Which is where the term "pock marx" came from.

So, possibly, by inference, could this explain why Dumbya who might be suffering from cokeinoseitus and chugalugaboozus has totally lost it?

Oh bullshit nothing a decent pair of needle nose pliers wouldn't have fixed.

So Rush's ass boil has regrown?

Prof: Bad Skin Made Karl Marx a Communist'

Well that explains a few things. I guess all the rest of the Libs have to do is use a little Proactiv and they will be Republican's in no time. :)

They shoulda swabbed Marx with Accutane at 10x the regular dose.

Well that explains a few things. I guess all the rest of the Libs have to do is use a little Proactiv and they will be Republican's in no time. :)

Posted by moomanfl


Yeah, if they inject it directly into the vein while checking out the men's briefs section of the Sears catalogue. ;)

Yeah, if they inject it directly into the vein while checking out the men's briefs section of the Sears catalogue. ;)

No, then you would be dead.

Why the men's briefs section of the Sears catalog though? Is that something you do often?

band skin =
no hot chicks =
bad attitude =
anger & hatred of others =
hatred of personal freedom =
desire to control others =
liberalism =
communism =
totalitarianism =
mass murder.

"Why the men's briefs section of the Sears catalog though?"

Just seems like, given recent history, the right thing to do as a new Republican.

He was a little bastard who didn't provide for his own family and several of his kids died due to his negligence.

He was a little bastard who didn't provide for his own family and several of his kids died due to his negligence.

Posted by kirk at 2007-10-31 09:16 AM | Reply

.... to each according to their needs ....

Karl Marx analyzed human psychology, society, and economics. His insights predicted the future correctly in some ways and failed in others.

His most important prediction was the AMERICAN labor movement, a direct response to the abuses of human beings by Capitalists. Nothing even remotely like that ever happened in the Soviet Union or China which dishonestly wore the mantel of Communism. These were and still are Totalitarian, not Communist Societies. Marxist terminology like Communism, Capitalism and Socialism has been consistently misrepresented by the ruling class, with the intent of controlling wealth.

But, Marx failed to account for the power of modern media to manufacture mass consent. Today, the major difference between so-called Democratic and Totalitarian Societies is that in Democracies most people do not understand the extent to which they are being lied to, whereas victims of Totalitarianism understand perfectly well. But Government lies are always limited by reality, people living in Democracies do not starve. 75% of this country wants us out of Iraq, yet the establishment remains. Is that Democracy? Few things in politics are what they superficially appear to be whether labeled free or military societies.

75% of this country wants us out of Iraq, yet the establishment remains. Is that Democracy?
NUTCASE

Hmmm, well given the fact those numbers came from polls quoted by the media, just how accurate can they be considering manipulation, or outright lying has taken place?
One doesn't really know.
It could be much greater, or less.
That being said, Congress is seeing to it that we become less of a Democracy with every bill they pass.

Has it dawned on anyone, that we could fight terrorism, and NOT relinquish any of our freedoms while doing so?

These were and still are Totalitarian, not Communist Societies.


On anything other than a village-sized scale, Communism can't function without being totalitarian. It is a logical fallacy to suggest otherwise.


But, Marx failed to account for the power of modern media to manufacture mass consent.


The media doesn't manufacture consent.

People consent because they are generally happy.

They are generally happy because they live in a relatively free society that affords a reasonable level of upward mobility for those who work hard and work smart.

No system of government coupled with whatever economic system is in place is perfect. The human condition is never perfectible. That said, our system of government coupled with a Capitalist economy produces a tremendous society when compared with other tried alternatives.


I don't know whether or not you are pining for true Communism, so I'll refrain from making my case further until your position is clarified.


One suggestion though: Try reading an author other than just Zinn or Chomsky. Consider giving Thomas Sowell, or Milton Friedman a whirl, if you haven't already done so.

"POCK MARX"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bwaaaaaaaaaahahaha!

Bad Skin made him a communist?

I would suggest-more likely he was just an authoritarian douche.

I would suggest-more likely he was just an authoritarian douche.


He was great at riling people up.


He was at best mediocre as a philospher.


His proposed solutions to 'problems' sucked ass. Big time.

""People consent because they are generally happy.""

Baloney. People consent because they don't have a clue.

Baloney. People consent because they don't have a clue.


Feeling elitist, Danni?


Your post basically says that people conent because they are stupid.

People aren't really happy, they just think they are.

Does it rain 24/7 in your world?

band skin =
no hot chicks =
bad attitude =
anger & hatred of others =
hatred of personal freedom =
desire to control others =
liberalism =
communism =
totalitarianism =
mass murder.



Posted by vernon at 2007-10-31 08:38 A

...and most significantly=THE DR LEFT!

So while politics made him boil with rage, communism was only skin-deep for Komrade Karl.

JJ,

I don't know if "Communism" is feasible for a bunch of apes either. My point was that what has been touted historically as "Communism" is not what Marx proposed. The same can be said for Adams and Friedman's "Free Market Model". These concepts have their place in education, but they are just models which lead to oversimplified math. Big fish eat little fish is a much more universal law, never mentioned to the public.

In countries where the Protestant work ethic has prevailed, socailism has worked well. As immigration has eroded that ethic they are becoming unsustainable.

I have read Sowell, a blend of excellent reasoning and partisan bullshit. He writes one page propositions and 10 page summaries. But many of his propositions are sound and fall outside the politically correct bullshit that pervades our society. Never heard of Zinn, except from you.

I consider Chomsky and Roberts both brilliant, providing similar conclusions starting with completely different assumptions. Conservative and Liberal, they both see through the sea of lies we live in.

Many Liberals talk in terms of sustainable economic models. Yet, no "Liberal" agenda is sustainable without a fiscally Conservative foundation. Corporate Welfare and warmongering are not conservative principals, though Republicans claim this mantel. Both parties are selling the country down the river at this time in order to receive funding from the Military Industrial Complex necessary to continue to hold office. This waste and abuse is deliberate and dwarfs the "Welfare Queen" problem that catapulted Reagan to fame. We can afford to educate, feed and house everyone. We cannot afford to engage in perpetual war, outsourcing, subsidizing the wealthy that buy politicians, illegal immigration, or paving over of all our farmland. But, that is the state of our "Democracy", if you want to call it that. It is a misnomer as much as the label "Communism".

I believe my point that about the limits of deception are in line with your notion that people consent because they're happy. As I mentioned, no one starves in a Democracy, however corrupted it has become.

Nutcase,


First off, thank you for the well-thought response.


I consider Chomsky and Roberts both brilliant, providing similar conclusions starting with completely different assumptions. Conservative and Liberal, they both see through the sea of lies we live in.


I am not familiar with Roberts.



, no "Liberal" agenda is sustainable without a fiscally Conservative foundation. Corporate Welfare and warmongering are not conservative principals

Agreed.

Paul Craig Roberts is a Conservative and the best columnist by far. Served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Reagan.

His writing can be found on the "creators", "counterpunch" and "vdare" websites. I have not seen him in any major media outlets.

Wow, Nutcase is showing that there is an intelligent being behind the facade.

Interestingly enough, many Marxist tenets sound familiar today:

The most important features of a society are its economic classes and their relations to each other in the modes of production of each historical epoch.

The state is the means whereby the ruling class forcibly maintains its rule over the other classes.

A class is defined by the relations of its members to the means of production.

Under capitalism, the capitalists own the means of production, the proletariat own only their capacity to work. Landlords rule the land, and the peasants are less significant than workers and are trapped in the idiocy of rural life.

The capitalist class wins power over the feudal class by a bourgeois democratic revolution. A bourgeois democratic revolution is a good thing in its day, because it gets rid of feudal personal relations and replaces them by a cash nexus.

Capitalism creates the proletariat who have nothing to sell but their labor by bankrupting the artisan classes and the petty bourgeoisie and driving them into the proletariat.

Under capitalism, workers "tend" to be paid the bare amount required for them to support their families and reproduce. This is because of competition for jobs from the reserve army of labor, i.e. the unemployed.

The capitalist sells the product of the workers' labor at a price proportional to its value, which is the socially necessary labor required to produce it.

The difference between what the product sells for and what the workers are paid is surplus value and is appropriated by the capitalist.

Because the workers can't buy the full product of their labor and the capitalists don't consume all the surplus value, there tend to be recessions.

The steady increase in labor saving machinery creates unemployment and drives down wages. This emphasizes the tendency for there to be economic recessions.

The tendency to pay the workers bare survival wages leads to the increasing immiseration of the proletariat.

The other classes, e.g. artisans and petty bourgeoisie, e.g. small shopkeepers, go broke and are driven into the proletariat. Even the smaller capitalists go broke.

In his "Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy," written in the 1840s, Engels asserted that "The middle classes must increasingly disappear until the world is divided into millionaires and paupers. . . . [T]his result must and will come, unless it is anticipated by a total transformation of social conditions, a fusion of opposed interests, an abolition of private property."

Being mindful that many of these concepts came about in the 1800's, it is shocking how many of the conditions that Marx, Engels and Hagel were decrying then exist now, the main difference being that the middle class now is vastly larger then it was then (even with the "neo-coms" predicting its rapid demise.

Posted by Rightocenter

Plus, it seems that skin problems remain rampant today.

Nutcase,

Thank you for clarifying who Roberts is for me.

I'll give him a whirl.


I am surprised that you've never heard of Howard Zinn. He's a fairly prominent historian and author of "A People's History of the United States". Some of your rhetoric mirrors Zinn's, which is why I thought you'd read some of his stuff.


Admittedly, I've read very little Chomsky, so my comments are limited to that little that I've read coupled with what I've read about him.

Chomsky is he is an extremely smart theorist, having invented modern linquistic theory. He knows so much that he forgets sometimes what his audience doesn't understand yet in his explanations. He talks extemporaniously far more often than he writes. This opens the door to a lot of misinterpretation.

RoC,

Your explanations are far more thorough than mine. Thanks for that.

But what about the "Proletariat Revolution", which I contend was the Labor Movement. Our economy exploded after the Labor Movement overcame systematic extermination of its leaders by the police. That's because working stiffs spend their money. Even today, with labor in decline, the economy is driven largely by consumer spending.

Marx's version of communism wasnt so bad, it was the russians who destroyed the ideology. What westerners think when they hear communism is Russian Authoritarianism. Kinda like how the Republican party is really the American Nationalist party. Yes communism has many flaws in the theory but without marx we would not be living in the world we do today. There would be no labor laws, kids would be working in factories. Those of us lucky enough to have a job would make almost nothing. Basically without marx there would be no middle class like there is today.

But who cares lets just blame his radical ideas on the fact that he had a severe case of acne and make him out to be some alienated nutcase. If Marx's theories were so bad then why are many of them still taught in modern social sciences?

BTW Abraham lincoln read Marx and was probably a socialist.
Karl Marx himself wrote Lincoln on January 28, 1865 to say, "Sir: We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority." In the same letter Marx assured Lincoln that the European communist movement was with him: "From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class,"