Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have and continue to do so. Your just saying I don't since you lost the debate.
Quote:
You fail to differentiate between Marxism and communist systems that have actually been implemented---but that's okay, because you hate communism and anything related.
Because they lead to the same outcome that's why.
Quote:
You attack professors you don't know solely because they are socialists--but that's okay,
Yes, because it's obvious they are going to teach an indoctrination course so they deserve to be ridiculed.
Quote:
it's fine to slander people you don't know based on their political persuasion,
Pot calling the kettle black here
Quote:
since you hate communism and socialism.
Why shouldn't I? We almost nuked the entire planet because of the stupid ideology.
Quote:
You assert that things will happen, without a sliver of evidence that it will--but that's okay, because you hate communists and socialists.
If you don't get why this will be an indoctrination course by now you never will.
Quote:
You argue that we should leave out gaping holes in educating college students about political and economic systems different than ours,
What I stated and repeatedly have stated is that this course is not going to teach what happens when communism is actually put into place.
Quote:
despite the fact that every country has different political and economic systems than ours,
Every developed country in the world practices capitalism.
Quote:
but that's okay, since you cherry-pick the gaps to assure that it's only the topics you dislike that shouldn't be taught.
Problem is this isn't going to be teaching it's going to be a bull**** course about the greatness of Marx.
Quote:
What you are is an advocate of censorship. Pure and simple. You don't like it, so you want it out of the school curricula.
I'm an advocate of getting kids to think and question things which this course clearly will not do.
Quote:
Because ignorance is better than knowledge.
Apparently you like being told to shut up and just like following the leader since that is what is going to happen with this course.
Quote:
That's the basis for censorship. Ignorance is better than knowledge. And that's your argument.
Questioning and debating should be part of college since it teaches people to use there brain and you aren't going to have that in this course at all comrade.
I have and continue to do so. Your just saying I don't since you lost the debate.
Because they lead to the same outcome that's why.
Yes, because it's obvious they are going to teach an indoctrination course so they deserve to be ridiculed.
Pot calling the kettle black here
Why shouldn't I? We almost nuked the entire planet because of the stupid ideology.
If you don't get why this will be an indoctrination course by now you never will.
What I stated and repeatedly have stated is that this course is not going to teach what happens when communism is actually put into place.
Every developed country in the world practices capitalism.
Problem is this isn't going to be teaching it's going to be a bull**** course about the greatness of Marx.
I'm an advocate of getting kids to think and question things which this course clearly will not do.
Apparently you like being told to shut up and just like following the leader since that is what is going to happen with this course.
Questioning and debating should be part of college since it teaches people to use there brain and you aren't going to have that in this course at all comrade.
You're like the people who declare that if we let homosexuals marry, the institution of marriage will disappear.
All bias, no facts.
And you don't even realize it.
No one knows what this course will be like, except maybe the professors designing the syllabus, and even then, they can't know what kind of students they will have, what kinds of activities the students will choose, what the students will discuss in class and in their papers.
Your foreboding when you have so little knowledge of the professors or the students is just fear, exacerbated by your lack of knowledge.
Once again, Marxism is not communism.
And factually speaking, every country in the world practices capitalism. And every country in the world practices socialism. And every country in the world has a different balance of political and economic theory that drives how their country's political and economic systems work.
You are an advocate of censorship. And that's all you are.
More ignorance and more arrogance on the subject of Marxism. I am not even a Marxist. Indeed I have been accused of being one while promoting the ideals of Adam Smith.
Safe to say you know nothing of the subject...
Yawn.
Quote:
-Manifesto of the Communist Party
How is it a Marxist would claim to have invented public education? Did Republicans invent "family values"? Niether makes either of those claims to have invented it, yet it is a plank in their political platform.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
-Manifesto of the Communist Party
And thus no Marxist could make that claim because the originator made no such claim.
Your response from page 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Its easy to poke fun at it here in the West in the 21st century that has in fact implemented many elements that would fall under Marxism like free public education.
My response from page 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984
You do realize the US funded public education before Marx was born right?
Clear up your confusion yet? Since you did lay that funded public education (notice I don't say free since tax money funds it just like any other government program) came from Marx.
Quote:
And to the point of exhaustion, our public education system has in its traditions gone towards being devoid of training individual within their class and more towards a Marxist ideal of classless education.
I just don't understand why people have opinions on something they know they no nothing about....
Gee coming from someone who claimed public education for all regardless of class is a Marx idea which clearly isn't the case and the fact you provided a link earlier showing the US moving towards public education for all before Marx ever wrote his manifesto I can't say I'm impressed by your faulty logic.
Quote:
Yeah right. First I imply it then Marxist's claim it. You keep changing which is what trolls do.
You should really read your own comments before making more.
Quote:
Falling under a platform is not an inference as to claiming its invention. What you have wrongly stated Marxists claim, and stated I implied is merely your inaccurate comprehension.
Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
in the 21st century that has in fact implemented many elements that would fall under Marxism like free public education.
You're like the people who declare that if we let homosexuals marry, the institution of marriage will disappear.
The institution of marriage has already fallen apart do to the pathetically high divorce rate, alimony, and the costs of having a traditional wedding. Homosexuals had nothing to do with that...all though there divorce rates aren't particularly encouraging. So to answer your stereotypical remark the institution of marriage has been on life support for decades already and quite frankly people are just starting to live together as a couple idefinitely vs getting married.
Quote:
All bias, no facts.
And you don't even realize it.
What's not to realize you have a two radicals teaching an ideology that almost killed the entire planet and its suppose to be an honest discussion of Marx? Only someone being ignorant would believe that this is going to be an honest course and not just the professors preaching indoctrination.
Quote:
No one knows what this course will be like, except maybe the professors designing the syllabus, and even then, they can't know what kind of students they will have, what kinds of activities the students will choose, what the students will discuss in class and in their papers.
Gee the practical application of marxism and the groups they are assigned to work with tells me they are going to spend there time bitching about the Great Satan (USA) more than anything else.
Quote:
Your foreboding when you have so little knowledge of the professors or the students is just fear, exacerbated by your lack of knowledge.
The fact you keep on insisting this is an educational course shows you not getting what is painfully obvious about this course. That's indoctrination of the students and you have to be ignorant not to get that.
Quote:
Once again, Marxism is not communism.
It leads to the same conclusion.
Quote:
And factually speaking, every country in the world practices capitalism. And every country in the world practices socialism.
Explain? Since the welfare state is not socialism. And passing a law regulating something is not socialism either. If a government passes a law requiring a power plant to cut down on pollution that isn't socialism that is doing the regulation for public health reasons.
Quote:
You are an advocate of censorship. And that's all you are.
No and for the hundredth time I'm advocating debate, questioning, and truth. Three things this course will definitely lack.
Yes since industrialization was obviously a smooth process for countries around the world. Though what that fire did do was create better safety standards. Yes, people died. They usually do before safety standards are increased or even implemented. I'm not bothering with the rest since it's bitching about what happened during industrialization.
Quote:
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_chicken_processing_plant_fire]Hamlet chicken processing plant fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url
]
The owners were *******s and got thrown in jail for breaking the law. They didn't try and start violent revolutions to over throw governments around the world though like communists.
Quote:
I believe Capitalism forces humans to go against their nature by working for long hours in unsafe conditions for low pay.
Considering human beings originally started as hunter gathers to survive the "long hours" they work are not the equivalent of every day having to kill an animal hunting so they don't starve to death. During which time that time they could get killed by the wildlife and nature quite easily. So compared to hunter and gathering capitalism works better at keeping individuals safe and alive and still doesn't force them to be inhuman by wanting pure equality which is a pipe dream.
Quote:
It's against human nature to put yourself into positions such that all your pay goes back to your employer via the "Company Store."
No and for the hundredth time I'm advocating debate, questioning, and truth. Three things this course will definitely lack.
Man, I wish your English 102 teacher had done his job. You might be better at this, if he had. People debate things because they aren't demonstrable; they are only probable, which is what causes debate (Aristotle's On Rhetoric). You speak as if what you imagine will happen in this class is what will absolutely happen. You have no way of proving that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984
Then college was quite a bit different when you went to it since quite a few professors when I went to college were clearly far far left. They don't like to be question on there beliefs when they try to shove them down your throat and Professors will try and do this regardless of what they actually teach.
Well then you offer the perfect example of why what you are arguing is incredibly problematic. According to your claims, your professors attempted to indoctrinate you into far left thinking. Didn't work, did it? So why are you obsessed with this class? You think that you are so exceptional that only you were able to resist indoctrination but others won't be able to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984
My English 102 professor was an absolute nut job conspiracy theorist marxist who believed everything and I do mean everything was a right wing conspiracy.
Hmmm, if one replaces "right" with "left," who does that sound like?
Marxism did not almost kill the entire planet. The fact that some people liked those ideologies and others didn't was what almost killed the planet. Their uncivilized way of disagreeing was the problem, not the object of the disagreement. I mean, isn't it conservative people who keep saying guns don't kill people, people do?
The institution of marriage has already fallen apart do to the pathetically high divorce rate, alimony, and the costs of having a traditional wedding. Homosexuals had nothing to do with that...all though there divorce rates aren't particularly encouraging. So to answer your stereotypical remark the institution of marriage has been on life support for decades already and quite frankly people are just starting to live together as a couple idefinitely vs getting married.
What's not to realize you have a two radicals teaching an ideology that almost killed the entire planet and its suppose to be an honest discussion of Marx? Only someone being ignorant would believe that this is going to be an honest course and not just the professors preaching indoctrination.
Gee the practical application of marxism and the groups they are assigned to work with tells me they are going to spend there time bitching about the Great Satan (USA) more than anything else.
The fact you keep on insisting this is an educational course shows you not getting what is painfully obvious about this course. That's indoctrination of the students and you have to be ignorant not to get that.
It leads to the same conclusion.
Explain? Since the welfare state is not socialism. And passing a law regulating something is not socialism either. If a government passes a law requiring a power plant to cut down on pollution that isn't socialism that is doing the regulation for public health reasons.
No and for the hundredth time I'm advocating debate, questioning, and truth. Three things this course will definitely lack.
I don't know how to explain this to you.
Your hate is not evidence of anything.
Just because they are socialists doesn't make them radicals. Maybe they identify themselves as socialists because they believe that higher education should be free. Or they believe healthcare should be free. That doesn't mean they want to overthrow the government. Socialists does not automatically mean radicals. And people identify themselves with political parties for a host of reasons. I know some very liberal people who vote Republican simply because of abortion. They identify with the Republican party over a single issue.
Your hate of communism makes you see the world through that veil of hate. They're socialists----they must be evil! That's a leap. Your hatred of communism is leading you to leap to all sorts of conclusions, without any facts to support those conclusions. This course is only about indoctrination! That's a leap. The course hasn't happened, and as I pointed out, no one even knows yet how this course is actually going to play out. Teachers adapt courses constantly to meet the needs and desires of students. They spend more time on one topic, less time on others. They change requirements as they observe how students meet the challenges.
The fact that any practical application of Marxism is well-nigh impossible since it has never actually had a successful pratical application, and that the teachers have asked for a practical application, would suggest that the teachers know the students are going to learn just how difficult it is to take an idealistic theory and apply it to the real world. That would be a good lesson for college students to learn, wouldn't it?
Of course welfare is socialism. If you are now asserting that welfare isn't socialism, then it begs the question exactly what you think socialism is. Because socialism is not communism. They are distinct from one another. I am having problems understanding exactly where you are coming from, because it does not seem like you are actually using the definitions that the rest of us are using. Your "same outcome" definition is silly. If I travel to Europe on an airplane, or travel to Europe via ship, the airplane and the ship aren't magically the same thing because they both have the same outcome. They are completely different.
How is this a waste of tax money? By the instructions and titles of these classes they look appropriate to me for young adults. If you’re not interested in these courses don’t take them simple as that.
No, it's not as simple as that if they are being paid for with taxpayer money. When taxpayer dollars become involved it moves past the "don't like it, don't do it" stage. That's fine for private organizations, but not public.
You want to teach Marxism as a philosophy? Go for it.
You want to teach practical Marxist organizing? No.
This is a free market representative Republic. I am not going to support my tax dollars going towards teaching people to overthrow it in favor of Communist totalitarianism.
I mean, get real. Your name is Shabazz. So can I count on your taxes to support my class to teach youngsters how to organize and run Aryan Nation support groups? I want to hire David Duke as professor. I need you to contribute to pay his salary. You're cool with that, right? I mean if you don't like the class you don't have to take the class. I just want you to pay for it is all.
Then by your definition, every university course is "indoctrination."
If an economics professor agrees with Mankiw then he is "indoctrinating" his students with what Mankiw says, right?
You can substitute, Keynes, Friedman et al for Mankiw.
That's cute by my point still stands.
Quote:
Why would you want neutral professors?
I'm going to slam you with this...
Why wouldn't I want a somewhat neutral professor? No one likes a demagogue.
Quote:
...which completely contradicts your demand for neutrality.
Asking that the truth be taught that when these systems were put in place that they failed miserably?
Quote:
You think I was neutral when I taught International Relations? Hell, no, I'm a Contructivist. I taught everything from the Constructivist perspective.
I rather gleefully pointed out the failings of US Foreign Policy from the classical conservative, classical liberal, neo-conservative and neo-liberal institutionalist views.
So, uh, like what, a course on Marxism should be taught by a Capitalist?
So in other words you are a demagogue that doesn't teach any views but their own. Gee and people wonder why education is falling apart in the United States.
Quote:
That would be like having a course in Evolutionary Theory or Geology taught by a radical fundie christian who thinks Planet Earth is only 6,000 years old (and yes there are people like that on this forum).
Going off the deep end a bit aren't we? Since we are talking about economic and political ideology someone who doesn't agree with you must obviously support creationism.
Quote:
Okay, let's talk about what happens when communism is actually put into practice.
Ready?
Are you sure?
Okay, here we go.....
Are you going to get to it yet because your putting me to sleep with boredom.
Quote:
First, two world powers, specifically to wit: the United States and the United Kingdom; worked in concert for 50 years to block the ascension of all East Bloc currencies to the world market.
Effectively, in plain ordinary English, it was not possible to buy or sell Soviet Rubles, Romanian Lei, Magyar Forints, East German Marks etc etc etc on the world market.
Gee ask yourself this question. Why wouldn't the UK and the US try to undermine the Soviet Union? The Soviet Union screwed up after WW2 with ransacking everything they could in Eastern Germany which lead to the whole cold war happening. If they didn't do that the US and UK might not have done that but they did. The paradox of the insecure empire struck again in Russian history.
Quote:
If you fail to mention that key fact when teaching about communism as it was practiced, then you have lied by omission.
What would be the implications for any country, if its currency was prohibited from being traded on the world market?
Specifically, what would happen in the US if the US Dollar was suddenly banned from being traded on the world market?
How would, um, you know, the US brand of Capitalism fare?
Question was already answered with the Soviet Union bring that upon themselves.
Quote:
No, that is not the only way to do it. You could empower the people to do it. I guess that never donned on you.
Yes, instead we have armed mobs determining who gets what based on the whims of whoever is in charge of the mobs. Yup, that is such a great idea mob rule! I wonder why mob rule still isn't in practice today?
Quote:
Wrong. Capitalism is a Property Theory. It is about the ownership of Capital and has nothing to do with buying or selling, nor does Capitalism determine the prices of goods or services sold.
If you can't own anything how do you buy and sell anything?
Quote:
You need to read Two Cheers for Capitalism and the Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, written by Kristol and Bell respectively. They are the gurus of Neo-Conservatism, and essentially what they advocate is Feudal Capitalism.
That would be like Robber Baron Deluxe™. Not only would they control all of the means of production, but they would function as an oligarchy in a Command System and set the prices of goods and services.
Basically two marxists acting like they support capitalism. Gotcha ya. Also the term Capitalism was invented by Marx by the way.
Quote:
See, if you had taken a course in Marxism, and studied Marxist history, you would see that Capitalists do not necessarily prefer the [Free] Market System.
Quite a few don't because a monopoly benefits them that is true and is something I haven't disputed.
Quote:
That's an obtuse statement.
I will grant you that the Soviet Union failed, but you must consider all of the facts, namely that the US and UK constantly interfered with the Soviet Union.
Which the Soviet Union brought on itself.
Quote:
As I said, the United States and Britain conspired for 50 years to prevent the ascension of any East Bloc currency to the world market.
Again, which the Soviet Union brought on itself.
Quote:
You want to ignore the implications and results of that?
You start a conflict with another nation there will be consquences to it. What is hard to grasp about that.
Quote:
Of course you do. The world has never seen unfettered communism or socialism.
Since it's not possible.
Quote:
I suppose conversely, we could ask what would have happened if the United States and Britain had not economically interfered with the Soviet Union and East Bloc countries.
Well if the Soviets were smarter it might not have happened but it did. We can play the "what if" game all day long but the point is they ****ing failed.
Quote:
It is not Marxism either.
It appears there is something we can agree with.
Quote:
Then that is Socialism or Communism, depending on how much input and control the people have.
Actually no that falls under using money for the general welfare of society something that governments have done before Marx's ass was ever born.
Quote:
That is neither Socialism, Communism nor Marxism. Marx never advocated centralized control, rather that is how Lenin et al interpreted it, in part due to the circumstances that existed at the time that they gained power.
That is really the only practical way you could implement such a system.
Quote:
I would remind you that Tsar Nicholas outlawed slavery in 1905.
And no, I didn't stutter...1905, that was just 107 years ago. And even though he did so, slavery (ie Serfdom) was still practiced in most of Russia up through the Revolution.
I don't remember stating the Tsar's were nice people.
Quote:
What you and so many others ignore is the simple fact that in 1905, your average Russian had no idea about property ownership of any kind, and as a result, it was not something tied to the culture, nor was there are large body of case law on the matter, nor were there any of the things you would expect to find in a culture that was rooted in freedom and ownership rights.
So pointing out that communism was and still is a failure is ignorance?
Yes Russia missed out on the enlightenment and I didn't state otherwise.
Quote:
In the early US and even in the Colonial Period, there was an entire culture based on the "pursuit of happiness" which is the acquisition of private property. It is ingrained in the culture, and there is a plethora of case law as well as laws and ordinances to protect the rights of those who own property, whether it is used as Capital or not.
Considering Marx wanted to abolition private property the only way to do that practically is to have the government do that. Doing that makes the government all powerful. As the saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely" so regardless of Russia's implementing the system in other countries you get the same results as time has proven.
Quote:
And you expect the Russians to instantly know what took Americans 800 years to learn?
America the nation state and culture haven't been around for 800 years.
Quote:
Interesting. You must think the Russians are super-human god-like super heroes.
No but what I do think is this whole section of your post is pointless so I'm just going to skip ahead now.
Quote:
You mean like the United States?
Under Progressives we are heading that way unfortunately.
Quote:
I didn't vote for the American Hospital Association, yet they wrote much of Obamacare.
Which the left clearly enjoys.
Quote:
Or educate people; or demonstrate its benefits.
What benefits? Giving up what makes you different from others? What gives you an advantage over others? To give up being human? Sorry but there are no benefits to that utopian nonsense.
Quote:
Like a corporation?
A corporation is as communist as you can get.
Being able to invest money into a business is communist now?
Quote:
The people own the Capital, right? The people being the share-holders, right? The share-holders, ie the people, make all of the decisions on how the Capital should be used, what Capital should be sold, etc etc etc, right?
They own a chunk of an investment they made into the company but every single investor doesn't run the company. You have a CEO that actually runs the company and if you don't like where it is heading then you can pull out your investment. That's hardly the people who own small shares of stock running the company.
Quote:
You're saying communism cannot work, when quite clearly it can and corporations would do better if the government did not interfere with them, right?
Nice fallacy here. Your missing several important points. Corporations don't care about equality at all in fact they'd rather not have it since there single goal is to make profit. So they would rather be top dog vs sharing the burden to be equal and fair to society. That goes completely against Marx.
Quote:
Now you have something new to think about.
Not really since that was probably one of the worst examples I've ever heard of in my entire life.
Quote:
Just like a corporation.
Corporately...
Corporations are designed to make a profit nothing more nothing less. They aren't designed to specifically benefit or hurt mankind though they may end up doing both.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yawn.
