Istvan Meszaros, there's normally accents in there but I can't be arsed to figure out the ASCII for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istv%C..._(philosopher)
No, I did not. I talked about ownership and the dividends thereof, specifically, and did not say anything regarding the compensation they would earn for their work.
Shareholder dividends and pay are two separate things. I'm not the one conflating capital gains with employment income here, you are, by claiming (incorrectly) that I ever spoke on the latter.
I've already stated once that there's a lot of different motives for unethical conduct, and that I only ever spoke regarding financial motives. That was not an argument that the only motives for unethical conduct are financial, and it's a baffling claim to make.In those companies the same incentives for unethical behavior exist - or do you really think Brett Kavanaugh was ethical when he worked for one of them?
I don't think violent revolution, in this case, is required. That is not an argument against violent revolution, in general[/i], however. Some violent revolutions are necessary and laudable, because the regime they topple was far worse than the revolutionaries.The point was that it had already happened; and thus a smart person would try to guard against a future violent revolution leading to the same result - at least if you consider that result undesirable; whereas Marx and Engels didn't and many times the results were eerily similar - so the fact that it has nothing to do with socialist theory is just a failure on their part.
And again; the French Revolution wasn't even motivated by socialist principles. So you're intentionally derailing.
Err, no, that's ridiculous. Especially if you want to look at the likes of Stalin and his interpretations of communist theory, which were hostile to and a refutation of Marx and Engels. Marx was proposing a stateless utopia, whereas Stalin created an autocratic dictatorship; these aren't following the same ideological path, dude.The previous point was that Marx and Engels, as you should know, were violent communistic revolutionary "thinkers"; and should be blamed for the communistic revolutions and their results.
Then you don't have much excuse for the bullshit takes you've been presenting, if you're as well-read as you claim. Sure makes it seem like it's malicious, rather than honest misunderstanding.Note I was discussing "communism" - you tried to bait-and-switch with switching to socialism, which is not necessarily the same; as for the names I've read or listened to all except Russel (who I obviously know of) and Meszaros. Cannot say anything good about Gish-Gallop Chomsky. I've also listed to many other socialists, communists, and social democrats; both thinkers and more pragmatic persons - by looking outside the Anglo-American sphere.
Because you're playing stupid coy games rather than coming right out and asking an honest and open question. I'm not interested in bullshit games.And no answer...
Yep. I really don't think it was hard to follow, and since you've got it right, I guess I wasn't.
The USA seems like a pretty glaring example otherwise.
1> Not particularly. Marx was making predictions about the future, not descriptions of the past.(That's btw contrary to Marx' theory. But I guess you will not see that as a problem.)
2> Why the hell would you think I put a lot of stock in what Marx said, in the first place? I don't see it as a problem because I'm a thinking human being and I don't hold up individuals as perfect incarnations whose words come straight from God's lips, like some kind of cultist. Marx being wrong about something isn't remotely a problem for me because I don't blindly worship Marx like an deity, and it's really fucking weird that you'd make that kind of accusation.
- - - Updated - - -
The problem is that there's a mix, and often trying to blame one ingredient (communism) for the outcome of the mixture is effectively propaganda used to deflect responsibility for the effects of the other ingredient(s).
People point at Stalin's regime, which was abominable, and say "that was communist, and thus bad", and they never stop to question if it was the communism that led to it being bad, or maybe the harsh authoritarianism that Stalin implemented on top.
Nearly all of the evils of Stalin's regime can be more-correctly ascribed to authoritarian dictatorships as a political system, rather than communism as an economic system. Not saying they weren't communist, but they were also atheist; does atheism make you act like Stalin, or is that a distraction from the truth?