نقل قول:این استدلال که "مارکسیست ها فکر میکنن آدما توی جامعه سوسیالیستی آدم میشن، بنابراین مارکسیست ها معتقدند آدمها الان آدم نیستن"! نمیدانم از کجا آمده. ولی میدانم مارکس کمی باهوش تر از این بوده که همچین حرفی بزنه.

نقل قول: در واقع اون میگه که توی سوسیالیسم انسانیت انسان ها به منصه ظهور میرسه،
مثلا دیگه تقسیم کار و تخصص کاری و ساعات بالای کار انسانها رو محدود نمیکنه و خلاقیت اونا رو منکوب نمیکنه، این یعنی انسانها توی سوسیالیسم آزاد هستن، و آدما وقتی آزاد باشن میتونن استعداداشونو شکوفا کنن و تواناییهاشون رو نشون بدن، و از همه مهم تر اخلاقی بودن هم با آزاد بودن رابطه مستقیم داره، بدون آزادی و قدرت انتخاب و تصمیم گیری، اخلاقی بودن معنی ای نداره.

نقل قول:Marx's theory of history attempts to describe the way in which humans change their environments and (in dialectical relation) their environments change them as well. That is:

Not only do the objective conditions change in the act of reproduction, e.g. the village becomes a town, the wilderness a cleared field etc., but the producers change, too, in that they bring out new qualities in themselves, develop themselves in production, transform themselves, develop new powers and ideas, new modes of intercourse, new needs and new language

نقل قول:Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that humans tend to have naturally, i.e. independently of the influence of culture.

نقل قول: پس باز هم میبینید که تبلیغات بهره کشان بر ضد مارکسیسم عوامانه و سطحی هست.
چسباندن مارکسیسم به مذهب هم، صرفا به خاطر اینکه هر دو آینده ای را برای جوامع انسانی پیش بینی میکنن قیاس مع الفارق است، مذهب دلیلی برای این مدعایش ارائه نمی کند و صرفا یک وعده توخالی میدهد، ولی مارکس، به عنوان یک دانشمند، با عمری تحقیق در تاریخ جوامع انسانی و شیوه تولید سرمایه داری و با تئوری پردازی چنین پیش بینی ای میکنه،

نقل قول: Karl Popper has argued that both the concept of Marx's historical method as well as its application are unfalsifiable, and thus it cannot be proven true or false:

The Marxist theory of history, in spite of the serious efforts of some of its founders and followers, ultimately adopted this soothsaying practice. In some of its earlier formulations (for example in Marx's analysis of the character of the 'coming social revolution') their predictions were testable, and in fact falsified. Yet instead of accepting the refutations the followers of Marx re-interpreted both the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree. In this way they rescued the theory from refutation; but they did so at the price of adopting a device which made it irrefutable. They thus gave a 'conventionalist twist' to the theory; and by this stratagem they destroyed its much advertised claim to scientific status.[19]

نقل قول:مشخص است که اگر گروهی در جامعه بخواهد دزدی قانونی شود، و برای تحقق این وضعیت تحرکات عملی نشان دهد، سرکوب خواهد شد. دموکراسی کافی نیست، دموکراسی به علاوه قوانین مبتنی بر حقوق بشر (حقوق بشر 31 ماده ای که مضمون یک ماده آن این است: "هیچ انسانی حق ندارد از انسان دیگری بهره کشی کند") است که مطلوب ماست.

نقل قول:کمون پاریس هم یک نمونه خوب و موفق حکومت سوسیالیستی است که باز بهره کشان، که همیشه وقتی منافع خود را در خطر ببینند ابایی از کاربرد زور و اسلحه و بمب ندارند، اجازه دوام آن را ندادند.

نقل قول:the separation of church and state;
the remission of rents owed for the entire period of the siege (during which, payment had been suspended);
the abolition of night work in the hundreds of Paris bakeries;
the granting of pensions to the unmarried companions and children of National Guards killed on active service;
the free return, by the city pawnshops, of all workmen's tools and household items valued up to 20 francs, pledged during the siege; the Commune was concerned that skilled workers had been forced to pawn their tools during the war;
the postponement of commercial debt obligations, and the abolition of interest on the debts; and
the right of employees to take over and run an enterprise if it were deserted by its owner; the Commune, nonetheless, recognized the previous owner's right to compensation

نقل قول:Other assessments of the Commune's reign were highly critical. The approbation of Marx, Engels, and other communists/socialists/anarchists stands in sharp contrast to the disapprobation of the American Ambassador to France at the time. American Ambassador and eyewitness Elihu Washburne, writing in his personal diary which is quoted at length in noted historian David McCullough's book, The Greater Journey (Simon & Schuster 2011), described the Communards as "brigands", "assassins", and "scoundrels"; "I have no time now to express my detestation.... [T]hey threaten to destroy Paris and bury everybody in its ruins before they will surrender." Ultimately, the fighting resulted in the burning by the Communards of the Tuileries Palace, the Library of the Louvre, the Hôtel de Ville, Palais de Justice, Prefecture of Police, Palais Royal, and many houses. Fires were also started in Notre Dame, but were extinguished before it could be destroyed. The sewers from the Hotel de Ville to the Banque de France had also been mined. Edwin Child, a young Londoner working in Paris, noted that "the women behaved like tigresses, throwing petroleum everywhere and distinguishing themselves by the fury with which they fought" [eye-witness accounts quoted in 'Paris under Siege' by Joanna Richardson (see bibliography)]. Washburne unsuccessfully sought to save the archbishop of Paris, Monseigneur Georges Darboy, and many priests, from massacre by the Communards. Washburne wrote that the Commune was guilty of "unparalleled atrocities", followed by "awful vengeances" as the government troops retook Paris.