Reaction Poll

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Minibit, Jan 20, 2016.


How did you feel about the statement below before and after you knew where it was from?

  1. Heck yeah! (before)

    7 vote(s)
  2. Still heck yeah! (after)

    5 vote(s)
  3. Not sure I agree (before)

    8 vote(s)
  4. Not sure I agree (after)

    7 vote(s)
  5. This is wrong / off-base (before)

    2 vote(s)
  6. This is wrong / off-base (after)

    3 vote(s)
Multiple votes are allowed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. “Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!”
    it's from (open)

    The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels. Well, sort of; it's a popularized summary of the first bit, not a verbatim quote.

    For those who did not recognize it, do you feel differently about your initial response knowing what it's (adapted) from?


    I felt this way about the big text statement:
    My opinion changed/didn't change after I found out where it was from:
    My thoughts on why it changed/didn't change:

    Remember, this isn't a debate. it's barely a discussion. it's just a poll of individual reactions.
  2. I felt this way about the big text statement: Circumstantial, not inherently right or wrong.

    My opinion changed/didn't change after I found out where it was from: Honestly it depends on the circumstances. Like telling people that in North Korea? Most definitely, over here in America? It ain't nearly that bad.

    My thoughts on why it changed/didn't change: Like said, depends on location.
    #2 Gwazi Magnum, Jan 20, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
    • Thank Thank x 1
  3. I knew who said that quote before hand, but I forgot to pick multiple choice. Would have been the same answer.

    Long story short, history didn't exactly prove him right and his ideals were twisted into some of the most oppressive regimes in the world. The workers lost a lot more than chains, that's for sure.
    • Thank Thank x 2
  4. It's a good sentiment from a flawed idea.
    I already knew where it was from, and thus my opinion did not change much from the reveal. It should also be noted that, even if I discovered the source, my opinion may not have changed anyway. No matter how horrendous the source, even a broken clock can strike right twice a day.
    Because I already knew where it came from. I'm a socialist, and unlike a bunch of hipster twats who put on a Che Guevera shirt unironically, I'm a socialist from having actually read some of this shit. Though, I suppose "socialist" comes with about a dozen caveats, because I try not to associate too heavily with any particular ideology, lest it blind me.
    • Thank Thank x 1
  5. I should probably clarify that I'm looking at the quote strictly as the sentence itself.
    I'm not attaching the communism philosophy with it.
    • Thank Thank x 1
  6. I felt this way about the big text statement:
    It's a decent theory, but purely circumstantial

    My opinion changed/didn't change after I found out where it was from:

    Finding out where it came from showed that it had been put into practice. The results of that practice weren't overly favorable.

    My thoughts on why it changed/didn't change:

    Communism is great in theory, but rarely works. I had heard the quote before, but had forgotten where it came from. It's purely a circumstantial thing and like most things it doesn't fair well on a large scale.
    • Thank Thank x 1
  7. I felt this way about the big text statement:
    I'm not educated enough on the subject to know if I agree.

    My opinion changed/didn't change after I found out where it was from:

    Still the same. Perhaps even moreso now.

    My thoughts on why it changed/didn't change:

    Because I am not educated on the subject.
  8. @Brovo took most of my answer and I'm too lazy to fill in the blanks.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. I knew it was something from Communism. Probably read it with a hammer and sickle styled red e-card thing.

    Otherwise, it doesn't sound so bad. But it's probably way more profound and deep than what I'm putting on it by taking it at face value.

  11. tl;dr: It's a call to arms that the proletariat should rise up to break their chains from the economic system that creates the bourgeois. That while the bourgeois have all the money, they'll always be dependent on a proletariat that allows this to continue.

    As a socialist, I agree with the sentiment... In the form of unions, civil rights, democracy and the enabling thereof, social programs targeted at the poor and those in the lowest income tax brackets, sweeping federal programs that improve the livelihoods of all, collective ownership of the social machines that produce currency, et cetera. Where I disagree with Karl Marx's Manifesto is that he requires a revolution be fought that essentially decapitates the head of society and throws it in a bloody heap through violent revolution. The next step thereafter is the institution of a dictatorship run by a few who would eliminate all remaining private enterprise, and then dissolve to create a society where everything that exists is owned by all who live within it. Ergo the word: "Communism." Literally "communal ownership of all by all for the benefit of all." It's a nice sentiment, and a great idea, until you put people into the picture.

    And then you get millions of dead Ukrainians and a madman tyrant who murders his own son in the name of an ideology that he warped to give himself absolute power.

    So the significance of the quote is that it's a call to literally overthrow the business class and the rich at any cost. Including human life. "You have nothing to lose but your chains" implies the assumed fact that the proletariat have nothing, and so there's nowhere to go but up. It was written in a different time than we live in now. It compares the proletariat to serfs working the fields of rich nobles in the medieval era. That's what it means.

    So next time a hobo stabs you for change, he's breaking free of his chains by ripping you down and taking what you have. :ferret:
    Funny, a white man wrote the book.
    • Thank Thank x 1
  12. What you talking about? Bloody revolt is only revolt.

    As much as a Socialist I also am, going violent about it and expecting humans to be... well not human is foolish.

    I'd only support peaceful protest (exception being if you're dealing with some Aushwitz level shit. But even then just defend yourself. Don't actively kill/hunt anyone).
    That and I'm Socialist in a "A Governments Job is to support the people's needs, so that they are free to pursue their lives without worrying about survival or affording education", not for a Government to forcefully make everyone on the same class level and wealth status.
    • Like Like x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.