: : : : Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Fassbinder. How can a smart person be so thick?
: SDF: Never mind the "Stalin" namecalling, have you any instance where I've ever endorsed anything by Ulyanov?
: : : SDF: Maybe it's because you're too chickenshit to challenge a SINGLE ONE of my points...
: : Considering how well that has been done by people far more knowledgeable about the subject, many even had had personal experience w/ your fantasies, it'd be a waste of time on my part.
: SDF: But Norman, all you are doing is wasting time here! All you do here is piss people off, and push them further to the left in their antagonism to your infantile comments. And since you can't cite any of these "people far more knowledgeable about the subject," much less NAME them.... Keep posting, Norman, we will have the revolution in full gear in no time, thanks to you...
: : You can't even accept that 'surplus value' is idiocy defined. Your a joke to be taken as one. A smart joke, but a joke nevertheless.
: SDF: This isn't even CLOSE to an argument. Go back to the top of this thread, and try again.
I've made many legitimate references in past threads refuting the emptiness of Marx and each time that was met w/ derogatory 'rebuttals'. Check out what the 'Black Book of Communism' got me. See what the response was to 'Leftism Revisited'. Same w/ my contributions from Von Mises' book. Want me to give you Thomas Sowells analysis of Marx?
Take your own example; not a word about the effort of the person who started the widget company and his risk. Not a word about trade unions that are in the workers corner. Not a word about how the excess value of the widget's worth is arrived at. Simply a string of assertions that are used to justify stealing one man's property in order to give it to another. It's intellectual baby talk.
About my pushing the Leftists further to the left until their forced into violence; their history indicates they don't need my help and in fact it is Marx himself who encourages violence. Or did you forget that part?