Originally Posted by Tuan

Can you give me an example of someone who followed Marx and then they ended up in misery? Or, are you just saying this because you don't like Marx's Communist Manifesto? The truth is Marx was communism’s most zealous intellectual advocate. His comprehensive writings on the subject laid the foundation for later political leaders, notably V. I. Lenin and Mao Tse-tung, to impose communism on more than twenty countries. Although, the idea of communism was undermined by capitalism, it isn't dead yet. Remember, change is the law of the universe!

What about every country trying his theory. It hasn't been any communistic country in the world and it will never be any. Do you know why? For a country to reach communism, it needs to go through three steps. the avant guards leading the revolution, they implement the proletarian dictatorship, and then you get communism. Countries trying it get stuck in the second step. Why do they do that? Those in power will not give it away. Marx didn't understand the human nature and that is the major flaw with his theory. So every attempt of using his political and economical theories have failed.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

What about every country trying his theory. It hasn't been any communistic country in the world and it will never be any. Do you know why? For a country to reach communism, it needs to go through three steps. the avant guards leading the revolution, they implement the proletarian dictatorship, and then you get communism. Countries trying it get stuck in the second step. Why do they do that? Those in power will not give it away. Marx didn't understand the human nature and that is the major flaw with his theory. So every attempt of using his political and economical theories have failed.

While I tend to agree with the point that you are trying to make, I also think that Marx believed that capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction. He described how the wealth of the bourgeoisie depended on the work of the proletariat. Therefore, capitalism requires an underclass. But Marx predicted that the continued exploitation of this underclass would create great resentment. Time will tell....

Originally Posted by Tuan

While I tend to agree with the point that you are trying to make, I also think that Marx believed that capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction. He described how the wealth of the bourgeoisie depended on the work of the proletariat. Therefore, capitalism requires an underclass. But Marx predicted that the continued exploitation of this underclass would create great resentment. Time will tell....

Yes, he is describing it as the means of production. But the wealth of the bourgeoisie provides the workers with an income. Btw, capitalism is an economic system without any morals attached to it, but that is not what we have. It is regulated by the law and when have that it is not capitalism, it is a liberal market economy.

Btw, I think we are going slightly off topic.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

It is regulated by the law and when have that it is not capitalism, it is a liberal market economy.

That is not correct : liberalism is an ideology; economy is neutral .

Originally Posted by lljadw

That is not correct : liberalism is an ideology; economy is neutral .

Quite amusing, but you are both right and wrong. The two concepts can never be separated. I know this can be confusing when capitalism is an economic system, but not a political system. Let me elaborate further on what separate and what unites them. First of all, when an ism is an ideology. It's an idea of how to organize the society, so economy is a vital part of it. So you when are saying economy is neutral, that is extremely wrong. There is a huge difference between a liberal market economy and a socialistic economy. Do I need to explain the difference between the two....really? If you don't get the difference, you need to visit a library. That is a place with a lot of books, I presume you have those in Belgium

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Quite amusing, but you are both right and wrong. The two concepts can never be separated. I know this can be confusing when capitalism is an economic system, but not a political system. Let me elaborate further on what separate and what unites them. First of all, when an ism is an ideology. It's an idea of how to organize the society, so economy is a vital part of it. So you when are saying economy is neutral, that is extremely wrong. There is a huge difference between a liberal market economy and a socialistic economy. Do I need to explain the difference between the two....really? If you don't get the difference, you need to visit a library. That is a place with a lot of books, I presume you have those in Belgium

This is not correct : a capitalist economy can exist in a democracy (US) or a dictatorship (Franquist Spain ),while a communist economy can only exist in a dictatorship .
Thus a liberal market economy does not exist .Because liberalism is not democracy.Liberalism is a 19th century totalitarian ideology .A bastard brother of socialism .
Saying that there is a liberal market economy means that there is in some countries also a conservative market economy.
If there is liberal capitalism, there is also conservative capitalism.
If there is a liberal democracy there must exist somewhere a conservative democracy .
Liberalism implies the existence of conservatism .

Originally Posted by lljadw

This is not correct : a capitalist economy can exist in a democracy (US) or a dictatorship (Franquist Spain ),while a communist economy can only exist in a dictatorship .
Thus a liberal market economy does not exist .Because liberalism is not democracy.Liberalism is a 19th century totalitarian ideology .A bastard brother of socialism .
Saying that there is a liberal market economy means that there is in some countries also a conservative market economy.
If there is liberal capitalism, there is also conservative capitalism.
If there is a liberal democracy there must exist somewhere a conservative democracy .
Liberalism implies the existence of conservatism .

So economy isn't neutral, either it's neutral or it isn't. As I said earlier, capitalism isn't a political system. It's very obvious you don't know the difference between liberalism and socialism. Liberalism main focus is on the individual freedom, which doesn't exist in socialism. We have talked about this before. Btw, if you were educated you should know the other term for what you call a conservative economy. It's called the fiscal economy. You are entitled to your opinions, but science beats opinions every time. Do it again and do it correctly.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

You are entitled to your opinions, but science beats opinions every time. Do it again and do it correctly.

Coming from a liberal, that is a good one .
Science never beats opinions .
Science is the idol of liberalism and socialism who both are totalitarian, amoral and materialistic ideologies. SCience has made possible Auschwitz .
They want to build a materialistic heaven on earth and have succeeded to build a hell on earth .
Hannah Arend has proved that both liberalism and socialism are responsible for evil on earth .
In every liberal there is a totalitarian screaming to get out : people as the mayor of New York who dictates what people can eat, people as Robert Kennedy Jr who wants to put in jail all those who do not believe in Global Warming, people as Richard Parncutt who demands that they must be killed . Or those in Britain who wanted, and succeeded ,the death of a sick baby : eugenics are invented and practiced by liberals, already before Hitler .
It is not surprising that the Liberals have enthusiastically embraced Muslim terrorism .

Originally Posted by lljadw

Coming from a liberal, that is a good one .
Science never beats opinions .
Science is the idol of liberalism and socialism who both are totalitarian, amoral and materialistic ideologies. SCience has made possible Auschwitz .
They want to build a materialistic heaven on earth and have succeeded to build a hell on earth .
Hannah Arend has proved that both liberalism and socialism are responsible for evil on earth .
In every liberal there is a totalitarian screaming to get out : people as the mayor of New York who dictates what people can eat, people as Robert Kennedy Jr who wants to put in jail all those who do not believe in Global Warming, people as Richard Parncutt who demands that they must be killed . Or those in Britain who wanted, and succeeded ,the death of a sick baby : eugenics are invented and practiced by liberals, already before Hitler .
It is not surprising that the Liberals have enthusiastically embraced Muslim terrorism .

So now I'm a liberal, which I'm not. I do agree with some parts of liberalism, or rather libertarianism. However, you still don't know the difference between liberals and socialists. The woman you are referring to studied totalitarianism, she even worked a lot on epistemology. That is something you should try to do.