|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:09 pm
I know Lady is feeding all this crap about Religious ideology howgwash fading away... its like saying the military will "naturally" stop fighting for its ideology....c.c Anyways on to more interesting topics *cough* We got Maoists! Thats right the Maoists in India are at it again with an ambush on Indian police, check it out. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6288296.stm
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:50 pm
*grumbles* (Really Tank, "Lady"?)
I fed the topic of religion because it is one that I thought would generate, perhaps, some response...
As far as the Maoists go... I could begin by stating the essential flaw of Maoism, which is much the same as the mistake made in Russia. According to a dialectic model, Industrialization is rather necessary before communism could be reached. One must prepare a country's infrastructure in order to adequately create a self-sustaining society where communism could be possible. Without industrialization, the means of production cannot be commonly owned because they simply aren't there! Moreover, Mao focused too much on following orders and personality cults and not enough on the people, who are supposed to be the entire object of Marxism!
Enough on that. Maoism's better than nothing, I suppose.
Find flaws in that. I know they exist. I'm ill and tired at the moment, so that semi-delerious rant should make for the beginning of an interesting discussion ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:05 pm
Lady Merewyn *grumbles* (Really Tank, "Lady"?) I fed the topic of religion because it is one that I thought would generate, perhaps, some response... As far as the Maoists go... I could begin by stating the essential flaw of Maoism, which is much the same as the mistake made in Russia. According to a dialectic model, Industrialization is rather necessary before communism could be reached. One must prepare a country's infrastructure in order to adequately create a self-sustaining society where communism could be possible. Without industrialization, the means of production cannot be commonly owned because they simply aren't there! Moreover, Mao focused too much on following orders and personality cults and not enough on the people, who are supposed to be the entire object of Marxism! Enough on that. Maoism's better than nothing, I suppose. Find flaws in that. I know they exist. I'm ill and tired at the moment, so that semi-delerious rant should make for the beginning of an interesting discussion ^^ There flaws in yours as well. Like a society governing itself. I mean society would have to participate and stay with it. Over time people get lazy on issues at hand then they hire representatives for them as a result of this to carry out their orders. Then you want this world thing were we hold hands and all that over nonsense, the world is so huge, getting everybody to agree from splitting off is a task, all regions have there own history and culture. People like to be with other people they share that with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:52 am
Yes they sure do exist, although I am not in much favour of them either. Although they are better than nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:59 am
Steven Hawkings Lady Merewyn *grumbles* (Really Tank, "Lady"?) I fed the topic of religion because it is one that I thought would generate, perhaps, some response... As far as the Maoists go... I could begin by stating the essential flaw of Maoism, which is much the same as the mistake made in Russia. According to a dialectic model, Industrialization is rather necessary before communism could be reached. One must prepare a country's infrastructure in order to adequately create a self-sustaining society where communism could be possible. Without industrialization, the means of production cannot be commonly owned because they simply aren't there! Moreover, Mao focused too much on following orders and personality cults and not enough on the people, who are supposed to be the entire object of Marxism! Enough on that. Maoism's better than nothing, I suppose. Find flaws in that. I know they exist. I'm ill and tired at the moment, so that semi-delerious rant should make for the beginning of an interesting discussion ^^ There flaws in yours as well. Like a society governing itself. I mean society would have to participate and stay with it. Over time people get lazy on issues at hand then they hire representatives for them as a result of this to carry out their orders. Then you want this world thing were we hold hands and all that over nonsense, the world is so huge, getting everybody to agree from splitting off is a task, all regions have there own history and culture. People like to be with other people they share that with. Have you read state and revolution by lenin? I think it gets explained in there. yes getting the people from all over the world to split off is up to the people of each country, but as I have travelled around the world I can tell you that the working class no matter where you go essentialy feels the same. people in general are the same just with different cultures, which in reality is only a very small difference. No one said anything about "holding hands" but if we could all work together then everything wuld be better for the working class all around the world, and essentially that is what everyone wants a truely better way of life. Unless of course you already are a rich exploiter, then you just want to continue on with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:38 pm
Ransu Steven Hawkings Lady Merewyn *grumbles* (Really Tank, "Lady"?) I fed the topic of religion because it is one that I thought would generate, perhaps, some response... As far as the Maoists go... I could begin by stating the essential flaw of Maoism, which is much the same as the mistake made in Russia. According to a dialectic model, Industrialization is rather necessary before communism could be reached. One must prepare a country's infrastructure in order to adequately create a self-sustaining society where communism could be possible. Without industrialization, the means of production cannot be commonly owned because they simply aren't there! Moreover, Mao focused too much on following orders and personality cults and not enough on the people, who are supposed to be the entire object of Marxism! Enough on that. Maoism's better than nothing, I suppose. Find flaws in that. I know they exist. I'm ill and tired at the moment, so that semi-delerious rant should make for the beginning of an interesting discussion ^^ There flaws in yours as well. Like a society governing itself. I mean society would have to participate and stay with it. Over time people get lazy on issues at hand then they hire representatives for them as a result of this to carry out their orders. Then you want this world thing were we hold hands and all that over nonsense, the world is so huge, getting everybody to agree from splitting off is a task, all regions have there own history and culture. People like to be with other people they share that with. Have you read state and revolution by lenin? I think it gets explained in there. yes getting the people from all over the world to split off is up to the people of each country, but as I have travelled around the world I can tell you that the working class no matter where you go essentialy feels the same. people in general are the same just with different cultures, which in reality is only a very small difference. No one said anything about "holding hands" but if we could all work together then everything wuld be better for the working class all around the world, and essentially that is what everyone wants a truely better way of life. Unless of course you already are a rich exploiter, then you just want to continue on with that. Where does the majority middle class fall into that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:21 am
Koon Where does the majority middle class fall into that? majority??? most of the people you "think" are middle class are actually proletariats aswell. I do not know where majority and middle class fit in together... although I do know alot of working class people who seem to think they are middle class. Class in reality has not alot to do with income. At least in the marxist class definiton.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:01 pm
Ransu Koon Where does the majority middle class fall into that? majority??? most of the people you "think" are middle class are actually proletariats aswell. I do not know where majority and middle class fit in together... although I do know alot of working class people who seem to think they are middle class. Class in reality has not alot to do with income. At least in the marxist class definiton. The majority of people actually consider themselves Middle even though by defintion they're not. Especially seeing as Middle Class is the norm. And what about the fact that being Proletariat in most modern countries means you just didn't do any secondary education?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:10 pm
Ransu Koon Where does the majority middle class fall into that? majority??? most of the people you "think" are middle class are actually proletariats aswell. I do not know where majority and middle class fit in together... although I do know alot of working class people who seem to think they are middle class. Class in reality has not alot to do with income. At least in the marxist class definiton. No these are not "actually proletariats" They are simply imperialist proletariats. These workers would not cause change for it benifits them most. If the proletarait views themselves as "middle class" then you have a rise in wealth in the lower classes. This wealth or higher standard of living prohibits class consciousness due to imperialism... I believe Lenin put this into great detail correct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:53 pm
Tank aren't there sub-groups of middle class also? I mean we have poor around here that live in the lower end of my town I was one of them at one time. The income is lower like 60,000 to 40,000 is the average for a family here. Theres the higher middle class, middle middle class and the lower middle class. The income for the lower is like 20,000-30,000, middle is like 40,000-60,000 and the higher is like 60,000 and up or so. There's a divide among this class also. So what ever revolution takes place they will split to different side.
Have you ever heard of the scientific class? I know its odd to say since they would fall into the middle or the upper. But seeing how they are not trusted by the upper or lower classes as times goes on, joining either side is worthless. since they worked for the upper class and sometimes are the upper class. But also from their works society becomes fearful of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:55 pm
*rolls eyes*
Realize that in a Marxist sense, a person is considered a proletariat if they do not own the means of production around which they work... Bourgeoise if one owns one's business... small business owners would be considered petty bourgeoise in most cases... there's also the classification of lumpenproletariat, and various subdivisions. But it doesn't have so much to do with one's income as with one's relation to the means of production. Understand? Good.
Secondly, on the subject of social classes, the "middle class" is for the most part an illusion. Most of the so-called "middle class" is composed of either people who are rich but don't want to sound pretentious, and aren't multi-billionaires, or people who are poor but out of pride want to convince themselves that they are not "lower-class," because in a nation such as this, there is almost a certain social stigma attached to people of lower-income classes, hence, for instance, even the entire concept of considering people to be "trailer trash" and so forth.
Enough ranting for now.^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:39 am
Lady Merewyn *rolls eyes* Realize that in a Marxist sense, a person is considered a proletariat if they do not own the means of production around which they work... Bourgeoise if one owns one's business... small business owners would be considered petty bourgeoise in most cases... there's also the classification of lumpenproletariat, and various subdivisions. But it doesn't have so much to do with one's income as with one's relation to the means of production. Understand? Good. Secondly, on the subject of social classes, the "middle class" is for the most part an illusion. Most of the so-called "middle class" is composed of either people who are rich but don't want to sound pretentious, and aren't multi-billionaires, or people who are poor but out of pride want to convince themselves that they are not "lower-class," because in a nation such as this, there is almost a certain social stigma attached to people of lower-income classes, hence, for instance, even the entire concept of considering people to be "trailer trash" and so forth. Enough ranting for now.^^ It's quite obvious from what I said and others without pointing that out. I mean people are often put there by government to able to lower funding in areas, that way they can spend it else were. Lower the standard of what middle class is and you can put more people in. Also people in the middle class will receive less help by government aid it's all about the money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
