freediver wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 9:37am:

Did you look at the above link? Did you look at the Communist manifesto? Any of the other articles at the link I provided, marxism.org?

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation.
Relative and Absolute Impoverishment of the Proletariat
The development of capitalism leads, with the accumulation of capital, to enormous wealth being concentrated in few hands at one pole of bourgeois society, with a growth in luxury and parasitism, dissipation and idleness among the exploiting classes; while at the other pole the burden of exploitation becomes continually more intense, and unemployment and poverty increases among those whose labour is the creator of all wealth.

“The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital, the extent and energy of its growth, and therefore also the absolute mass of the proletariat and the productiveness of its labour, the greater is the industrial reserve army.... The relative mass of the industrial reserve army increases therefore with the potential energy of wealth. But the greater this reserve army in proportion to the active labour army, the greater is the mass of a consolidated surplus-population whose misery is in inverse ratio to its torment of labour... This is the absolute, general law of capitalist accumulation." (Marx, Capital, Kerr edition, vol. 1, p. 707.)

The general law of capitalist accumulation gives concrete expression to the operation of the basic economic law of capitalism-the-law of surplus-value. The striving to increase surplus-value leads to an accumulation of wealth in the hands of the exploiting classes and to the growth of impoverishment and degradation of the propertyless classes.

As capitalism develops, a process of relative and absolute impoverishment of the proletariat takes place.

John Smith wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 12:31pm:

YOU asserted that "socialsim was invented with the French revolution", shitfer. Why don't you explain what you meant?

Frank wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 1:23pm:


Frank....are you still having fun with the ignorant and those who never finished high school?

It's clear they CANNOT understand your posts. Hell they CANNOT remember let alone understand their own posts.

Frank wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 1:17pm:


Are you claiming that the two highlighted quotes say the same thing?

freediver wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 1:39pm:

In the context of what Marx thought to be a necessary condition of a proletarian revolution.
He thought that capitalist accumulation would lead to the polarisation of the class struggle. The burgeioise would become richer and the proleariat poorer, to an intolerable level, leading to a revolution in the most civilised countries almost simultaneously.

The collected works of Marx, Enels and Lenin run to 50 volumes,  fd, so plenty of hay in which you can look for hairs to split. But the communist manifesto is available online, fd. Do you want me to get the link for you or do you think you could locate it by yourself?  It has a communist catechism, what communists believe.

freediver wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 3:28pm:


The first highlight is a paraphrase of his theory about how the revolution would come about in the 'final throes of capitalism', the second is a direct quote from ONE of his works. 
I do not have an electronic verson of the MECW so I can't do text search for you for all the other expressions of this theory.  If you want to go through all their ideas, consult the marxist.org site.

If you have any reason to dispute what I said and linked to, come out with it.


He also predicted that ghe socialist revolution would happen almost simultaneously in the mist civilised countries - England, US, France, Germany. That's  in the Manifesto. See if you can locate it.

The term ‘bourgeoisie’ is a technicality of the Marxist theory. But it has a real human reference, and that reference is you and me. We who own property, deal in markets, collect salaries, have spouses and children, and live by the ordinary day-to-day morality of neighbourliness, are the people whom Lenin set out to destroy. We are the targets of resentment, and Marxism is the theory of that resentment.

One thing we should surely learn from the Russian revolution is that resentment is always on the lookout for the theories that will justify it. And the lesson that bore in on me in vivid and unforgettable ways during my own journeys behind the Iron Curtain, is that resentment, when it finally takes power, spells the death of politics. The real purpose of politics is not to express resentment but to contain and conciliate it. When, in the wake of the Grenfell fire, leading political figures began calling for a ‘day of rage’, and for the requisitioning of bourgeois property, I heard again the voice of that old resentment. And I asked myself how could it be that the lesson has not been learned?

The problem is not a lack of literature. Invocations of communist terror abound, and include masterpieces that all educated people should know, such as Koestler’s Darkness at Noon, Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago and Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago. However, resentment easily overrides the evidence. Just as anti-Semitism has survived constant reminders of the Holocaust, so does the Marxist vision survive the accumulated testimony to its murderous legacy. Resentful people cherish their hatred more than they respect the rights of those who arouse it.

For this reason it is surely time to establish museums devoted to the Marxist legacy. We have a model, indeed, in the House of Terror, established in Budapest in 2002 under the directorship of Maria Schmidt. This commemorates the victims of both fascism and communism, and has been controversial for that very reason. Even in Hungary, leftist intellectuals tell us that the two evils cannot be compared, and that to commemorate their victims in a single museum is to deny their most important difference: that the aims of communism were good, those of fascism bad. It is precisely in order to counter that kind of apology that Maria Schmidt has turned the same light on both ideologies. The aim of both, she insists, was the same. What difference does it make that one focused its resentment on the Jews, the other on the bourgeoisie, when the primary aim was in both cases the mass murder of their victims? Or do we say, with Eric Hobs-bawm, that in the one case, but not in the other, the end justified the means?
Roger Scruton

freediver wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 10:06am:

Cheeses, fd. Tsk, tsk      Take a wild guess.

You asked me to quote Marx.  You still haven't located the Communist Manifesto, have you?