Karl Marx did not advocate for an elite group of wealthy people to control everything. In his fantasy everyone shared everything. Listen to John Lenons song Imagine. That is pure Marxism.

If it becomes necessary to defend your family property and self from these dreamers, it will be wise to start with the organizers and politicians.

So in this dream world of pure and perfect Marxism, who enforces the rules of Marxism without police? What would prevent some perverted capitolist from accumulating a few possessions, or having a steak dinner instead of gruel, without some sort of police force to take it from him?

^^^^ Certainly seems so. Marx was not the first to come up with nationalism as his means to utopia. That's been the history of dynasties since....? Way back when.

But Marx was the first to bring full blown atheism into the nationalist utopia of heaven on earth.
The mid 1800's were an interesting time, a century or more after the Enlightenment thinkers in Europe (John Locke and more) who integrated and attempted to use scientific discoveries to "discover" more about traditional religious faith... to attempt to discover "logical" reasons for the big questions in life. Marx wrote often about his plan for utopia based on the Enlightenment pioneers.... but he proposed: take religion out. That's why Marx admired Darwin, not because these two were friends, (they were competing social "scientists") Marx (and many more) celebrated when Darwin announced that he had discovered how humans came to be human! Marx would then use Darwinism to do what he had proposed all along; give logical reasoning to remove the religious and allow the immediate progression of mans' utopia to move forward. Finally! Man was unshackled from the illogical religious.

Marx: 9 people at his funeral as I have said on Tman before. He was a depressed. lonely, unheralded man in his day.

Fast forward 150 years: The world debates his principle - supreme collective humanism without religious interference - as people die every single day. Are they communist? Are they socialist? Do the socialists kill the communists or is it the other way around?
Who cares the label. That's a social science class.
They are all evil. Period.

Blessings,
Mark

The guy I was talking to is a screaming liberal that wants to defund. I gave him the argument of what would happen if we did defund the Police and how it seems to support the stereotype of libertarianism (more like anarcho-capitalism) The point was these folks don't know what they're asking for.

You forgot the part about him being a racist and drove half of his family to suicide.

In fact, most often Marx - in his ramblings about production, commodities, and the shackles of this, that, and the other was often asked, who would oversee the liberating of the individual within his social philosophy? He didn't have that answer other than usually - back to his rambling about production and commodities and such.
He was not an ardent nationalist, but often admitted someone or something "in society" has to oversee the production of the commodities, and that this oversight must be without prejudice. ?? He musta lived in one room with no windows.

He was probably on something. He's deep (rambling) as he writes about the world as if it's an abstract thing, some fairyland place where rainbows and sugarplums abound. We had to study him in depth a few semesters back, and I swear as I read his thesis on life, I think he was floating around like John Lennon often did.

There was a book just published called The Devil and Karl Marx. Interesting read

My understanding is that his personal and family life was absolutely horrid even by the conditions his day, mainly driven by personal sloth. Poverty, living on the welfare of others. Even his writings were a jumbled mess, it was Engels who supported and financed him and ultimately had to compile Marx's writings into a publishable work after his death.

So is this defunding the police, just cutting the budget of police departments? Around here police unions support Democrat candidates that will increase the police budget and negotiate lucrative pay and benefit increases like all the other public sector unions. Now Republicans do not want to cut government spending? I think Republicans are are the confused socialist.

The unions aren't going to be able to help police departments that no longer exist.

If you'll remember the progressive party started as a splinter party of the Republican party after Teddy failed to get the nomination that gave us Woodrow Wilson(bit of an irony here as he was incapacitated and his wife tried to run him again like Biden today...) It's disturbing in today's politics that because one party says x is bad the other has to say x is good.

The unions help members, not departments. No police department will be abolished.

Police departments won't go anywhere simply because social workers aren't going to defend the politicians when the mobd come for theur houses and they definitely won't be able to do gun confiscation if it ever comes to that point.

Depends on who you ask. Regular dems will say it's reducing the amount of funding and use that funding for preventative social programs with the goal of not needing as much police force because of them. Then..... You have the radical left that totally wants the abolition of the police.

There, I fixed it for you since this is fix it for you whether you like it or not day on Tman!

Sniper, yep. I was just trying to be gentle so some here take it well.

Absolutely??? How so?

Absolutely??? How so? Society is an abstract concept' and individual is a real. concrete entity.

Seems like some people are a little confused. There's a difference between libertarians and Libertarians. Just like there's a difference between republicans and Republicans. And between democrats and Democrats. Punctuation helps.

If you ask me there is no form of government that works. That's why I'm an anarchist by default. I will be the first to concede that anarchy has it's problems as well, but at least one can try to take care of those problems on one's own, rather than trying to solve problems with heavy-handed government interference.