>>17951For thirty years, very little has been published about your sect. A few sentences by the bpb here and there, a dissertation that was very likely written by a sect member, little else.
What they generally had to say boils down to a 'a bunch of fart-sniffers in love with irony and long sentences, who try to lecture everyone, but have been grumpy for five decades, because no one wants to listen'.
I read 2 Gegenstandpunkt-issues in 2005 and 2006. That was a mistake, it would have been enough to read 1. From this experience, I wholeheartedly agree with the general assessment.
By the way, how much of your monthly income do you donate to the gurus? Is MG cheaper than Jehovah's witnesses?
>You canI can, but I and everyone else would lack any incentive to do so. When that realization hits the marxists, we get war-communism, de-kulalization, cleansings, a great leap forward, the cultural revolution...
> simplySimply is a weasel-word. Whenever someone uses it, I translate it to
> I am ignoring problems, likely willfully, possibly in an effort to shift blame.
> produce use value, Goods and services are produced, use value is not derived at the point of production, but at the point of use.
> why go the route of accumulating moneyThe function of money is a) medium of barter b) storage of value
> as the first goalAccumulating money is not a goal at all. The opposite is true: Dead capital must be avoided whenever possible.
Assuming (tall assumption) goods and services are produced, how are they allocated, so deriving use-value would even be possible? Allocation by request trivially devolves into FCFS, so there will be scalping and barter in kind (capitalist black market profiteering! Guess we need stalinism to prevent that!) or planned allocation (history showed us the efficiencies unlocked by planned economies.)
Of course, a Marxist will argue that all goods will be produced in such quantities that there will never be any shortages. No, wrong, barely anything would be produced (no incentive), what would be produced would be of questionable quality, it would be hoarded and misused, i. e. feeding bread rolls to pigs. The misuse would happen even in the absence of shortages and, in itself, cause shortages, because no disincentive in the form of costs would exist to prevent the use of high-value goods where low-value goods would suffice.
> You wantI also eat small children, fried. Muslims and Africans in Germany are not a law of nature. They are brought here by government intervention. The immigration of guest workers was a government program, asylum is a government program. The status quo is a strong state in action.
The government intervention of flying an immigrant back to his country of origin is obviously smaller (thousands of euro) than having an immigrant on welfare for 60 years, paying for his health care, and his jail time, etc. We are talking low five-figures vs. hundreds of thousands, possibly millions. The second intervention (deportation) would be completely unnecessary without the first intervention (attracting immigrants as a government policy.)
Without the government intervening, parts of Germany might even be freed from Muslims and Africans by spontaneous citizen action, without any need for government intervention.
> The MGThe MG is anti-government. In the view of the MG, proletarians (those dense idiots) 'need' (like a fish needs a bicycle) the academicians of the MG to lecture them in Marxist theory. So who aims to be in ideological control of the workers, and thus, the worker's government?
Abstaining from stating your implied intentions or even denying them does not make those intentions nil.