Wikipedia is Marxist Propaganda, Dismissed on Sight

[Truck Fump / h1b]

In Wikipedia's entry on capitalism:


You are absolutely correct. This is Marxism under the entry of 'Capitalism'.

central banks are actually specified in the communist manifesto as top goal for communists.

they fully understand the value of controlling the money supply, and deciding who gets it.


given how central banks have taken over all of money creation and use this power to it's fullest, it's nearly questionable that we live in a "Free trade" system.

and also for consideration.....

Is free trade the same as capitalism?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

yes. the commies are on wallstreet.

 

[IBDaMann]

Yet Wikipedia is widely accepted as an authoritative source and has become the most used general information source in the country;

Wrong wording. You should have written:

"Yet Wikipedia is widely misunderstood to be an authoritative source, and has thus become the most cited disinformation source anywhere; "

If it's "leftist disinformation" why is griping such as yours the only antidote from the Right.

Why do you mischaracterize observations as "griping"? Is it because you are a standard, uneducated leftist who doesn't understand the meanings of the words he uses, or is it just more deliberate, leftist disinformation on your part?

Where is your corrective "authoritative source", giving the world the true information it very much needs and cure this Marxist infection?

That's the service I provide. It's how you and I differ diametrically.

 

[Into the Night]

Yet Wikipedia is widely accepted as an authoritative source

False authority fallacy.

and has become the most used general information source in the country;

Blatant lie.

it is used across the world. If it's "leftist disinformation"

It is leftist disinformation.

why is griping such as yours the only antidote from the Right.

He is not griping. He is alerting people to the the dangers of using Wikipedia as a source and why he doesn't accept it as a source.

Where is your corrective "authoritative source", giving the world the true information it very much needs and cure this Marxist infection?

Theories of science. Mathematics. The content of the Constitution of the United States. The meanings of words.

The answer must be what is widely suspected: that the Right has no answer because the Right is full of know nothings.

I just answered. Do not ask again.

 

[Into the Night]

w

What's indirect economic planning do you suppose?

Socialism.

 

[IBDaMann]

central banks are actually specified in the communist manifesto as top goal for communists.

It's more than that. The government, misnamed "the State", is the central controller of credit, i.e. Utopia has no money, the root of all evil. The Communist manifesto does not allow for any type of capitalist bank dealing in money. The government, in its distribution of all the wealth, determines who gets what, and refers to that process in a convoluted way as "the issuance of credit."

Once again, the Communist Manifesto does not allow for money or capitalism in any way. Any business is to be owned by the employees so that they enjoy the fruits of their labor. But in a Utopian society, the business provides its products and services to the public free of charge, out of a sense of duty to society (i.e. in complete denial of human nature), and "the State" (i.e. actually the government) issues fair credit to those of that business, so that everyone in Utopia feels as though he is receiving the same amount of "the distribution" as everyone else.

There are no central "banks." There is only "the State" which is the government and it controls everything ... in the name of all the people, of course.

they fully understand the value of controlling the money supply, and deciding who gets it.

Nope. They are not interested in controlling any money supply. That's why they outlaw money. They want to simply control everything directly. Once they control everything directly, they control everyone directly.

No money. No banks.

given how central banks have taken over all of money creation and use this power to it's fullest, it's nearly questionable that we live in a "Free trade" system.

This statement of yours broadcasts that macroeconomics is not your strong suit. There are valid economics reasons, bordering on necessity, for having central banks. Your complaint should be about abuses by governments that have central banks, not about the central banks themselves and the protections they afford to free markets.

and also for consideration..... Is free trade the same as capitalism?

"Capitalism" is just a Marxist slur for "sound economics principles" that has become popularized and its meaning lost. So the correct answer to your question is yes, that sound economics principles call for price realization via the supply/demand curve, which is the technical model for a free market and serves as the basis for all economics. It works because it incorporates human nature. Marxists deny human nature, always seek to thwart the supply-demand curve and always seek to destroy free markets, which provide what Marx called "that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation." - Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

 

[Into the Night]

central banks are actually specified in the communist manifesto as top goal for communists.

they fully understand the value of controlling the money supply, and deciding who gets it.


given how central banks have taken over all of money creation and use this power to it's fullest, it's nearly questionable that we live in a "Free trade" system.

and also for consideration.....

This is correct, since this is communism.

Is free trade the same as capitalism?

They are closely related.

Capitalism is the voluntary production of goods an services for voluntary sale at an agree upon price. Yes...the free market is part of that, but the free market can also sell goods and services involuntarily stolen from people (socialism). It is still an agreed upon price.

An example is the cotton trade during the days of slavery. A modern day example is China.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

This is correct, since this is communism.

They are closely related.

Capitalism is the voluntary production of goods an services for voluntary sale at an agree upon price. Yes...the free market is part of that, but the free market can also sell goods and services involuntarily stolen from people (socialism). It is still an agreed upon price.

An example is the cotton trade during the days of slavery. A modern day example is China.

yes. yes there are markets for stolen goods, and slave goods. this is why we actually need laws and morality. and yes, regulation.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

It's more than that. The government, misnamed "the State", is the central controller of credit, i.e. Utopia has no money, the root of all evil. The Communist manifesto does not allow for any type of capitalist bank dealing in money. The government, in its distribution of all the wealth, determines who gets what, and refers to that process in a convoluted way as "the issuance of credit."

Once again, the Communist Manifesto does not allow for money or capitalism in any way. Any business is to be owned by the employees so that they enjoy the fruits of their labor. But in a Utopian society, the business provides its products and services to the public free of charge, out of a sense of duty to society (i.e. in complete denial of human nature), and "the State" (i.e. actually the government) issues fair credit to those of that business, so that everyone in Utopia feels as though he is receiving the same amount of "the distribution" as everyone else.

There are no central "banks." There is only "the State" which is the government and it controls everything ... in the name of all the people, of course.


Nope. They are not interested in controlling any money supply. That's why they outlaw money. They want to simply control everything directly. Once they control everything directly, they control everyone directly.

No money. No banks.


This statement of yours broadcasts that macroeconomics is not your strong suit. There are valid economics reasons, bordering on necessity, for having central banks. Your complaint should be about abuses by governments that have central banks, not about the central banks themselves and the protections they afford to free markets.


"Capitalism" is just a Marxist slur for "sound economics principles" that has become popularized and its meaning lost. So the correct answer to your question is yes, that sound economics principles call for price realization via the supply/demand curve, which is the technical model for a free market and serves as the basis for all economics. It works because it incorporates human nature. Marxists deny human nature, always seek to thwart the supply-demand curve and always seek to destroy free markets, which provide what Marx called "that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation." - Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

well if the government has given its currency control power over to private hands, like in our federal reserve system, it's still totalitarian, but it's just in private hands.


here your are shilling for corporations again.


privatization at all costs and despite corporations not being morally superior to state actors is a bad idea.

 

[IBDaMann]

In Wikipedia's entry on capitalism:

In free market and laissez-faire forms of capitalism, markets are used most extensively with minimal or no regulation over the pricing mechanism. In mixed economies, which are almost universal today,[106] markets continue to play a dominant role, but they are regulated to some extent by the state in order to correct market failures, promote social welfare, conserve natural resources, fund defense and public safety or other rationale. In state capitalist systems, markets are relied upon the least, with the state relying heavily on state-owned enterprises or indirect economic planning to accumulate capital.

You are absolutely correct. This is Marxism under the entry of 'Capitalism'.

Good catch! I hadn't thought to look up "capitalism." It is, after all, a Marxist slur for "economics." You can't destroy the global economy by helping economies to flourish.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Socialism.

no. what indirect about it?

 

[martin]

Wrong wording. You should have written:

"Yet Wikipedia is widely misunderstood to be an authoritative source, and has thus become the most cited disinformation source anywhere; "


Why do you mischaracterize observations as "griping"? Is it because you are a standard, uneducated leftist who doesn't understand the meanings of the words he uses, or is it just more deliberate, leftist disinformation on your part?


That's the service I provide. It's how you and I differ diametrically.

You're an authoritative source? You don't know even the meaning of "Marxist", your favorite word.

Regarding Wikipedia, less than one percent, probably less than one tenth of one percent, of its topics touch on political ideology.

You're lost, and politics isn't your friend to help you find your way.

 

[IBDaMann]

yes. yes there are markets for stolen goods, and slave goods. this is why we actually need laws and morality. and yes, regulation.

This statement of yours broadcasts that you don't have a solid grasp on economics. You can't regulate away a market; you will simply drive it underground into black markets that you cannot control.

There is still slavery in the world, and it is more horrendous now than it was before. There is still human trafficking. When misguided people such as you try to enforce solutions through economic regulation, the market immediately moves out of the controlling regulation. Many well-intentioned but ignorant people have tried to impose "morality" and "legality" onto markets, and every visible positive effect within the sphere of the regulation has an equivalent negative and invisible adjustment outside the sphere of the regulation.

Think of all the "immoral" trade that has been made "illegal" ... and then realize that none of it has gone away (except from view) and that now we have mature cryptocurrency markets to facilitate all such trade and to prevent any future restrictions on those markets.

Yes, society always needs morality and ethics, but that can never be imposed via legislation, and cannot be achieved via financial regulation. All that you will accomplish is to eat away at the economy that sustains the society, i.e. cut off the nose to spite the face.

 

[AProudLefty]

I guess mathematics is Marxist propaganda.

 

[IBDaMann]

You're an authoritative source? You don't know even the meaning of "Marxist", your favorite word.

I'm an authority on the meaning and use of that word. You are in no position to declare that I somehow don't know what I know.

Regarding Wikipedia, less than one percent, probably less than one tenth of one percent, of its topics touch on political ideology.

Let's unpack this:

1. You expect me and others to believe that you have somehow reviewed every wiki and determined said percentage. Good luck with that.
2. All wikis are reviewed by Wikipedia administration to ensure they leverage the most effective disinformation crafted by experts to the maximum extent possible.
3. You opened with your insistence that the world relies on Wikipedia for its disinformation, but now you are pivoting to downplaying the numbers of people so disinformed. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

Your entire statement is dismissed.

 

[IBDaMann]

I guess mathematics is Marxist propaganda.

Why do you guess that? Yes, you often make lots of really weird guesses but this one made me chuckle.

 

[Into the Night]

yes. yes there are markets for stolen goods, and slave goods. this is why we actually need laws and morality. and yes, regulation.

Regulation is not capitalism or free markets.

 

[IBDaMann]

well if the government has given its currency control power over to private hands, like in our federal reserve system, it's still totalitarian, but it's just in private hands.

This is a stupid statement. We the People are the private hands. We are free when we control the maket with our "private hands" by establishing voluntary price realization on the supply-demand curve.

here your are shilling for corporations again.

Once again I am going to recommend you learn some economics. Even a small amount will go a long way.

privatization at all costs and despite corporations not being morally superior to state actors is a bad idea.

This statement says nothing. It's gibberish.

 

[Into the Night]

well if the government has given its currency control power over to private hands, like in our federal reserve system,

It hasn't. Government controls and issues all currency in the United States.

it's still totalitarian, but it's just in private hands.

It is not in private hands. Only the government can issue currency.

here your are shilling for corporations again.

Learn what a shill is. Buzzword fallacy. Government is not corporations. Redefinition fallacy.

privatization at all costs and despite corporations not being morally superior to state actors is a bad idea.

The only 'morals' or any business is serving it's customers. If it fails to serve it's customers, it will soon be out of business UNLESS government props it up for some reason.

 

[martin]

I'm an authority on the meaning and use of that word. You are in no position to declare that I somehow don't know what I know.


Let's unpack this:

1. You expect me and others to believe that you have somehow reviewed every wiki and determined said percentage. Good luck with that.
2. All wikis are reviewed by Wikipedia administration to ensure they leverage the most effective disinformation crafted by experts to the maximum extent possible.
3. You opened with your insistence that the world relies on Wikipedia for its disinformation, but now you are pivoting to downplaying the numbers of people so disinformed. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

Your entire statement is dismissed.

I downplayed nothing. I corrected your assumption that Wiki is a political site. It's like any other encyclopedia in its breadth of topics.