Mike wrote:
Yep.

You just stated yourself that not having an ideology is an ideological bias.

Hey numbnuts 13Ike which part dont you get...



Mass death is certainly no stranger to Communism; even today a terrible famine stalks North Korea to remind us of the lethal nature of Marxism. However, Pol Pot has earned a special place in the history of Marxian Communism as his Khmer Rouge earned the special distinction of being the one Communist movement in history to actually attempt the full and consistent implementation of the ideals of Karl Marx...

Most Marxists would recoil at the suggestion that Pol Pot is the logical conclusion of their social philosophy, yet any honest assessment of Marx's theory cannot conceal the fact that the radical egalitarianism of the Khmer Rouge is precisely what Marx predicted would be the ultimate culmination of all human history. It must be clearly kept in mind that industrial socialism, as it was known in the former Soviet Union and other mainstream Marxist states, is not the endpoint of Marx's philosophy of history. In his view, the abolition of capitalist production relations is only the first stage of the worldwide proletarian revolution...

We must also acknowledge that a Pol Pot-type passion for equality remains as a threat to the peace and well-being of every nation even if the former dictator himself is dead. Rather than retreating into amnesia about the crimes of the Khmer Rouge, we should never forget that the killing fields of Cambodia will stand forever as a grotesque monument to egalitarianism, and take heed that those who preach the egalitarian gospel of envy are, whether they know it or not, apostles of Pol Pot. ..

econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/museum/cook.htm

Mike wrote: That's a bit rough when you're banging on about a dude who died in the 1880's, no?

feather wrote:

oioioi wrote: I was just anticipating your idiocy, really it's a material fact, your ideological blinkers preclude you from seeing that though.

lol
www.gmu.edu/resources/facstaff/
Great source man!

LightGiver wrote:
Nah, nothing to do with marxism, anymore than america has anything to do with capitalism imho lol.
As earlier mentioned by gue/mike the proles were meant to be the ruling class or there was not meant to be any class division anymore.
Ofc you can't have that if some people remain the owners of the businesses and taking the lions share of profits and making more money, they're bound to be separate.

Only anarcho-syndicalism breaks that down imho as the workers are equal shareholders and relatively equal wage earners too with their own form of govt into the bargain bundled with the labour. Oddly enough that seems marxist to me lol!

Mike wrote: Maybe you need to have a word with your agent about booking you bigger gigs.

anyone got a sleeping bag handy...

Mike wrote:
Let me know when I start seeing your unblinkered view of things won't you?

oioioi wrote: A real sleuth all of a sudden aren't you apparently picking apart my ideological bias, yet you couldn't even understand how off topic the first post by LG was in this thread, lol.

Does anyone here seriously think I would start a thread about Marxism here expecting it to stay OT>?

Mike wrote:
You?

Mike wrote: Probably not, but would we expect you to start a thread about Marxism expecting it to run off topic so you could have a gripe about that?
Hmmm, uhuh.

Mike wrote:
No... as the chairman said,.we would need to have at least one hundred schools of thought for that to happen.

Good topic Mike. I don't have a great deal of Marx knowledge to be honest but it is of interest to me. It is a shame that so many responses to it are more interested in disruption and the like. When I have more time I will try to have more input to topics like this.

feather wrote:
Television must be right I suppose, I mean what did marx do after all, oh yes you have no idea do you?

i-baster wrote:
Cheers for those words IB, will resume regular transmissions once negative interference dissipates.

Mike wrote:
Nothing, marx didn't 'do' anything, the likes of lenin, stalin and mao did all the 'doing'.

The Paris Commune the 1st International and socialism in Europe are mainly what Marx was writing/basing his writings on

Lenin, Stalin and Mao, were all Authors/philosophers/theoreticians in their own right, you're just attempting to imply guilt by association for some reason, why not highlight Hoxha, Allende, Luxemburg, Gramsci or Trotsky>?

Because you're ideologically biased.

Mike wrote:
Not me, LG perhaps.
I've already pointed out that marx has little to do with what happened, the doing as I said was by that crowd.

What I don't understand as mentioned previously is how you can expect workers to own the means of production if they carry on leaving it in the hands of a few and not investing in their own full legal ownership and keeping it that way.

And thats whats always happened everywhere apart from a couple of tiny instances like mondragon.