.

[Symmetry + 109]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

For the last time needledick, Trump won the election!

Fantasy land!

But please let that be the past time you spread lies, however doubtful.

Traitor.

Edited February 8, 2021 by Symmetry

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 hours ago, Symmetry said:

Fantasy land!

But please let that be the past time you spread lies, however doubtful.

Traitor.

I love how I poke Enthalpic and the sock puppet brigade comes running to your defense. I'm very clear this is your world, we here just don't want to share it with you. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Ward Smith
Stupid auto-correct

[Symmetry + 109]

Wolf, wolf!  Help me!

Just like Trump and pillow boy you lose your voice after too much BS.

Edited February 8, 2021 by Symmetry

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

18 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I love how it poke Enthalpic and the sock puppet brigade comes running to your defense. I'm very clear this is your world, we here just don't want to share it with you. 

You do seem to have a very magnetic attraction to a specific demographic, Id would try to bottle it and market it to the roach hotel crowd..

[frankfurter + 562]

@ Ward Smith.  I don't see what Marx has to do with the mechanics of the last election. But whether the election was stolen, this has yet to be proven or disproven. Corroborating evidence has indeed surfaced to support the claim the election was stolen. The real question is why your government will not permit open, unbiased investigation. The reason is simple: the deep state knows the fraud, and knows the fraud revealed will debase that state. Thus that state will fight tooth and nail to prevent anything to reveal their debauchery. People who demand an investigation are censored, blocked from media, removed from platforms, dismissed from their jobs, dossiered bu the FBI, arrested and charged, and demonised by the presstitutes. This result is not the character of a democratic republic: it is the character of a fascist state. A republic can withstand openness: a fascist cannot.

But Marx is very relevant to the USA today.  His works have been taken out of context and the man has been demonised since 1850. Why? Because he is the first to analyse clinically the conflict between the haves and have-nots, and to show the social history of the world is the manifestation of a class struggle. He used the terms, bourgeoisie and proletariat, to delineate the owners of capital and serfs respectively. The social world was rather different in 1850, wherein capital was primarily land, and thus the means of production. In other words, capital was tied to production, and vice versa. Today, capital is created for capital's sake alone, and thus is no longer tied to production.  For today, think of quantitative easing, 2008 bail-outs, the 1% elites, black lives matter, deep state, etc.

Marx wrote in German. the true translation of his book is, Manifesto of the Communist Party. The true intent of the manifesto is not the overthrow of capitalism; rather the overthrow of the structures that enable the concentration of wealth into the top 1% and the enslavement of the bottom 99%. Marx recognised the need for capital, but that capital should be diversified and be the basis to improve human society: not the basis to control and enslave humans.  In this connection, yes, Marx did advocate for the overthrow of the top 1% and to release the means of production to benefit all of society.

Today, the USA is factually a plutocracy. The top 0.1% control the money supply, the means of production, the means of printing money, the banking and credit systems, and has created the "deep state' as its tool to effect it all. This is no different from the conditions Marx revealed in 1850. The top 1% create the huge disparity in wealth and the total slavery, and thus set their own stage for the eventual revolution. Marx highlighted all of this, and his manifesto is his attempt to arrive at a solution: not to destroy capital, but to avoid future revolutions, wars, death, destruction.

If people were to read and study Marx objectively, they may find his works to be very relevant to this day. Marx was the first to advocate: a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; abolition of child labour; free public education; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank; expansion of publicly owned land, and more.

So, no, the priority is not to destroy capitalism; it is to remove the impetus for future revolutions. The #1 goal is not to abolish private ownership: the goal is to have an equitable society, wherein private ownership is not used to amass wealth in the hands of the 1% to enslave the 99%.

 

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

9 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

@ Ward Smith.  I don't see what Marx has to do with the mechanics of the last election. But whether the election was stolen, this has yet to be proven or disproven. Corroborating evidence has indeed surfaced to support the claim the election was stolen. The real question is why your government will not permit open, unbiased investigation. The reason is simple: the deep state knows the fraud, and knows the fraud revealed will debase that state. Thus that state will fight tooth and nail to prevent anything to reveal their debauchery. People who demand an investigation are censored, blocked from media, removed from platforms, dismissed from their jobs, dossiered bu the FBI, arrested and charged, and demonised by the presstitutes. This result is not the character of a democratic republic: it is the character of a fascist state. A republic can withstand openness: a fascist cannot.

But Marx is very relevant to the USA today.  His works have been taken out of context and the man has been demonised since 1850. Why? Because he is the first to analyse clinically the conflict between the haves and have-nots, and to show the social history of the world is the manifestation of a class struggle. He used the terms, bourgeoisie and proletariat, to delineate the owners of capital and serfs respectively. The social world was rather different in 1850, wherein capital was primarily land, and thus the means of production. In other words, capital was tied to production, and vice versa. Today, capital is created for capital's sake alone, and thus is no longer tied to production.  For today, think of quantitative easing, 2008 bail-outs, the 1% elites, black lives matter, deep state, etc.

Marx wrote in German. the true translation of his book is, Manifesto of the Communist Party. The true intent of the manifesto is not the overthrow of capitalism; rather the overthrow of the structures that enable the concentration of wealth into the top 1% and the enslavement of the bottom 99%. Marx recognised the need for capital, but that capital should be diversified and be the basis to improve human society: not the basis to control and enslave humans.  In this connection, yes, Marx did advocate for the overthrow of the top 1% and to release the means of production to benefit all of society.

Today, the USA is factually a plutocracy. The top 0.1% control the money supply, the means of production, the means of printing money, the banking and credit systems, and has created the "deep state' as its tool to effect it all. This is no different from the conditions Marx revealed in 1850. The top 1% create the huge disparity in wealth and the total slavery, and thus set their own stage for the eventual revolution. Marx highlighted all of this, and his manifesto is his attempt to arrive at a solution: not to destroy capital, but to avoid future revolutions, wars, death, destruction.

If people were to read and study Marx objectively, they may find his works to be very relevant to this day. Marx was the first to advocate: a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; abolition of child labour; free public education; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank; expansion of publicly owned land, and more.

So, no, the priority is not to destroy capitalism; it is to remove the impetus for future revolutions. The #1 goal is not to abolish private ownership: the goal is to have an equitable society, wherein private ownership is not used to amass wealth in the hands of the 1% to enslave the 99%.

 

 

Well said if you endear yourself to cartoon fantasy books. Odd is it not not one world body ever adopted such a world of fairy tales and illusions. Below is a reflection on the depth of his insights

London, England (CNN) -- A collection of wills reveals Karl Marx died a poor man and Charles Darwin left behind a large estate, an ancestry website said Wednesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/08/11/uk.famous.wills/index.html#:~:text=London%2C England (CNN) --,an ancestry website said Wednesday.&text=The famous Antarctic explorer Ernest,-- %24878 (%2431%2C600 today).

[frankfurter + 562]

5 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Well said if you endear yourself to cartoon fantasy books. Odd is it not not one world body ever adopted such a world of fairy tales and illusions. Below is a reflection on the depth of his insights

London, England (CNN) -- A collection of wills reveals Karl Marx died a poor man and Charles Darwin left behind a large estate, an ancestry website said Wednesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/08/11/uk.famous.wills/index.html#:~:text=London%2C England (CNN) --,an ancestry website said Wednesday.&text=The famous Antarctic explorer Ernest,-- %24878 (%2431%2C600 today).

Given the "world body" comprises the top 1%, that such body did not adopt Marx's premises comes as no surprise. But is your assertion valid? Consider: how many countries today offer free education, free health care, state-governed utilities, and more to their citizens?  uh, so how is this a fantasy? 

Whether you accept Marx as a solution is not the point. The point is his premises are valid. The history of the world is indeed that of a class struggle.

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

11 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

Given the "world body" comprises the top 1%, that such body did not adopt Marx's premises comes as no surprise. But is your assertion valid? Consider: how many countries today offer free education, free health care, state-governed utilities, and more to their citizens?  uh, so how is this a fantasy? 

Whether you accept Marx as a solution is not the point. The point is his premises are valid. The history of the world is indeed that of a class struggle.

 

let us play a game shall we? Perhaps you might list 5 examples of..

1.Free education

2. Free Health Care

3..Utilities hmm i believe utilities in the US are governed by the states are they not? 

Perhaps a little more foundation is in order here.

[frankfurter + 562]

29 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

let us play a game shall we? Perhaps you might list 5 examples of..

1.Free education

2. Free Health Care

3..Utilities hmm i believe utilities in the US are governed by the states are they not? 

Perhaps a little more foundation is in order here.

32 countries offer free college education and 32 offer free health care - to their citizens, not foreigners.

but what is your point to having a game?  sorry, I am not a gamer, not a gambler. 

your claim is to infer I engage in fantasy. sorry I do not. unless you are again attempting to smear me?

if you wish to engage in meaningful dialogue, then pls explain why you do not accept the basic premise human history is one of a class struggle. thanks.

and, should this topic not be a separate thread? 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

13 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

32 countries offer free college education and 32 offer free health care - to their citizens, not foreigners.

but what is your point to having a game?  sorry, I am not a gamer, not a gambler. 

your claim is to infer I engage in fantasy. sorry I do not. unless you are again attempting to smear me?

if you wish to engage in meaningful dialogue, then pls explain why you do not accept the basic premise human history is one of a class struggle. thanks.

and, should this topic not be a separate thread? 

I only needed 5 examples one at a time...building to 32 can be done. I can assure you health care is not funded by dialogue&pixie dust...Start a thread it is just economics...no more no less. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

20 hours ago, frankfurter said:

32 countries offer free college education and 32 offer free health care - to their citizens, not foreigners.

Free is an odd way to put it. It still has a cost, the cost just isn’t paid by those being educated. 

Nothing is free in the universe, the air you breath has a cost to produce. We just get free labor from plants who produce the oxygen. 4 million tones of hydrogen is used every second to produce the energy we enjoy from the sun. The real issue is thinking anything is free.

Haves and have nots always exist, some people are smarter, some are taller, some more athletic, some are better looking than others.

Egalitarian equity while sounding good doesn’t jive with the reality of natural competitive instincts every form of life has on planet Earth. 

[frankfurter + 562]

48 minutes ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

Free is an odd way to put it. It still has a cost, the cost just isn’t paid by those being educated. 

Nothing is free in the universe, the air you breath has a cost to produce. We just get free labor from plants who produce the oxygen. 4 million tones of hydrogen is used every second to produce the energy we enjoy from the sun. The real issue is thinking anything is free.

Haves and have nots always exist, some people are smarter, some are taller, some more athletic, some are better looking than others.

Egalitarian equity while sounding good doesn’t jive with the reality of natural competitive instincts every form of life has on planet Earth. 

ok, I see, you and 'eyes' are considering the big picture. Agree. So instead of free, let's say the health care system in 32 countries is 'socialised': ie paid by taxpayers. This is what Marx advocated, and is implemented by many countries. Many more countries have 'progressive' tax rates, which is another premise Marx advocated.

The main point is Marx advocated for communal costs and communal benefits. Much of what he wrote is valid to this day and has been implemented. Contrary to American indoctrination, Marx did not advocate the destruction of capital, nor the destruction of capitalism. His theses were intended to be an analysis and solution to the age-old problem of why, how, when deadly revolutions occur. In this respect, we have ample proof of cause in the USA today.

The other point is the allusion I live in a fantasy land and such effect. Free speech is one thing, false witness is another. When insults are hurled my way, I reflect them.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

On 2/8/2021 at 8:44 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Well said if you endear yourself to cartoon fantasy books. Odd is it not not one world body ever adopted such a world of fairy tales and illusions. Below is a reflection on the depth of his insights

London, England (CNN) -- A collection of wills reveals Karl Marx died a poor man and Charles Darwin left behind a large estate, an ancestry website said Wednesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/08/11/uk.famous.wills/index.html#:~:text=London%2C England (CNN) --,an ancestry website said Wednesday.&text=The famous Antarctic explorer Ernest,-- %24878 (%2431%2C600 today).

Don't forget he had an elite wife who life was declining down with Marx.

Marx is the god of liberal. Living was supported by  family and friends. Drinking all days. Off course he would love socialism. He hates the rich yet he depended on them. Actions speak louder than words. 

The main difference of communism and socialism is in the way to archive socialism state, not after archiving it. Unless we can remove the greed away from human, socialism won't sustain itself and  turn into crony capitalism or collapse. The evolve of technology came from greed to make more and save more. Wars between nations came from greed to archive more resources or ensure strategic geopolitical position to maintain the wealth. Trade came from greed.

In the US, I don't mind to have all of resources from the top 1% equally distributed to me if I can justify 2 things:

1 What have I done to receive such a reward? Good karma?

2 If I can justify number 1, then I would ask how do I know it is equally distributed and no one cheated on my share. Can I save my share and make my kids richer than my neighbor's (the starting of inequality)?  If I can prove some one who was giving things to me cheated on me, what's next? Stay quiet? Blow him up? Speak up and got eliminated?

 

Edited February 10, 2021 by SUZNV

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 hours ago, SUZNV said:

Don't forget he had an elite wife who life was declining down with Marx.

Marx is the god of liberal. Living was supported by  family and friends. Drinking all days. Off course he would love socialism. He hates the rich yet he depended on them. Actions speak louder than words. 

The main difference of communism and socialism is in the way to archive socialism state, not after archiving it. Unless we can remove the greed away from human, socialism won't sustain itself and  turn into crony capitalism or collapse. The evolve of technology came from greed to make more and save more. Wars between nations came from greed to archive more resources or ensure strategic geopolitical position to maintain the wealth. Trade came from greed.

In the US, I don't mind to have all of resources from the top 1% equally distributed to me if I can justify 2 things:

1 What have I done to receive such a reward? Good karma?

2 If I can justify number 1, then I would ask how do I know it is equally distributed and no one cheated on my share. Can I save my share and make my kids richer than my neighbor's (the starting of inequality)?  If I can prove some one who was giving things to me cheated on me, what's next? Stay quiet? Blow him up? Speak up and got eliminated?

 

Pretty much nailed it.  Well done.

[frankfurter + 562]

13 hours ago, SUZNV said:

Don't forget he had an elite wife who life was declining down with Marx.

Marx is the god of liberal. Living was supported by  family and friends. Drinking all days. Off course he would love socialism. He hates the rich yet he depended on them. Actions speak louder than words. 

The main difference of communism and socialism is in the way to archive socialism state, not after archiving it. Unless we can remove the greed away from human, socialism won't sustain itself and  turn into crony capitalism or collapse. The evolve of technology came from greed to make more and save more. Wars between nations came from greed to archive more resources or ensure strategic geopolitical position to maintain the wealth. Trade came from greed.

In the US, I don't mind to have all of resources from the top 1% equally distributed to me if I can justify 2 things:

1 What have I done to receive such a reward? Good karma?

2 If I can justify number 1, then I would ask how do I know it is equally distributed and no one cheated on my share. Can I save my share and make my kids richer than my neighbor's (the starting of inequality)?  If I can prove some one who was giving things to me cheated on me, what's next? Stay quiet? Blow him up? Speak up and got eliminated?

 

Your indoctrination shines forth. Have you studied Marx? Objectively? Your comment proves you have confused outcome-equality with political-equality. Show me one instance where Marx stated he advocated outcome-equality. You will not find. Marx advocated political-equality.

Proof is found in Marx’s 1875 Critique of the Gotha Programme. Let’s take a moment to quote verbatim:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”

“…one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labour, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.”

Marx’s mantra, equality, is, by his definition, a mantra to abolish class distinctions and struggles.

To comprehend Marx, one must have a level of intelligence never prevalent in America on average, and be entirely objective. This together with a very focused and totalitarian indoctrination system, what you call public and higher education, is the reason why Americans cannot comprehend Marx’s theses and the solutions he proposed. In today’s parlance, he advocated for the abolition of the deep state and for an equitable level of social responsibility; one manifestation of which today is Black Lives Matter. Abolition: so little wonder Marx continues to be demonised.

If you wish to debate Marx further, do so from knowledge, so please read and study his works, in context. A separate thread is in order.

I am not advocating Marx is THE solution to the world’s ills. But I do say Marx proposed many tenets that have timeless validity and such tenets are, in fact, manifested in many countries today. Addressing the claim of “eyes”, my comments are not based upon fantasy.

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

1 hour ago, frankfurter said:

Your indoctrination shines forth. Have you studied Marx? Objectively? Your comment proves you have confused outcome-equality with political-equality. Show me one instance where Marx stated he advocated outcome-equality. You will not find. Marx advocated political-equality.

Proof is found in Marx’s 1875 Critique of the Gotha Programme. Let’s take a moment to quote verbatim:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”

“…one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labour, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.”

Marx’s mantra, equality, is, by his definition, a mantra to abolish class distinctions and struggles.

To comprehend Marx, one must have a level of intelligence never prevalent in America on average, and be entirely objective. This together with a very focused and totalitarian indoctrination system, what you call public and higher education, is the reason why Americans cannot comprehend Marx’s theses and the solutions he proposed. In today’s parlance, he advocated for the abolition of the deep state and for an equitable level of social responsibility; one manifestation of which today is Black Lives Matter. Abolition: so little wonder Marx continues to be demonised.

If you wish to debate Marx further, do so from knowledge, so please read and study his works, in context. A separate thread is in order.

I am not advocating Marx is THE solution to the world’s ills. But I do say Marx proposed many tenets that have timeless validity and such tenets are, in fact, manifested in many countries today. Addressing the claim of “eyes”, my comments are not based upon fantasy.

 

Odd I sense cosmic background noise once again. and yes displaced illusions of self proclaimed intellect do play well into one individuals fantasies. 

Self appointed moderation, combined with grandiose authority, this theme never changes 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open

[Boat + 1,324]

On 1/24/2021 at 4:19 PM, JoMack said:

China gave their "Coast Guard" orders to fire on any ships in the South China Sea.  So, 30% of global maritime crude oil trade passes through the sea.  If China shuts down the shipping lanes, what will Biden do?  This is a major threat and perhaps will be the biggest challenge to the new Administration.  We know the Biden family along with McConnell, Pelosi, Feinstein, Swalwell owe their fortunes to China.  Hunter Biden still holds 10% interest in an investment firm owned by the Chinese government.  I wonder how much pushback Big Business will give to China if the trillions in trade is stopped cold.  So, in one week, Biden has multiple catastrophes he's created without any plan as far as we can find.  He's just taxing, regulating, banning and sleeping at the wheel as China moves in for the kill, or at least a major challenge to U.S. power.  

And, one question, on the other side in Congress, is:   how long will it be before the left eliminates the filibuster?  2 weeks?  2 months?  2 days?

 

Two U.S. carrier groups conduct exercises in South China Sea

Se Young Lee

•  
•  
•  

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2A90I5

 

If you

[Boat + 1,324]

On 1/24/2021 at 4:19 PM, JoMack said:

China gave their "Coast Guard" orders to fire on any ships in the South China Sea.  So, 30% of global maritime crude oil trade passes through the sea.  If China shuts down the shipping lanes, what will Biden do?  This is a major threat and perhaps will be the biggest challenge to the new Administration.  We know the Biden family along with McConnell, Pelosi, Feinstein, Swalwell owe their fortunes to China.  Hunter Biden still holds 10% interest in an investment firm owned by the Chinese government.  I wonder how much pushback Big Business will give to China if the trillions in trade is stopped cold.  So, in one week, Biden has multiple catastrophes he's created without any plan as far as we can find.  He's just taxing, regulating, banning and sleeping at the wheel as China moves in for the kill, or at least a major challenge to U.S. power.  

And, one question, on the other side in Congress, is:   how long will it be before the left eliminates the filibuster?  2 weeks?  2 months?  2 days?

 

Two U.S. carrier groups conduct exercises in South China Sea

Se Young Lee

•  
•  
•  

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2A90I5

 

If your shooting at two carrier groups it should be hard to miss. Why haven’t we heard shots. The fear mongers have much to explain. So I guess now Biden looks strong. Before the carrier groups he looked weak. Typical right wing logic. Let me propose we are just as strong with our ships in port. 800 bases and carrier groups running around projecting strength is so 1980 politics and a waste of money. Why not several thousand hypersonic missiles that take out databases when it’s time for offense. Does the job and a little cheaper eh? Who really thinks these bases and carrier groups can survive today’s military tech. 

[Boat + 1,324]

On 1/24/2021 at 4:19 PM, JoMack said:

China gave their "Coast Guard" orders to fire on any ships in the South China Sea.  So, 30% of global maritime crude oil trade passes through the sea.  If China shuts down the shipping lanes, what will Biden do?  This is a major threat and perhaps will be the biggest challenge to the new Administration.  We know the Biden family along with McConnell, Pelosi, Feinstein, Swalwell owe their fortunes to China.  Hunter Biden still holds 10% interest in an investment firm owned by the Chinese government.  I wonder how much pushback Big Business will give to China if the trillions in trade is stopped cold.  So, in one week, Biden has multiple catastrophes he's created without any plan as far as we can find.  He's just taxing, regulating, banning and sleeping at the wheel as China moves in for the kill, or at least a major challenge to U.S. power.  

And, one question, on the other side in Congress, is:   how long will it be before the left eliminates the filibuster?  2 weeks?  2 months?  2 days?

 

Two U.S. carrier groups conduct exercises in South China Sea

Se Young Lee

•  
•  
•  

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2A90I5

 

If your shooting at two carrier groups it should be hard to miss. Why haven’t we heard shots. The fear mongers have much to explain. So I guess now Biden looks strong. Before the carrier groups he looked weak. Typical right wing logic. Let me propose we are just as strong with our ships in port. 800 bases and carrier groups running around projecting strength is so 1980 politics and a waste of money. Why not several thousand hypersonic missiles that take out databases when it’s time for offense. Does the job and a little cheaper eh? Who really thinks these bases and carrier groups can survive today’s military tech. 

[frankfurter + 562]

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Odd I sense cosmic background noise once again. and yes displaced illusions of self proclaimed intellect do play well into one individuals fantasies. 

Self appointed moderation, combined with grandiose authority, this theme never changes 

congrats. one of the best smear comments I have encountered. quite subtle. now, if you wish to debate the topic, without smearing the person, please do so.

self-appointed policing, combined with grandiose ignorance, this theme never changes.

 

[frankfurter + 562]

1 hour ago, Boat said:

Two U.S. carrier groups conduct exercises in South China Sea

Se Young Lee

•  
•  
•  

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2A90I5

 

If your shooting at two carrier groups it should be hard to miss. Why haven’t we heard shots. The fear mongers have much to explain. So I guess now Biden looks strong. Before the carrier groups he looked weak. Typical right wing logic. Let me propose we are just as strong with our ships in port. 800 bases and carrier groups running around projecting strength is so 1980 politics and a waste of money. Why not several thousand hypersonic missiles that take out databases when it’s time for offense. Does the job and a little cheaper eh? Who really thinks these bases and carrier groups can survive today’s military tech. 

"China gave their "Coast Guard" orders to fire on any ships in the South China Sea."  The way this is reported in west msm, one gets the impression the CCG will fire at anything and everything indiscriminately at will. Not so. The so-called 'order' has many provisos, so to prevent a military clash.  This is yet again another example of propaganda.

So Biden ordered 2 carriers to sail through the Strait. uh, what exactly did this accomplish? A show of force, like some jungle gorilla slapping his chest?  The US is playing a very stupid, demeaning game. China, despite all provocations, has not and will not fire the first shot. The US 'leaders' may wish, but I think the Pentagon will refrain from such pre-emptive order, as the entire world knows any shot against China will erupt a nuclear war of immense scale. Everybody knows the USA can destroy the entire planet about 10x over. Whereas China can do only 1x over. After 1x, who will launch the remainder 9x?  So a show of force is infantile, and the world sees this as such. The real question is will Americans acquiesce to suicide and permit their 'leader' to push the big red button? 

 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 2/10/2021 at 2:27 AM, frankfurter said:

Contrary to American indoctrination, Marx did not advocate the destruction of capital, nor the destruction of capitalism. His theses were intended to be an analysis and solution to the age-old problem of why, how, when deadly revolutions occur. In this respect, we have ample proof of cause in the USA today.

Sounds more like Pikkety than Marx? 

[Boat + 1,324]

4 hours ago, frankfurter said:

"China gave their "Coast Guard" orders to fire on any ships in the South China Sea."  The way this is reported in west msm, one gets the impression the CCG will fire at anything and everything indiscriminately at will. Not so. The so-called 'order' has many provisos, so to prevent a military clash.  This is yet again another example of propaganda.

So Biden ordered 2 carriers to sail through the Strait. uh, what exactly did this accomplish? A show of force, like some jungle gorilla slapping his chest?  The US is playing a very stupid, demeaning game. China, despite all provocations, has not and will not fire the first shot. The US 'leaders' may wish, but I think the Pentagon will refrain from such pre-emptive order, as the entire world knows any shot against China will erupt a nuclear war of immense scale. Everybody knows the USA can destroy the entire planet about 10x over. Whereas China can do only 1x over. After 1x, who will launch the remainder 9x?  So a show of force is infantile, and the world sees this as such. The real question is will Americans acquiesce to suicide and permit their 'leader' to push the big red button? 

 

For one thing it showed the lies in the reporting because shots were not fired. It showed China is not interested in behavior modification. So let’s see if Biden convinces others through trade sanctions to force behavior changes within China. 20 trading partners are stronger than 1.

I don’t like your math. I believe China can kill the world many times over. As many other countries. But beyond mutually assured destruction the US dominates conventional war strength many times over. So tier 3 is trade war where the US needs to drain rouge countries of their money if they can’t behave. The US needs a United front and help with this. The NWO so to speak. 
Lastly the US will take down the world with nukes if need be. That’s how we roll. The public would demand it. But let’s start with trade first as the weapon to stop hacking, South China Sea claims, threatening its neighbors and using the same type trade rules as the West, etc.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

10 hours ago, frankfurter said:

Your indoctrination shines forth. Have you studied Marx? Objectively? Your comment proves you have confused outcome-equality with political-equality. Show me one instance where Marx stated he advocated outcome-equality. You will not find. Marx advocated political-equality.

Proof is found in Marx’s 1875 Critique of the Gotha Programme. Let’s take a moment to quote verbatim:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”

“…one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labour, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.”

Marx’s mantra, equality, is, by his definition, a mantra to abolish class distinctions and struggles.

To comprehend Marx, one must have a level of intelligence never prevalent in America on average, and be entirely objective. This together with a very focused and totalitarian indoctrination system, what you call public and higher education, is the reason why Americans cannot comprehend Marx’s theses and the solutions he proposed. In today’s parlance, he advocated for the abolition of the deep state and for an equitable level of social responsibility; one manifestation of which today is Black Lives Matter. Abolition: so little wonder Marx continues to be demonised.

If you wish to debate Marx further, do so from knowledge, so please read and study his works, in context. A separate thread is in order.

I am not advocating Marx is THE solution to the world’s ills. But I do say Marx proposed many tenets that have timeless validity and such tenets are, in fact, manifested in many countries today. Addressing the claim of “eyes”, my comments are not based upon fantasy.

 

You deflected to defense your idol or your studying is not enough about Marxism:  Critique of the Gotha Programme was discussing about the transition period  to archive the ultimate goal, nothing to do with his Utopia Goal. Do you want to argue about the Goal or the Transition? Or you are not as smart as you think or you are using straw man fallacy? If you seek for wisdom, the first thing you need to keep your EGO down. I don't see that part from either you or Marx. 

political-equality

This is the most BS thing about Marxism. To distribute resource equally the elected government will need absolute power to lead, aka " dictatorship of the proletariat". And because there is proletariat as a class, or there are other classes or all are proletariat (what is the point of proletariat if he can accumulate assets?).  

These are people as well and have greed and fear and therefor bias and family like anyone else, not some kind of god or buddha. After a few generation, it will be a ruling class vs commoner class. That is why the Destination will not be sustainable.

When the people are not perfect, therefor no incorruptible political system or government. The difference is how far will it get and how long can it be sustained. Marx or he didn't understand this, or he left this part out because it would undermine his theory.

Even in the best case scenario, every family live in a cell with resources distributed by Robots (calm and smart, no ego). The ones who wrote or making change the program for the robot hold the power and therefor, no political-equality.

You are the one who got indoctrination because you view Marx as some kind of black box intelligent level after 150 years. People use his philosophy for power, no more no less and that is why his book is popular, not because the level of intelligence of the book. Just empty unproven promises that can hand any government absolute power. And if someone points out what is wrong with the Goal, these Marxism believers will point to Marx's argument in the Transition State and say: "Marx didn't mean that". Marx made an eco system of arguments where people can dodge around with fallacy logics. That is how it still has people who believe in it or pretend to believe in it but change the transition state (Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism) which lead to many interpretations of his book and letters so please just concentrate in the GOAL.

Some countries even still have a school for leaders about these theories  and now evolve to "market economy in the socialism direction", crony capitalism for short, I don't know if they are truly struggling in the transition process or they just want to justify their totalitarian Party.

Edited February 11, 2021 by SUZNV

[frankfurter + 562]

3 hours ago, Boat said:

For one thing it showed the lies in the reporting because shots were not fired. It showed China is not interested in behavior modification. So let’s see if Biden convinces others through trade sanctions to force behavior changes within China. 20 trading partners are stronger than 1.

I don’t like your math. I believe China can kill the world many times over. As many other countries. But beyond mutually assured destruction the US dominates conventional war strength many times over. So tier 3 is trade war where the US needs to drain rouge countries of their money if they can’t behave. The US needs a United front and help with this. The NWO so to speak. 
Lastly the US will take down the world with nukes if need be. That’s how we roll. The public would demand it. But let’s start with trade first as the weapon to stop hacking, South China Sea claims, threatening its neighbors and using the same type trade rules as the West, etc.

Another imperialist demanding China "behaves".  uh, behaves according to whom and what?  Obviously, for you, behaves according to American dictates. The world has suffered your expansion of democracy numerous times, from Korea until today. The millions who have died in the name of your democracy have yet to recognised. The great lie is that America is not a democracy, it is a republic. Well, other countries are republics, too, and reject your notions of what constitutes a republic. Americans cannot respect nor tolerate those who may differ and, like all imperialists, will seek to destroy; and if destroy is too costly, then to subjugate. You are correct though: America needs help for a united front, as you are too weak now to try this on your own. Nukes will ensure the destruction of the world; what is not destroyed immediately will be destroyed slowly by the fall out. Your top 1% is very willing and eager to sacrifice the lives of the 99%, but I doubt they will sacrifice their own lives, so I doubt the US will take down the world if need be. The salient point is I doubt you or I will be around to see who or what be standing upon the final day of America's aggression.