Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 23 Jun '13 22:06 / 1 edit
    Don't blame me, Karl Marx said it.

    So is it true or false?
  2. 24 Jun '13 04:18
    No one wishes to respond?

    You people make Karl Marx cry. :'(
  3. 24 Jun '13 06:03
    Originally posted by whodey
    No one wishes to respond?

    You people make Karl Marx cry. :'(
    It might help if you have a citation that has context.

    "Marxism holds that "democracy is the road to socialism," as Karl Marx believed (although no one can find this line in his complete works)"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Marxism

    Where is your credibility? Who are your sources?
  4. 24 Jun '13 06:30
    Whether Marx said it or not, the ideological battle between communists and social democrats has clearly been won by the latter.
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Jun '13 07:31
    Originally posted by whodey
    Don't blame me, Karl Marx said it.

    So is it true or false?
    That Marx made such a quote seems unproven BUT if the majority desire socialism why shouldn't they have it?
  6. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    24 Jun '13 07:56
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    That Marx made such a quote seems unproven BUT if the majority desire socialism why shouldn't they have it?
    We rarely agree No1 but you're absolutely correct, if that's what they desire then they should get with other like minded folk and be as socialistic as they like, provided they make no claims on other people and their property.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Jun '13 11:46
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    We rarely agree No1 but you're absolutely correct, if that's what they desire then they should get with other like minded folk and be as socialistic as they like, provided they make no claims on other people and their property.
    Well if you don't like the rules of the society you live in, you can always go to another one I suppose. Property is a socially constructed concept.
  8. 24 Jun '13 13:10
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Well if you don't like the rules of the society you live in, you can always go to another one I suppose. Property is a socially constructed concept.
    But in general you can't go to another one, at least not the one of your choice.

    By the end of the 20th century almost all countries have tight restrictions on immigration. I've looked into it.
  9. 24 Jun '13 13:23
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Well if you don't like the rules of the society you live in, you can always go to another one I suppose. Property is a socially constructed concept.
    I would say the idea of property far predates society. Think about a predator willing to fight to defend it's kill.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Jun '13 14:26
    Originally posted by techsouth
    But in general you can't go to another one, at least not the one of your choice.

    By the end of the 20th century almost all countries have tight restrictions on immigration. I've looked into it.
    It's tough living in a world dominated by social animals rather than antisocial hermits.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Jun '13 14:27 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by dryhump
    I would say the idea of property far predates society. Think about a predator willing to fight to defend it's kill.
    I'd say you are wrong except for the most intimate type of personal property. Man is his Natural State lived in small groups and shared their "kills" with each other (as do virtually all social predators):

    First, inter-familial
    food sharing is pervasive among hunter-gatherers and many forager-horticulturalists; they are
    often referred to as egalitarian societies. Second, hominids lived as hunter-gatherers for the
    vast majority of their evolutionary history (over 2 million years). Agriculture originated only about
    10,000 years ago and has been practiced by the majority of the world's population for only two
    or three millennia. Since most hunter-gatherers share food on a daily basis, studies of food
    transfers among foragers may provide important insights into the evolutionary basis of human
    food sharing and more generally, about the origins of human hyper-sociality.

    http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/kaplangurven.pdf
  12. 24 Jun '13 14:39
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Whether Marx said it or not, the ideological battle between communists and social democrats has clearly been won by the latter.
    The line between the two is so slight as to be practically non existent. Take a look at this vintage film.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w86QhV7whjs
  13. 25 Jun '13 02:28
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    That Marx made such a quote seems unproven BUT if the majority desire socialism why shouldn't they have it?
    Even if he did not say it, I think that there is logic to see why he might have supported the notion. After all, the 1% that rule over the masses would be outnumbered and eventually be subdued by the democratic process with mob rule.

    There is one troubling fact with collectivism, however. Collectivism centralizes power, thus they dilute our vote. As power centralizes, representation is diluted as our votes become ever more meaningless. In a way, collectivism is the death of democracy. We see evidence of that today with a US Congress with a continuing drop in approval rating. Last I checked, it is down to around 9%, but they keep getting elected anyway.
  14. 25 Jun '13 02:52
    Originally posted by whodey
    Even if he did not say it, I think that there is logic to see why he might have supported the notion. After all, the 1% that rule over the masses would be outnumbered and eventually be subdued by the democratic process with mob rule.

    There is one troubling fact with collectivism, however. Collectivism centralizes power, thus they dilute our vote. As pow ...[text shortened]... approval rating. Last I checked, it is down to around 9%, but they keep getting elected anyway.
    Democracy degenerates into unprincipled mob rule. Various factions battle for favors of the state. No longer does society reward production, but rather it rewards the skill of utilizing the arm of government to take resources from other citizens.

    Too bad we weren't able to "keep" the republic as Ben Franklin is purported to have referenced.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Jun '13 07:32
    Originally posted by whodey
    Even if he did not say it, I think that there is logic to see why he might have supported the notion. After all, the 1% that rule over the masses would be outnumbered and eventually be subdued by the democratic process with mob rule.

    There is one troubling fact with collectivism, however. Collectivism centralizes power, thus they dilute our vote. As pow ...[text shortened]... approval rating. Last I checked, it is down to around 9%, but they keep getting elected anyway.
    If I had any idea what you mean by "collectivism" perhaps I could try to respond to such blather. The idea that the centralizing of power in a true democracy would make "our votes ever more meaningless" is contradictory on its face.