CNN) – Conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck apologized Friday after appearing to mo

[naisho]

I've never seen any attempts at Marxism lead to a reduction in slavery. I doubt people working in hard labor camps feel like they've been liberated by Marxism. The west, on the other hand, eradicated slavery on their own.

This is subject to perspective. We have never seen a true Marxist environment in the works.

Other than China during the era of Maosim, there wasn't any slavery there at all and the nation was, and still is bigger than ours.

Of course it's best to consider all sides, but the evils of Marxism in practice is such a black and white thing that I'd hope you wouldn't be neutral about it by now. I mean, I doubt you're chilling on the neutral fencepost about fascism and Naziism. Why should Marxism get a pass?

I took upper division social stratification classes for my previous degree. In no way throughout the whole semesters both lecture and lab, did they [all professors in the University of California education system, their Lab TA's] mention or give a hint to Marxism as evil.

In fact, there was more constructive brainstorming among our peers in rosters of ~100 students as we had to process the complete manifesto by two-three weeks. Competitive university courses at its best.

Not once did anyone spew negativity to anything that you are implying..
Other than the lazy students who withdrew the courses or those who got dropped. By this alone, I personally know there is a bit of exaggeration going on in here.

 

[TXgolfer]

In no way throughout the whole semesters both lecture and lab, did they [all professors in the University of California education system, their Lab TA's] mention or give a hint to Marxism as evil.
.

j/k

It would make headlines if the did say that in the UC system

 

[naisho]

j/k

It would make headlines if the did say that in the UC system

We shouldn't have even been studying it if it is deviously satanic as imposed in this topic.

Karl Marx is looked at from a sociological standpoint as one of the founding pioneers to world philosophy. To be quick to imply slander on his opinions, beliefs and theories makes me wonder what is going on.

 

[TXgolfer]

We shouldn't have even been studying it if it is deviously satanic as imposed in this topic.

Where???

Karl Marx is looked at from a sociological standpoint as one of the founding pioneers to world philosophy. To be quick to imply slander on his opinions, beliefs and theories makes me wonder what is going on.

 

[naisho]

If you're going to play the mind-games & bush beatings again..
Whatever rocks your boat, but I'm definitely not a player cause it's a waste of time.

Playing whack the gopher holes with people who decide to engage in a near zero intent to work on constructive brainstorming and decide to play childish games instead, sounds like fun... :roll:

 

[TXgolfer]

Hyperbole is constructive brainstorming?

see: deviously satanic

 

[Jiro]

what's the prime difference between Marxism and Communism?

bump

 

[naisho]

Hyperbole is constructive brainstorming?

see: deviously satanic

If you are offended by people's choices of words, just let them know instead of trying to perform an unimportant agenda on targeting them for it.

Don't really see it as a problem to writing the word evil in an more expressive manner that represents the position being taken.

Education itself is verbose. Read college books and journals, it is verbatim - similar to this all the time. If you can't process it then I don't really know what to say for you.

Back on topic, can you stay in boundaries?

Edit: I know I've stated it before and went off again. If people decide to keep rambling on alternate tangents with no relevancy I'm simply not going to pay attention to them.

 

[AndyE9503]

This is subject to perspective. We have never seen a true Marxist environment in the works.

Other than China during the era of Maosim, there wasn't any slavery there at all and the nation was, and still is bigger than ours.

Ok I have been keeping an open mind while reading this thread, but if you guys are saying that Mao is the good part of Marxism than you lost me. I have done some looking around on this man and my opinion of him is that he was the worst dictator of the 20th century.

 

[TXgolfer]

If you are offended by people's choices of words, just let them know instead of trying to perform an unimportant agenda on targeting them for it.

Don't really see it as a problem to writing the word evil in an more expressive manner that represents the position being taken.

Education itself is verbose. Read college books and journals, it is verbatim - similar to this all the time. If you can't process it then I don't really know what to say for you.

Back on topic, can you stay in boundaries?

Asking where something was said is targeting now?

Originally Posted by naisho
We shouldn't have even been studying it if it is deviously satanic as imposed in this topic.

Where???

 

[Jiro]

Asking where something was said is targeting now?

better work on your "quote" coding

 

[naisho]

Ok I have been keeping an open mind while reading this thread, but if you guys are saying that Mao is the good part of Marxism than you lost me. I have done some looking around on this man and my opinion of him is that he was the worst dictator of the 20th century.

Speaking at best, it is controversial to judge him. I wouldn't say he was a great example of a leader, nor would I say he is a bad one. What I personally think of him is that he tried to implement the best for his society. He took a step that not many took primarily for the sake of improving his country.

They are also forgetting that it was during a time China was a weak superpower, and not that long ago either.

The way I picture it goes similar to this, without any of the following, none would contribute to the China it is today. Everything progressed crucially for it's time.
Sun-yet-sen began the major shift from dynasties into a PRC, the initial pioneer towards the republic as his sole achievement during the coup d'etat.

Afterwards, Chiang Kai-shek was then the prominent figure, but quickly lost power during the struggles as Japan attacked in both Sino-Japanese wars (WW1 and WW2) and Russia's attempts to infiltrate as well. Chiang did not accomplish much other than fleeing the country and seeking refuge from other countries.

During this time, Mao rose to power as Chiang and his royalties ceased to exist. There was never a better time that China needed someone with this figure to unite them against all the odds they were facing. Many had died in the process of this struggle for power, but with the people looking for a "better" society and the right leadership to govern them all, that is how Mao became a success as he is seen to be. Many books take the deaths of those who died in his dictatorship often arrogantly and with without remorse, saying the deaths were unnecessary. I personally think there is more to it than just that alone, the books only attribute from a western perspective towards the deaths.

As Mao's time was soon coming to an end, some of the bad came out. The Red Guards came out to eliminate all threats to Mao's dictatorship, including the soon to be Deng Xiaoping was thrown into prison and lost any previous titles he held. This was one of the ugly rears of Mao's era and still has no justification to date for it.

When Deng was restored to his power and became the next figure, he established principles that became the China it is today. He put Maoism as a lower priority on the list as the 4 main principles, but still incorporated them.


Damn, I wrote a lot more than I expected but this is pretty much the gist of it in a nutshell.

 

[AndyE9503]

Speaking at best, it is controversial to judge him. I wouldn't say he was a great example of a leader, nor would I say he is a bad one. What I personally think of him is that he tried to implement the best for his society. He took a step that not many took primarily for the sake of improving his country.

They are also forgetting that it was during a time China was a weak superpower, and not that long ago either.

The way I picture it goes similar to this, without any of the following, none would contribute to the China it is today. Everything progressed crucially for it's time.
Sun-yet-sen began the major shift from dynasties into a PRC, the initial pioneer towards the republic as his sole achievement during the coup d'etat.

Afterwards, Chiang Kai-shek was then the prominent figure, but quickly lost power during the struggles as Japan attacked in both Sino-Japanese wars (WW1 and WW2) and Russia's attempts to infiltrate as well. Chiang did not accomplish much other than fleeing the country and seeking refuge from other countries.

During this time, Mao rose to power as Chiang and his royalties ceased to exist. There was never a better time that China needed someone with this figure to unite them against all the odds they were facing. Many had died in the process of this struggle for power, but with the people looking for a "better" society and the right leadership to govern them all, that is how Mao became a success as he is seen to be. Many books take the deaths of those who died in his dictatorship often arrogantly and with without remorse, saying the deaths were unnecessary. I personally think there is more to it than just that alone, the books only attribute from a western perspective towards the deaths.

As Mao's time was soon coming to an end, some of the bad came out. The Red Guards came out to eliminate all threats to Mao's dictatorship, including the soon to be Deng Xiaoping was thrown into prison and lost any previous titles he held. This was one of the ugly rears of Mao's era and still has no justification to date for it.

When Deng was restored to his power and became the next figure, he established principles that became the China it is today. He put Maoism as a lower priority on the list as the 4 main principles, but still incorporated them.


Damn, I wrote a lot more than I expected but this is pretty much the gist of it in a nutshell.

Well most of the deaths could have been avoided if he would have listened to the people who knew more about the specific things he screwed up. Such as making farmers plant crops closer together. That is what caused the famine that killed the most people. Now if that is good Marxism then I'm going to keep my belief that Marxism is just as bad as Communism considering the end result is the same. A dictator who can't look past his own ego to better the peoples lives under him.

 

[naisho]

Well most of the deaths could have been avoided if he would have listened to the people who knew more about the specific things he screwed up. Such as making farmers plant crops closer together. That is what caused the famine that killed the most people. Now if that is good Marxism then I'm going to keep my belief that Marxism is just as bad as Communism considering the end result is the same. A dictator who can't look past his own ego to better the peoples lives under him.

Maoism is not a true Marxism. It takes principles from Marx and Engels - sociologists for their time. And some Leninism to an extent.

Famine alone can't be the sole reason for your hate on the doctrines just because, it doesn't make sense. We had our own famines as well but aside from initial blame in crop techniques (because of the soil erosion from the Dust Bowl) no one blames our presidents solely responsible for that.

If you look at it that way, you are forgetting that Mao's principles are still in China's doctrines today.

 

[Foxrac]

Well most of the deaths could have been avoided if he would have listened to the people who knew more about the specific things he screwed up. Such as making farmers plant crops closer together. That is what caused the famine that killed the most people. Now if that is good Marxism then I'm going to keep my belief that Marxism is just as bad as Communism considering the end result is the same. A dictator who can't look past his own ego to better the peoples lives under him.

USSR was good country when Lenin was in power until tookover by Stalin and it went more negative.

Marxism isn't dictator, it is just hard to tell and depends on socialist parties in different countries like Venezuela's Socialist Party is based on Marxist but they won by election.

You can have full democracy, best work rights and friendly human rights under Marxist, it is varies by countries.

 

[AndyE9503]

Maoism is not a true Marxism. It takes principles from Marx and Engels - sociologists for their time. And some Leninism to an extent.

Famine alone can't be the sole reason for your hate on the doctrines just because, it doesn't make sense. We had our own famines as well but aside from initial blame in crop techniques (because of the soil erosion from the Dust Bowl) no one blames our presidents solely responsible for that.

If you look at it that way, you are forgetting that Mao's principles are still in China's doctrines today.

Its not the sole reason, just one example. The Dust Bowl was an act of nature not an overprivliged person deciding they knew better than the people who actully did the job.

I know Mao's principles are still used today, and yes those principles can build a powerful country. But would you want to live under that rule? Sorry I would rather live in a slightly less powerful country and have my freedom.

But I was refering to your post were you said China was Marxist under Maoism. Now I see you say they only took parts of it. So I understand what you are saying now

 

[AndyE9503]

USSR was good country when Lenin was in power until tookover by Stalin and it went more negative.

Marxism isn't dictator, it is just hard to tell and depends on socialist parties in different countries like Venezuela's Socialist Party is based on Marxist but they won by election.

You can have full democracy, best work rights and friendly human rights under Marxist, it is varies by countries.

You cannot deny that those type of government are very easy to change into a dictatorship concidering the basics of each form are the same.

Venezuela isn't a good example to thow out there. Last I heard you could be arrested for speaking out against the government. That tells me they have something to hide and or fear.

 

[naisho]

It's cool, just sharing my perspective of the whole take from how I was taught about it. I can't comment on much of how people feel about living in China, but I know some of my ancestors are perfectly content where they are while I am perfectly OK where I am. I don't think I could stand most of the things that goes on there in modern day - I'd probably get arrested within a week. I just respect that they follow their tradition and don't see the point in convincing them about the bad things in it, they are living their lives fine.

By the way, don't take offense in this - I think the Dust Bowl was primarily an act of human failure to prepare for the ecological disaster. Years of soil erosion from bad farming techniques. Causes from no attempts at contour plowing, deforestation, nutrient depletion, crop rotations.. a lot of environmental causes for the soil to lose it's richness and become detrimental as a host for the dust storms.

If they had followed good techniques (like they do today) back then instead of ignoring the warning flags, the Dust Bowl might not have been as bad as we think. Without deforestation for all that excess lumber and the manifest destiny in mind, it might have been a different story.

You ever seen those comics on deforestation? I've seen quite a few in my share of the ecology classes.

 

[AndyE9503]

It's cool, just sharing my perspective of the whole take from how I was taught about it. I can't comment on much of how people feel about living in China, but I know some of my ancestors are perfectly content where they are while I am perfectly OK where I am. I don't think I could stand most of the things that goes on there in modern day - I'd probably get arrested within a week. I just respect that they follow their tradition and don't see the point in convincing them about the bad things in it, they are living their lives fine.

By the way, don't take offense in this - I think the Dust Bowl was primarily an act of human failure to prepare for the ecological disaster. Years of soil erosion from bad farming techniques. Causes from no attempts at contour plowing, deforestation, nutrient depletion, crop rotations.. a lot of environmental causes for the soil to lose it's richness and become detrimental as a host for the dust storms.

If they had followed good techniques (like they do today) back then instead of ignoring the warning flags, the Dust Bowl might not have been as bad as we think. Without deforestation for all that excess lumber and the manifest destiny in mind, it might have been a different story.

You ever seen those comics on deforestation? I've seen quite a few in my share of the ecology classes.

I'm not taking offense to anything you say. Only thing that got me going was the Mao and Marx thing. Jiro pointed me in a direction showing some good from Marx so I wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying.

You are probably right that the Dust Bowl was worse than it should have been but the drought really kicked it into the demon that it was.

 

[Foxrac]

You cannot deny that those type of government are very easy to change into a dictatorship concidering the basics of each form are the same.

Venezuela isn't a good example to thow out there. Last I heard you could be arrested for speaking out against the government. That tells me they have something to hide and or fear.

We have constitution, that why and US does have three different branches.

There is numerous protests in Venezuela everyday and they usually get arrested if they are disturb to peace, pretty same as US does but polices in Venezuela could be corrupted and it had been issue before Chavez comes in.

Marxist is nothing to be good or bad, it is just depends on countries and in long time ago, numerous countries with Marxist is pretty brutal and dictatorship. If political party in US is based on Marxist then freedom will be always here as like before. The Marxist based views in US will be Communist Party.

I'm left-libertarian and do support socialism as mixed economy, it has some or little reference with Marxist.