What/who made GOD?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Shahumyan I did actually say cut the wit out, however it seems as you cannot explain a point, you must wow the crowd crappy one liners...

you seem to think you are correct on your analysis of human nature, please bring evidence and use it before making conclusions...

Marxists dont try to make a utopia, simply changing hands of the means of production, and democratically controlling wealth, not the dictatorship of the bourgeoise

Changing hands of the means of production has already been tried, but failed on all accounts. Democracy doesn't work, and is a failure since it is merely another extension of socialistic ideas. The masses are just numbers, and dead weight. It has always been a means and a breeding ground for dictators, ala Hitler, Stalin, Mao, who loved democracy, mass rallies, etc. They knew that they owed their rise to democratic mass thinking and mass politics, elections, referenda, mass media propaganda, etc. Masses or the mob itself cannot control since it is an unharnessed force and it cannot think. The basic primitive mob, as an example, only destroys, unless harnessed by a leader. There will always arise one since 'class conscioussness' is one of the things Marxism doesn't explain.

The workers cannot control production since it is owned by a producers and they are choosing to work in it. The free market economics is the basis of this. But this idea that workers should all have the same means, is one of the key errors, rather the epistemological error of Marxism, since it claims that our thinking reflects our class, and our ideas are a product of our class. Marx himself admits in the Manifesto that the proletariat doesn't only have class interests.

"The organization of the proletarians into a class and thereby into a political party is repeatedly frustrated by the competition among the workers themselves."

Thus to assume that it is only about their CLASS that they care about is erroneous on behalf of the Marxists. Marx's quote goes into a deeper world. He admits that aside from class interests the worker has other interests, and what o what should he follow? According to the Marxists he should of course follow his class interests. But if Marx himself admitted that the worker could align his allegiance with other duties, as opposed to class duties, then it becomes a matter of what ought to be, as opposed to what already is. Marxism assumes that the workers will all unite with their common interests, since their thinking is a product of their class and denies free will. This is perhaps one of the biggest indictments against your flawed theory.

[Shahumyan]

Your threads are so full of inaccuracies one wonders whether its worth tackling a thread with so much falsification in it.

Your first paragraph, you ramble on about democracy being a failing system, dont bother taking into account each case, and seem to beleive democracy and bourgeoise democracy are interchangable.

"The workers cannot control production since it is owned by a producers and they are choosing to work in it"
-The whole point of marxism is for workers being producers AND owners...

If class was only thing workers cared about then we wouldnt squabbling now, we would be under workers democracy. OUr task as marxists is to raise the class consiousness that is present in workers, and which is gained through life experiences eg strikes, bankruptcy of capitalist state.

going back to paragraph 2, you state "since it claims that our thinking reflects our class"
-are you going to bother with an explaination???

[TJ]

Lets stop this right here i will answer the question once and for all:

I MADE GOD

thats it. nothing more to argue about lets just allow this thread to die.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Shahumyan Your threads are so full of inaccuracies one wonders whether its worth tackling a thread with so much falsification in it.

Your first paragraph, you ramble on about democracy being a failing system, dont bother taking into account each case, and seem to beleive democracy and bourgeoise democracy are interchangable.

"The workers cannot control production since it is owned by a producers and they are choosing to work in it"
-The whole point of marxism is for workers being producers AND owners...

If class was only thing workers cared about then we wouldnt squabbling now, we would be under workers democracy. OUr task as marxists is to raise the class consiousness that is present in workers, and which is gained through life experiences eg strikes, bankruptcy of capitalist state.

going back to paragraph 2, you state "since it claims that our thinking reflects our class"
-are you going to bother with an explaination???

You're the one that babbles about Marxism and you don't know what I am talking about?

Your posts are always full of assumptions, big and small, no evidence, you have no writing style that that can convey your ideas clearly, you are biased you don't critical think, and worst of all you don't know what the hell I am talking about.

Maybe if you had read the Communist Manifesto you would understand what I am talking about, but since you're one of those Marxists that has joined the bandwagon because of the kids at school, and you go to the www.marxists.org for your news, and you think of yourself as "progressive" and "daring to do good for humanity, the greater good for all", you don't know what I am talking about. Stop living in a world of idealisms and cliches.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Tramanian Absolutely, Von Mises is/was a brilliant man, although I tend not to enjoy his writing style as much as Rand's.

While Rand does the best job of laying down the philosophical basis for Capitalism, I think Von Mises does the best job of laying down the economic basis for Capitalism.

Another good one is Milton Freidman, or Al Greenspan before he became a God damned fascist.

I'll check out that book, thanks.

I'm not really fond of Milton Friedman nor Alan Greenspan since to me they are nothing more than 'economists' of the establishment, rehashing the same old worn out Keynesian crap.

[Tramanian]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I'm not really fond of Milton Friedman nor Alan Greenspan since to me they are nothing more than 'economists' of the establishment, rehashing the same old worn out Keynesian crap.

My friend, my friend, greenspan wasn't always a Keynesian, as a matter of fact he has 2 essays in Capitalism: The unknown ideal. At one point he was actually a Laissez-Faire Capitalist, but the thought of being a highly paid government employee must have made him change his tune (which shows that he was only economically a Capitalist, and philosophyically a statist. None the less, he wrote well on Capitalism when he was a Capitalist.

Friedman on the other hand, well I've only read one of his books, entitled "Free to Choose: A Personal Statement," and it was certainly in advocacy of Capitalim...maybe he changed his tune later on as well.

As an aside, I've decided to argue no more with our Marxist from Manchester...unlike Sisypus, I have a choice.

[Shahumyan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse You're the one that babbles about Marxism and you don't know what I am talking about?

Your posts are always full of assumptions, big and small, no evidence, you have no writing style that that can convey your ideas clearly, you are biased you don't critical think, and worst of all you don't know what the hell I am talking about.

Maybe if you had read the Communist Manifesto you would understand what I am talking about, but since you're one of those Marxists that has joined the bandwagon because of the kids at school, and you go to the www.marxists.org for your news, and you think of yourself as "progressive" and "daring to do good for humanity, the greater good for all", you don't know what I am talking about. Stop living in a world of idealisms and cliches.

There are no communists at school unfortunately and i dont go to marxists.org that often anyway unnless im looking for a specific text.

Its a shame the only defenders of capitalism are kumquats like you. Try reading a book other than one your lecturer has given you

[Shahumyan]

[i]
As an aside, I've decided to argue no more with our Marxist from Manchester...unlike Sisypus, I have a choice. [/B]

why is this? surely if capitalism is a superior ideology then u can dedfeat me quite easily?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Shahumyan There are no communists at school unfortunately and i dont go to marxists.org that often anyway unnless im looking for a specific text.

Its a shame the only defenders of capitalism are kumquats like you. Try reading a book other than one your lecturer has given you

It's a shame that you have to result to petty insults and earlier you didn't know what I was talking about.

Are you not familiar with the Communist Manifesto? In there Marx claims that our ideas and thinking is shaped and reflecting our class, thus our class determines how we think. I addressed the whole epistemological error of Marx pertaining to that, and you had not one ounce to say.

Typical.

[Tramanian]

Originally posted by Shahumyan why is this? surely if capitalism is a superior ideology then u can dedfeat me quite easily?

The irrational can not convince the rational and vice versa. The only language a Marxist speaks is that of brute force, hence why communism can only be implemented by the use of a gun.

You have no desire to listen to reason, and I would guess, that like most Marxists, you have openly rejected reason as valid epistemology.

In other words: I don't speak your language.