Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => Arts and Entertainment Archive => Topic started by: Myroria on November 01, 2007, 07:04:53 PM
-
I did it. I read the Communist Manifesto.
It changed my life.
Now I'm even MORE anti-communist.
-
Good on you to read a pamphlet. Why not try an actual book? :trout:
-
I looked for Das Kapital, but the library didn't have it.
-
:-\
Well you could check http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/index.htm
Supposedly it's got the three volumes of Kapital tucked away.
-
come on Garth without reading Das Kapital you know nothing. yet again communism would be a nice thing but people are just too corrupt and lazy in such large numbers.
-
The abolition of the family is not something to strive for. Of all the idiotic things pushed in that pamphlet, that had to be the dumbest.
-
Thank you for not understanding the point. The point that M/E were making was that the family had already been abolished by the removal of production from the home. This meant that working-class men and (and often women) worked in the factories rather than in the home, and consequently spent less time with their children. This weakened the institution of the family.
The basic point in that section of the pamphlet was that many of the things cappies want to pin on commies are already being accomplished under capitalism.
-
Yes, I realize he was trying to say that the family was being corrupted blah blah blah. But he stated himself that the communist agenda includes the abolition of the family as one of its points:
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
Since he goes on to state that the capitalist system already corrupts the familial structure, never saying anything to deny that he proposes this, I can only figure he, or at least most communists, support this. At least from what I could gather - I've never been good at deciphering old language, even from the early 1900s - he's just saying "the capitalists also plan to abolish the family", not "we do not seek the abolition of the family". If you don't have a family, you have one part of Brave New World.
-
Also, keep in mind that in this context "family" effectively means the autonomous nuclear family. Abolition of the family does not mean abolition of the ties of kinship, but of one particular manifestation of these ties of kinship.
-
Well, I disagree with that. I think that a mother and father, mother and mother, or father and father are essential to human nature.
-
Prove that there is a set and defined "human nature", and that argument might have substance. As it is, invoking "human nature" is a tremendous cop-out.
-
well, a mom and a dad are needed. they need to screw each other to make kids.
-
Ever heard of cloning, Bara?
-
holy crap, i forgot about that!
-
Thanks for your very valuable comment, Bara.
There is no defined human nature, but parents have been proved time and time again to be a positive benefit to your kids, unless you live in Africa and they send you out to kill warlords, which wouldn't be too positive. But most of the time they are.
-
but what if one parent is Communist, and the other one hates Communism?
-
Then they're not likely to have ended up together, are they? :shrug:
-
but what if they didnt know, then the wife saw the husband with a Communist arband on.
-
The kids'll have a better upbringing, most likely.
-
yeah
-
One word: Divorce. The communist wouldn't want a family anyway. Why would they get married - which is a statement to God - in the first place?
-
Marriage is a civil institution, and only secondarily religious. At least under the present society. :-P
-
Myroria do you know any communist couple? What's the point of marrying if they love each other already? I know a particular one that married, but it would be the same if they didn't. If it is so significative for you, fine, get married.
Society is evolved enough to have flexible ways. Plus, you're trying to force a concept of parents that is becoming inapplicable nowadays. Parents spend less time with kids, there's kids that only see their parents at weekends, what's the deal with it? Capitalism forces both to work for profit, so they can have a good life...for their own! What, daddy goes to work and mommy stays at home washing dishes? There's washing machines! Women rather work than do nothing...
Pfffft, what a load of crap. You are either very influenced by conservators or you ate an American version of Mein Kampf.
It has been frequently to find right-wing guys trying to nail the most specific detail they can find in anything. Just because you do not agree with the "Abolishing Family" doesn't mean whole Communist Concept is crap or have anything to do with that. Do you think they would force you to abolish your family? You are already forced to do so much more for the right wings or capitalists.
-
Pfffft, what a load of crap. You are either very influenced by conservators or you ate an American version of Mein Kampf.
Up to this point you were making a fair argument.
-
like any of his are. What's with the remark anyway?
-
Oooh, I love tacking these. It's like playing Arkanoid, except I'm breaking through a wall of crap instead of a wall of blocks.
Myroria do you know any communist couple? What's the point of marrying if they love each other already? I know a particular one that married, but it would be the same if they didn't. If it is so significative for you, fine, get married.
I'm not going to get married, because I do not believe in God. If I love a girl, what difference does a piece of paper make? I was just saying that communists tend to deny the existance of a higher being, especially Marx, so having a wedding - which is an oath to God, in a church, with a priest, would seem a bit off.
Society is evolved enough to have flexible ways. Plus, you're trying to force a concept of parents that is becoming inapplicable nowadays. Parents spend less time with kids, there's kids that only see their parents at weekends, what's the deal with it? Capitalism forces both to work for profit, so they can have a good life...for their own! What, daddy goes to work and mommy stays at home washing dishes? There's washing machines! Women rather work than do nothing...
Near the end of that you just went off on a random tangent about the role of women in society, so I'll ignore that.
I'm not trying to force my opinion. I stated my opinion that the abolition of the family is not a good idea. Live and let live. But since this is a debate, I suppose I have to answer in support of my own opinion.
Better weekend parents than no parents. Your parents are the ones who should raise you, this is how it's always been and this is how it should always be. Call me a conservative for not wanting change, but you see time and time again I advocate huge reform, if not drastic upheaval, of the neo-conservatism now.
Pfffft, what a load of crap. You are either very influenced by conservators or you ate an American version of Mein Kampf.
Conservatives. And no, I'm not influenced by them. I love how you equate anyone who thinks different from you with fascists and conservatives. I'm not a conservative, because I want change. Maybe you should put down Das Kapital and pick up a 7th grade textbook.
It has been frequently to find right-wing guys trying to nail the most specific detail they can find in anything. Just because you do not agree with the "Abolishing Family" doesn't mean whole Communist Concept is crap or have anything to do with that. Do you think they would force you to abolish your family? You are already forced to do so much more for the right wings or capitalists.
Abolish means abolish. You would have to be "parents" in secret in an authoritarian communist state, or not legally recognized in a perfect one. Assuming the communist state agrees with Marx on this issue.
Yes, we are forced to do things, Delfos. These strange things are called "laws". Do you disagree with laws? Keep in mind I am a libertarian, and I don't think it should be against the law to do half the things neo-conservatives hate. So your argument fails, because I most likely agree with legalizing everything, or perhaps, more, than you do.
-
Well, if you want to look at it like that, "abolition of the family" could mean "abolition of the civil ceremony of marriage, and the legal benefits that flow to the parties involved." Keep in mind as well that a. M/E were working on commission, writing for a specific political party. The Manifesto of the Communist League of 1848 is not meant to be the blueprint for the actions of all communist parties in all times and places. b. Engels was involved, and he was far more a sloganizer than the pedantic Marx, who tended to clarify and define every single term down to the word "is."
-
Better weekend parents than no parents. Your parents are the ones who should raise you, this is how it's always been and this is how it should always be. Call me a conservative for not wanting change, but you see time and time again I advocate huge reform, if not drastic upheaval, of the neo-conservatism now.
I agree, i like the idea of parents taking care of children, but it's not an anti-communist or a communist that will stop the change of kids not having enough time with parents. I had allot of time, but guess what, they were liberal with me. Great luck, i had my father's mother to teach me some lessons, those right slaps really hurt. Anyway, i hated her in living, and is the person i mostly respect after dead. She really taught me allot. So I'm in favor of family concept at a degree.
Conservatives. And no, I'm not influenced by them. I love how you equate anyone who thinks different from you with fascists and conservatives. I'm not a conservative, because I want change. Maybe you should put down Das Kapital and pick up a 7th grade textbook.
Funny you mention, you do the same calling me (and others) communist. I haven't read Das Kapital yet...not very interested to be honest.
Yes, we are forced to do things, Delfos. These strange things are called "laws". Do you disagree with laws? Keep in mind I am a libertarian, and I don't think it should be against the law to do half the things neo-conservatives hate. So your argument fails, because I most likely agree with legalizing everything, or perhaps, more, than you do.
I was talking about how money forces us to do allot of stuff we don't have to to survive. I'm not against laws, and as you can see, i even defend allot of them, specially those related to human rights. But laws are only guidelines, you can cut your way through them...specially if you have a good lawyer.
-
face it in theoy Communism works but rl it dosent cause people so fat and lazy
-
*sigh* That is a criticism of the welfare state. All the veterans here know this, because I've repeated it so damn many times.
-
you know, i still dont know my you two fight over this. THE COLD WAR IS OVER!
-
Communism caused the deaths of +10 million. You wouldn't criticize a neo-Nazi vs. non-Nazi argument because "WWII is over".
-
but, who's to say capitalism didnt kill peolpe.
-
Capitalism didn't kill people, the dictatorships that used it did.
Likewise, communism didn't kill people, the dictatorships that used it did.
The difference is that the former killed people in the name of loyalty to the country, while the latter killed people in the name of the inane, stupid system they used.
-
but wasnt the cold war fought over economincs?
-
Bara's making more sense than you, Myro. That's just sad.
-
Bara's making more sense than you, Myro. That's just sad.
that was a burn.
-
Bara's making more sense than you, Myro. That's just sad.
that was a burn.
Use correct grammar and I'll consider responding to that.
-
Who's using poor grammar!?
-
Bara. And I apologize, but I'm getting a bit fired up. Everyone knows I tend to.
-
No need to apologise. :shrug:
-
:trout: <- that's communism entering in Myro's head. BASH THE TROUT OF COMMUNISM!
Myro you don't use proper English grammar too.
-
Reading up through Myroria's past few posts his grammar is pretty consistent with what it should be. It usually is.
Speaking of grammar, "either" is probably a better choice than "too" in a negative sentence.
-
In his posts, not all, there's semantic errors. They also include different English Grammar, known as US English or American, although it isn't proper English Grammar. Special attention to words including 'Z' in American, are commonly written with 'S' in English.
If English was my first language, maybe I would pay more attention, but for now, I'm just trying to defend people that don't speak/write English or American as first language.
-
i speak baranese.
-
US-english is actually recognized as proper grammar, why would it be an option in spell-checking programmes for US and UK English respectively if it weren't? And why would dictionaries contain both British and American meanings, pronounciations and spelling if only British English was considdered a proper language?
-
In fact, put it to a democratic vote, and American English wins out by by hundreds of millions:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/English_dialects1997.png)
Besides, orthography has nothing at all to do with actual grammar.
-
I haven't said US English wasn't proper grammar/language, but it's different from proper English, like Brasilian is different from Portuguese. It's practically the exact difference in matter of fact.
-
Ah, but here arises the same problem. You say that it's different from "proper" English, that is to say it isn't proper. But who defines what "proper" is?
-
This thread went from whether The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital was better, to whether communism is reasonable, to grammar. Do you see that strange jump?
-
No, not at all [/sarcasm]
-
Well, it doesn't take much to get Pragmia started about grammar.
-
Actually, I didn't start this one. It was Delfos.
-
omg
-
Bara's making more sense than you, Myro. That's just sad.
that was a burn.
Use correct grammar and I'll consider responding to that.
blame me as always.