Spindoc -

Also I notice you left out the examples of China and India which I would mostly blame for the cheap labour and oppression there.

As for my accusation that the west is mostly responsible for this oppression by our support of those oppressive markets – I obviously lay most of the responsibility for the oppression on the nations and cultures in which it occurs, however I wanted to press the Left and Right to realise that by the west’s support of those markets we greatly allow them to be. We could have gone to war 50 years ago rather than capitulate and give them our entire manufacturing industries.

Lastly you should refrain from mixing your own assumptions about things with my words which do not mean what you think. For instance you seem to think I said that Marxism is to blame for the oppression when I did never, and as I have said above and elsewhere I explain what I think about the real Marxist ideals and the falsely interpreted ones.

Please try to understand where my points and arguments are coming from and what strategy I use to attempt to communicate my points.

I primarily wish to bring attention to how the Leftists are frauds nd that they selfishly HOG the social position that is labelled "good and moral guys" when in fact [as I want to reveal thru my style of attack] they are vile and immoral, selfish people that are not serious about universal equality or rights YET they hog and occupy the forums that such things can be sprung from.

I realize that as everyone basically misunderstands ideas and thinks in terms of opposites, BUT I go above this and get to actual heart and premises of both right and left ideas and note the good and bad in both.

<<you(Paul1405) just googled "Rebuttal Stefan Molyneux" and posted the first video you saw without watching it didn't you?>>

Wrong Jay on two counts I watched the video it only run for about 25 minutes. Yes Jason Unruhe is a communist, so does that automatically excludes him from being correct? Unlike that load you posted which run for 40 minutes from a ultra right winger. Can Molyneux possibly be wrong? Puts himself up as an expert on everything.
Did you watch Moyneux 40 minutes of waffle? Or are you simply a cult member? Even claims to be an expert on Australia.

Paul,
Yes, exactly, Communists lie about everything because their whole world view is based on lies.
Marx was a fraud, he ruthlessly exploited people around him and so do his followers, sexual and financial exploitation of their members is a hallmark of Socialist groups. Remember Jim Jones, as just one example? Every Socialist organisation is a cult which exploits it's members.
There's no such thing as a "Right Winger" so no, no right wing cults, nobody calls themselves "Right Wing", there are no "Right Wing" schools of thought or political organisations, the only practical means of opposing both Capitalism and Socialism is honesty,personal integrity and truth in action.
Marx was a parasite and because of that nobody should take his writing seriously, would you buy a diet book written by a morbidly obese author?

Jay,

Jim Jones...The Peoples Temple...Jonestown Guyana...killed 912 people, 18th November 1978. You hold up Jim Jones as a failed socialist, the bloke was a nutter through and through. Who will you hold up next Charlie Manson! Let me see who I can find from the right to put up as a shining example of a failure, oh yes Adolf Hitler, a very inconvenient fellow for your side of politics. Jim Jones, indeed.
Moving on, your bloke, Molyneux, I found putting up with him for 40 minutes a pain, he is so tedious to listen to, he would turn anyone into a communist, just to pay him back for his ultra boring videos!
I'm not a holder to the concept of "right wing", "left wing" a bit abstract for me, certainly in an Australian political context. I find "conservative" and "progressive" far more of a relevance for the Australian political landscape as it presently exists.
Jay, I have asked this question of you before, without answer, and it has relevance in Australia. Can I have your opinion of one Dr Jim Saleam and his politics, Jim has his own political party The Australia First Party. Jim put himself up as a candidate for election even, How do you see the policies of AF fitting into the Australian environment? Would they be a good choice for the voters?

p/s "sexual and financial exploitation of their members is a hallmark of Socialist groups." Sounds more like the Catholic Church than The Greens

Ok, granted Jim Jones was a sexual deviant who used Marxism to hook people, but what looks worse, the fact that Jones was mad where Robert Mugabe,Pol Pot and Caeucescu were completely sane?
What's Jim Saleam got to do with anything? He's got the same identity crisis as a lot of second generation Lebanese Australians and he's a convicted criminal who lives on centrelink benefits and hangs around with drunks and no hopers.
What are his policies? AF seems to promote a sort of National Bolshevism or National Socialism...or something equally nutty and they're mixed up with those fruit loops who think that Egyptians were the first settlers to arrive here thousands of years ago, why are we even discussing them?
I don't agree with everything Stefan Molyneux says either and much of it I'm not interested in but as the old Russian joke goes "The Soviets were telling the truth about Capitalism but they lied to us about Socialism".
Capitalism isn't an alternative to Socialism, it's the other way around but Marxian Socialism has never been up to the task of making the world a better place.
The fact is that we're already generations beyond the Third Position, that question was settled by 1943, what's the fourth position Paul?
What's beyond capitalism, beyond socialism and beyond fascism?
That's what I'm interested in.

Where did the traditional Marxist pursuit of class
equality disappear to?

Marx wrote in an era when industry was owned and
controlled by individual capitalists, and the bulk
of the population comprised a porrly paid labour
force living in wretched conditions. However changes
in industrial societies since that time have thrown
doubt on Marx's concept of class.

One significant change is in the occupational structure
the middle-class has expanded rapidly, and a variety of
new jobs have emerged that do not seem to fit Marx's
concept. Many middle-class people, for example, work
not for capitalists, but rather for their fellow
citizens, perhaps as teachers, nurses, or civil servants.
Others don't work for anybody; they are self-employed.
Some blue-collar workers too are paid more than some
white-collar professionals. A plumber or a truck-driver
for example may sometimes earn more than an architect
or a high school principal.

Another important change since Marx's time is that most
industry is now run by large corporations, which are
owned by thousands or even hundreds of thousands of stock-
holders but are controlled by salaried managers.
As a result, the ownership and the control of the means of
production are no longer identical. True, corporate
managers and directors typically own stock in the
companies that employ them, but-especially in the case of
large companies - they rarely own a controlling interest.
It may be that a "new class" is appearing, consisting of
well-educated experts whose high social status is based
on knowledge, not ownership. It isn't clear where these
salaried executives, bureaucrats, scientists, and others
fit in Marx's concept of class.

Marx's views, like those of anyone else, were deeply
influenced by his social environment. Marx wrote in
England at a time when a large impoverished working-class
laboured for a handful of wealthy capitalists who owned
the factories and other means of production.
Marx did not forsee many of the changes that later occurred
in industrial societies, such as the growth of a large
middle-class. Marx's concepts today are no longer
relevant to the contemporary scene.