Kat wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2021 at 6:08am:


It's the one easy way to identify uneducated right-wingers.

They have no idea what socialism actually is, and they are unable to differentiate it from communism.

Always gives me a good laugh.

In their life activities they symbolize the best of German philosophy, French politics, and British economics, synthesizing all three elements to bring forth “Scientific Socialism.”

Scientific Socialism has three principal divisions, namely, philosophy, economics, and politics. In philosophy, Marx took the theory of dialectics which he found in Hegel, and, casting out its idealism, placed it on its feet as a theory of dialectical materialism which, when applied to human society, became a theory of historical materialism. In the field of economics Marx based himself upon the theory of value as labor which had already been suggested by the Classical School of British economists before him, and thereby worked out a theory of surplus value and the laws of accumulation of capital, analyzing adequately for the first time both the structure and evolutionary functioning of the capitalist system. In politics, both Marx and Engels grasped the principles of the class struggle which already had been stated by working class elements, and developed them into a thesis leading to a new system of society, Socialism or Communism, through the institution of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

As Marx put it: “And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular, historic phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the Proletariat; (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society. (*1)

To sum up, Scientific Socialism was both a method as well as a content or body of scientific conclusions, later becoming both a theory and a practice. Just as it is impossible to separate program from strategy, and both from tactics, so it is impossible to divide the philosophical from the political and economic, or the method from the data. All are bound up together by the monist materialism of life.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/weisbord/conquest17.htm

Kat wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2021 at 6:08am:



You are deeply and doggedly ignorant about every aspect of socialism - philosophical, economic, political. I don't think you have read anything about it but if you have, you understood none of it.

John Smith wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2021 at 8:56pm:



You are even more ignorant than Kat. To his credit, he is not trying, he just IS. You, on the other hand make a sustained effort to be stupid, confused and ignorant AND BOAST about it.

"The French revolution invented socialsim" (sic).

Which one, dicko?

freediver wrote on Oct 31^st, 2021 at 9:18pm:


Frank?

freediver wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2021 at 7:36am:

Marx and Engels.

Practically all their predictions.


Starting with the inevitable impoverishment of the proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries (according to 'scientific' socialism (another silly, hollow prediction)), leading to another inevitability, the proletarian revolution. That in turn would lead to the abolishion of all classes, thereby ringing in the end of class struggle, the very animating force of all history. That's the highlights but all the details along the way are false as well.
Marxist speculation is a victim of wanting to be scientific and believing their own propaganda that since they are talking scientifically, their predictions are inevitable. But it is revolutionary zealotry, much of it driven by the infighting within the workers' movements of their time.

I give some credit to Marx and Engels for their sociological descriptions of 19th century Western European capitalism, that is, their assessment of the present they lived in. 
But when it comes to their forecasting history on the basis of their false, pseudo-scientific philosophy of history, politics, politically economy,  they were hopelessly wrong at every turn.  It is materialist messianism. It's fusty, dusty, mouldy nonsense. No wonder it appeals only to the ignorant and to the educated chancers who wish to grab onto leading the ignorant. Like Lenin.


If you want to read the primary sources https://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm
Australian section  https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/australia/inde...


Remember, “It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.”

Frank wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2021 at 10:07pm:


given that  Marx, Engels ad Lennin weren't involved in any of them, what does it matter which one?

It really must hurt to be as stupid as you

Frank .... I absolutely love your work!

What did you study at Uni?