Thanks for the fairly straight answer, Rama. Are you simply infatuated with Marx, or do you subscribe to his theories, and want to see them tried, perhaps on a bigger scale or something?
Infatuation is a wrong word.
I admire/ appreciate/ adore/ follow Gandhi cum Karl Marx.
I will die a non-violent and social justice..
But before my death I wish and DREAM that the heart and mind of rational people around the globe show some civil courage and moral justice.
Ramafuchs wrote:Infatuation is a wrong word.
I admire/ appreciate/ adore/ follow Gandhi cum Karl Marx.
I will die a non-violent and social justice..
But before my death I wish and DREAM that the heart and mind of rational people around the globe show some civil courage and moral justice.
Considering the fact that Karl Marx's system requires force to insure that everyone is part of the collective system, then how can you say that you are non-violent? Collectivism and non-violence are mutually exclusive. You either believe in one or the other, but not both. You must sacrifice the rights of individuals in the interests of the society as a whole. Therefore you either believe in the rights of people as individuals, or as a group. You can't believe in both. In order to fulfill the system in the interests of all, you must take away the rights of individuals.
Please explain how you missed this obvious fact when you decided to claim to be a Marxist and a non-violent person?
Okie
please.
I will post a relevant thread in due course.
Collectivism is not commercisl word.
Individualism is not always intellectual humanism..
Karl Marx is billion times better than JESUS.
Gandhi as Well
Ok, fine, but I think the recognition of a very basic fact should not be all that hard to comprehend. And history has proven it correct, that under Marxism, countless millions have not only suffered loss, and their very lives, and it starts by losing their rights as individuals, all in the socalled interests of the good of all, and I might add it also starts with losing their responsibilities as individuals. Marxism is a very violent system. Violence is required to activate the system.
okie wrote:Considering the fact that Karl Marx's system requires force to insure that everyone is part of the collective system, then how can you say that you are non-violent? Collectivism and non-violence are mutually exclusive. You either believe in one of the other, but not both. You must sacrifice the rights of individuals in the interests of the society as a whole. Therefore you either believe in the rights of people as individuals, or as a group. You can't believe in both. In order to fulfill the system in the interests of all, you must take away the rights of individuals.
Please explain how you missed this obvious fact when you decided to claim to be a Marxist and a non-violent person?
and why do you assume that moving away from the modern construct of the individual will require force? The belief that the best interest of the many trumps the best interest of the few, or the one, is the normal human outlook. It is we moderns, all full of ourselves, who are the freaks. Moving back towards what we now call socialism could be the natural desire of man, requiring not only no force, but not much convincing either.
Some will go along with the group, but they are the ones that willingly give up individual rights and responsibilities because they think they will gain. There will always be a sizeable portion of people that will resist the confiscation of their rights however, and why shouldn't they, they were endowed by God. After all, that is what our country is based upon, the rights of the individual.
By the way, every living human being acts in his or her own self interests. Which is natural and good.
Marxism is a very violent system.
Violence is required to activate the system.
anyone who had endured violence like the people in USA should try to CHANGE the system
There is that suspicious word, "change" again.
Rama, I would suggest you learn how to quote. Your last post reads as if you agree with my quote, as you repeat it as if it is your own, but obviously you do not. You would also have more credibility here if you would cease talking in rhymes and riddles, and be forthright with your opinion in an honest manner.
My credibility or honesty is well known around the intenet chatters( India, Germany and in some hat forums in USA) but it is not the subject of this thread.
Back to the subject of this thread.
The IMF blamed a "collective failure" of oversight for the market turmoil and urged investment and commercial banks to boost confidence by coming clean on their full exposure to the financial crisis.
Growth in the US, which sits at the epicentre of the current crisis, will only be 0.5 percent in 2008, the IMF said. Many economists say the US economy has entered a recession.
http://www.hindustantimes.
Ramafuchs wrote:My credibility or honesty is well known around the intenet chatters( India, Germany and in some hat forums in USA) but it is not the subject of this thread.
Credibility and honesty is pertinent to any poster's opinions, Rama, including yours. Beyond that, how could a Marxist have any credibility on the subject of the free market? And why would a Marxist pretend to be honest about it? Sort of like somebody that didn't believe that flying would ever work as a most efficient mode of transportation posting opinions about the condition or comparison of aircraft. I don't think their opinions about aircraft would amount to a hill of beans, do you?
okie wrote:Ramafuchs wrote:My credibility or honesty is well known around the intenet chatters( India, Germany and in some hat forums in USA) but it is not the subject of this thread.
Credibility and honesty is pertinent to any poster's opinions, Rama, including yours. Beyond that, how could a Marxist have any credibility on the subject of the free market? And why would a Marxist pretend to be honest about it? Sort of like somebody that didn't believe that flying would ever work as a most efficient mode of transportation posting opinions about the condition or comparison of aircraft. I don't think their opinions about aircraft would amount to a hill of beans, do you?
That is pretty silly. That is tantamount to saying that a capitalist cannot be a student of Marxism, and discuss that subject cogently.
right to an opinion
Advocate wrote:
That is pretty silly. That is tantamount to saying that a capitalist cannot be a student of Marxism, and discuss that subject cogently.
Agreed, Advocate. No matter how critical Rama might be (due to his jealousy and misinformation about USA), he may still voice his opinion. We can choose to ignore it as we would the bleating of sheep.
No matter what kind of gadfly Rama is, in THIS democratic society he has the right to express his opinion and I defend to death his right to state it.
Re: right to an opinion
Ragman wrote:Advocate wrote:
That is pretty silly. That is tantamount to saying that a capitalist cannot be a student of Marxism, and discuss that subject cogently.
Agreed, Advocate. No matter how critical Rama might be (due to his jealousy and misinformation about USA), he may still voice his opinion. We can choose to ignore it as we would the bleating of sheep.
No matter what kind of gadfly Rama is, in THIS democratic society he has the right to express his opinion and I defend to death his right to state it.
Anyone has a right to express their opinion. That was not my point. My point was that a Marxist has no credibility in terms of judging the free market because their beliefs have already been disproven. My analogy was about aircraft being a very efficient mode of transportation. It has proven to be. Using the analogy, Rama is still persisting that flying won't work, to go back to the ox pulling the cart, and yet he wants to express opinions about the quality of this aircraft or that. I am simply pointing out the obvious, that his opinion on the aircraft is worthless. He can keep expressing his opinion all he wants, and if I feel like it, I can point out how wrong he is. So I don't think my post was silly one iota, contrary to what Advocate said.
Advocate illustrates one truism. Liberals have a very tough time condemning anything to the left or ultra extreme liberal, no matter how left or liberal it becomes. There is always left a little daylight of possibility, no total and absolute condemnation of wrong, no total commitment to principles toward the conservative end of the spectrum. Principles are always in a state of flux, and of course this always leaves the door open for making the same old mistakes over and over as we drift back into the world of shades of gray. This is another subject, but interesting.
I read your previous thread (don't feel it was silly, either), Okie, and clearly understood your point and your flying analogy; however, I find it's often best to just fast forward past his opinion as I know from whence it comes and what motivates it. We ALL have varying degrees of credibility (even you, Okie), depending on who is viewing it. His opinion has worth (as everyone's here does), whether we feel it does or not. Criticizing him (I do it quite often) won't change his views, nor will it stop the flow, so why bother? If it makes you feel better, go for it!
Agreed, it probably won't change his views. As a matter of fact, I have not experienced much indication that anyone's views on this forum ever change much if any. However, I do think it is important for those of us that recognize Marxism for the evil that it is to condemn it openly and staunchly, so that is what I do. Some of the views supporting communism and Marxism are repulsive in my opinion, and so I am going to say so. An idealogy responsible for the death of countless millions of mankind is not to be treated with kid gloves. I am not on this forum to sugarcoat opinions.
IMHO, Marxism or, more accurately, Communism is not the evil, per se - the perpertators are/were. Also, Communism is pretty much DEAD!
Just as democracy is NOT all good. Witness the evil deeds being displayed as thousands of Iraqis and Americans die unneccesarily. We (and they) would be far better off being out of Iraq as the well-being of Iraqis lives will not improve one iota after we're gone, should that ever happen.
Iraqis have demonstrated little interest in this fight for democracy and we're blindly pouring our nation's treasures ($2 trillion at last count) and our men and women's lives there for no good reason. Oil is NOT a good reason! This misdirection of our resources is strangling our economy and is morally corrupt.
Okie said:
"Advocate illustrates one truism. Liberals have a very tough time condemning anything to the left or ultra extreme liberal, no matter how left or liberal it becomes. There is always left a little daylight of possibility, no total and absolute condemnation of wrong, no total commitment to principles toward the conservative end of the spectrum. Principles are always in a state of flux, and of course this always leaves the door open for making the same old mistakes over and over as we drift back into the world of shades of gray. This is another subject, but interesting."
First, everything should be continually questioned. For instance, our thinking on religion is always changing, as it should be. Second, I feel that it is the conservative who is almost totally dogmatic. One can completely destroy his argument, but he will almost never back off of it, and even wing it regarding the facts. For example, when Nixon was going down the tubes under a mountain of evidence of very serious wrongdoing, the conservatives in congress, almost to a man, continued to support his lies, and otherwise make silly excuses in his defense. This conduct by the conservative is always evident. For instance, regarding Abramoff, no conservative has called for an intensive investigation and prosecution of the corrupt recipients of his largess.
Ragman wrote:IMHO, Marxism or, more accurately, Communism is not the evil, per se - the perpertators are/were. Also, Communism is pretty much DEAD!
Just as democracy is NOT all good. Witness the evil deeds being displayed as thousands of Iraqis and Americans die unneccesarily. We (and they) would be far better off being out of Iraq as the well-being of Iraqis lives will not improve one iota after we're gone, should that ever happen.
Iraqis have demonstrated little interest in this fight for democracy and we're blindly pouring our nation's treasures ($2 trillion at last count) and our men and women's lives there for no good reason. Oil is NOT a good reason! This misdirection of our resources is strangling our economy and is morally corrupt.
You can hardly blame the problems in Iraq as due to a free democratic government. Under the dictator, Hussein, countless tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands were murdered, and the culture there is still suffering from the inability to manage freedom and personal responsibility. Further, systems do gender the type of perpetrators, so I disagree, the Marxism is bad as an idealogy, plain and simple. You cannot blame it entirely on who is running it. It requires violence to maintain, an escapable part of the idealogy. And its failures as a system can cause mass starvations and other problems.
