Star Dreamer we may not agree, but I really do like you 
and even if you do not agree, you stay within the boundaries of being respectful and you are actually open minded. I am enjoying this conversation with you. 
Yes Capitalism brought forth many positive changes in society as it gave more power to the majority then feudalism had given. Feudalism lasted a long time, and Capitalism is still relatively new compared to other past structures. Things always become better when society progresses.
The doctors and lawyers are not of a different class then the other laborers, but they are given more social power then the rest of the working class. It's very complex to understand, but you raise very good points we all should take a closer look at. The doctors and lawyers would not carry on the concept of "Social Class" in terms of the means of production and power. Capitalism is many times a game of luck, for money is an insufficient tool invented by humans because it lacks quantity to meet satisfactory standards for society as a whole. For example, (forgetting that nations exist lets pretend we are all one nation) everyone eligible for work around the globe fills out a job application, there will NOT be enough money to employ these people, especially when the value of capital is concentrated so tightly into many things such as homes, computers, name-brand clothes, etc. There will not be enough money to produce clothing, homes, provide food and water, to all citizens. Not even by 15%. THAT is a problem.
Back to your statement about your rational and understandable confusion of classes I will get back to that. Marx notes that many of the working class will compete against its own class in society, this is seen in how Americans vote republican.
The smaller bourgeois is of the working class, but the higher income earners with more accumulated wealth. The semi-bourgeois is an unofficial class within another class I guess you could say. What leads part of the proletariat to be swayed by the biased political party is the greed caused by money. We are taught economics in schools but the knowledge we are taught is always contained with the notion of "leading people on" with terms such as money gives people freedom (in a sense yes because it provides convenience) but does not provide SOCIETY freedom. Money grants imaginary social freedom to one sole person. The ones who make money and have sufficient needs, fail to see many of the concepts of the system. We may know many republicans who have their own reasons for being affiliated with the party, and some are those even without money. This is not meant to offend, but many of the republicans in this nation are filled with ideologies that are based on the south's political perspective overall. The manifesto states that one good thing about organized cities is that people are combined as a type of power, which they can communicate and have a brighter sense of social communication and are freed from the idiocy of rural living. The doctors and lawyers are looked upon as having great status because those jobs pay so much income, and that class is created in our minds because money determines who is "more successful" and who has "done something with their lives." But it is never as simplistic as that!
Their is a strong division in the working class, regardless of who makes what. Capitalists and politics use social deregulation to sway the public away from recognizing themselves as the oppressed class as a whole, rather then how we recognize the poor "niggers" "spics" "immigrants" and disabled as the problem. By using the racial slurs I am using an example, I do not believe in these racist notions. The concept of organized religion is used to sway vulnerable people into detesting people within their own class such as homosexuals. We create a belief that these people are going into a magical lake of fire that nobody has ever seen except some eccentric religious cooks that claim they've had a religious experience and how they can prove god is real but never do. The christian concepts may provide positive benefits psychologically to some as it gives some of the citizens a purpose for living, but on a global scale organized religion causes so much chaos but it contributes to keeping Capitalism stay in check. Many wealthy religious folk especially in the states believe wealth is a good thing, and that wealth is a reward and symbol that they are "doing the right thing" or living by god's plan. Apparently, we socialists are labeled as Satan-worshipers, because the religious people always try to scare people into believing that all anti-god peeps are in love with the devil and we wear upside down crosses. We fill the world with homosexual perversions but again, so many concepts of the system are painted black and white.
Marx states the divided class will eventually unite sometime in future history, as the oppressed class containing ourselves will FINALLY recognize that they are an oppressed class. We today are developing a growing intellectualism for we see that here are fucked up aspects of the government. This is the first step in seeing that the government has power over us that we do not, and if they are oppressive, they have manifested ways of ridiculing us if we protest their actions, for we will have committed acts of treason to stop it. Someone recently told me that there are people who fight in numerous wars with the ill belief that they "have a country to defend" even though those wars are caused by the interests of the capitalists. We fight their wars, increase their capital, and are at their mercy for survival. We compete for the pennies they throw at us in skimpy pay checks that are unsatisfactory to meet our fundamental right to a decent standard of living. A decent standard of living is a fundamental right because humans deserve to keep their dignity as human beings. When we let someone starve or die on the street, they have been stripped of their dignity by Capitalism. Yes its people that allow bad things to happen, but the deeper concept goes into why people do things under certain circumstances.
Marx also states that communists should have no need to create their own party, but to become affiliated with those political (even though we plan to abolish the means of "politics") parties that benefit the working class to move society. forward. For example in our eyes human lives are precious, and the needs of humans should always come before the interests of business and money, two imaginary, destructive human creations. Health care is a fundamental human right. But in America, health care is a private business, transforming medicine, a human need, into Capital. Because money must be made, the quality of health care is insufficient and does not reach out to people the way it should. This is because money is not a human need in Capitalism, its capital that must be purchased for the sole result of profit. The ideology of business is a fantasy land we live in that separates us from truly being human. That world is truly the la-la land that creates over production, war, religion, pollution, and poverty all in the process. We sacrifice most of who we are and our planet to accumulate this money, for this money is so important in the eyes of most. But the money isn't real. This is why many psychologists study socialism and label the money as a mentally ill structure. When we believe we see leprechauns tell us to start fires, its schizophrenia. When we allow man made digits be what determines separation in society and children on the street, establishes its overall effect on how we treat each other. Hence the saying, "I'm sorry but its business. Why should I limit my income for those I do not know?"
I am VERY happy you brought this up, for this discussion will bring up many points we should all be aware of. When we say the working class has a growing "power" we do not mean power of greed, for this notion means power of knowledge. Marx's words have a deeper meaning, and reading his other literature will help us comprehend these meanings further. Today, overall, we do not have that much social power. We do not have power over what the government can do, and can not go vote directly on certain measures in legislation. We do not determine the wages, benefits, quality of resources that are currently determined by the opposing class. Knowledge is power, but that of a healthy and constructive one when used in a selfless way. We do not contradict ourselves when we say we are a powerless class and then say we have a growing power. We will always have a growing power as society progresses, because our thinking is always changing as generations carry on. The growing power is powerless in a sense that we do not freely contribute and operate society. However, the sole purpose of the socialist mentality is not to gain power for control, but to eventually have a true democratic run entity, whatever the state we live in may be in the future. We might still be a country then, but how we view concepts today will certainly differ from those then. Eventually the government will cease to exist, but the last stages will include the working class becoming who benefits from the structure of economics because the working class are who makes economics possible. The working class will have thus entered an age of socialism without realizing it, because the state would be controlled by the people, not the government or capitalists. The capitalists will lose all power, and the power we gained will not be power that dominates others for greedy purpose. We will have learned that one class controlling the other never leads to anything positive, for the learning process is how the working class overthrew the Capitalist class in the first place. All of this slow transformation will lead to different citizens overthrowing their own governments in different nations and settling conflicts within their state. This will all occur under socialism. The last fragments of "class" will remain until the concept of nations fall. Because each nation acts as a Capitalist itself, looking to benefit profit and its own interests for itself. This will lead to eventual world communism, a stateless, moneyless, and classless society.
Isn't this more rational definition of socialism far more complex then that of a black and white statement by a bunch of white trash that say Socialism is nothing but people sitting on their ass to collect free checks from your taxes? Sarcasm: Beware, more Mexicans are coming to take your tax dollars! LMAO (maybe they come over here because they are desperate and want to increase their standard of living? Why are Mexicans bad people, and why are the fingers pointed at them In Capitalism? HMMM)
Yes but only a tiny percentage of the poor can reach the middle class. The middle class still is fit into the same class as the poor for the most part. Middle class in Capitalist terms simply means you have more wealth "better job" and have more of a social power. People can not freely move in between poor and wealthy within their own class of laborers. Where do you obtain the belief that Capitalism allows movement between the concept of rich and poor? Because if it were that simplistic the world would not be as fucked up. The concept of middle class is not a true class, but an ideal class within another class.
Can I ask which philosophy helps determine your decision that a healthier economy can be indicated by a larger portion of middle-class wealth? The Middle class is part of the proletariat-class keep in mind. Marx states that the middle class has a different sense of awareness then that of the poor class. And keeping in mind that money is a limited resource, if there are more middle class incomers, then how are the poor (which are the majority) affected? What about the economy on a global scale?
This theory has been proven wrong in numerous ways. The "Poor Can work Their Way up" is not definitive for a solution to the largest of the crises going on in the system.
We never state why communism is more effective because its not a question of being "more effective." We study social patterns using psychological analysis to determine what is more of a rational shape of things to come.
Humans are capable of living in a communal and cooperative society, but we always determine this possibility using the psychological mentalities of people IN THE PRESENT, which is a HUGE flaw people can not seem to escape from based on manipulation from the system.
Bingo. It's not the laborers or citizens that cause the crises in Capitalism, its the Capitalists, then we turn around and blame each-other which is EXACTLY what the pattern has been every time this happens.
and even if you do not agree, you stay within the boundaries of being respectful and you are actually open minded. I am enjoying this conversation with you. Yes Capitalism brought forth many positive changes in society as it gave more power to the majority then feudalism had given. Feudalism lasted a long time, and Capitalism is still relatively new compared to other past structures. Things always become better when society progresses.
The doctors and lawyers are not of a different class then the other laborers, but they are given more social power then the rest of the working class. It's very complex to understand, but you raise very good points we all should take a closer look at. The doctors and lawyers would not carry on the concept of "Social Class" in terms of the means of production and power. Capitalism is many times a game of luck, for money is an insufficient tool invented by humans because it lacks quantity to meet satisfactory standards for society as a whole. For example, (forgetting that nations exist lets pretend we are all one nation) everyone eligible for work around the globe fills out a job application, there will NOT be enough money to employ these people, especially when the value of capital is concentrated so tightly into many things such as homes, computers, name-brand clothes, etc. There will not be enough money to produce clothing, homes, provide food and water, to all citizens. Not even by 15%. THAT is a problem.
Back to your statement about your rational and understandable confusion of classes I will get back to that. Marx notes that many of the working class will compete against its own class in society, this is seen in how Americans vote republican.
The smaller bourgeois is of the working class, but the higher income earners with more accumulated wealth. The semi-bourgeois is an unofficial class within another class I guess you could say. What leads part of the proletariat to be swayed by the biased political party is the greed caused by money. We are taught economics in schools but the knowledge we are taught is always contained with the notion of "leading people on" with terms such as money gives people freedom (in a sense yes because it provides convenience) but does not provide SOCIETY freedom. Money grants imaginary social freedom to one sole person. The ones who make money and have sufficient needs, fail to see many of the concepts of the system. We may know many republicans who have their own reasons for being affiliated with the party, and some are those even without money. This is not meant to offend, but many of the republicans in this nation are filled with ideologies that are based on the south's political perspective overall. The manifesto states that one good thing about organized cities is that people are combined as a type of power, which they can communicate and have a brighter sense of social communication and are freed from the idiocy of rural living. The doctors and lawyers are looked upon as having great status because those jobs pay so much income, and that class is created in our minds because money determines who is "more successful" and who has "done something with their lives." But it is never as simplistic as that! Their is a strong division in the working class, regardless of who makes what. Capitalists and politics use social deregulation to sway the public away from recognizing themselves as the oppressed class as a whole, rather then how we recognize the poor "niggers" "spics" "immigrants" and disabled as the problem. By using the racial slurs I am using an example, I do not believe in these racist notions. The concept of organized religion is used to sway vulnerable people into detesting people within their own class such as homosexuals. We create a belief that these people are going into a magical lake of fire that nobody has ever seen except some eccentric religious cooks that claim they've had a religious experience and how they can prove god is real but never do. The christian concepts may provide positive benefits psychologically to some as it gives some of the citizens a purpose for living, but on a global scale organized religion causes so much chaos but it contributes to keeping Capitalism stay in check. Many wealthy religious folk especially in the states believe wealth is a good thing, and that wealth is a reward and symbol that they are "doing the right thing" or living by god's plan. Apparently, we socialists are labeled as Satan-worshipers, because the religious people always try to scare people into believing that all anti-god peeps are in love with the devil and we wear upside down crosses. We fill the world with homosexual perversions but again, so many concepts of the system are painted black and white.
Marx states the divided class will eventually unite sometime in future history, as the oppressed class containing ourselves will FINALLY recognize that they are an oppressed class. We today are developing a growing intellectualism for we see that here are fucked up aspects of the government. This is the first step in seeing that the government has power over us that we do not, and if they are oppressive, they have manifested ways of ridiculing us if we protest their actions, for we will have committed acts of treason to stop it. Someone recently told me that there are people who fight in numerous wars with the ill belief that they "have a country to defend" even though those wars are caused by the interests of the capitalists. We fight their wars, increase their capital, and are at their mercy for survival. We compete for the pennies they throw at us in skimpy pay checks that are unsatisfactory to meet our fundamental right to a decent standard of living. A decent standard of living is a fundamental right because humans deserve to keep their dignity as human beings. When we let someone starve or die on the street, they have been stripped of their dignity by Capitalism. Yes its people that allow bad things to happen, but the deeper concept goes into why people do things under certain circumstances.
Marx also states that communists should have no need to create their own party, but to become affiliated with those political (even though we plan to abolish the means of "politics") parties that benefit the working class to move society. forward. For example in our eyes human lives are precious, and the needs of humans should always come before the interests of business and money, two imaginary, destructive human creations. Health care is a fundamental human right. But in America, health care is a private business, transforming medicine, a human need, into Capital. Because money must be made, the quality of health care is insufficient and does not reach out to people the way it should. This is because money is not a human need in Capitalism, its capital that must be purchased for the sole result of profit. The ideology of business is a fantasy land we live in that separates us from truly being human. That world is truly the la-la land that creates over production, war, religion, pollution, and poverty all in the process. We sacrifice most of who we are and our planet to accumulate this money, for this money is so important in the eyes of most. But the money isn't real. This is why many psychologists study socialism and label the money as a mentally ill structure. When we believe we see leprechauns tell us to start fires, its schizophrenia. When we allow man made digits be what determines separation in society and children on the street, establishes its overall effect on how we treat each other. Hence the saying, "I'm sorry but its business. Why should I limit my income for those I do not know?"
I am VERY happy you brought this up, for this discussion will bring up many points we should all be aware of. When we say the working class has a growing "power" we do not mean power of greed, for this notion means power of knowledge. Marx's words have a deeper meaning, and reading his other literature will help us comprehend these meanings further. Today, overall, we do not have that much social power. We do not have power over what the government can do, and can not go vote directly on certain measures in legislation. We do not determine the wages, benefits, quality of resources that are currently determined by the opposing class. Knowledge is power, but that of a healthy and constructive one when used in a selfless way. We do not contradict ourselves when we say we are a powerless class and then say we have a growing power. We will always have a growing power as society progresses, because our thinking is always changing as generations carry on. The growing power is powerless in a sense that we do not freely contribute and operate society. However, the sole purpose of the socialist mentality is not to gain power for control, but to eventually have a true democratic run entity, whatever the state we live in may be in the future. We might still be a country then, but how we view concepts today will certainly differ from those then. Eventually the government will cease to exist, but the last stages will include the working class becoming who benefits from the structure of economics because the working class are who makes economics possible. The working class will have thus entered an age of socialism without realizing it, because the state would be controlled by the people, not the government or capitalists. The capitalists will lose all power, and the power we gained will not be power that dominates others for greedy purpose. We will have learned that one class controlling the other never leads to anything positive, for the learning process is how the working class overthrew the Capitalist class in the first place. All of this slow transformation will lead to different citizens overthrowing their own governments in different nations and settling conflicts within their state. This will all occur under socialism. The last fragments of "class" will remain until the concept of nations fall. Because each nation acts as a Capitalist itself, looking to benefit profit and its own interests for itself. This will lead to eventual world communism, a stateless, moneyless, and classless society.
Isn't this more rational definition of socialism far more complex then that of a black and white statement by a bunch of white trash that say Socialism is nothing but people sitting on their ass to collect free checks from your taxes? Sarcasm: Beware, more Mexicans are coming to take your tax dollars! LMAO (maybe they come over here because they are desperate and want to increase their standard of living? Why are Mexicans bad people, and why are the fingers pointed at them In Capitalism? HMMM)
Yes but only a tiny percentage of the poor can reach the middle class. The middle class still is fit into the same class as the poor for the most part. Middle class in Capitalist terms simply means you have more wealth "better job" and have more of a social power. People can not freely move in between poor and wealthy within their own class of laborers. Where do you obtain the belief that Capitalism allows movement between the concept of rich and poor? Because if it were that simplistic the world would not be as fucked up. The concept of middle class is not a true class, but an ideal class within another class.
Can I ask which philosophy helps determine your decision that a healthier economy can be indicated by a larger portion of middle-class wealth? The Middle class is part of the proletariat-class keep in mind. Marx states that the middle class has a different sense of awareness then that of the poor class. And keeping in mind that money is a limited resource, if there are more middle class incomers, then how are the poor (which are the majority) affected? What about the economy on a global scale?
This theory has been proven wrong in numerous ways. The "Poor Can work Their Way up" is not definitive for a solution to the largest of the crises going on in the system.
We never state why communism is more effective because its not a question of being "more effective." We study social patterns using psychological analysis to determine what is more of a rational shape of things to come.
Humans are capable of living in a communal and cooperative society, but we always determine this possibility using the psychological mentalities of people IN THE PRESENT, which is a HUGE flaw people can not seem to escape from based on manipulation from the system.
Bingo. It's not the laborers or citizens that cause the crises in Capitalism, its the Capitalists, then we turn around and blame each-other which is EXACTLY what the pattern has been every time this happens.
-- "capital-free noble libertarianism"... for a good description of which, please read James Hogan's Voyage from Yesteryear, but of which I'll venture a brief description: a society where meeting material needs no longer requires human labor, nor any form of money, because technology handles those apart from dependence on human management, and thus labor becomes an activity engaged in for its own merits, and status comes from doing well, not accumulating goods.
