View Poll Results: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

Voters
94. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    38 40.43%
  • No

    56 59.57%
Page 51 of 56 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 555

Thread: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

  1. #501
    Educator SocialDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The beautiful Pacific Northwest
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 04:30 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    922

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Well I own my home, and run a home business from this property. If I did not own this property I would spend the money that I do on it for the improvements that I need, if I had no guarantee of retaining the property through out my life or until I decide to sell it and move or give it to my kids or anyone that I want too. WHy do Socialists insist on telling people like myself that they are not morally allowed to own private property? Who died and made you guys the moral police? Seriously it is a honest question. So you see no necessary purpose for owning private property but I do, what gives you the right to dictate your opinions on me? Cant we just live in a diverse society where the people that want to own private property have that liberty and the people who dont want to own private property retain that liberty as well?

    BTW private property is one of the huge pitfalls that Marx made. Marx had to demoralize owning private property in order for his proposed society to work. Marx also had to demoralize other common concepts of society in order to make his plan work as well. Marx did not apply Occam's razor in his ramblings and tried to assert ridiculous impossible schemes instead of admitting his mistake and starting over. It is such mistakes that crippled Marxism from the beginning and is why as any Communist will tell you that there never has been REAL Communism. There never will be, its a dead ideology because of the huge mistakes with in it.
    You misunderstand. If property were a need, I would support it's distribution, just as I support providing basic needs. But the fact is, property is not needed to live your life, so I don't see a reason for it's distribution. I would assume that most socialists would support the abolition of private property rights in favor of equal or somewhat equal property rights for all.
    Social democrat is no longer an accurate description of my views.

  2. #502
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,047

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat View Post
    You misunderstand. If property were a need, I would support it's distribution, just as I support providing basic needs. But the fact is, property is not needed to live your life, so I don't see a reason for it's distribution. I would assume that most socialists would support the abolition of private property rights in favor of equal or somewhat equal property rights for all.
    Interesting. But most things are not needed to live your life. If I chose I could get by on the bare minimums to survive. Like for example the internet and the devices that I use to access it. I dont need clothes unless its required by weather.

    Who exactly in a socialist society decides what I need to live my life? And if I defy such advice would I be arrested for it? Or just penalized so much that I wont be able to keep what I decided that I need or want? Must I go before a panel of my peers like the neighborhood association and plea with them if I want something? Or are we to stop everything and vote each time a person wants to do something? I want to take a hike so we all vote on it and if we approve I get to go hiking? What if I am capable of manufacturing something that is better than anything that anyone else has? Do we then start producing it so that everyone has one?


    The gist of my questioning is that I have liberties and freedoms that I feel are sacred and unchangeable. Socialism as I understand it and as you keep confirming for me, takes those liberties away. I own my house right now no payments other than property tax and upkeep. I worked my ass off for a great deal of time to acquire this home to shelter my family and myself. I did not need it to be provided to me. What is morally wrong with that? I have asked this of other Socialists and they have always avoided answering which has bolstered my hate of such a system. Why cant I own my home?

  3. #503
    Educator SocialDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The beautiful Pacific Northwest
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 04:30 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    922

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Interesting. But most things are not needed to live your life. If I chose I could get by on the bare minimums to survive. Like for example the internet and the devices that I use to access it. I dont need clothes unless its required by weather.

    Who exactly in a socialist society decides what I need to live my life? And if I defy such advice would I be arrested for it? Or just penalized so much that I wont be able to keep what I decided that I need or want? Must I go before a panel of my peers like the neighborhood association and plea with them if I want something? Or are we to stop everything and vote each time a person wants to do something? I want to take a hike so we all vote on it and if we approve I get to go hiking? What if I am capable of manufacturing something that is better than anything that anyone else has? Do we then start producing it so that everyone has one?


    The gist of my questioning is that I have liberties and freedoms that I feel are sacred and unchangeable. Socialism as I understand it and as you keep confirming for me, takes those liberties away. I own my house right now no payments other than property tax and upkeep. I worked my ass off for a great deal of time to acquire this home to shelter my family and myself. I did not need it to be provided to me. What is morally wrong with that? I have asked this of other Socialists and they have always avoided answering which has bolstered my hate of such a system. Why cant I own my home?
    Well I'm not really a total socialist, albeit I do have socialist leanings, so I can't answer all of these questions. However, I am not saying that because people don't need something, they shouldn't have the ability to obtain it. IMO, if something is needed for survival, such as food or healthcare, the government should provide those things. If it's something that is not needed, such as property or capital, I see no reason for the government to intervene on a large scale. People have the ability to attempt to buy, own, and sell property. Whether or not they are successful in this endeavor is another question.
    Social democrat is no longer an accurate description of my views.

  4. #504
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,047

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat View Post
    Well I'm not really a total socialist, albeit I do have socialist leanings, so I can't answer all of these questions. However, I am not saying that because people don't need something, they shouldn't have the ability to obtain it. IMO, if something is needed for survival, such as food or healthcare, the government should provide those things. If it's something that is not needed, such as property or capital, I see no reason for the government to intervene on a large scale. People have the ability to attempt to buy, own, and sell property. Whether or not they are successful in this endeavor is another question.
    Im not a Socialist at all lol. But I do understand the moral reasoning behind providing the basics of human survival to a population. Healthcare for one is a moral issue and letting people die out of lack money is immoral no matter the circumstances. The moral issue of empty houses and homeless people needs addressing. ANd many other issues that Socialism (in general) at least attempts to address is note worthy. I just dont agree with the methods really. Marx set out to change the way people think about everyday issues but got stuck on what he considered a rational solution. His implementation of his solutions I find intellectually insulting. For the most because of his narrow mindedness, but really because he chose to villonize all that would oppose his ideas. I have talked to many Socialists in my lifetime (mostly in person though) and just about all of them when I disagreed on any point that they made out came the McCarthyism accusations or they assign me to the Rightwing. I always found this odd, so I researched Marx and others involved in Socialism. But it goes back to Marx himself and his creation of a system of thought that makes the believer think that Marx's ideas are better than anyone elses. Its exceptionalism. So in this case its Marxist Exceptionalism. And as anything related to exceptionalism is to be avoided, I tend to avoid the concept altogether based on my individualistic nature.

    The sad part is that Marx created a adversary advantage for those that he wished to undermine. The key concepts of a moral society where no one goes hungry, everyone has shelter and we take care of our own peoples basic needs. Turned into merely a ploy of a ideology locked in battle with the established ideologies. Meanwhile oppositional forces aimed to villionize those key concepts of humanity inherent in every community since written history was started. A rational man would never let anyone suffer to make a budget meet its goals.

    Personally I think that there is a better way. But that way could only be done with the support of everyone in society. Ideological differences are as primitive as tribal conflicts. Not surprising that our primitive instincts are not gone since we have barely gripped the edge of our global cultural crib. Perhaps someday you and I and everyone else can throw away our prides and differences and work together for a greater society. But alas I dont see that happening in my lifetime at least.

  5. #505
    Educator SocialDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The beautiful Pacific Northwest
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 04:30 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    922

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Im not a Socialist at all lol. But I do understand the moral reasoning behind providing the basics of human survival to a population. Healthcare for one is a moral issue and letting people die out of lack money is immoral no matter the circumstances. The moral issue of empty houses and homeless people needs addressing. ANd many other issues that Socialism (in general) at least attempts to address is note worthy. I just dont agree with the methods really. Marx set out to change the way people think about everyday issues but got stuck on what he considered a rational solution. His implementation of his solutions I find intellectually insulting. For the most because of his narrow mindedness, but really because he chose to villonize all that would oppose his ideas. I have talked to many Socialists in my lifetime (mostly in person though) and just about all of them when I disagreed on any point that they made out came the McCarthyism accusations or they assign me to the Rightwing. I always found this odd, so I researched Marx and others involved in Socialism. But it goes back to Marx himself and his creation of a system of thought that makes the believer think that Marx's ideas are better than anyone elses. Its exceptionalism. So in this case its Marxist Exceptionalism. And as anything related to exceptionalism is to be avoided, I tend to avoid the concept altogether based on my individualistic nature.

    The sad part is that Marx created a adversary advantage for those that he wished to undermine. The key concepts of a moral society where no one goes hungry, everyone has shelter and we take care of our own peoples basic needs. Turned into merely a ploy of a ideology locked in battle with the established ideologies. Meanwhile oppositional forces aimed to villionize those key concepts of humanity inherent in every community since written history was started. A rational man would never let anyone suffer to make a budget meet its goals.

    Personally I think that there is a better way. But that way could only be done with the support of everyone in society. Ideological differences are as primitive as tribal conflicts. Not surprising that our primitive instincts are not gone since we have barely gripped the edge of our global cultural crib. Perhaps someday you and I and everyone else can throw away our prides and differences and work together for a greater society. But alas I dont see that happening in my lifetime at least.
    A hypothetical socialist society, or any society for that matter, should always have free speech, the right to vote (or mandatory voting), democracy and/or republicanism, meaning that if the people don't support socialism, socialist policies would not be implemented. I think this is Marx's largest flaw in his solution for capitalism, the dictatorship of the proletariat. If someone is going to disagree with socialism in a socialist society, they should have every right to, just as people currently have the right to disagree with capitalism in today's capitalist society.

    I think that Marxism has issues that nearly all ideologies have: they recognize the issue with the status quo, but the solution is not necessarily a perfect one.
    Social democrat is no longer an accurate description of my views.

  6. #506
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    1. the Manifesto of the Communist party goes to great lengths to whine about Capitalism. Then later Marx writes a volume about Capitalism. Dude theres no conspiracy its ****ing in the history books. Dont deny the obvious dude it does nothing for your arguments. Everyone knows that Das Kapital is in support of Communism for ****s sake. Now you might have an argument if Das Kapital was written prior to the Manifesto.


    2. Marx wanted everyone to accept his philosophies about society. The best population to indoctrinate are the ones that are suffering at the hands of the rich and powerful. So Marx created a philosophy that catered to the part of society that he believed through his writings would rise up and end all that he despised. It is classic social manipulation. Much like rallying a population behind patriotism or religion. Which is something that Marx talked about and knew well. It must of pained him to need to tell the world that religion is a opiate while knowing the he needed the opiate of blind anger to bolster support for his philosophies.

    I am not in a debate with Karl Marx, I am actually typing to a what I suspect is a living being (you).

    3. Let me point out that Marx always talked about unfettered Capitalism. So to his credit unfettered Capitalism is dead. But he failed to note that Capitalism can be regulated. Which is understandable since he couldnt acknowledge something that undermines the Communist Party. You must know that Marx's goal was for Communism to spread right? Why do you think that Marx and Engels wrote the Communist manifesto? The manifesto was for a political party. Political parties do what?


    4. But the biggest folly of Marx is Communism itself. See for Communism to exist in the way that Marx predicted Marx needed Capitalism to exist as unfettered and unregulated. In Marx's time that seemed to be the direction that Capitalism was going. But Capitalism has never actually existed in modern society as a unfettered unregulated economic system. SO in order for anyone to accept Marx's predictions about Capitalism one would need to disconnect from history and replace it with the antiqued meanderings of a dead man that never saw or understood modern society. Its much like Americas forefathers could not fathom the complexities of modern America using their antiqued knowledge that they had while lived so long a go. That isnt to say though that Marx and this countries forefathers didnt get some thing correct in their predictions. Marx makes a lot of sense if we frame Capitalism as being unfettered instead of regulated. Though his predictions of the eventual slide into Socialism and Communism are silly since we could just regulate Capitalism instead. it certainly isnt social science law that Capitalism will take the path that Marx predicted. More like wishful thinking. I mean it is possible that something other than Socialism/Communism could be invented that replaces Capitalism. It was extremely short sighted and biased of Marx to assume that his model could be the only model.

    So in that context I am not a strong supporter of Capitalism because certainly a better economic system could be invented in the future. But Socialism and Communism are poor replacements that are not any better than Capitalism, no reason to go there.
    1. Who gives a ****, I really don't care when the communist manifesto was written, it's simply not that useful for analysis of Capitalism, Kapital is, if you're going to judge whether Marx was right about Capitalism read Kapital and judge him on what he said. I don't care what the motivation was for writing Kapital, I care about whehter it's true or not.

    2. I really could not give less of a **** about ad hominem attacks against a dude who died over 100 years ago .... what I care about is whether the analysis in Kapital (whatever the motivation for writing it was, I don't know I'm not a psychoanalyst and neither are you), is true or not, so far I've seen evidence that the analysis IS true, and you haven't given any arguemnts against it at all.

    3. Did he talk about unfettered Capitalism? Where? Where in Kapital did he? BTW in Kapital he assumed unregulated Capitalism, because anyone that analysis capitalism theoreticall must do so, because regulations can come and go, but the point is to analyse it at the core. (also he DID aknowledge that Capitalism can be regulated).

    4. What the hell are you talking about? So is Your argument that Marx was wrong about about Capitalism because he didn't think of regulations? Are you ****ting me? The point is he WAS right based on the fact that Capitalism DOES need regulations constantly and constant state boosting to exist, and Guess what, Marx's system successfully predicted ever growing Bubbles and crashes, financialization of the economy, a declining rate of profit in the productive industries and growing and growing inequality .... can those Things be mediated by regulations? Sure, but that doesn't disprove Marx's analysis.

  7. #507
    Lean Mean Meme Machine
    Jesse Booth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    https://www.debatepolitics.com
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 10:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,761

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?



    I always felt like Karl took trolling too far.
    Quote Originally Posted by truthatallcost View Post
    Pepe Booth strikes again.

  8. #508
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,047

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    1. Who gives a ****, I really don't care when the communist manifesto was written, it's simply not that useful for analysis of Capitalism, Kapital is, if you're going to judge whether Marx was right about Capitalism read Kapital and judge him on what he said. I don't care what the motivation was for writing Kapital, I care about whehter it's true or not.
    Well I wasnt using the Communist Manifesto analyse Capitalism.

    2. I really could not give less of a **** about ad hominem attacks against a dude who died over 100 years ago .... what I care about is whether the analysis in Kapital (whatever the motivation for writing it was, I don't know I'm not a psychoanalyst and neither are you), is true or not, so far I've seen evidence that the analysis IS true, and you haven't given any arguemnts against it at all.
    That would be your opinion.

    3. Did he talk about unfettered Capitalism? Where? Where in Kapital did he?
    Interresting question perhaps you could tell me where since in the next sentence you assert that Marx was talking about unfettered Capitalism.

    BTW in Kapital he assumed unregulated Capitalism, because anyone that analysis capitalism theoreticall must do so, because regulations can come and go, but the point is to analyse it at the core. (also he DID aknowledge that Capitalism can be regulated).
    Sounds like a big hole in his analysis to me. But his point wasnt to fix Capitalism his point was to replace it. That is wjhy I brought up the Communist Manifesto because Das Kapital aims to build on the ideas that Marx DEFINITIVELY brought up in the Communist Manifesto.

    4. What the hell are you talking about?
    Probably not what you think but do go on.

    So is Your argument that Marx was wrong about about Capitalism because he didn't think of regulations? Are you ****ting me? The point is he WAS right based on the fact that Capitalism DOES need regulations constantly and constant state boosting to exist, and Guess what, Marx's system successfully predicted ever growing Bubbles and crashes, financialization of the economy, a declining rate of profit in the productive industries and growing and growing inequality .... can those Things be mediated by regulations? Sure, but that doesn't disprove Marx's analysis.
    Everything needs regulation to a certain extent, Capitalism and Socialism are no different.

    By Marx's analysis you mean stating the ****ing obvious. Karl Marx was born in 1818, America was in a Depression then. prior to that was the Copper panic of 1789, Panic of 1785, Panic of 1797, 1802–1804 recession, Depression of 1807, 1812 recession, 1815–21 depression. Notice a pattern there? I hardly think that it took Marx to notice it.

    The US has never had completely free markets no unfettered Capitalism. It has always been regulated to a certain degree which for the most part has progressively been strengthened over time. The panic of 1825 had to do with a bubble. 7 year old Marx wasnt even thinking about economics yet. Inequality was all around Marx while growing up. In fact one could say that all that Marx did was convey the world as he saw it while he was alive. Nothing was ground breaking in Das Kapital. Even his rhetoric was old by then.

    I suspect that what you see as Marx's prophetic predictions are not actually predictions but merely a talking point in order to promote an ideology. While slamming the only thing that stand sin the way of that competing ideology.

  9. #509
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    1. Well I wasnt using the Communist Manifesto analyse Capitalism.

    2. That would be your opinion.

    3. Interresting question perhaps you could tell me where since in the next sentence you assert that Marx was talking about unfettered Capitalism.

    4. Sounds like a big hole in his analysis to me. But his point wasnt to fix Capitalism his point was to replace it. That is wjhy I brought up the Communist Manifesto because Das Kapital aims to build on the ideas that Marx DEFINITIVELY brought up in the Communist Manifesto.

    5. Probably not what you think but do go on.

    Everything needs regulation to a certain extent, Capitalism and Socialism are no different.

    By Marx's analysis you mean stating the ****ing obvious. Karl Marx was born in 1818, America was in a Depression then. prior to that was the Copper panic of 1789, Panic of 1785, Panic of 1797, 1802–1804 recession, Depression of 1807, 1812 recession, 1815–21 depression. Notice a pattern there? I hardly think that it took Marx to notice it.

    The US has never had completely free markets no unfettered Capitalism. It has always been regulated to a certain degree which for the most part has progressively been strengthened over time. The panic of 1825 had to do with a bubble. 7 year old Marx wasnt even thinking about economics yet. Inequality was all around Marx while growing up. In fact one could say that all that Marx did was convey the world as he saw it while he was alive. Nothing was ground breaking in Das Kapital. Even his rhetoric was old by then.

    I suspect that what you see as Marx's prophetic predictions are not actually predictions but merely a talking point in order to promote an ideology. While slamming the only thing that stand sin the way of that competing ideology.
    1. Ok but this thread was about if Marx was right about CAPITALISM.

    2. If you have any actual arguments against marx's Capital (that arn't ad hominem attacks) then by all means show me.

    3. He didn't use the Word unfettered Capitalism .... he wasn't going on about it, he was using unregulated capitalism as his basis for analysis, as every classical Economist does.

    4. How is that a hole in his analysis? Every theoretical writing assumes certain conditions, and Marx assumed capitalism unregulated, had he assumed certain regulations then his analysis would only apply to systems With those regulations, but Marx's analysis applies to Capitalism in it's fundementals.

    5. Karl Marx wasn't writing about America, he wasn't American, he never lived in America, the point is Marx' analysis has Applied, and if People had thought of what Marx showed in his analysis prior then show me, the point Marx made stands though, Capitalism, at its core, has internal contradictions that lead to it self destructing. Predicting the financialization, the fact that the rate of profit would continously fall for the productive industries and so on, that inequality would GROW, were not by all means self evident, InFact People still deny them and claim that capitalism in it's pure form is Perfect and sustainable.

    The fact is you haven't read Kapital, nor have you actually studied what Marx wrote in Kapital and what his analysis of Capitalism IS, you just don't like the guy, which quite frankly no one cares about, if you haven't studied the analysis in Kapital, you're speaking out of ignorance.

  10. #510
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,047

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    1. Ok but this thread was about if Marx was right about CAPITALISM.
    I will not be bound by silly restraints especially when it is still on topic.

    2. If you have any actual arguments against marx's Capital (that arn't ad hominem attacks) then by all means show me.
    I will say what I want about Marx dont get all but hurt over it.

    3. He didn't use the Word unfettered Capitalism .... he wasn't going on about it, he was using unregulated capitalism as his basis for analysis, as every classical Economist does.
    Unfettered is the same as unregulated.


    unregulated (ʌnˈrɛɡjʊˌleɪtɪd)

    — adj
    not regulated; uncontrolled
    ----------------------------
    un·fet·ter [uhn-fet-er]
    verb (used with object)
    1. to release from fetters.
    2. to free from restraint; liberate.


    See its the same concept. When you free something from restraint it is unregulated.

    4. How is that a hole in his analysis? Every theoretical writing assumes certain conditions, and Marx assumed capitalism unregulated, had he assumed certain regulations then his analysis would only apply to systems With those regulations, but Marx's analysis applies to Capitalism in it's fundementals.
    Well has unregulated Capitalism ever actually existed in its true form? His so called analysis of Capitalism is synonymous with observing that unregulated school children on the playground will be troublesome. Duh of course if the markets are not regulated then greedy bastards will screw us all over. One doesnt need to write a book to come to that conclusion.

    5. Karl Marx wasn't writing about America, he wasn't American, he never lived in America, the point is Marx' analysis has Applied, and if People had thought of what Marx showed in his analysis prior then show me, the point Marx made stands though, Capitalism, at its core, has internal contradictions that lead to it self destructing. Predicting the financialization, the fact that the rate of profit would continously fall for the productive industries and so on, that inequality would GROW, were not by all means self evident, InFact People still deny them and claim that capitalism in it's pure form is Perfect and sustainable.
    The events that i stated happened before he was born and before he was a adult, Germany was not a so called third world country, its people were able to obtain information from the US freely. Besides the fact that those things that I listed were not going on just in the US. Its basic economic history FFS. WHich was readily available to Marx throughout his life.

    The fact is you haven't read Kapital, nor have you actually studied what Marx wrote in Kapital and what his analysis of Capitalism IS, you just don't like the guy, which quite frankly no one cares about, if you haven't studied the analysis in Kapital, you're speaking out of ignorance.
    Settle down there, I can not like Marx if I like. I dont care if you like the dead man or not. And yes I have indeed read Das Kapital just because I dont have the same analysis of it as you do doesnt mean that I havent read it.

    The full name is Capital: Critique of Political Economy.

Page 51 of 56 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •