Quote of Marx predicting nationalizations hoaxing Wall St

[azul]

"The owners of capital will stimulate the need of the working class to take expensive, collateral loans to buy their houses and technological products; and, at the end, these unpaid debts will result in the nationalization of the banks upon their bankrupcy, and so the state will be on the pathway to communism,"




This was read to me from some Wall St blog. The quote was being passed around and discussed. And when I tried to find it, I found someone had tracked it down to here:






Americans to Undergo Preschool Reeducation in Advance of Country’s Conversion to Communism

In the wake of the cataclysmic failure of free market capitalism and the nationalization of the country’s banks, Americans over the age of seven will be forced to complete a reeducation program designed to re-instill lessons learned in preschool that have been deemed essential to functioning in a communist society by the federal government.

“Kids learn a lot about things like sharing and playing fair during their pre-school and kindergarten years that are gradually forgotten as such values simply aren’t congruous with the everyday world of a capitalist society, but will become of paramount importance once again as the United States transitions to communism,” remarked Pat Caufield of the Department of Education.

~snip~

Citing Karl Marx, who presaged: "The owners of capital will stimulate the need of the working class to take expensive, collateral loans to buy their condos, houses and technological products; and, at the end, these unpaid debts will result in the nationalization of the banks upon their bankrupcy, and so the state will be on the pathway to communism," Caufield emphasized the exigency of reestablishing preschool values in all post-adolescent Americans.

http://www.newsmutiny.com/pages/Communist_Reeducation.html



What, communism equals some sort of fearful borg collective? Or maybe repeating this quote often enough will make it somehow not so false or silly?

[ConcernedCanuk]

1. Actually - I believe that pure communism is good - think "commune"

.
.
.

We've been trained to think it is evil,

but a commune style of life means "sharing"

yeah

like equally

not Billionaires tryna tell people how to live off welfare. .

[bperci108]

3. Not evil, just unworkable.

I gotta agree with Thom Hartmann, Communism works great if it's a population of about 150 or less (around the limit of personal associations).

Bigger than that, it's impossible.

Socialism, on the other hand..... :evilgrin:


And this is coming from an avowed Marxist (me). ;)

[napoleon_in_rags]

7. I always mix up the images of Darwin and Marx...

But I was thinking about this today. I think Marxist spirit really does come down to a LOVE for the people. If you can have that, you can make it work. The tricky part is loving people as they are, not as they "should be". And part of what people are includes haording, religiosity, all kinds of things that are outside of the traditional communist model. But good things evolve, the change with time. And I believe, that if they are willing to accept human frailty, marxist ideals could manifest positively.

[ngant17]

9. 1 billion people in China seem to have a version of communism working

rather well. But technically, it is not the pure communism as you might envision it. For example, look on the Chinese red flag, there are 5 stars. They stand for the united front Mao and associates created. The big star is the Communist Party of China. The four smaller stars stand for the four pillars of the united front: the industrial working class, the poor and middle farmers, the petit bourgeoisie, the patriotic national capitalists.

So theirs is not a true classless society but they have found a combination which nonetheless aims toward the classic Marxist-Leninist ideal of communism.

Probably the same thing is happening in Vietnam today.

Similar trends toward modern communism can be found in Cuba, too.

Social welfare such as social security is also a form and function of socialism and communism. America is moving in that direction, thank goodness.

[anonymous171]

14. Communism can work if the state stays within its means.

Compare Cuba with the late Soviet Union (I know they weren't really Communist but that in and of itself says something.) Unlike Capitalism, Communism does not work well with massive imperialist ventures.

[bperci108]

16. I have to partially disagree.

I think China is far more a fascist state (classically defined as government and wealthy business elite completely intertwined combined with a strong militarist/nationalist streak, i.e. "corporatism" as Mussolini called it) than communist.

I always thought that Bush/Cheney and the rest of the elite Ruling Class secretly looked upon China with a strong sense of envy. A tiny, wealthy ruling elite and a nation of slaves; why...It's a Republicans wet-dream! :puke:


Vietnam is another story, they seem to have done a better job of it. I have to confess, I know only a little of modern VN, but I've been looking into it.

[knowbody0]

6. I was nearly expelled for my report on Marxism

in my junior year of High school. Communism was WAY worse even than satan.

[bperci108]

17. See my sig line.....

;)

[knowbody0]

21. amen

[ConsAreLiars]

2. The sheeples are really so stupid as to believe that Marx wrote about "condos" ????

Well, yes, I guess some are, but certainly those who manipulate them believe most of them are.

[azul]

4. The condos part was left out of the quote

so that it sounds nearly authentic.

[corruptmewithpower]

5. The quote is bogus.

I don't think condos were a factor in Marx's vocabulary. However, communism really was a fearful borglike collective in some ways.
Anyone who has a nostalgic view of totalitarianism is nuts. Think social justice. Unlimited power is not the answer.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

[IMPERIUM V]

10. great article dude

I've been looking for answers high and low. guess unlimited power isn't one of the answers. thanks for clearing that up.

[bperci108]

18. Check your definitions.

Marx (and other thinkers of the same vein) did not advocate "totalitarianism" nor "unlimited power".

Capitalism inevitably leads to fascism. There's no other possible destination.

OTOH...

Socialism/Communism HAS to be democratic, or it CANNOT work.


Conflating Marxism automatically with totalitarianism is Righty-think. ;)

[ngant17]

8. Sounds vaguely Marxist and cute, but this is probably a bogus quote

and there are quite a few of them floating around, such as "a capitalist will sell the rope to hang himself". Neither Marx, Lenin or Stalin even made that statement above, and no one has ever quoted directly from a bona fide source, it appears to originate from John Birchite circles.

Virtually all of Marx's writings are in the public domain, so without specifying the source of quote, i.e. Das Capital, I would have to assume it's another fraud and attempt to slander him, which are very numerous.

[azul]

11. It is a bogus quote. Should have made it more clear

that the source was an onion-like joker.

The point is that it is running around in financial circles getting traction and they don't know it is bogus. How smart are these money-mad yahoos?

[anonymous171]

12. Communism will always lead to some sort of authoritarian/totalitarian state.

Socialism is superior.

[blindpig]

15. How do you differentiate?

Just curious.

[bperci108]

20. At the risk of a gross over-simplification...

Communism: State control of all means of production, state management of all economic activity and every input and all property held in common.

Socialism: Private, (Working Class) democratic, control of the means of production on a local level (think: anarcho-syndicalism), with a democratic management of inputs and economic matters.

I probably mucked that up hideously, but I've been up for far, far too long to think completely coherently. :hangover:

Anyone want to help?

[bperci108]

19. A big atheist "Amen"...

I have to agree. Large populations lack the face-to-face interaction that a pure Communistic arraignment requires. Like I said above (echoing Hartmann), if it's a group bigger than about 150 persons, it won't work. Anonymity allows some to "misbehave" where in a small group, peer-pressure naturally keeps the slackers and the greedy in line.

On a desert island, in a commune or on a Kibbutz, it works...on a national scale, no.


:hi:

[anonymous171]

22. Thanks!

:hi:

[Odin2005]

13. It's a bogus quote but based on a real one from Das Kapital.

Something about the crashes of economic bubbles leading to the nationalization of the banks.