Over the holidays they released a couple of newly colorized episodes. Very awesome watching it.

I've been making my way through watching every episode again (I watched them all many times growing up). I'm on season 4 episode 28 where they're in Los Angeles and meet Harpo Marx. "Bend. Knee. Feet."

"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member." - Groucho Marx

Love The Marx Brothers...love Chico playing the piano. I remember as a kid whenever we came across a Marx Brothers movie while changing channels I always hoped that we hadn't missed the piano playing scene.

And @newtboy I agree with John Stewart and many others such as Karl Marx and people who know what they are talking about. We are consumerists, we fall for the bullshit TV ads, otherwise they would not be a billion dollar industry. We place our desktops and laptops and IPhones well above other considerations. We, and I mean Americans in case you obviously did not know I was talking about my own peeps, are consumerists.

Marx noted the bourgeoisie use these kind of trappings to placate the masses. He noted that for a reason that holds true even to this day.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Capitalism has always, and and will always be and oh, Marx was one of the most egregious of capitalists and a complete piece of shit in pulling that off, to the disgust of his friends, family, and allies. Watched till 9:14, couldn't stand another second of this sad-sack's cretinous musings.

This is not a dupe. This is better with sound!
So many people are so well dressed! Market St has gone down since then.
I didn't count one homeless panhandler. Did you? I also didn't see any cops!

I wonder why this is... I wonder why there seems to be little in the way of street laws (or any regulation at all for that matter), and yet, there seems to be a seamless form of voluntary exchange through the video. A give and a take. And even without such regulation, there is that amazing road there. I wonder how they built it without the government. Hmm. puzzling.

Without government regulation, why aren't they shooting each other?

This must be a fake film.

No Federal Reserve, no income tax, no DMV, no gun control, no department of education, no DEA, no permits for everything, no fines (for riding on the back of a truck). What savages!

Like Marx said, way too prosperous!

(But of course, it's not a fake film.)

But...who built that road?

This votes for Slovenian Nationalism and a probie losing a 'P'
A hit in Slovenia with 26,900+ views, Hegel and Marx would be impressed if indeed the essence of mind is freedom.

We can afford to be the way we are because we exploited (still do) the fuck out of third world nations. Exploited = people's lives and suffering. At best we can all claim ignorance for our economic drunk driving homicide but the point is moot.

The greater point is; put us through a real recession and see where this humanity lies. No, not this fake crap we went through to enrich the rich with unemployment and trading. I mean where people can't buy food or gas. Where government programs don't exist. I mean where children are massively starving in the street.

I am highly disenchanted that this is the best we have come to because we can afford it. Some sorry shit we have created with billions in abundance. I believe in Marx's ideas of capitalism exploitation (Though hold no faith in his communist beliefs,) Webber's views on logical thoughts for the dollar and how it will fuck us over, and Carlin's views on how shitty we are--at our greatest pinnacle.

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.

Marx definitely had some good ideas... but was very wrong about how humans will use and abuse them... We are horrible to each other as a collective group...

Yeah there's tons of very intelligent people throughout history who were wrong about tons of stuff, but were still prolific and jumped forward thought and disciplines further than others before them.

Marx is a very intelligent person and you're stupid to ignore people like him outright.

But Marx failed to see how adaptive capitalism could be. That said, he did write before capitalism had even fully emerged.

Holy fuck... This guy makes me want to stop being an atheist. Was it Groucho Marx who said he didn't want to belong to any club which would have him as a member?
I don't want to be part of the group that guy is in.

The jab at Ted Cruz re:Marx Brothers is hilarious.