democracy or illiberal democracy) - which is (a quote) "a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics.  Every natural resource and living being is commodified and exploited to the point of collapse, as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism."
> 
> The rich fear democracy, because the majority - the proletariat - may just decide to tax them to pay for the needs of the society such as schools, roads, healthcare, and more.  This is exactly what FDR did in the middle of the Great Depression, when the government had no money.  FDR told the rich, you are going to pay for unemployment benefits, Social Security, and a whole lot more.
> 
> Sadly, after FDR's death, the rich decided to take all of that back, so they have been steadily undoing the New Deal programs and laws such as Glass-Steagall.  The net result is the 1930s are back - albeit in a different form.
> 
> To save capitalism from itself - which FDR claimed he did - you would have to reinstitute the New Deal, but sadly it would fail!  It took the rich 70 years to get rid of the regulations and programs of the New Deal.  Now that the rich know how this is done, if we put the New Deal back in place, the rich would undo it again, but in probably 30 years.
> 
> So save capitalism if you wish, and revive the economy if you can, but understand, capitalism will return you to something that looks like the Great Depression over, and over and over again.
> 
> PS:  Yes, I have read Marx!  That is how I know about all of those quotes!
Click to expand...

A dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of whether it is a group or an individual.

As I said earlier you do not make it a good idea by hanging the words " of the proletariat " after the word dictator but that is precisely what MArx preached.

He preached a despotic totalitarian dictatorship


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About "evidence" that "he advocated totalitarianism", you have offered no evidence that Marx did.  Marx did believe that changing government would require a revolution - possibly violent - but Marx viewed capitalism as coming out of the violence of the French Revolution.  It is only recently, by the work of Gene Sharp, that we understand the nonviolent way to overthrow a dictator.
> 
> Yet, Marx viewed capitalism as the system that does the enslaving as in this quote from "Wages of Labuor" (1844).
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work.  It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> In today's world, this is called "externalizing" problems or costs to another part of society.  For example, the phrase "leave to the poor-house overseer" makes me think "Walmart!"  Yet, in the same writings, Marx shows more humanity than is found in many Americans today.
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs – they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment.
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> "Break the bondage to bodily needs!"  Are we talking about supporting food stamps and Medicaid?! And well, "spiritual enjoyment" is what you make of it, but we need it!  And again, Marx sounds more caring than most capitalist employers.
> 
> 
> 
> I demonstrated absolute evidence that he advocated it and you saw it and are lying.
> 
> I quoted him word for word advocating despotism and dictatorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have demonstrated nothing except that you can quote Marx out of context.  I have already pointed out that Marx and Engels have always appreciated the value of the vote. Again, in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto they wrote:
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Looking back, half a century later, Frederick Engels said in the " Introduction to Class Struggles in France": (1895)
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the struggle for the general franchise, for democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat . . .
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> And then, only four years after the Communist Manifesto Marx emphasized his support for democracy in an article in the New York Tribune (25 August 1852), which says:
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "The carrying of universal suffrage in England would . . . be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent.  It's inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class."
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> You need to read what Marx actually wrote rather than listening only to the capitalist propaganda put out by the rich.  The propaganda is designed to fool you so they can keep stealing the wealth you create.
> 
> PS:  Remember, NeoMarxist are "currently" advocating businesses based on the "farmer cooperative" model - that is, worker owned and run businesses.  This adds democracy to the workplace.  That is, it replaces the current workplace dictatorship with democracy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read what he wrote you have not.
> 
> Once again dictatorship of the proletariat is not a democracy he meant DICTATORSHIP. Oh sure he supported universal suffrage in the mean time but his revolutionary vision which he advocated required DESPOTISM as I have proven.
> 
> It is YOU lacking in comprehension of what Marx wrote like all of his foolish acolytes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now this is an oxymoron if there ever was one, "dictatorship of the proletariat."  The proletariat is not just the workers, but is the largest group of people in the population of a country.  If you have the majority of the people running a country, they do not call it a dictatorship.  They call it a democracy or a representative democracy; maybe even a republic.  However, you cannot, by any definition anywhere, call such a government a dictatorship.
> 
> In fact, capitalists are afraid of real democracies, which is why they have spent so much converting America into an "inverted democracy" (a.k.a: a managed democracy or illiberal democracy) - which is (a quote) "a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics.  Every natural resource and living being is commodified and exploited to the point of collapse, as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism."
> 
> The rich fear democracy, because the majority - the proletariat - may just decide to tax them to pay for the needs of the society such as schools, roads, healthcare, and more.  This is exactly what FDR did in the middle of the Great Depression, when the government had no money.  FDR told the rich, you are going to pay for unemployment benefits, Social Security, and a whole lot more.
> 
> Sadly, after FDR's death, the rich decided to take all of that back, so they have been steadily undoing the New Deal programs and laws such as Glass-Steagall.  The net result is the 1930s are back - albeit in a different form.
> 
> To save capitalism from itself - which FDR claimed he did - you would have to reinstitute the New Deal, but sadly it would fail!  It took the rich 70 years to get rid of the regulations and programs of the New Deal.  Now that the rich know how this is done, if we put the New Deal back in place, the rich would undo it again, but in probably 30 years.
> 
> So save capitalism if you wish, and revive the economy if you can, but understand, capitalism will return you to something that looks like the Great Depression over, and over and over again.
> 
> PS:  Yes, I have read Marx!  That is how I know about all of those quotes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of whether it is a group or an individual.
> 
> As I said earlier you do not make it a good idea by hanging the words " of the proletariat " after the word dictator but that is precisely what MArx preached.
> 
> He preached a despotic totalitarian dictatorship
Click to expand...


I see no amount of evidence will stop you from believing what you want to believe.  Proletariat is defined as "the working class."  In America, that is about 100 million people.  You cannot run a dictatorship governed by a group of 100 million.  There is no social science person on the planet that would accept your definition.

By your definition, America is a despotic dictatorship, not "of the proletariat" but "of the voting citizens."


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I demonstrated absolute evidence that he advocated it and you saw it and are lying.
> 
> I quoted him word for word advocating despotism and dictatorship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have demonstrated nothing except that you can quote Marx out of context.  I have already pointed out that Marx and Engels have always appreciated the value of the vote. Again, in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto they wrote:
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Looking back, half a century later, Frederick Engels said in the " Introduction to Class Struggles in France": (1895)
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the struggle for the general franchise, for democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat . . .
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> And then, only four years after the Communist Manifesto Marx emphasized his support for democracy in an article in the New York Tribune (25 August 1852), which says:
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "The carrying of universal suffrage in England would . . . be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent.  It's inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class."
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> You need to read what Marx actually wrote rather than listening only to the capitalist propaganda put out by the rich.  The propaganda is designed to fool you so they can keep stealing the wealth you create.
> 
> PS:  Remember, NeoMarxist are "currently" advocating businesses based on the "farmer cooperative" model - that is, worker owned and run businesses.  This adds democracy to the workplace.  That is, it replaces the current workplace dictatorship with democracy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read what he wrote you have not.
> 
> Once again dictatorship of the proletariat is not a democracy he meant DICTATORSHIP. Oh sure he supported universal suffrage in the mean time but his revolutionary vision which he advocated required DESPOTISM as I have proven.
> 
> It is YOU lacking in comprehension of what Marx wrote like all of his foolish acolytes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now this is an oxymoron if there ever was one, "dictatorship of the proletariat."  The proletariat is not just the workers, but is the largest group of people in the population of a country.  If you have the majority of the people running a country, they do not call it a dictatorship.  They call it a democracy or a representative democracy; maybe even a republic.  However, you cannot, by any definition anywhere, call such a government a dictatorship.
> 
> In fact, capitalists are afraid of real democracies, which is why they have spent so much converting America into an "inverted democracy" (a.k.a: a managed democracy or illiberal democracy) - which is (a quote) "a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics.  Every natural resource and living being is commodified and exploited to the point of collapse, as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism."
> 
> The rich fear democracy, because the majority - the proletariat - may just decide to tax them to pay for the needs of the society such as schools, roads, healthcare, and more.  This is exactly what FDR did in the middle of the Great Depression, when the government had no money.  FDR told the rich, you are going to pay for unemployment benefits, Social Security, and a whole lot more.
> 
> Sadly, after FDR's death, the rich decided to take all of that back, so they have been steadily undoing the New Deal programs and laws such as Glass-Steagall.  The net result is the 1930s are back - albeit in a different form.
> 
> To save capitalism from itself - which FDR claimed he did - you would have to reinstitute the New Deal, but sadly it would fail!  It took the rich 70 years to get rid of the regulations and programs of the New Deal.  Now that the rich know how this is done, if we put the New Deal back in place, the rich would undo it again, but in probably 30 years.
> 
> So save capitalism if you wish, and revive the economy if you can, but understand, capitalism will return you to something that looks like the Great Depression over, and over and over again.
> 
> PS:  Yes, I have read Marx!  That is how I know about all of those quotes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of whether it is a group or an individual.
> 
> As I said earlier you do not make it a good idea by hanging the words " of the proletariat " after the word dictator but that is precisely what MArx preached.
> 
> He preached a despotic totalitarian dictatorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see no amount of evidence will stop you from believing what you want to believe.  Proletariat is defined as "the working class."  In America, that is about 100 million people.  You cannot run a dictatorship governed by a group of 100 million.  There is no social science person on the planet that would accept your definition.
> 
> By your definition, America is a despotic dictatorship, not "of the proletariat" but "of the voting citizens."
Click to expand...

That is not my definition and you are wrong yes a million can be a dictatorship.

It is not my definition it is the derfinition given by your god karl marx


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have demonstrated nothing except that you can quote Marx out of context.  I have already pointed out that Marx and Engels have always appreciated the value of the vote. Again, in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto they wrote:
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Looking back, half a century later, Frederick Engels said in the " Introduction to Class Struggles in France": (1895)
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the struggle for the general franchise, for democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat . . .
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> And then, only four years after the Communist Manifesto Marx emphasized his support for democracy in an article in the New York Tribune (25 August 1852), which says:
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> "The carrying of universal suffrage in England would . . . be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent.  It's inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class."
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> You need to read what Marx actually wrote rather than listening only to the capitalist propaganda put out by the rich.  The propaganda is designed to fool you so they can keep stealing the wealth you create.
> 
> PS:  Remember, NeoMarxist are "currently" advocating businesses based on the "farmer cooperative" model - that is, worker owned and run businesses.  This adds democracy to the workplace.  That is, it replaces the current workplace dictatorship with democracy!
> 
> 
> 
> I have read what he wrote you have not.
> 
> Once again dictatorship of the proletariat is not a democracy he meant DICTATORSHIP. Oh sure he supported universal suffrage in the mean time but his revolutionary vision which he advocated required DESPOTISM as I have proven.
> 
> It is YOU lacking in comprehension of what Marx wrote like all of his foolish acolytes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now this is an oxymoron if there ever was one, "dictatorship of the proletariat."  The proletariat is not just the workers, but is the largest group of people in the population of a country.  If you have the majority of the people running a country, they do not call it a dictatorship.  They call it a democracy or a representative democracy; maybe even a republic.  However, you cannot, by any definition anywhere, call such a government a dictatorship.
> 
> In fact, capitalists are afraid of real democracies, which is why they have spent so much converting America into an "inverted democracy" (a.k.a: a managed democracy or illiberal democracy) - which is (a quote) "a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics.  Every natural resource and living being is commodified and exploited to the point of collapse, as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism."
> 
> The rich fear democracy, because the majority - the proletariat - may just decide to tax them to pay for the needs of the society such as schools, roads, healthcare, and more.  This is exactly what FDR did in the middle of the Great Depression, when the government had no money.  FDR told the rich, you are going to pay for unemployment benefits, Social Security, and a whole lot more.
> 
> Sadly, after FDR's death, the rich decided to take all of that back, so they have been steadily undoing the New Deal programs and laws such as Glass-Steagall.  The net result is the 1930s are back - albeit in a different form.
> 
> To save capitalism from itself - which FDR claimed he did - you would have to reinstitute the New Deal, but sadly it would fail!  It took the rich 70 years to get rid of the regulations and programs of the New Deal.  Now that the rich know how this is done, if we put the New Deal back in place, the rich would undo it again, but in probably 30 years.
> 
> So save capitalism if you wish, and revive the economy if you can, but understand, capitalism will return you to something that looks like the Great Depression over, and over and over again.
> 
> PS:  Yes, I have read Marx!  That is how I know about all of those quotes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of whether it is a group or an individual.
> 
> As I said earlier you do not make it a good idea by hanging the words " of the proletariat " after the word dictator but that is precisely what MArx preached.
> 
> He preached a despotic totalitarian dictatorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see no amount of evidence will stop you from believing what you want to believe.  Proletariat is defined as "the working class."  In America, that is about 100 million people.  You cannot run a dictatorship governed by a group of 100 million.  There is no social science person on the planet that would accept your definition.
> 
> By your definition, America is a despotic dictatorship, not "of the proletariat" but "of the voting citizens."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not my definition and you are wrong yes a million can be a dictatorship.
> 
> It is not my definition it is the derfinition given by your god karl marx
Click to expand...


About "not my definition", it must be fun to be able to make up your own definitions - despite what the world may think!

About "a million can be a dictatorship", no one calls this issue a dictatorship.  The most you will get is "tyranny of the majority", which happens even in the US.

Here is a quote from the article "Democracy in America, Then and Now, a Struggle Against Majority Tyranny."

(Quote)

During the War of 1812, an angry mob smashed the printing presses of a Baltimore newspaper that dared to come out against the war. When the mob surrounded the paper's editors, and the state militia refused to protect them, the journalists were taken to prison for their own protection. That night, the mob broke into the prison, killed one journalist and left the others for dead. When the mob leaders were brought before a jury, they were acquitted.

Alexis de Tocqueville tells this chilling story in "Democracy in America," and warns that the greatest threat the United States faces is the tyranny of the majority, a phrase he is credited with coining. His account of his travels through America in the 1830's, which is often called the greatest book ever written about America, is both an appreciation of American democracy, and a cautionary tale about its fragility.



(End quote)


----------



## Soupnazi630

T.E.C. - Iowa said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read what he wrote you have not.
> 
> Once again dictatorship of the proletariat is not a democracy he meant DICTATORSHIP. Oh sure he supported universal suffrage in the mean time but his revolutionary vision which he advocated required DESPOTISM as I have proven.
> 
> It is YOU lacking in comprehension of what Marx wrote like all of his foolish acolytes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is an oxymoron if there ever was one, "dictatorship of the proletariat."  The proletariat is not just the workers, but is the largest group of people in the population of a country.  If you have the majority of the people running a country, they do not call it a dictatorship.  They call it a democracy or a representative democracy; maybe even a republic.  However, you cannot, by any definition anywhere, call such a government a dictatorship.
> 
> In fact, capitalists are afraid of real democracies, which is why they have spent so much converting America into an "inverted democracy" (a.k.a: a managed democracy or illiberal democracy) - which is (a quote) "a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics.  Every natural resource and living being is commodified and exploited to the point of collapse, as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism."
> 
> The rich fear democracy, because the majority - the proletariat - may just decide to tax them to pay for the needs of the society such as schools, roads, healthcare, and more.  This is exactly what FDR did in the middle of the Great Depression, when the government had no money.  FDR told the rich, you are going to pay for unemployment benefits, Social Security, and a whole lot more.
> 
> Sadly, after FDR's death, the rich decided to take all of that back, so they have been steadily undoing the New Deal programs and laws such as Glass-Steagall.  The net result is the 1930s are back - albeit in a different form.
> 
> To save capitalism from itself - which FDR claimed he did - you would have to reinstitute the New Deal, but sadly it would fail!  It took the rich 70 years to get rid of the regulations and programs of the New Deal.  Now that the rich know how this is done, if we put the New Deal back in place, the rich would undo it again, but in probably 30 years.
> 
> So save capitalism if you wish, and revive the economy if you can, but understand, capitalism will return you to something that looks like the Great Depression over, and over and over again.
> 
> PS:  Yes, I have read Marx!  That is how I know about all of those quotes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of whether it is a group or an individual.
> 
> As I said earlier you do not make it a good idea by hanging the words " of the proletariat " after the word dictator but that is precisely what MArx preached.
> 
> He preached a despotic totalitarian dictatorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see no amount of evidence will stop you from believing what you want to believe.  Proletariat is defined as "the working class."  In America, that is about 100 million people.  You cannot run a dictatorship governed by a group of 100 million.  There is no social science person on the planet that would accept your definition.
> 
> By your definition, America is a despotic dictatorship, not "of the proletariat" but "of the voting citizens."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not my definition and you are wrong yes a million can be a dictatorship.
> 
> It is not my definition it is the derfinition given by your god karl marx
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "not my definition", it must be fun to be able to make up your own definitions - despite what the world may think!
> 
> About "a million can be a dictatorship", no one calls this issue a dictatorship.  The most you will get is "tyranny of the majority", which happens even in the US.
> 
> Here is a quote from the article "Democracy in America, Then and Now, a Struggle Against Majority Tyranny."
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> During the War of 1812, an angry mob smashed the printing presses of a Baltimore newspaper that dared to come out against the war. When the mob surrounded the paper's editors, and the state militia refused to protect them, the journalists were taken to prison for their own protection. That night, the mob broke into the prison, killed one journalist and left the others for dead. When the mob leaders were brought before a jury, they were acquitted.
> 
> Alexis de Tocqueville tells this chilling story in "Democracy in America," and warns that the greatest threat the United States faces is the tyranny of the majority, a phrase he is credited with coining. His account of his travels through America in the 1830's, which is often called the greatest book ever written about America, is both an appreciation of American democracy, and a cautionary tale about its fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> (End quote)
Click to expand...

Wrong sensible intelligent people DO call a group a tyranny and dictatorship regardless of the size.

It was marx who defined it as such and gave you the definition,.

you were defeated and proven wrong from my first post and are now just grinding your gears and denying fact


----------



## T.E.C. - Iowa

Soupnazi630 said:


> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E.C. - Iowa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is an oxymoron if there ever was one, "dictatorship of the proletariat."  The proletariat is not just the workers, but is the largest group of people in the population of a country.  If you have the majority of the people running a country, they do not call it a dictatorship.  They call it a democracy or a representative democracy; maybe even a republic.  However, you cannot, by any definition anywhere, call such a government a dictatorship.
> 
> In fact, capitalists are afraid of real democracies, which is why they have spent so much converting America into an "inverted democracy" (a.k.a: a managed democracy or illiberal democracy) - which is (a quote) "a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics.  Every natural resource and living being is commodified and exploited to the point of collapse, as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism."
> 
> The rich fear democracy, because the majority - the proletariat - may just decide to tax them to pay for the needs of the society such as schools, roads, healthcare, and more.  This is exactly what FDR did in the middle of the Great Depression, when the government had no money.  FDR told the rich, you are going to pay for unemployment benefits, Social Security, and a whole lot more.
> 
> Sadly, after FDR's death, the rich decided to take all of that back, so they have been steadily undoing the New Deal programs and laws such as Glass-Steagall.  The net result is the 1930s are back - albeit in a different form.
> 
> To save capitalism from itself - which FDR claimed he did - you would have to reinstitute the New Deal, but sadly it would fail!  It took the rich 70 years to get rid of the regulations and programs of the New Deal.  Now that the rich know how this is done, if we put the New Deal back in place, the rich would undo it again, but in probably 30 years.
> 
> So save capitalism if you wish, and revive the economy if you can, but understand, capitalism will return you to something that looks like the Great Depression over, and over and over again.
> 
> PS:  Yes, I have read Marx!  That is how I know about all of those quotes!
> 
> 
> 
> A dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of whether it is a group or an individual.
> 
> As I said earlier you do not make it a good idea by hanging the words " of the proletariat " after the word dictator but that is precisely what MArx preached.
> 
> He preached a despotic totalitarian dictatorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see no amount of evidence will stop you from believing what you want to believe.  Proletariat is defined as "the working class."  In America, that is about 100 million people.  You cannot run a dictatorship governed by a group of 100 million.  There is no social science person on the planet that would accept your definition.
> 
> By your definition, America is a despotic dictatorship, not "of the proletariat" but "of the voting citizens."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not my definition and you are wrong yes a million can be a dictatorship.
> 
> It is not my definition it is the derfinition given by your god karl marx
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About "not my definition", it must be fun to be able to make up your own definitions - despite what the world may think!
> 
> About "a million can be a dictatorship", no one calls this issue a dictatorship.  The most you will get is "tyranny of the majority", which happens even in the US.
> 
> Here is a quote from the article "Democracy in America, Then and Now, a Struggle Against Majority Tyranny."
> 
> (Quote)
> 
> During the War of 1812, an angry mob smashed the printing presses of a Baltimore newspaper that dared to come out against the war. When the mob surrounded the paper's editors, and the state militia refused to protect them, the journalists were taken to prison for their own protection. That night, the mob broke into the prison, killed one journalist and left the others for dead. When the mob leaders were brought before a jury, they were acquitted.
> 
> Alexis de Tocqueville tells this chilling story in "Democracy in America," and warns that the greatest threat the United States faces is the tyranny of the majority, a phrase he is credited with coining. His account of his travels through America in the 1830's, which is often called the greatest book ever written about America, is both an appreciation of American democracy, and a cautionary tale about its fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> (End quote)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong sensible intelligent people DO call a group a tyranny and dictatorship regardless of the size.
> 
> It was marx who defined it as such and gave you the definition,.
> 
> you were defeated and proven wrong from my first post and are now just grinding your gears and denying fact
Click to expand...


Well, again, you are making up stuff so that you can continue to believe what you want to believe.  I have already supplied quotes showing that Marx and Engels both supported democracy.  Seriously, be it government by the proletariat or government by the working class, no one, but you, would call that a dictatorship.

But more to demonstrate that you are making up a definition that will fit what you want to think.  Over at Wikipedia you find this, "A Dictatorship is an authoritarian form of government, characterized by a single leader or group of leaders with either no party or a weak party, little mass mobilization, and limited political pluralism."

Rule by the proletariat or the working class, would involve both "mass mobilization, and political pluralism!!!"

Over at Merrian-Webster.com, you find this definition, "a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique!"

Again, rule by the proletariat or the working class would not qualify because the proletariat could not be considered "a small clique."

And over at Dictionary.com, you have this definition, "a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator."  Notice dictator is singular!!!!!!!

So face it, even though I know you cannot, Karl Marx did not want rule by the capitalist - that is, rule by the rich - which could be called a dictatorship, but is more often called an oligarchy.  Karl Marx wanted rule by the working class, and, any way you cut it, rule by the working class is much closer to the definition of democracy than any other form of government currently seen on this planet.

Oh wait, I forgot!  You make up your own definitions.  So you will dismiss all of the above definitions, and continue to think what you want to think.


----------

