A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.
Well, clearly becoming a communist is what caused your recent earthquake problems...And you always thought it from Christians not praying hard enough....nope...communism...
I always thought (soft?) socialism sounded more attractive. Anyway, good luck Comrade/Mate and all that. Watch out for a few funny folk around here on Dakka though.
How do you overcome the inherent human instinct to compete and dominate?
Communism doesn't work, pure and totally balanced notions of a sharing state where all are equal citizens is a utopia that cannot exist whilst humans are pack animals with inbuilt competing for resources and not ants. When you look to communist states, consider that they are actually dictatorships and became them very quickly after overthrowing constrictive monarchy or colonial imperialism.
Consider the title 'Supreme Soviet' for example and how entirely against the purest form of communism that is. Much like when I talk to 'anarchists' who actually don't get that pure chaos is a horrific way to live your life, given the base behaviour of the human animal.
So, communist ideals are great, but it's an impossible mode of governing large groups of people imo.
I actually have something constructive to add now, rather than a crack. Mate, if your interested in reading a bit more about communism, or rather socialism then read this book.
Dark Continent : Mark Mazower
It's a good summary of modern European history from a writer that is considering their view from a more socialist viewpoint.
I realize the irony of suggesting an academic book that is more social, but if you actually read history books widely then you'll enjoy the difference.
It's also fairly accessible for a Uni text, I read it when I was studying to be a history teacher and just remembered it then. I fancied myself a communist back then, unfortunately I sold out and got a cool job far away from the Proletariat. I still rage darkly against the system though, but less from protests, and more from watching tv and news!
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I am myself a socialist in terms of ideology.
With regards communism, I have one question:
How do you overcome the inherent human instinct to compete and dominate?
Communism doesn't work, pure and totally balanced notions of a sharing state where all are equal citizens is a utopia that cannot exist whilst humans are pack animals with inbuilt competing for resources and not ants. When you look to communist states, consider that they are actually dictatorships and became them very quickly after overthrowing constrictive monarchy or colonial imperialism.
Consider the title 'Supreme Soviet' for example and how entirely against the purest form of communism that is. Much like when I talk to 'anarchists' who actually don't get that pure chaos is a horrific way to live your life, given the base behaviour of the human animal.
So, communist ideals are great, but it's an impossible mode of governing large groups of people imo.
It's more like anarchy than you think, what communists propose is "anarchy" we merely have different ways of reaching it, the socialist states are only intended to be a transitional phase in between communism and capitalism and by no means have to include supreme soviets and honourable chairmen, they can be as democratic as you like.
as leon trotsky said socialism needs democracy like the human body needs air.
Anarchy is not the same as chaos. Chaos is a lack of organization, while anarchism is organization without centralized authority. In a very strong sense most Western Liberal-Democracies and Republics are hybrids of anarchic and archic systems, with the archic part taking the position that we need to build strong institutions just in case we need them, and the anarchic part taking the position that such institutions should be created on an ad hoc basis. It's similar to the Conservative/Liberal split in that both sides regard themselves as being more practical while the virtues that they emphasize as complementary rather than contrary.
I would say rather that institutions are necessary for a variety of reasons.
For example, the justice system is needed to restrain the operation of unfettered individualism, and the banking system is useful to reduce transaction costs and allow the economy to operate more efficiently.
Indeed, except that when your justice system is being employed in a social engineering role it's no long a justice system and instead a "restrain individualism" system. Likewise a banking system may be employed to increase the efficiency of an economy, but then what you have is a financial system (banking, insurance, investments, and other financial products). And once you have these systems in place you may be inclined to reform them from time to time, while new institutions grow up to perform services that they do not. Maybe it was just my experience in finance, particularly given the way the modern finance system is bringing together financial products as branded packages, but I couldn't help but notice that the Canadian financial system as a set of institutions is constantly under a tumult of self-regeneration, development, and so on. The fact that you think of the banking system as an institution rather than a confluence of several institutions suggests to me that you're on the side of institutions for the sake of institutions rather than for the particular set of circumstances they might be set up to handle.
Kragura wrote:A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.
So without further adieu, ask away.
Please justify the inherently undemocratic nature of the vanguard party. Because the capitalist denies education and enfranchisement to the proletarian, for any communist movement to succeed if it must be lead by an advanced, educated cadre that is better positioned to understand the proletarians struggle than the prole himself. This is the van garde, and it has existed in all successful communist movements (here I'm defining success as "managing to wrest control from the capitalists").
Yet paradoxically, to create the idyllic socialist state, the van garde must impose its plan for a new society on the proletarian, who by constitution cannot understand the means or ends of the van garde (otherwise they would, ipso facto, be the van garde) and thus -- true to human nature as predicted by Marx -- rebels against the van garde. Unable to effectively lead, the van garde must always reorganize and entrench, which is why to date all attempts at revolutionary socialism have ended in antidemocratic totalitarian governments.
Given that the van garde is not democratic and appears to always lead to tyranny, how can communism be justified by an appeal to the inherent freedom and dignity of the proletarian? Is not the van garde always promising only to replace the capitalist's chains with those of authoritarian socialism?
Communist would be a good idea if everyone who was in charge wasn't corrupt.
Maybe local communisums could work. But you can't run a country on communist values because thier will always be higher class people and lower class people.
Look at China for example they claim to be communist but its only the common folk who really are communist not the heads of the Chinese goverment.
Kragura wrote:A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.
So without further adieu, ask away.
Please justify the inherently undemocratic nature of the vanguard party. Because the capitalist denies education and enfranchisement to the proletarian, for any communist movement to succeed if it must be lead by an advanced, educated cadre that is better positioned to understand the proletarians struggle than the prole himself. This is the van garde, and it has existed in all successful communist movements (here I'm defining success as "managing to wrest control from the capitalists").
Yet paradoxically, to create the idyllic socialist state, the van garde must impose its plan for a new society on the proletarian, who by constitution cannot understand the means or ends of the van garde (otherwise they would, ipso facto, be the van garde) and thus -- true to human nature as predicted by Marx -- rebels against the van garde. Unable to effectively lead, the van garde must always reorganize and entrench, which is why to date all attempts at revolutionary socialism have ended in antidemocratic totalitarian governments.
Given that the van garde is not democratic and appears to always lead to tyranny, how can communism be justified by an appeal to the inherent freedom and dignity of the proletarian? Is not the van garde always promising only to replace the capitalist's chains with those of authoritarian socialism?
I think a large part of this problem is the tendency for socialist academics to treat the 'proletariat' as children. Telling people what is good for them and imposing it upon them rarely ends well. It's just paternalism. Modern capitalist society works because everyone has equal opportunity for education, and accumulation of wealth. We have a choice.
@OP- Socialism leads to greater oppression than capitalism. Discuss.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would also add that you probably have decided to become a communist because you have the luxury of living in a country in which you have a choice in the matter. I wonder if you'd be so enthusiastic if you lived in ONE OF THE MANY COUNTRIES IN WHICH COMMUNISM HAS BEEN TRIED, RESULTING IN DEATH AND MISERY FOR MILLIONS.
I think when you get to the extreme end of almost any ideology, you start to see the cracks. Extreme, unregulated capitalism, and extreme, pure communism are both (From my perspective) pretty flawed and lead to a lot of misery.
I think most societies go for some sort of balance between the two- the exact composition of the balance is generally up to a lot of stuff like the culture's attitude to authority and individual rights over collective needs.
It's all very interesting, and after years of scientific training I find myself more and more interested in knotty questions like this, even though I find them really difficult to think about.
Kragura wrote:A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.
So without further adieu, ask away.
How can a single person be a communist if it relies on many people being equal?
Ive been told that people that dont like cherry pie, are communists. That true?
Ive been told that if you hate hotdogs, your a commie. That true?
Basically if you dislike anything un American, and bad, your communist. So that must be true right?
Albatross wrote:
I would also add that you probably have decided to become a communist because you have the luxury of living in a country in which you have a choice in the matter. I wonder if you'd be so enthusiastic if you lived in ONE OF THE MANY COUNTRIES IN WHICH COMMUNISM HAS BEEN TRIED, RESULTING IN DEATH AND MISERY FOR MILLIONS.
To be fair, most of those countries weren't exactly wonderful places to begin with.
I have a question. If you put your hand into a blender, turn it on, and your hand gets all cut up, do you decide "Oh, I didn't place my hand properly in the blender THIS TIME, but next time I will put my hand in the blender and turn it on and it will be WONDERFUL!"? Every time a country has attempted to have a Marxist revolution and institute the good 'ol dictatorship of the proletariat to prepare everyone for the coming utopia, they've ended up killing huge chunks of the country's population both to establish the new government and to get rid of people who resist, plus set up 'reeducation' facilities to torture people into accepting communism.
I'm presuming you're not in favor of torture and mass murder, so why do you support a form of government that universally results in torture and mass murder when implemented in the real world? Why should I not treat you as a person who supports torture and mass murder, so either avoid you if you're 'just some guy' or fight against you if you appear to be closer to achieving your goals?
Aside from the whole murdering and torturing thing, what job do you think you will have based on the 'from each according to his abilities' part - do you think you'll be stuck as the sewer cleaner, or will you get to be a poet, leader, philosopher, musician, or some other fun job? How do you expect to fill all of the jobs that aren't poets, leaders, philosophers, writers, musicians, artists, etc, since very few people actually enjoy drudge work - will there be some kind of mechanism to force people to work at jobs that no one wants to do when they could sit around and play guitar all day? Capitalist and mixed-socialist systems solve this by paying more for crappy jobs than the education/skill level would warrant (garbage collectors make damn good money for a job that requires no education and no real skills), Communist societies in theory don't seem to solve the problem, and in practice tend to solve this by telling someone 'do this job or I'll shoot you'.
Incidentally, 1984 is a jab at the totalitarian system that communism always seems to turn into. The class systems are more prominent then ever, and maybe I'm just dumb, but I still like uncorrupted communism.
On a side note, this is surprisingly mature. You wouldn't believe how anti-communist high school students who don't know what communism is are (did that make sense?).
Kragura wrote:A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.
So without further adieu, ask away.
Manchild, go visit a gulag, then tell me you're a communist. Go visit the death prisons in Cambodia and tell me you're a communist.
TherVadam wrote:Incidentally, 1984 is a jab at the totalitarian system that communism always seems to turn into. The class systems are more prominent then ever, and maybe I'm just dumb, but I still like uncorrupted communism.
Right, there's a commentary on that in the book. However, if it usually turns into a totalitarian system that's corrupt, why would you support it?
Kragura wrote:A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.
So without further adieu, ask away.
Manchild, go visit a gulag, then tell me you're a communist. Go visit the death prisons in Cambodia and tell me you're a communist.
I think there is a false association between communism as an economic/social model for the usage of resources, and the totalitarian regimes responsible for the gulag, or the 1984 mentality. It isn't necessary to have harsh social control and human rights violations, in order to evenly distribute resources amongst a population. They are unrelated concepts, it just so happens that the previously mentioned 'big evil' commie states happen to coincide with communism.
Likewise, Capitalism does not necessarily create 'freedom', and 'democracy' does not mean 'capitalism' either. Too often these terms get intermingled in usage giving a false sense of 'communist dictatorship' versus 'capitalist democracy' when the first word is an economical/social form and the second word is a form of government. It is quite possible to have a capitalist dictatorship (hey, money talks!).
I believe we actually live in one now, under the clever disguise of a democratic right to vote (which changes very little, measured against the weight of media, money, and a public kept largely ignorant of the real issues their vote concerns) or bear arms (which could not stand up to a government crackdown) or speak freely (as if the decision makers care what one voice thinks). The united states is ruled by an often vicious, ignorant mob and the politicians who pander to it. If one is not part of that mob mentality, one is enslaved to the will of the masses, whether or not it is right or wrong. SO if it is possible to be oppressed in a capitalist society, why is it so hard to envision a free comminist society?
Indeed, except that when your justice system is being employed in a social engineering role it's no long a justice system and instead a "restrain individualism" system. Likewise a banking system may be employed to increase the efficiency of an economy, but then what you have is a financial system (banking, insurance, investments, and other financial products). And once you have these systems in place you may be inclined to reform them from time to time, while new institutions grow up to perform services that they do not. Maybe it was just my experience in finance, particularly given the way the modern finance system is bringing together financial products as branded packages, but I couldn't help but notice that the Canadian financial system as a set of institutions is constantly under a tumult of self-regeneration, development, and so on. The fact that you think of the banking system as an institution rather than a confluence of several institutions suggests to me that you're on the side of institutions for the sake of institutions rather than for the particular set of circumstances they might be set up to handle.
You have made a very broad assumption about my thinking from a short piece of text.
Kragura wrote:A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.
So without further adieu, ask away.
Manchild, go visit a gulag, then tell me you're a communist. Go visit the death prisons in Cambodia and tell me you're a communist.
I think there is a false association between communism as an economic/social model for the usage of resources, and the totalitarian regimes responsible for the gulag, or the 1984 mentality. It isn't necessary to have harsh social control and human rights violations, in order to evenly distribute resources amongst a population. They are unrelated concepts, it just so happens that the previously mentioned 'big evil' commie states happen to coincide with communism.
Likewise, Capitalism does not necessarily create 'freedom', and 'democracy' does not mean 'capitalism' either. Too often these terms get intermingled in usage giving a false sense of 'communist dictatorship' versus 'capitalist democracy' when the first word is an economical/social form and the second word is a form of government. It is quite possible to have a capitalist dictatorship (hey, money talks!).
I believe we actually live in one now, under the clever disguise of a democratic right to vote (which changes very little, measured against the weight of media, money, and a public kept largely ignorant of the real issues their vote concerns) or bear arms (which could not stand up to a government crackdown) or speak freely (as if the decision makers care what one voice thinks). The united states is ruled by an often vicious, ignorant mob and the politicians who pander to it. If one is not part of that mob mentality, one is enslaved to the will of the masses, whether or not it is right or wrong. SO if it is possible to be oppressed in a capitalist society, why is it so hard to envision a free comminist society?
I think that you profoundly misunderstand the term "oppressed."
Take a look at what actually qualifies as oppression by the government and contrast it with life in the US. I think you'll be rather shocked.
Guitardian
I disagree w/you about totalitarianism and communism being unrelated concepts. bear with me....
if we start out with private property and we plan to redistribute it, people who have alot of property are going to resist right? they'll have to be confronted with force in some way or another. violent struggles require quick, decisive action - there isnt time for debate. there are enemies within and outside the movement and they have to be confronted with quickly and decisively. dissent within the movement is dangerous - if the revolutionaries make the wrong choice they could be crushed and everyone involved would be imprisoned or more likely would die. for this reason one person has to be in charge, at least for the period of the struggle. thats totalitarianism. after the struggle is over could you have democratic government? possibly, but in practice it doesnt seem to work this way.... a few historical examples.
1. the french revolution. power passes, through violence or threat of violence, from the king (louis xvi) to a democratic assembly (the convention) to a dictator within the assembly (robespierre) to a small executive council (the directory) to a military dictator (napoleon) to another king (louis xviii.) could the democratic govt have maintained control? possibly, but the internal logic of the revolution told against it.
2. the russian revolution. besides that russians like authoritarian govt for its own sake, the revolution was pretty definitely accomplished here. suppose it was all stalin's fault - why didnt kruschev relinquish power? or suppose kruschev was a bad guy too. why didnt brezhnev?
3. the roman revolution. caesar, who was for the reallocation of land (read: wealth) if not exactly a communist, is opposed by a senate opposed to the reallocation of land (because they owned most of it.) caesar of course was assassinated shortly after he defeated the forces of the senate, but then why didnt his successor augustus re-instate democratic govt? or tiberius after him? or claudius? or nero? or any of the roman emperors?
revolutionary struggle requires the concentration of power. power, once got, is not easily given up. people tend to keep it for their own benefit. if it were possible to take away the property of a whole section of society and give it to another group then it might be possible to have a communist state without a dictatorship, but since communist theorists pretty much assume (rightly) violent struggle, it follows that dictatorial govt is inevitably a by product of that economic system.
AF
Your point is well taken and understood. The accumulation and use of force or threat of force is a privelige the United States enjoys, and also seeks to restrict in other sovereign nations (like restricting nuclear programs is a good example). How is this 'free'? Iran is not 'free' to develop a nuclear program because the united states says so, and they picked up the sword first. Can't argue with the guy with the weapon.
In an idealized (I know it aint likely) communist economic picture, everyone would have what they need. As the Cuban, French, and Russian revolutions have shown, it is possible for the have-not many to exert their will by either force (france/russia) or threat of force (cuba) and just take all the wealth of the priveliged and there's little the privelidged can do about it.
An ideal communist society would have it in everybody's best interest for everything to be available to everybody. All needs are met = no jealousy. If you strive to get more than just your needs, then sure, have a yacht if you save up long enough and work hard enough to get one. Now everyone else will want to have a yacht, or borrow yours. You would then have the choice to either share the usage of your nice new boat, or the possibility of a mob of people just taking it from you anyway. Some people like to share, ond only take what they need. A society comprised of just such people would have no problem letting their neighbor borrow their yacht, or sharing their food with a neighbor who just lost his crop to blight. That type of moral thinking would never need a totalitarian dictator, just a bunch of caring, unselfish people, and would have no need for a bloody revolt of the downtrodden against the priveliged, because nobody would be downtrodden, and the priveliged would share their fortunate position.
I oppose 'ownership' of anything you didn't either make or earn or purchase fairly. Land was here long before humans. Land belongs to everyone. Who do you buy it from? The guy says he who 'owned' it before you? Where'd he get it? Who paid god for the first land title?
(edit : Land = wealth, but who got the first deed? I suppose if you ask Israel they'll claim it was them. Look what a mess their claim of ownership based on a decree from god has caused.)
I also oppose inheritance. That's the reason for a lot of the financial inequality and class division in this country. (It's also a reason anybody even listens to Paris Hilton's dumb mouth or cares what she thinks... but that's another issue altogether)
So, to summarize the thread: communism is a good idea in theory but in practice is problematic, if not extremely harmful to human life. So I suppose the question is this: If it has never worked before, why do you believe that this is the time it is going to? Now remember the answer can't be a thought exercise; you are wanting this to be a real thing that affects real peoples lives. You also need to consider that Communism and Socialism aren't the same thing so you can't couch you answer as Socialist Lite™, it needs to be as a Communist.
yes...... if there were less disparity of wealth everyone... rich and poor... would be happier. I dont like how everything is owned either. there should just be space thats untouched, unowned, just nature.
DISCLAIMER: I am against communism not on princaple but out of pride. I simply do not want to be told that my skills and education aren't worth anything more then the water-headed jack-hat who screws up my coffee order every morning. I also like the idea that I could one day be living a life of luxery if I make the right choices at the right time.
ALSO, for all of the American Dakkaites, we are a Republic and have been so since the second Continental Congress. Our first try at a Democracy failed.
Now having said that.
I don't see any Native American gulags, and I almost never hear about assasinations or revolutions, yet their society is inherintly communist after all you get a check just for belonging to the tribe and land and resources are shared within the community to more or less a functional degree. Although it's true that if they were not allowed the many exceptions made for them and they did not have the support of the American infrastructure they would fall flat on their face, that's more of a counter argument to taxation and government control then it is an argument against Communism. They show at least in theory that human nature can be curbed for the good of the masses and that greed can be overcome.
I been told the American Omish (IDK if there are any other kind, but just in case) are communist in a lot of respects but that community is too closed for me to have seen or even to have questioned any of them for a first hand account. So I can't really say for certain.
I know of Communes that exist and are rather successful, again it relies on people doing what is best for their community out of what seems to be a combination of pride and a sense of duty, both of which are emotions we play on to 'improve' performance in a capilist society.
The problem with all forms of government isn't that any of them promote Evil, it's that none of them scale well. On a small scale Democracy and Communism look out for the will of the people, but add a few hundred million people and all of a sudden that 30% minority consists of A LOT of angry citizens. Then you have to remember that it doesn't matter if I voted or not I may still riot if the vote doesn't turn out how I like. In short it becomes a titanic task to keep large groups of people happy, and ensuring that you do the will of the majority will only guarentee that you impeed on the rights of the minority.
The truth is that ideally each government needs the other to survive. Communists use cheap labor to produce low end goods that Capatilist societies need but don't make because there is no profit margine. They provide a place for those who can't\won't work hard enough or learn an important skill to still contribute to mankind. Capitilist societies encourage Education and provide an infrastructure for higher learning to generate Skilled Labor that is essential to civilization. But it creates and atmosphere that not everyone is able to survive in, this leads to inefficency and waste. If there was a way to easily move from one government to the other depending on a persons skill and work ethic then we might achieve a happy society but that isn't possible in the world today.
A great example is a room-mate/house-mate situation. One roommate 'owns' the TV. Does this mean he gets to only have it on when he wants to? (my little brother does this, but he's a bit nutty, I can't use his Xbox unless he wants to, because it's his, but he's a little nutty and possessive)
Well according to ownership law, yes, he is in every right to not allow me to use his thing. But, we both pay for the space the TV is in, we both live there, and since it's 'our' space, it causes no harm for me to use it, so why not use it? Sure if he moves out he'll take it with him, but so long as it's there to use, he may as well let me use it as it causes no harm to him.
I could stage a revolution, and chuck his TV and put in my own TV in the space it occupied and just say "tough gak buddy, I can beat you up if you don't like it... I could set up my own TV right next to it and now neither of us can watch because it's too distractingly impossible to watch two TV shows at once. He could take it into HIS room instead of the COMMON area, now where's my remote?", or we could just get along fine and just USE THE TV! In this analogy, land ownership, property ownership, would be the apartment. Roommates would be the communists. There is no reason to have 2 TVs, 2 xboxes, 2 sinks, 2 laundrys, just because there's 2 people living there, if we can get by just fine and non-distructively just sharing the one for the community.
@ Guitardian: This is a perfect example of what I said above. Your solution is compromise and get along and it works perfectly until you add in your room-mates girlfriend that is. He says "Let her watch the Fluffy-bunny-queer-eye-for-the-straight-guy-taking-away-your-manhood marathon" you say "No way! She doesn't live here or contribute to our society!" but your room-mate clearley has incentive to give the her what she wants and his vote counts as much as yours. So where are you now? Do you let her watch it this time and hope that she will let you win the next argument? Do you now try to establish rules for the TV that your room-mate owns? What is the solution to too many people and too few resources?
EDIT: @Ahtman: Explain to me how a Native American society isn't Communist? I don't care what they say they are, they are a demonstration of distributing wealth amongst a community and not letting greed take the better of them. The Amish thing I already admited to not knowing anything about.
RE-EDIT: It just occured to me that the only Native American society I know anything about in modern times in the Seneca Nation, and that this might not reflect every Native American tirbe in the country . Though I still stand by my assesment.
Albatross wrote:I think a large part of this problem is the tendency for socialist academics to treat the 'proletariat' as children. Telling people what is good for them and imposing it upon them rarely ends well. It's just paternalism. Modern capitalist society works because everyone has equal opportunity for education, and accumulation of wealth. We have a choice.
That is so wrong as to border on being delusional.
First, I have to laugh at the notion that "socialist academics" treat the proletariat like children. I'm not denying it, but it's just funny coming from someone defending capitalism, since the capitalists literally treat the proletariat like dogs, expecting mindless obediance and undying loyalty in exchange for table scraps and a place at the foot of their master's bed.
Second, capitalism does not offer choice, especially not regarding education -- it wasn't until working people began rising up against the new aristocracy of the capitalist class and threatening revolution that the system of public education was developed, and without public education the proletariat is entirely at the mercy of the capitalist class. One can look to the libertarians, with their head-in-the-sky ideas about private education for all, for an example of the sort of "choice" that a pure capitalist system would give workers. The children of the poor would pay (almost certainly overpay) for the educational equivalent of a Happy Meal from McDonalds, an education permeated with advertising and pro-consumption messaging, thus ensuring the concretization of class division and the permenant supremacy of the capitalist class.
Modern capitalist society barely works (notice the massive recessions we keep having? Notice they keep getting worse? It's because capitalism fundamentally does not work), and the sole reason it kinda works is because of the massive state sponsored quasi-socialist programs developed by Liberal parties to mitigate the extreme effects of the massive poverty creation engendered by capitalism. This is why you can't find a single capitalist state that doesn't either have a massive welfare program supplementing the market, or the exact same authoritarian dictators suppressing the proletariat you find in authoritarian socialist countries.
History has demonstrated that Marx's revolutionary ideas are damned to fail repeatedly, but his critique of capitalism remains one of the greatest achievements of the 19th century, and anyone who thinks Marx's critique of capitalism can be easily dismissed because of the failure of revolutionary communism is doomed to continuously repeat the failures of the 19th century -- and thus ensure a future of socialist uprising.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BearersOfSalvation wrote:I have a question. If you put your hand into a blender, turn it on, and your hand gets all cut up, do you decide "Oh, I didn't place my hand properly in the blender THIS TIME, but next time I will put my hand in the blender and turn it on and it will be WONDERFUL!"? Every time a country has attempted to have a Marxist revolution and institute the good 'ol dictatorship of the proletariat to prepare everyone for the coming utopia, they've ended up killing huge chunks of the country's population both to establish the new government and to get rid of people who resist, plus set up 'reeducation' facilities to torture people into accepting communism.
I'm presuming you're not in favor of torture and mass murder, so why do you support a form of government that universally results in torture and mass murder when implemented in the real world? Why should I not treat you as a person who supports torture and mass murder, so either avoid you if you're 'just some guy' or fight against you if you appear to be closer to achieving your goals?
In fairness, pretty much every capitalist democracy -- including this one -- has engaged in torture and mass murder. If you're an American, try asking a well-educated black person or native American. They'll tell you all about torture and mass murder by capitalists. The only significant difference is that democracies tend to torture and murder people who aren't part of the enfranchised group. Part of the reason communism was able to take hold so successfully in so much of the third world during the 20th century was the history of brutality and oppression by the so-called "free nations" of the west.
That's a perfect example (the GF thing I mean) of why communist communities can work well on a small scale. When I was a street kid we all stuck together, all shared everything, when one person achieved, everyone gained. When you started getting more and more hangers-on to the tribe you started bringing in other people's hangups to what was otherwise a utopian anarchy with no need for an heirarchy. Throw in the roommates GF and you have two options: tell the bitch to shut the hell up with your immasculating gay ass TV show (not meant in a homophobic context btw), or go watch it at her house if you really want to see it. If it is in MY house, which is also YOUR house, then everything that goes on in OUR house is up to us, not to the outsider. She gets no say in OUR commune. If she wants to join the commune she will learn pretty quickly that nobody else wants to see 'queer ass fashion TV' or whatever its called, and can choose to join in and get some better taste, or choose not to become part of the commune, be welcomed as an outsider, but doesn't get the remote.
The less apples you add, the less chance of one of them being a bad apple. A few people can live with mutual possessions and goals, but I think the more you get, sooner or later some miscreant will want to take more, assume more authority, and disturb the peace that everyone else was enjoying. Multiply that by the millions and sooner or later someone as extreme as Stalin will emerge. Just takes one bad apple I guess.
So advice: don't bring your GF over to your bachelor house if you want to keep the peace there.
just want to point out.... how can communism be good in theory if it doesnt work in practice? If the theory leads you to a disaster then maybe the theory was...... wrong?
I'm reminded of an old joke about a man that went to a communist rally and came home all fired up about the ideology.
He went over to his neighbor, Enoch and was telling him about the wonders of Communism and of how everyone would now share property.
Enoch asked, "Do you mean, if you had two pies, I could have one?"
ComputerGeek01 wrote:I've lost track are we arguing Communism as a government? Or as an economic system?
I think the general rule is that, unless terms are specifically defined in some other way, when someone says "Let's talk about communism" they mean "Let's talk about revolutionary socialists movements following from a Marxist orthodoxy and the resulting governments created by those movements." So for example, I don't think it's reasonable to call the Amish or Native American groups "communist," since they are not predicated on revolutionary Marxism, but it is reasonable to count Cuba, the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, etc. as "communists."
There is no functional difference between a government and an economic system. In practice they are always the same thing.
Kilkrazy wrote:Or maybe it was right but some avoidable circumstance interfered?
if it had only failed in 1 place I guess I could see that, but it fails pretty much every time its attempted. If the theory fails to take account of something that happens more or less consistently then it's at best incomplete.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Second, capitalism does not offer choice, especially not regarding education -- it wasn't until working people began rising up against the new aristocracy of the capitalist class and threatening revolution that the system of public education was developed, and without public education the proletariat is entirely at the mercy of the capitalist class. One can look to the libertarians, with their head-in-the-sky ideas about private education for all, for an example of the sort of "choice" that a pure capitalist system would give workers. The children of the poor would pay (almost certainly overpay) for the educational equivalent of a Happy Meal from McDonalds, an education permeated with advertising and pro-consumption messaging, thus ensuring the concretization of class division and the permenant supremacy of the capitalist class.
Modern capitalist society barely works (notice the massive recessions we keep having? Notice they keep getting worse? It's because capitalism fundamentally does not work), and the sole reason it kinda works is because of the massive state sponsored quasi-socialist programs developed by Liberal parties to mitigate the extreme effects of the massive poverty creation engendered by capitalism. This is why you can't find a single capitalist state that doesn't either have a massive welfare program supplementing the market, or the exact same authoritarian dictators suppressing the proletariat you find in authoritarian socialist countries.
I think there's some pretty serious exaggeration going on here. Modern capitalist society barely works? Capitalism fundamentally does not work? Can we get real here? I mean, I'm not a cutthroat super-capitalist by any stretch, but this is absolutely insane. If we're using the U.S. as an example of modern capitalist society, I guess we can start with that. Yes, there is poverty in the U.S., even extreme poverty in some areas, but I wouldn't call it massive poverty created by capitalism. In general, our standard of living is very high compared to many other countries, and massively high compared to third world countries and massively high compared to basically any other time in history.
We keep having recessions that keep getting worse? Worse than what? The recession that's going on now, while significant, is nothing compared to the economic problems of the past, such as the Great Depression in the U.S. and the unbelievably massive inflation in post-WWI Germany. Yes, recessions happen, and yes, one is happening now, but to imply that it's worse than any other time is just ludicrous. We don't have masses of people starving to death due to the recession in the U.S.
Capitalism is not perfect, it has shortcomings and can cause serious problems in some situations. I can even understand if it is not your economic system of choice. But to look at "modern capitalist society" and claim that it "barely works" and that capitalism "fundamentally does not work," especially when being compared to communism is absolutely ridiculous.
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
Gailbraithe wrote:In fairness, pretty much every capitalist democracy -- including this one -- has engaged in torture and mass murder. If you're an American, try asking a well-educated black person or native American. They'll tell you all about torture and mass murder by capitalists. The only significant difference is that democracies tend to torture and murder people who aren't part of the enfranchised group. Part of the reason communism was able to take hold so successfully in so much of the third world during the 20th century was the history of brutality and oppression by the so-called "free nations" of the west.
When did the US engage in mass murder of blacks, exactly? I'm not going to ask some black guy to tell me, you need to give me a cite for when the US embarked on a campaign to wipe out, say, 10% (much smaller than communist death tolls) of all blacks. Indians were not part of the US back when the US was kicking them off of their land. That doesn't make it right to kill them, but driving an outside group off of their land to take it is a bit different than murdering huge chunks of people you already consider in your group - bear in mind that I wasn't talking about communist aggression against other countries, just the internal mass murders.
And how long ago were these events anyway - aren't we talking about the 1800s here? Western democracies have been making huge strides AWAY from killing people off, paying compensation for old wrongs, extending rights to others, acknowledging more and more rights of people. The record isn't perfect, but the clear trend is for things to get BETTER in non-communist countries, while switching to a communist country takes you from 'killed indians 200 years ago' to 'killed 20% of our population this year' - I know which system I'd opt for.
You're saying the equivalent of "Well, 100 years ago you'd cut your hand using a blender without putting your hand in it, and sometimes you can get a minor injury from the outside of a blender today, so you may as well stick your hand in the blender now". We're talking a 100% rate of 'finish installing communist govenrment - start mass murder'.
But, if you that satisfies you for addressing one problem of Communism, what about the second bit in what I asked? Do you see yourself as being the sewer cleaner (or some other lame job) when the communist society arrives, or do you see yourself as a philosopher, leader, artist, or something else enjoyable? And how does your society expect to get people in there cleaning out sewers without forcing them at gunpoint?
Gailbraithe wrote:
First, I have to laugh at the notion that "socialist academics" treat the proletariat like children. I'm not denying it, but it's just funny coming from someone defending capitalism, since the capitalists literally treat the proletariat like dogs, expecting mindless obediance and undying loyalty in exchange for table scraps and a place at the foot of their master's bed.
You know what makes for bad social science? Normative statements and analogies.
Gailbraithe wrote:
One can look to the libertarians, with their head-in-the-sky ideas about private education for all, for an example of the sort of "choice" that a pure capitalist system would give workers. The children of the poor would pay (almost certainly overpay) for the educational equivalent of a Happy Meal from McDonalds, an education permeated with advertising and pro-consumption messaging, thus ensuring the concretization of class division and the permenant supremacy of the capitalist class.
Marcuse called, he wants his argument back. You should note Habermas and his 'new science' as the forces which naturally arise to oppose the one-dimensional society that Marcuse warns of.
Gailbraithe wrote:
History has demonstrated that Marx's revolutionary ideas are damned to fail repeatedly, but his critique of capitalism remains one of the greatest achievements of the 19th century, and anyone who thinks Marx's critique of capitalism can be easily dismissed because of the failure of revolutionary communism is doomed to continuously repeat the failures of the 19th century -- and thus ensure a future of socialist uprising.
Marx's critique of capitalism, divorced from his revolutionary dieas, stands as a lame duck. It isn't a shocking truth to articulate the flaws in a given system, it would be shocking to postulate a system whioch could replace the flawed system. Of course, you're not interested in doing that work, you're only interested in deepening your ideological hole.
Gailbraithe wrote:First, I have to laugh at the notion that "socialist academics" treat the proletariat like children. I'm not denying it, but it's just funny coming from someone defending capitalism, since the capitalists literally treat the proletariat like dogs, expecting mindless obediance and undying loyalty in exchange for table scraps and a place at the foot of their master's bed.
Isn't that exactly what every actual communist society wants from the proletariat? "You will do what we tell you needs doing, and be happy you only had to stand in line for 12 hours to get toilet paper, and don't say a word bad about how we run things". In my terrible, terrible capitalist country I can sit around after eating a big steak and rant and rave for hours about how bad Bush or Obama or Congress or the governor or any other part of the government is, in communist countries even slight criticism of the leading parties results in reeducation, prison, or execution, and you're literally eating table scraps if you're not part of the ruling elite. And aside from the issue of 100% correlation, the oppression seems to be required for a communist society - isn't remove all opposition to the Glorious Revolution the whole purpose of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat?'
It's because capitalism fundamentally does not work), and the sole reason it kinda works is because of the massive state sponsored quasi-socialist programs developed by Liberal parties to mitigate the extreme effects of the massive poverty creation engendered by capitalism.
You're completely screwing up the definitions here - basically you're saying anything good that is remotely like communism counts as a plus for communism, and everything else is part of Capitalism and counts against Capitalism, and that if anything counts against Capitalism it means hooray for Communism. It doesn't work like that - saying 'this is bad about this non-communist country's setup' may be a strike against that particular setup, but it isn't a blow in favor of Communism.
Socialist programs are SOCIALIST, not communist - I can support public education, national healthcare, unemployment benefits, uinions (which every existing communist country smashed down, BTW) and the like without being in favor at all of communism. Capitalist societies are not monolithing - Mercantalistic Capitalism is very different from pure Free Market capitalism, which is distinct from the semi-Free Market version, which is different from the corporatist capitalism (that Nazi Germany had and the US is getting more and more of). And you can have varying degrees of socialist programs and personal freedoms under any of those economic systems.
I also find it strange that you say a recession where people's stocks go down and some people lose jobs indicates that capitalism has failed and doesn't work, but the sort of sweeping depression, famine (to the tune of around 20 million deaths in Russia), and lack of economic growth in Communist countries somehow doesn't indicate failure there. You seem to have severe double standard on that point.
Kilkrazy wrote:Or maybe it was right but some avoidable circumstance interfered?
if it had only failed in 1 place I guess I could see that, but it fails pretty much every time its attempted. If the theory fails to take account of something that happens more or less consistently then it's at best incomplete.
It's a nice idea about people all working together and sharing what they make and earn for the common good, at it's most basic level. That's the way I see it anyway.
Though it is a complete failure in real world terms.
Hordini wrote:I think there's some pretty serious exaggeration going on here. Modern capitalist society barely works? Capitalism fundamentally does not work? Can we get real here? I mean, I'm not a cutthroat super-capitalist by any stretch, but this is absolutely insane. If we're using the U.S. as an example of modern capitalist society, I guess we can start with that. Yes, there is poverty in the U.S., even extreme poverty in some areas, but I wouldn't call it massive poverty created by capitalism. In general, our standard of living is very high compared to many other countries, and massively high compared to third world countries and massively high compared to basically any other time in history.
But capitalism isn't confined by national borders. You are correct, American standards of living are much higher than in the third world -- though a recent study found that 1 in 7 Americans is living in poverty -- but you are ignoring a real problem: The poverty in the third world is largely the result of the effects of American and European capitalist removing the greater portion of the value of natural resources and labor and importing it to the US. Capitalism is a significant part of why the third world exists in the state that it does.
We keep having recessions that keep getting worse? Worse than what? The recession that's going on now, while significant, is nothing compared to the economic problems of the past, such as the Great Depression in the U.S. and the unbelievably massive inflation in post-WWI Germany. Yes, recessions happen, and yes, one is happening now, but to imply that it's worse than any other time is just ludicrous. We don't have masses of people starving to death due to the recession in the U.S.
This is true, but it needs to be noted that the US before the Great Depression was more purely capitalist than the US before the Great Recession (same is true of Germany). But I was referring to the series of recessions we've had since the the late sixties, starting with Nixon and Carter, that have become a seemingly permanent part of the market with the rise of the neolibertarian aka conservative economic policy.
Capitalism is not perfect, it has shortcomings and can cause serious problems in some situations. I can even understand if it is not your economic system of choice. But to look at "modern capitalist society" and claim that it "barely works" and that capitalism "fundamentally does not work," especially when being compared to communism is absolutely ridiculous.
I think that capitalism only seems to work when one first ignores the tyranny and oppression that capitalist democracies export to other countries in order to ensure unrestricted access to natural resources and cheap, unprotected labor, and second when one compares capitalism to the "clear" failure of communism.
Except capitalism fails on many of the same merits as communism. Both systems are guilty of the same sins, and one can find all manner of atrocities that directly relate back to system of economic and political power that is capitalism. You want me to post pictures of Mexican workers gunned down by machine guns for meeting to discuss forming a union? That's capitalism in action. There's a whole history of that kind of thing in the 19th century, capitalists killing their own workers to keep them from self-organizing or rising up. I know that's not part of the "theory of capitalism," but the reality of capitalism is that -- without a lot of state support for workers -- capitalists find it a lot easier to just pay the government to keep an iron heel on the people's face forever. And in many third world countries, the government provides that iron heel in exchange for kickbacks from American companies.
As systems that create outcomes, both communism and capitalism seem to produce excessive amounts of misery and suffering, so in that sense they both fail. I would generally argue that this is the more important hurdle to pass. Where communism is typically considered to have failed though was in its ability to maintain a stable economy. There are two problems with this analysis.
The first is that generally people fail to take into account the Cold War. Part of drivers of success for America in the 50-60's post-war boom was the high tax rate fueling massive government spending on the military infrastructure, creating the force necessary to take on the world police role we've played ever since.
For example, General Electric was a fairly powerful company before the cold war, but became truly dominant -- acquiring many other companies and forming a vast corporate hegemony -- after it received exclusive contracts to manufacture nuclear missiles for the US government and became part of the military-industrial-congressional complex. These projects were extremely profitable and provided a steady revenue stream that allowed GE to advertise and brand itself very aggressively, to be very experimental, take a lot of risks, and fail often enough that there was a high level of investment and growth, despite the ever growing armada of weapons we'd never use. Because all of those missiles were built for show. GE, like many other companies, was also able to apply much of the research and development, and even production, done on government budgets towards commercial ventures. Like Tang, as one of zillions of examples. Tang was researched and developed for NASA, on the taxpayers credit card, and became commercial product for General Foods (that story is actually apocryphal, but there are plenty of less famous examples that are entirely true).
The Soviet Union, with no free market and thus no ability to exploit inexplicable desires for Tang, was unable to find and exploit entrepreneurial re-purposing for its military research, and consequently its own military expenditures were a black hole from which nothing was extracted. All the Soviets military spending, the cost of their wars, all of it was potential labor directed away from meeting the needs of the people and towards engaging in fruitless arms race with America -- an arms race that America was perversely profiting from!
It's certain that under those conditions that communism fails to provide a stable economy. But China, having avoided getting caught up in the Cold War as much as the Soviets and secured "favored nation trading status," has managed to continuously grow and develop its economy while still maintaining state control through the Communist Party. One might argue that they are no longer Red China, that they have moved beyond communism, but that rather misses the point that communism is a transitional form of government and should be expected to diverge from its source with time.
China is obviously a horrible human rights abusers, and so fails on that regard, yet it seems to be economically viable. And it is of course ludicrous for an American to claim his capitalism is free from abuse when so many of China's crimes are done in our name, and our capitalism is so dependent on their perpetuation.
dogma wrote:Marx's critique of capitalism, divorced from his revolutionary dieas, stands as a lame duck. It isn't a shocking truth to articulate the flaws in a given system, it would be shocking to postulate a system whioch could replace the flawed system. Of course, you're not interested in doing that work, you're only interested in deepening your ideological hole.
Actually, I'm totally interested in doing that work. I have all kinds of ideas about what could replace the flawed system, and how the switch could be made without revolution, But this thread is about communism, not libertarian-socialism (anarchism).
Gailbraithe wrote:You want me to post pictures of Mexican workers gunned down by machine guns for meeting to discuss forming a union? That's capitalism in action. There's a whole history of that kind of thing in the 19th century, capitalists killing their own workers to keep them from self-organizing or rising up. I know that's not part of the "theory of capitalism," but the reality of capitalism is that -- without a lot of state support for workers -- capitalists find it a lot easier to just pay the government to keep an iron heel on the people's face forever.
Machine-gunning a fledgling union is "capitalism in action"? Or is it just bad people doing bad things regardless of the economic system that happens to be in place? Hint: It's the latter.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Actually, I'm totally interested in doing that work. I have all kinds of ideas about what could replace the flawed system, and how the switch could be made without revolution, But this thread is about communism, not libertarian-socialism (anarchism).
You're interested in doing regression analysis in order to generate a conceptual proof of capitalism's propensity to equally, or effectively, distribute resources, and postulate that your system can effect quantitative changes to that model whereby improvement occurs according to a certain metric?
No offense, but you haven't exactly shown yourself to be a numbers guy in the past, and qualitative studies are almost always laughed out of the room in the social sciences; especially when they are attempting to draw general conclusions.
Albatross wrote:I think a large part of this problem is the tendency for socialist academics to treat the 'proletariat' as children. Telling people what is good for them and imposing it upon them rarely ends well. It's just paternalism. Modern capitalist society works because everyone has equal opportunity for education, and accumulation of wealth. We have a choice.
That is so wrong as to border on being delusional.
Right, first off, cut that gak out. Seriously. You seem to do it in every thread in which you post. If you continue in this way I can see your time here being pretty short. Yes, there's the odd bit of snide floating around occasionally, that's par for the course, but you're just being a cock for the sake of it.
First, I have to laugh at the notion that "socialist academics" treat the proletariat like children. I'm not denying it, but it's just funny coming from someone defending capitalism, since the capitalists literally treat the proletariat like dogs, expecting mindless obediance and undying loyalty in exchange for table scraps and a place at the foot of their master's bed.
Use the word 'literally' correctly. I live in a modern capitalist nation (i.e. capitalist economy tempered by state-imposed social mechanisms such as education, National Insurance) - the captains of industry here in the UK do not make me live in a kennel, eat from a bowl on the floor, or take me for regular walks.
I think you mean 'figuratively' instead of literally.
Also, you completely ignored my point which is that communist regimes are notable for excessive paternalism (amongst other things), to a far greater extent than is found in a modern capitalist country like the UK. It's for this reason that I would RATHER live under the capitalist system than the communist. It's a preference. For some reason you seem to have me confused with someone who advocates end-state anarcho-capitalism.
It think it might be because you find such people easier to rant at. And let's be honest, you like ranting.
Second, capitalism does not offer choice, especially not regarding education -- it wasn't until working people began rising up against the new aristocracy of the capitalist class and threatening revolution that the system of public education was developed, and without public education the proletariat is entirely at the mercy of the capitalist class. One can look to the libertarians, with their head-in-the-sky ideas about private education for all, for an example of the sort of "choice" that a pure capitalist system would give workers. The children of the poor would pay (almost certainly overpay) for the educational equivalent of a Happy Meal from McDonalds, an education permeated with advertising and pro-consumption messaging, thus ensuring the concretization of class division and the permenant supremacy of the capitalist class.
Yeah, cool story Pancho Villa, but it didn't quite go down like that here. Also, please note that we aren't talking about the 18th or 19th centuries, we're talking about now. Advanced capitalist societies in the west offer a pretty wide choice in terms of education. And again, you seem to be making the assumption that I'm advocating anarcho-capitalism as opposed to communism.
Spoiler:
I'm not, you're just over-excited.
Modern capitalist society barely works (notice the massive recessions we keep having? Notice they keep getting worse? It's because capitalism fundamentally does not work), and the sole reason it kinda works is because of the massive state sponsored quasi-socialist programs developed by Liberal parties to mitigate the extreme effects of the massive poverty creation engendered by capitalism.
Right, now you're just being hysterical. To say that modern capitalist society 'barely works'... We enjoy unparalleled standards of living in the west, we spend more on boredom than the most of the third world does on food, and our poorest citizens are often our most obese. No-one is starving here in Britain. I guess my answer to your 'point' is that it works for me. Past that I don't care.
You could have said that modern capitalist society is 'finely-balanced' and I would have agreed with you. You could also have said 'it only really benefits wealthy nations' and I would have agreed with you.
But I'm guessing subtlety isn't your strong suit.
It doesn't change anything - I would still rather live under a modern capitalist system and have (arguably) limited choices, than under a communist society and have no choices.
I really don't hear about many people from a Capitalist society risking thier lives jumping the fence to live in a Communist one.
On the other hand, I lived around and worked with quite a few people that have risked their liberty and lives to get out of Communist societies to live in the good ole' repressive, capitalist, U.S.A.
Kragura wrote:A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.
So without further adieu, ask away.
What sort of Communist are you? I mean, I'll obviously give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not some type of Stalinist, but should we be grilling you on Trotsky? Adorno? Horkheimer?
It would also be worth noting whether or not you're in favor of the end results of Marx's Communism, the stateless society, the revolution of the proletariat meant to bring that about, or both.
Relapse wrote:I really don't hear about many people from a Capitalist society risking thier lives jumping the fence to live in a Communist one.
On the other hand, I lived around and worked with quite a few people that have risked their liberty and lives to get out of Communist societies to live in the good ole' repressive, capitalist, U.S.A.
It used to happen quite a lot before their economies collapsed in the 80s. It's not a surprise that you didn't hear about it much if you think about it. Nobody want's that kind of thing promoted.
See, I'm not even sure its a nice idea. Marx's argument is essentially this:
Step 1 - Revolution!
Step 2 - ?
Step 3 - Utopia!
The dude made many methodological contributions to economics, and it can even be argued that he is the father of social science as we know it today, but his Communist project really wasn't all that well thought out.
Guitardian wrote:I think there is a false association between communism as an economic/social model for the usage of resources, and the totalitarian regimes responsible for the gulag, or the 1984 mentality. It isn't necessary to have harsh social control and human rights violations, in order to evenly distribute resources amongst a population. They are unrelated concepts, it just so happens that the previously mentioned 'big evil' commie states happen to coincide with communism.
I'm not sure I agree with you there. I think there are ideological concepts frequently found in communist/socialist (I consider the former a subset of the later, ideologically) thought that do greatly increase the likelihood of dictatorship and tyranny arising. For instance, I've read an excerpt by some socialist (one of the Fabian essays?) that essentially decried the concept of individual rights entirely, instead declaring that all legitimate rights must come from "society", which always expresses its will through the state. There's also the belief that the people who exist today are the "product of capitalism", and so are a greedy, stupid, lesser race of people when compared with the selfless, smart, enlightened products of socialism. Such a belief leads to the devaluation of the lives of those currently living, which I have little doubt contributed to the death toll during transitions to socialist forms of political economy. You occasionally have the (mostly Marxist) belief that "class consciousness" will lead to universal agreement about social/political/economic decisions (because these beliefs are dictated by their material circumstances; i.e. their economic class). Thus, if a person of the working class disagrees with socialist(/Marxist) ideology, this cannot because the person truly have a different view of morality or of the state of the capitalist system, but must be because they've been corrupted by capitalism, and are betraying their brothers, despite knowing the truth (which means it's gulag time). And any heavily centralized system tends to become increasingly authoritarian to each individual, as they become less and less powerful compared to the collective. Centralized socialism, then, has pitfalls here. I'm sure there are other ideological aspects of socialism that I think have a tendency to lead to tyranny, but I think you can see the point I'm trying to make.
Now, you may rightly ask if these ideological traits that lead towards oppression are an inherent extension of the ideology's economic/political theories. I would say that in some cases there isn't much of a connection; for instance, I never considered Marx's theories of class consciousness to be a vital part of (non-Marxian) socialist theory. However, the idea of individual rights can be a thornier one. As far as I can tell most modern socialists aren't as inclined to reject the idea of individual rights, but the right to possess the product of one's own labor is generally considered to be the big one. If a person has the right to own the product of their own labor, and to trade, and enter into contracts, then you have what a lot of people would consider the foundation of capitalism. With Marx's exploitation theory pretty badly mangled by the modern understanding of interest as (in part, at least) the product of time-preference, it becomes increasingly difficult to hold the position that the lease of capital goods leads to the confiscation of value that is rightfully the product of those who work with the capital. Rejection of a right to the product of one's labor ends this pretty quickly, but generally leads to the reputation of the rest of any other individual rights which make socialism difficult as well (not to mention it weakens many of their moral arguments against capitalism itself!). The gulf between the capitalist untermensch and the socialist ubermensch is another one that sort of necessarily forms whenever a socialist argues that all of the technical problems of socialism will be solved by the new golden age of selflessness and reason (not that I find these arguments convincing anyways. If everyone was selfless and reasonable, anarcho-capitalism could work just as easily. Hell, nearly anything could. It's just lazy).
So, I guess to sum it up, I do think there are problems inherent to socialism, or at least many kinds of socialism, that will tend to lead to authoritarianism/totalitarianism. There may still be socialistic theories that are capable of avoiding these issues, for the most part, but I think they're liable to be uncommon.
Ooh, I just thought of another huge problem: the belief that capitalism cannot coexist with socialism, in terms of nations, firms, anarchistic societies, or whatever. This generally comes around in form of "capitalistic countries will always try to undermine socialistic countries out of fear for their own survival so long as they are allowed to coexist", "capitalistic firms will outcompete cooperative firms through immoral/"exploitative"/underhanded tactics, and this cannot be stopped so long as capitalistic firms are allowed the same legal status as cooperative firms", "a capitalistic society will attract people who are smart, talented, and otherwise blessed by genetics and by society, which unfairly robs a socialistic society of its assets, by having them work for themselves instead of the society they have a duty to serve", and so on. It should be pretty clear why this concept has totalitarian implications! Not to mention, makes people quite a bit more skeptical of this socialist revolution (it's one thing to say you want to change how some people do things, it's quite another to say that all people must change the way that they act at once, and that unless everyone makes that commitment no one will be able to see the wonderful utopia that would surely be created).
Likewise, Capitalism does not necessarily create 'freedom', and 'democracy' does not mean 'capitalism' either. Too often these terms get intermingled in usage giving a false sense of 'communist dictatorship' versus 'capitalist democracy' when the first word is an economical/social form and the second word is a form of government. It is quite possible to have a capitalist dictatorship (hey, money talks!).
While I think it could well be argued that capitalism, or at least certain components of capitalism, help to stave off dictatorship, I think it would be pretty hard to argue that the two are incompatible. Even Milton Friedman, a pretty ardent capitalist, believed as much, and Pinochet's regime seems to give additional support for it.
I believe we actually live in one now, under the clever disguise of a democratic right to vote (which changes very little, measured against the weight of media, money, and a public kept largely ignorant of the real issues their vote concerns) or bear arms (which could not stand up to a government crackdown) or speak freely (as if the decision makers care what one voice thinks). The united states is ruled by an often vicious, ignorant mob and the politicians who pander to it. If one is not part of that mob mentality, one is enslaved to the will of the masses, whether or not it is right or wrong. SO if it is possible to be oppressed in a capitalist society, why is it so hard to envision a free communist society?
It would seem that you've not only demonstrated that one can be oppressed in a capitalist society, but that one can, in fact, be oppressed in a democratic society. But in any case, I don't think you can make the leap from "capitalism can be oppressive" to "communism may not be oppressive". After all, fascism is pretty much always oppressive, even though you can easily have an oppressive system which isn't fascist. (I should note that I'm not saying communism necessarily is oppressive, just that I don't think your logic is sound in this case.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: That post ended up a little longer than I thought it would.
Gailbraithe wrote:You want me to post pictures of Mexican workers gunned down by machine guns for meeting to discuss forming a union? That's capitalism in action. There's a whole history of that kind of thing in the 19th century, capitalists killing their own workers to keep them from self-organizing or rising up. I know that's not part of the "theory of capitalism," but the reality of capitalism is that -- without a lot of state support for workers -- capitalists find it a lot easier to just pay the government to keep an iron heel on the people's face forever. And in many third world countries, the government provides that iron heel in exchange for kickbacks from American companies.
You want me to post pictures of Soviet workers sent to a Gulag for trying to do anything in a union but agree with their bosses and turn people in? That's communism in action. Communist countries are far, far worse on labor unions than capitalist countries. If you don't believe me, tell me one law that labor unions managed to pass in spite of opposition from the ruling body. Labor unions in the US pushed for and got minimum wage, 8 hour workday, workplace safety, and a host of other things for labor. Labor unions in every communist country parroted whatever the government said for them to say, or they got shot. The fact that the non-communist world isn't perfect doesn't make the communist world any better - I'll certainly take US labor law over USSR labor law.
You keep making the mistake of posting something showing 'bad thing happened under capitalism' and acting like it means 'capitalism always does this and is bad' and further that that means 'communism is good'. You don't seem to really have anything positive to say about Communism or why you chose it, you seem to have 'bad thing happened when not communism, therefore communism is good' which doesn't work logically. Putting my hand in the blender is bad, but that doesn't mean that I should put my hand in the lawn mower.
See, I'm not even sure its a nice idea. Marx's argument is essentially this:
Step 1 - Revolution!
Step 2 - ?
Step 3 - Utopia!
The dude made many methodological contributions to economics, and it can even be argued that he is the father of social science as we know it today, but his Communist project really wasn't all that well thought out.
Yeah, that's why I was saying that at it's most basic level it's a nice idea.
The utopia part, where everyone shares and is happy. And rides a Unicorn and frolics through misty meadows sprinkling Pixie Dust hither and yon. It just never seems to work out that way.
But yes, something that requires a violent revolution probably isn't something to really push for IMHO.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:You want me to post pictures of Soviet workers sent to a Gulag for trying to do anything in a union but agree with their bosses and turn people in? That's communism in action. Communist countries are far, far worse on labor unions than capitalist countries.
That's a ridiculous claim. Both communist authoritarian states and capitalist authoritarian states deal with unions the same way: through violent oppression. Neither is worse than the other. Labor unions in democratic countries do better than labor unions in authoritarian countries, but since there is no connection between democracy and capitalism, it is ridiculous to claim that capitalism is better for labor unions. America has a wonderful history of shooting innocent people for exercising their right to free assembly.
If you don't believe me, tell me one law that labor unions managed to pass in spite of opposition from the ruling body. Labor unions in the US pushed for and got minimum wage, 8 hour workday, workplace safety, and a host of other things for labor. Labor unions in every communist country parroted whatever the government said for them to say, or they got shot. The fact that the non-communist world isn't perfect doesn't make the communist world any better - I'll certainly take US labor law over USSR labor law.
You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood my comments. I think both capitalism and communism are failures, for many reasons, some of which overlap and some of which don't. Nowhere in this thread have I ever, even once, suggested that the failures of capitalism are an endorsement of communism.
I would take the LIBERAL labor laws of the US over the AUTHORITARIAN labor laws of the USSR as well, just as I would take the LIBERAL labor laws of the US over the AUTHORITARIAN labor laws of Chile under Pinochet. Which was organized as a capitalist society.
You keep making the mistake of posting something showing 'bad thing happened under capitalism' and acting like it means 'capitalism always does this and is bad' and further that that means 'communism is good'. You don't seem to really have anything positive to say about Communism or why you chose it, you seem to have 'bad thing happened when not communism, therefore communism is good' which doesn't work logically. Putting my hand in the blender is bad, but that doesn't mean that I should put my hand in the lawn mower.
I have never said a single thing in this entire thread that could be reasonably interpretted that way. I have not made the mistake you claim I've made, because -- quite frankly -- you are not responding to my comments but some weird interprettation of them that isn't supported by the text and only exists in your own fevered mind.
Also, not once have I ever claimed to be a communist or claimed to have chosen communism. In fact, in this two page long thread I have clearly identified my position (libertarian-socialist (anarchist)).
Relapse wrote:I really don't hear about many people from a Capitalist society risking thier lives jumping the fence to live in a Communist one.
On the other hand, I lived around and worked with quite a few people that have risked their liberty and lives to get out of Communist societies to live in the good ole' repressive, capitalist, U.S.A.
It used to happen quite a lot before their economies collapsed in the 80s. It's not a surprise that you didn't hear about it much if you think about it. Nobody want's that kind of thing promoted.
I just wnt to make sure I read you correctly. Are you saying people risked being machine gunned, sent to detention, etc. in droves to escape England, the U.S., Canada to live in the welcome, free, and heady climates of free thinking Red China, Russia and other communist countries?
Sorry in advance if I misunderstand. It's just that I know people that were sent to "reeducation" camps in communist countries and I laugh if that's what you are saying.
dogma wrote:See, I'm not even sure its a nice idea. Marx's argument is essentially this:
Step 1 - Revolution!
Step 2 - ?
Step 3 - Utopia!
Or alternatively:
Step 1 - Buy capital goods
Step 2 - Pay wages
Step 3 - ???
Step 4 - Profit!
Gailbraithe wrote:Also, not once have I ever claimed to be a communist or claimed to have chosen communism. In fact, in this two page long thread I have clearly identified my position (libertarian-socialist (anarchist)).
See, I would define a communist as being both an anarchist and a socialist, as you are. However, you seem to be using a different definition; do you define communism as revolutionary socialism? Marxism? Something else?
Not meaning to contest your use of it, just trying to help get some definitions clear.
Relapse wrote:I just want to make sure I read you correctly. Are you saying people risked being machine gunned, sent to detention, etc. in droves to escape England, the U.S., Canada to live in the welcome, free, and heady climates of free thinking Red China, Russia and other communist countries?
Sorry in advance if I misunderstand. It's just that I know people that were sent to "reeducation" camps in communist countries and I laugh if that's what you are saying.
Well, a lot of people from southern Vietnam ended up fighting for the north. I suppose we need to be defining exactly what "capitalist" countries are consisting of.
Guitardian wrote:A great example is a room-mate/house-mate situation. One roommate 'owns' the TV. Does this mean he gets to only have it on when he wants to? (my little brother does this, but he's a bit nutty, I can't use his Xbox unless he wants to, because it's his, but he's a little nutty and possessive)
Well according to ownership law, yes, he is in every right to not allow me to use his thing. But, we both pay for the space the TV is in, we both live there, and since it's 'our' space, it causes no harm for me to use it, so why not use it? Sure if he moves out he'll take it with him, but so long as it's there to use, he may as well let me use it as it causes no harm to him.
I could stage a revolution, and chuck his TV and put in my own TV in the space it occupied and just say "tough gak buddy, I can beat you up if you don't like it... I could set up my own TV right next to it and now neither of us can watch because it's too distractingly impossible to watch two TV shows at once. He could take it into HIS room instead of the COMMON area, now where's my remote?", or we could just get along fine and just USE THE TV! In this analogy, land ownership, property ownership, would be the apartment. Roommates would be the communists. There is no reason to have 2 TVs, 2 xboxes, 2 sinks, 2 laundrys, just because there's 2 people living there, if we can get by just fine and non-distructively just sharing the one for the community.
Hmm. I think a distinction needs to be made between use and ownership. Ownership generally implies that you can do anything you want with the owned object (so long as it doesn't end up infringing upon the rights of someone else), and so a person who owns an object necessarily has the right to relinquish ownership of it, destroy it, give it, trade it for something else, and so forth. They also have the right to use it, refrain from using it, or let someone else use it (and the right to let another person use it in exchange for something; this is really the heart of the issue, as far as socialism is concerned). Thus, what you're describing is communal use, rather than communal ownership (or a lack of ownership entirely, which is, as far as I can tell, the same thing). So long as your friend ultimately makes the decision as to the use of the TV, ownership remains private; if ownership was communal then there would be no heirarchy in place, if you had a disagreement over what to do with the TV you would have to come to some sort of agreement, whereas with your roommate owning it, the decision over what to do with it is ultimately his (although you're certainly free to come to an agreement if you wish).
Also, it's probably worth noting, that in most cases I've experienced communists only believe in communal ownership of "the means of production", and only believe in the distribution of consumer goods "according to his need" initially; after they've been distributed they would be privately owned, with of all the implications that go along with it (the major exception, as far as my understanding goes, being the ability to charge others for its use; this would make it a de facto capital good, and thus to do this would be exploitation). There are some communists who believe in a truly "propertyless" society (i.e. one in which everything is owned communally), but I think they're rare, and honestly, their position seems a bit ridiculous (at least if you're talking about any "society" consisting of more than a five people).
Guitardian wrote:I oppose 'ownership' of anything you didn't either make or earn or purchase fairly. Land was here long before humans. Land belongs to everyone. Who do you buy it from? The guy says he who 'owned' it before you? Where'd he get it? Who paid god for the first land title?
Gailbraithe wrote:
That's a ridiculous claim. Both communist authoritarian states and capitalist authoritarian states deal with unions the same way: through violent oppression. Neither is worse than the other. Labor unions in democratic countries do better than labor unions in authoritarian countries, but since there is no connection between democracy and capitalism, it is ridiculous to claim that capitalism is better for labor unions. America has a wonderful history of shooting innocent people for exercising their right to free assembly.
That last example doesn't really jive if you're attempting to control for variables that aren't capitalism in terms of what causes state violence against the nation.
Also, let's be real here, free assembly does not necessarily indicate a challenge to capitalism, it indicates only free assembly. Don't equivocate.
Also, I don't think anyone is arguing that communism is to blame for state violence. Rather it seems as though people are arguing that Communism has always been authoritarian, and therefore can be viewed as tacit to a violent state in the practice of state-craft.
Kragura wrote:A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.
So without further adieu, ask away.
You've been given a whole lot of responses so I won't chew your time up too much. I'll just give you one issue with communism to think about.
Communism was predicted by Marx to occur in industrialised Europe, but this never happened. Where there has been successful communist revolutions they've been primarily due to increasingly cruel agricultural societies, or as a response to the hardships of war. The revolution of the proles was meant to be the natural response to oppressive industrial conditions, instead we had unionisation, workers rights, minimum wages and all other kinds of gradual social reform. It seems the natural, historic response to the hardships of capitalism wasn't a grand new system, but steady, progressive reform to minimise the extremes of capitalism.
So where does that leave communism?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
n0t_u wrote:How can a single person be a communist if it relies on many people being equal?
It does not rely on people being equal. Where people get that idea I do not know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BearersOfSalvation wrote:Aside from the whole murdering and torturing thing, what job do you think you will have based on the 'from each according to his abilities' part - do you think you'll be stuck as the sewer cleaner, or will you get to be a poet, leader, philosopher, musician, or some other fun job? How do you expect to fill all of the jobs that aren't poets, leaders, philosophers, writers, musicians, artists, etc, since very few people actually enjoy drudge work - will there be some kind of mechanism to force people to work at jobs that no one wants to do when they could sit around and play guitar all day? Capitalist and mixed-socialist systems solve this by paying more for crappy jobs than the education/skill level would warrant (garbage collectors make damn good money for a job that requires no education and no real skills), Communist societies in theory don't seem to solve the problem, and in practice tend to solve this by telling someone 'do this job or I'll shoot you'.
A person is still paid according to the work they do in society. If a person is not able to get a job in his preferred position, he would still need a job in order to buy stuff he wants. This mechanism is the same whether the means of production are owned by private citizens or the state.
Contrary to popular belief, a doctor in a communist society was paid more than a street sweeper.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:Read 1984 by George Orwell if you haven't. Then tell me how you feel about Communism.
Orwell was a socialist himself. His criticism was of the anti-democratic tendencies common in communist movements. He himself argued for democratic socialism.
Our revered President Rutherford B. Hayes ordered federal troops to fire on a large group of striking railroad workers, killing about 70 people in order to stop a strike. There is a memorial to him at his childhood home in Ohio, where an orphanage was dedicated and founded in his name. I wonder where the orphans came from Mr. Hayes?
Oh my good golly gosh I go away for one day and have 3 pages of responses on my hands well, I'll give it a shot.
Albatross you said our poorest citizens are our most obese and although this may be true in the UK I'm sure the same could not be said for Bangladesh or Myanmar, both of which are capitalist countries.
Dogma I have chosen to stay away from clinging to one persons way of thought and instead chose to think of myself as simply a communist, one who understands that there are lessons to be learned from all past communist leaders (by simply assessing my own belief's I probably fall into a very left communist ideal but I still disagree with them on some things).
sebster you bring up a very interesting thought, however there have been altogether successful revolutions in backwards countries that did not descend into tyranny and successful revolutions in what were at the time well off society's, I would also like to say that I view each one of those struggles you mentioned as a step towards communism leaving communism as the end goal.
Frazzled go visit Ethiopia go visit the slums of Mumbai fully understand why they are there, and then tell me you are a capitalist.
Bearers of salvation I don't consider poet, philosopher, leader, and musician jobs so no I'd probably be the sewer cleaner.
Sadly I don't have the time nor mental focus to answer all your posts so I have chosen to address the one's I could for now and will hopefully be back soon.
Kragura wrote:
Dogma I have chosen to stay away from clinging to one persons way of thought and instead chose to think of myself as simply a communist, one who understands that there are lessons to be learned from all past communist leaders (by simply assessing my own belief's I probably fall into a very left communist ideal but I still disagree with them on some things).
I understand, and commend that impetus, but I think you should still be able to explain your beliefs in the context of the current literature on the subject.
Kragura wrote:sebster you bring up a very interesting thought, however there have been altogether successful revolutions in backwards countries that did not descend into tyranny and successful revolutions in what were at the time well off society's, I would also like to say that I view each one of those struggles you mentioned as a step towards communism leaving communism as the end goal.
You're likely not understanding what I'm saying. I am not talking about tyranny or what communist revolutions produced. I'm talking about Marx' idea that proletariat revolution was inevitable in capitalist societies - it hasn't happened. The revolutions we've seen in capitalist societies have not been communist, and where there have been communist revolutions, they occur exclusively in agrarian economies.
It becomes very obvious that whatever else is going on, communism is not appealing to factory workers. They've opted, historically, to keep the capitalist system, but argue for progressive reforms to modify the extremes of that system.
The problem with viewing those steps as a movement to an end state of communism is that communism doesn't work that way. According to Marx, revolution was the means to the end, the inherent nature of capitalism meant it was the only solution for the proletariat that was possible. Which was probably a reasonable thing for Marx to think in the mid-19th C, but it isn't very reasonable any more.
If you're all for steady, progressive steps to reduce the extremes of capitalism, then you're a socialist at most, and may just be a sane human being who favours results over ideological purity. If you're a communist then you need to be arguing for the people to rise up and take control of the state and put in place a new economic system where the people collectively own the means of production.
Gailbraithe wrote:In fairness, pretty much every capitalist democracy -- including this one -- has engaged in torture and mass murder. If you're an American, try asking a well-educated black person or native American. They'll tell you all about torture and mass murder by capitalists. The only significant difference is that democracies tend to torture and murder people who aren't part of the enfranchised group. Part of the reason communism was able to take hold so successfully in so much of the third world during the 20th century was the history of brutality and oppression by the so-called "free nations" of the west.
When did the US engage in mass murder of blacks, exactly?
You know very well I was making an oblique reference to native americans, but let's try not to pretend that in the 400 years of slavery, lynchings and town burnings there weren't more than a few black people killed.
Indians were not part of the US back when the US was kicking them off of their land. That doesn't make it right to kill them, but driving an outside group off of their land to take it is a bit different than murdering huge chunks of people you already consider in your group - bear in mind that I wasn't talking about communist aggression against other countries, just the internal mass murders.
It's a bit different, but not in an especially important way. Also, the "internal" mass murders in the Soviet Union weren't organized pogroms to eliminate people -- most of the deaths were the result of slow starvation. Nor where they particularly "internal," as the oppression usually originated in the dominant Rus group and was inflicted on small ethnic groups, such as Lempke and Ukrainians.
And how long ago were these events anyway - aren't we talking about the 1800s here? Western democracies have been making huge strides AWAY from killing people off, paying compensation for old wrongs, extending rights to others, acknowledging more and more rights of people. The record isn't perfect, but the clear trend is for things to get BETTER in non-communist countries, while switching to a communist country takes you from 'killed indians 200 years ago' to 'killed 20% of our population this year' - I know which system I'd opt for.
So communism, which developed after capitalism, is worse than capitalism because by the time communism was rising, capitalist was already in decline and had been largely defanged? That's really your argument? Because that's a silly argument.
And no, we're not just talking the 1800s here. Nazi Germany was organized on capitalist principles, and was a capitalist country. While they called it "national socialism" it was not any form of socialism (much like the democratic republic of the congo is neither a democracy or a republic, names are sometimes meaningless, especially when villains pull them on like cloaks to cover their evil).
And there is ongoing oppression and violence right now. Today. In the third world as we speak, there is brutality being directed at working people to keep them working, working for low pay and no hope of a better tommorrow, all for the benefit of modern American capitalism. I think it was about ten years ago now that it came out that in Myanmar the government had murdered some 500 workers who had been engaged in forced labor for Chevron. Slaves, disposed of because they were becoming inconvenient. Even in Iraq, it was proven that Halliburton was using slave labor to keep costs low on the construction of infrastructure -- and then there is the whole question of whether we fought in Iraq to "save liberty and freedom," or if the actual motive had more to do with lining capitalists pockets.
There is a whole world of horrible violence done in our names every day, all over the world. Turn a blind eye at your own peril, it will come back to haunt you. There is a reason Al Queda struck out at the World Trade Centers, and why those buildings (along with the Pentagon) were seen as the heart of American capitalist power.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Also, you completely ignored my point which is that communist regimes are notable for excessive paternalism (amongst other things), to a far greater extent than is found in a modern capitalist country like the UK. It's for this reason that I would RATHER live under the capitalist system than the communist. It's a preference. For some reason you seem to have me confused with someone who advocates end-state anarcho-capitalism.
The UK is a modern liberal state, and the reasons it works and you like it have far more to do with the liberalism than the capitalism. That's my point. People give all the credit for the benefits of liberalism to capitalism, but without the liberalism you'd have laiez-faire (sp?) capitalism -- and it would be as bad as communism.
Yeah, cool story Pancho Villa, but it didn't quite go down like that here. Also, please note that we aren't talking about the 18th or 19th centuries, we're talking about now. Advanced capitalist societies in the west offer a pretty wide choice in terms of education. And again, you seem to be making the assumption that I'm advocating anarcho-capitalism as opposed to communism.
Advanced LIBERAL societies in the west offer a pretty wide choice in terms of education, despite capitalism.
Right, now you're just being hysterical. To say that modern capitalist society 'barely works'... We enjoy unparalleled standards of living in the west, we spend more on boredom than the most of the third world does on food, and our poorest citizens are often our most obese. No-one is starving here in Britain. I guess my answer to your 'point' is that it works for me. Past that I don't care.
Well, I guess I'm just a better person than you, because I care about how my actions affect everyone they affect. I don't suddenly go blind at the borders.
It doesn't change anything - I would still rather live under a modern capitalist system and have (arguably) limited choices, than under a communist society and have no choices.
Sure, and I would rather live under a democratic socialist system and have more choices, more power, and have less of my labor go to support asshats who don't see me as being any different than a dog.
Ok dogma I guess your right it would certainly help the discussion
Lets say for the purpose of discussion I am leading the revolution and we just chased out the last capitalist what do I bring about?
A dictatorship of the proletariat based on direct democratic principles using referendums (plebiscites) or in times of crises a republic based on representatives from each soviet. This republic would also come together to decide the country's position on international issues and would elect one person as a sort of ambassador to other nations (like the presidents of Pakistan and Russia). A crisis would be decided on plebiscite and could be ended by an annual plebiscite or when the soviet council sees fit. attendance at the soviet council would come above work duties how ever, If someone chooses not to attend then they must work as per normal. each community would also elect a team of representatives to oversee the community the team can be made up of whoever they wish. larger communities would be broken up into communities of perhaps no more than 300,000 to 500,000 people. It is the duty of the teams to provide reports to the soviet council in times of crisis and to all of population in times of peace.
Education would run as it does now however higher levels of education would be free to all and would focus heavily on distrusting and knowing that you can overthrow governments that do not represent the people (although not necessarily by bloody revolutions) health would be free to all as well as would things that benefit community such as cinemas and parks. money would be used primarily for the trade in material goods such as TV's gaming systems etc. I'm not sure but it occurs to me now that perhaps food could be free like health care and schooling although I would need to think about this more.
There would be no standing military but compulsory military training would be in place, and it would be the duty of everyone to keep themselves armed and alert. people could go to war as they please however the government will not back them unless by decision of the soviet council. It would be a right to refuse to fight any war.
other rights would include
free speech
free religion
right to basic needs (right to a healthy life)
right to assemble peacefully
right to form any organisation
*DISCLAIMER*
Most of this is just what seems obvious to me as what would be needed as the basis of a communist society and as I haven't thought to deeply along these lines, problems will no doubt arise as this is of course the ideal scenario.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Kragura wrote:sebster you bring up a very interesting thought, however there have been altogether successful revolutions in backwards countries that did not descend into tyranny and successful revolutions in what were at the time well off society's, I would also like to say that I view each one of those struggles you mentioned as a step towards communism leaving communism as the end goal.
You're likely not understanding what I'm saying. I am not talking about tyranny or what communist revolutions produced. I'm talking about Marx' idea that proletariat revolution was inevitable in capitalist societies - it hasn't happened. The revolutions we've seen in capitalist societies have not been communist, and where there have been communist revolutions, they occur exclusively in agrarian economies.
It becomes very obvious that whatever else is going on, communism is not appealing to factory workers. They've opted, historically, to keep the capitalist system, but argue for progressive reforms to modify the extremes of that system.
The problem with viewing those steps as a movement to an end state of communism is that communism doesn't work that way. According to Marx, revolution was the means to the end, the inherent nature of capitalism meant it was the only solution for the proletariat that was possible. Which was probably a reasonable thing for Marx to think in the mid-19th C, but it isn't very reasonable any more.
If you're all for steady, progressive steps to reduce the extremes of capitalism, then you're a socialist at most, and may just be a sane human being who favours results over ideological purity. If you're a communist then you need to be arguing for the people to rise up and take control of the state and put in place a new economic system where the people collectively own the means of production.
But I am talking about reducing the extremes of capitalism to the point of it no longer existing. how the people rise up is not really of consequence, revolution is simply what I think is most likely to do it.
Now a second point my vocab isn't to crash hot But I would assume an agrarian society is primarily agricultural is this right?
If so then yes most successful communist revolutions have taken place in agrarian society's, however if we take the example of the Russian revolution it was the factory worker in Petrograd that began the revolution with their international woman's day marches. So it would seem in this case at least the workers can come together for communism, not just workers rights.
and as a final point their have been communist revolutions in industrial society's as well the German revolution springs to mind as doe the commune de Paris.
Kragura wrote:But I am talking about reducing the extremes of capitalism to the point of it no longer existing. how the people rise up is not really of consequence, revolution is simply what I think is most likely to do it.
Revolution is a really exciting thing, but in reality it involves years of protests, violent street battles with police and other political movements, assassinations and bombings. It's a really ugly thing. Nor does it guarantee a government or economic system that's actually any better than what we've got now.
Now a second point my vocab isn't to crash hot But I would assume an agrarian society is primarily agricultural is this right?
If so then yes most successful communist revolutions have taken place in agrarian society's, however if we take the example of the Russian revolution it was the factory worker in Petrograd that began the revolution with their international woman's day marches. So it would seem in this case at least the workers can come together for communism, not just workers rights.
Yes, agrarian means agricultural. Russia was still a predominantly agricultural society when the revolution occurred, the majority of workers were not factory hands but serfs. Marx himself argued against revolution there, believing they still needed industrialisation to build up the material wealth to have something reallocating to the people. Nor was the communist revolution much of a revolution at all. There was a real revolution when the Tsar was overthrown, but the subsequent overthrow of Kerensky's Provisional government was more a revolution than anything else.
The actual level of support for communism among the working classes is very small, and has never been large. It is a problem when a movement that is nominally all about the plight of the working man is led entirely by the bourgeoisie. It begins to appear as a false movement.
and as a final point their have been communist revolutions in industrial society's as well the German revolution springs to mind as doe the commune de Paris.
The Paris Commune ran parts of the city before a month before failing, a failed revolution is a very different to a successful one. I'm unsure as to which German revolution you're talking about, neither of them had any overt Communist.
sebster wrote:Yes, agrarian means agricultural. Russia was still a predominantly agricultural society when the revolution occurred, the majority of workers were not factory hands but serfs. Marx himself argued against revolution there, believing they still needed industrialisation to build up the material wealth to have something reallocating to the people. Nor was the communist revolution much of a revolution at all. There was a real revolution when the Tsar was overthrown, but the subsequent overthrow of Kerensky's Provisional government was more a revolution than anything else.
I don't mean to say that Russia wasn't agrarian but the revolution was a proletarian movement, both of them were.
I was also using the Paris commune and the German revolution* as examples of communist movement's starting up in industrial society's whether or not they were successful was not my point, my point was they happened.
Final point I would hardly call invasion from an aggressive and vastly superior military power against a few armed militias failing, I would like to see what political ideology could stand up to that.
Kragura wrote:I don't mean to say that Russia wasn't agrarian but the revolution was a proletarian movement, both of them were.
I was also using the Paris commune and the German revolution* as examples of communist movement's starting up in industrial society's whether or not they were successful was not my point, my point was they happened.
But they lacked the popular support needed to successfully build a new government. And that is my point. Where has communism ever had the overwhelming support of the working class?
Where there's been successful communist revolts, they've due to the unpopularity of colonial and agricultural systems, or due to the hardships of war. In a plain capitalist state the hardships caused by capitalism have always been solved with workers rights, minimum wages, universal healthcare and other such system. Because the workers don't dream of revolution, that's something university kids dream of.
Final point I would hardly call invasion from an aggressive and vastly superior military power against a few armed militias failing, I would like to see what political ideology could stand up to that.
The Soviets managed that very thing in the civil war. Of course, the exact reasons for that success had little to do with any belief in communism, and everything to do with a rejection of the aristocracy, the incompetence and disorder of the whites, and the incredibly brutal means the Bolsheviks used to maintain control. But that's kind of the nature of revolution.
While a few of the earliest incidents were by groups with strong communist roots, the revolution as a whole was not communist. This can be observed in that the end state of the revolution was not a communist state.
Albatross wrote:Also, you completely ignored my point which is that communist regimes are notable for excessive paternalism (amongst other things), to a far greater extent than is found in a modern capitalist country like the UK. It's for this reason that I would RATHER live under the capitalist system than the communist. It's a preference. For some reason you seem to have me confused with someone who advocates end-state anarcho-capitalism.
The UK is a modern liberal state, and the reasons it works and you like it have far more to do with the liberalism than the capitalism. That's my point. People give all the credit for the benefits of liberalism to capitalism, but without the liberalism you'd have laiez-faire (sp?) capitalism -- and it would be as bad as communism.
Laissez-faire, I think. *checks google* Yeah.
I'm not saying that's preferable, I'm saying that modern capitalism allows for that balance between liberalism and capitalism and that I would rather live under that system than a communist system. I can't think of one communist regime which has achieved a similar balance. Probably because communism doesn't allow for it. You could argue that China is moving towards a balanced economy, but you could also argue that in doing so they are also moving away from communism.
Yeah, cool story Pancho Villa, but it didn't quite go down like that here. Also, please note that we aren't talking about the 18th or 19th centuries, we're talking about now. Advanced capitalist societies in the west offer a pretty wide choice in terms of education. And again, you seem to be making the assumption that I'm advocating anarcho-capitalism as opposed to communism.
Advanced LIBERAL societies in the west offer a pretty wide choice in terms of education, despite capitalism.
Again, balanced economy. Public and private options. Choice. Not under communism.
Right, now you're just being hysterical. To say that modern capitalist society 'barely works'... We enjoy unparalleled standards of living in the west, we spend more on boredom than the most of the third world does on food, and our poorest citizens are often our most obese. No-one is starving here in Britain. I guess my answer to your 'point' is that it works for me. Past that I don't care.
Well, I guess I'm just a better person than you, because I care about how my actions affect everyone they affect. I don't suddenly go blind at the borders.
Of course you're a better person. Shrieking at people who disagree with you on the internet makes you a better person. Everyone knows this. It was on the news.
In all seriousness, you may have a point. I'm an avowed pragmatist. I'm pretty happy with my life. If that means someone-else's life has to suck, then that's sad but so be it. I'm not running for pope here.
It doesn't change anything - I would still rather live under a modern capitalist system and have (arguably) limited choices, than under a communist society and have no choices.
Sure, and I would rather live under a democratic socialist system and have more choices, more power, and have less of my labor go to support asshats who don't see me as being any different than a dog.
Ahtman wrote:@ComputerGeek01: You really need to do more research before talking about things. Native American societies are not communist, and neither are Amish.
To call a Comanche a communist is an insult to all comanches. Expect to be visited by a war party bearing Henrys and lawsuits within the next three weeks, depending on your distance from Texas, or come to the fun filled Coushatta Hotel and Casino where they will take al your posessions legally white man!
Gailbraithe wrote:That's a ridiculous claim. Both communist authoritarian states and capitalist authoritarian states deal with unions the same way: through violent oppression. Neither is worse than the other. Labor unions in democratic countries do better than labor unions in authoritarian countries, but since there is no connection between democracy and capitalism, it is ridiculous to claim that capitalism is better for labor unions. America has a wonderful history of shooting innocent people for exercising their right to free assembly.
It's a true claim, sorry if you find it ridiculous. Actual communist states (as opposed to wishful thinking) have all been authroitarian, it's a fundamental part of the revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat on the way to the conversion of society to the imaginary end state that no one ever gets to. And they've been way, way crueler to labor unions than capitalist societies - we wouldn't have any worker protections if the US treated labor unions as 'well' as communist countries.
You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood my comments. I think both capitalism and communism are failures, for many reasons, some of which overlap and some of which don't. Nowhere in this thread have I ever, even once, suggested that the failures of capitalism are an endorsement of communism.
Capitalist societies operating under liberal democracies (really republics using technical definitions) have produced more wealth, more freedom, more opportunity, and more of everything good than any other system. Communist societies have produces absolutely incredible body counts, staggering levels of repression, and record-setting levels of human misery. Capitalism may not be perfect, but it's far from a failure, while communism has failed at the goals any non-evil person wants in a huge manner every single time it's been attempted.
Also, not once have I ever claimed to be a communist or claimed to have chosen communism. In fact, in this two page long thread I have clearly identified my position (libertarian-socialist (anarchist)).
Oh, I thought you were the OP for some reason, probably because you've responded more than he has. So what is the point of your responses in this thread then? Are you just trying to establish 'capitalism is not perfect'? Well, I don't think anyone would disagree with that. If you're trying to establish 'capitalism is as bad as communism', you're failing miserably.
Kragura wrote:
I don't mean to say that Russia wasn't agrarian but the revolution was a proletarian movement, both of them were.
I was also using the Paris commune and the German revolution* as examples of communist movement's starting up in industrial society's whether or not they were successful was not my point, my point was they happened.
Kilkrazy wrote:Or maybe it was right but some avoidable circumstance interfered?
if it had only failed in 1 place I guess I could see that, but it fails pretty much every time its attempted. If the theory fails to take account of something that happens more or less consistently then it's at best incomplete.
It's a nice idea about people all working together and sharing what they make and earn for the common good, at it's most basic level. That's the way I see it anyway.
Though it is a complete failure in real world terms.
You know, technically marriages are communist. Absolute sharing of resources for the good fo the many. At least in the uS, half of those end in divorce. Communism, making blood sucking attornies rich for over 100 years...
Guitardian wrote:Our revered President Rutherford B. Hayes ordered federal troops to fire on a large group of striking railroad workers, killing about 70 people in order to stop a strike. There is a memorial to him at his childhood home in Ohio, where an orphanage was dedicated and founded in his name. I wonder where the orphans came from Mr. Hayes?
You're asking a 100 year dead man a question? You are insinuating the U.S. hasn't evolved to a point where shooting at strikers and killing 70 people wouldn't get someone in major trouble? I'll be the first to admit that there were and are some real bastards in U.S. politics, but no where close to what you'd see in Communist countries.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:You want me to post pictures of Soviet workers sent to a Gulag for trying to do anything in a union but agree with their bosses and turn people in? That's communism in action. Communist countries are far, far worse on labor unions than capitalist countries.
That's a ridiculous claim. Both communist authoritarian states and capitalist authoritarian states deal with unions the same way: through violent oppression. Neither is worse than the other. Labor unions in democratic countries do better than labor unions in authoritarian countries, but since there is no connection between democracy and capitalism, it is ridiculous to claim that capitalism is better for labor unions. America has a wonderful history of shooting innocent people for exercising their right to free assembly.
I'll show you one that started the revolution that started the downfall of the Warsaw Pact.
Poland.
In the US I can vote on whether or not to join the union and whether or not to strike. you Europeans have turned union striking into a pass time.
Do that in a communist country and you end up either dead or leading a revolution. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1983/walesa-bio.html
sebster wrote:A person is still paid according to the work they do in society. If a person is not able to get a job in his preferred position, he would still need a job in order to buy stuff he wants. This mechanism is the same whether the means of production are owned by private citizens or the state.
Contrary to popular belief, a doctor in a communist society was paid more than a street sweeper.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If you pay people based on the work they do instead of according to need, you're doing the opposite of what communism says to do. The doctor being paid more than a street sweeper is just one of those things done temporarily while the revolution sorts out, it's not supposed to happen in the end result.
Orwell was a socialist himself. His criticism was of the anti-democratic tendencies common in communist movements. He himself argued for democratic socialism.
Democratic socialism is not communism, regardless of what propaganda against it said. Most notably, it actually has a track record of not killing off huge chunks of the population when someone attempts to put it into practice.
I like the of communism but I think it's downfall is human's faults rather than anything wrong with communism. Because of this I try to be slightly less extreme.
Yes in the recent past communism has commited some horrible acts but so have every kind of government it's just communism getting targeted and having it's faults magnified. Throughout history communism has done very little compared to other kinds of ruling. Communism has the biggest appeal for poorer countries where this kind of thing happens regardless of how it's run.
If people could follow the idea exactly as it's meant to be followed it would work but that is against huaman nature. You can get close but humans are too selfish for communism which I think is a shame as could see it solving a lot of problems.
If people could follow the idea exactly as it's meant to be followed it would work but that is against huaman nature. You can get close but humans are too selfish for communism which I think is a shame as could see it solving a lot of problems.
So it doesn't work actually. Its a system for humans, not computers. If it doesn't work for actual humans it doesn't work.
It is an easy target. But how many people here bashing commie state atrocities are any denomination of Xtianity, the supposed mover-n'-shaker for our enlightened western ways? Do we really want to dig to deep into magdallan-stoning, witch-burning, inquisitorial 'trials', crusades, atrocities as a comparison? Xtianity has lumped itself upon western civilization as a moral imperative, whether you believe in it or not, the culture is laden with it. The way I see it they are both misled idealisms, but the former is a lot more vicious than the latter. It's just that commies have the disadvantage of existing post-technology so the capacity for harm was more obvious and documented. Next time all the commie bashers have their weekly day in church they should just think Torquemada, Cortez, Richard, and wonder why anybody buys into this tripe or that tripe in the first place. I don't see much difference between preaching 'love your fellow man' while burning witches, and saying 'all people are equal' while marching them off to the gulag. Hippocrasy all of it. Think for yourself. If you are a true communist (not the political party but the ideology), you help where you can and hope/expect others to do the same for you. That's all it is.
I dont even think communism is a good idea..... trying to achieve an end state where everyone is happy is absurd. people are by nature impossible to satisfy. they're born to be unhappy bc they want things they cant have, and when they get the things they want they grow out of old desires and learn new ones. people who cannot limit their desires - who cannot learn to be content - can never be happy. as this will always be most of the people in the world a state or economic system that attempts to erase their unhappiness is doomed to failure, no matter what particular strategy for the distribution of goods it employs.
Gailbraithe wrote:The UK is a modern liberal state, and the reasons it works and you like it have far more to do with the liberalism than the capitalism. That's my point. People give all the credit for the benefits of liberalism to capitalism, but without the liberalism you'd have laissez-faire capitalism -- and it would be as bad as communism.
I'm not saying that's preferable, I'm saying that modern capitalism allows for that balance between liberalism and capitalism and that I would rather live under that system than a communist system. I can't think of one communist regime which has achieved a similar balance. Probably because communism doesn't allow for it. You could argue that China is moving towards a balanced economy, but you could also argue that in doing so they are also moving away from communism.
Ah, see I think the bolded part is just a very poor description. I think it doesn't capture the reality at all. I think it would be far more to say that "Modern liberalism allows for a balance between the fascist tendencies of capitalism and the communist tendencies of socialism." When you say that "modern capitalism allows for that balance between liberalism and capitalism" you imply that liberalism is the opposite of capitalism, but it's not at all. Socialism, defined as worker ownership of the means of production, is the opposite of capitalism, defined as capital ownership of the means of production.
Marxist Communism seeks to use revolution to install a van garde (The Party) that will recreate the capitalist society as a socialist society, while Liberalism -- an outgrowth of Fabian socialism -- seeks to use pragmatic government policy to mediate the damaging effects of capitalism while maintaining capitalist property rights. Meanwhile Fascism is the most capitalist of all systems, as in a fascist government the state takes a direct role in promoting the interest and fortunes of the existing capitalist class. Some people will protest that fascists don't believe in the free market, which is true, but capitalism ≠ free marrket. Two very different ideas really.
This is basically the heart of my point. When people make the argument they would rather live in a capitalist country than a communist country, or some variation on it (such as the "Nobody shoots Americans trying to leave America" rhetoric), they are being a bit disingenuous, because America isn't actually a capitalist society. It's a liberal society with a mix of capitalist and socialist features.
A capitalist society -- one in which only capitalist conceptions of property rights were respected -- would be fascist, if history is any indication. Because all capitalist states that have made no concessions to socialist moral claims have been fascist dictatorships. And that have proven themselves to be every bit as violent, repressive, and bloodthirsty as their communist counter-parts -- though far less successful.
Well, I guess I'm just a better person than you, because I care about how my actions affect everyone they affect. I don't suddenly go blind at the borders.
In all seriousness, you may have a point. I'm an avowed pragmatist. I'm pretty happy with my life. If that means someone-else's life has to suck, then that's sad but so be it. I'm not running for pope here.
But you are trying to claim that the system you prefer is morally superior to this other system. That's kind of like running for pope. It's certainly claiming a moral high ground. It seems disingenuous to me to both claim a moral high ground and then offer up the weak defense that you're "pragmatic" and thus going to ignore the actual costs of the system you purport is morally superior.
Sure, and I would rather live under a democratic socialist system and have more choices, more power, and have less of my labor go to support asshats who don't see me as being any different than a dog.
So... France?
Honestly, I'm more a fan of Holland, Sweden and Norway. Too bad they don't like immigrants and have crazy rigid immigration laws, otherwise I'd move in a heartbeat. If my writing career ever takes off, I'm totally moving there. Or I might go back to Prague, but that'd be more for the culture and the people than the government. I freaking love the Czechs. They're great, really know how to live well.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I dont even think communism is a good idea..... trying to achieve an end state where everyone is happy is absurd. people are by nature impossible to satisfy. they're born to be unhappy bc they want things they cant have, and when they get the things they want they grow out of old desires and learn new ones. people who cannot limit their desires - who cannot learn to be content - can never be happy. as this will always be most of the people in the world a state or economic system that attempts to erase their unhappiness is doomed to failure, no matter what particular strategy for the distribution of goods it employs.
That's not the end goal we just think people would be happier with communism than without it. the same logic could be applied to any change in politics over the last 2000 years.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I dont even think communism is a good idea..... trying to achieve an end state where everyone is happy is absurd. people are by nature impossible to satisfy. they're born to be unhappy bc they want things they cant have, and when they get the things they want they grow out of old desires and learn new ones. people who cannot limit their desires - who cannot learn to be content - can never be happy. as this will always be most of the people in the world a state or economic system that attempts to erase their unhappiness is doomed to failure, no matter what particular strategy for the distribution of goods it employs.
That's not the end goal we just think people would be happier with communism than without it. the same logic could be applied to any change in politics over the last 2000 years.
And where have you seen this actually happen in the many times Communism has been applied?
Gailbraithe wrote:Marxist Communism seeks to use revolution to install a van garde (The Party)
Just a small thing. A revolutionary vanguard is never mentioned in Marxist writing, They came about through Lenin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Kragura wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I dont even think communism is a good idea..... trying to achieve an end state where everyone is happy is absurd. people are by nature impossible to satisfy. they're born to be unhappy bc they want things they cant have, and when they get the things they want they grow out of old desires and learn new ones. people who cannot limit their desires - who cannot learn to be content - can never be happy. as this will always be most of the people in the world a state or economic system that attempts to erase their unhappiness is doomed to failure, no matter what particular strategy for the distribution of goods it employs.
That's not the end goal we just think people would be happier with communism than without it. the same logic could be applied to any change in politics over the last 2000 years.
And where have you seen this actually happen in the many times Communism has been applied?
Although every time it was short lived, Socialism has worked before.
Gailbraithe wrote:Marxist Communism seeks to use revolution to install a van garde (The Party)
Just a small thing. A revolutionary vanguard is never mentioned in Marxist writing, They came about through Lenin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Kragura wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I dont even think communism is a good idea..... trying to achieve an end state where everyone is happy is absurd. people are by nature impossible to satisfy. they're born to be unhappy bc they want things they cant have, and when they get the things they want they grow out of old desires and learn new ones. people who cannot limit their desires - who cannot learn to be content - can never be happy. as this will always be most of the people in the world a state or economic system that attempts to erase their unhappiness is doomed to failure, no matter what particular strategy for the distribution of goods it employs.
That's not the end goal we just think people would be happier with communism than without it. the same logic could be applied to any change in politics over the last 2000 years.
And where have you seen this actually happen in the many times Communism has been applied?
Although every time it was short lived, Socialism has worked before.
This is a thread about communism. Again, where has it been enforced where the people like it better? By people lets just say majority of the population?
Frazzled wrote:Interesting. However, capitalist economies are older than the 1930s concept of fascism by about 25,000 years.
frazzled..... ummmm.... capitalism isnt quite the same thing as trade. capitalism refers specifically to a modern, industrial, lassaiz fair economy. trade may be 25k years old. capitalism is less than a few hundred. AF
Frazzled wrote:Interesting. However, capitalist economies are older than the 1930s concept of fascism by about 25,000 years.
frazzled..... ummmm.... capitalism isnt quite the same thing as trade. capitalism refers specifically to a modern, industrial, lassaiz fair economy. trade may be 25k years old. capitalism is less than a few hundred. AF
True dat. Of course thats way longer than fascism.
Frazzled wrote:Interesting. However, capitalist economies are older than the 1930s concept of fascism by about 25,000 years.
Capitalism developed in the late 18th and 19th century. I don't see how you can possibly hope to justify claiming capitalism has been around for 25,000 years.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I dont even think communism is a good idea..... trying to achieve an end state where everyone is happy is absurd. people are by nature impossible to satisfy. they're born to be unhappy bc they want things they cant have, and when they get the things they want they grow out of old desires and learn new ones. people who cannot limit their desires - who cannot learn to be content - can never be happy. as this will always be most of the people in the world a state or economic system that attempts to erase their unhappiness is doomed to failure, no matter what particular strategy for the distribution of goods it employs.
That's not the end goal we just think people would be happier with communism than without it. the same logic could be applied to any change in politics over the last 2000 years.
I disagree. Marx and his followers talked about the utopia that was just around the corner from the 1st to the last day they were in power. It never got here. It cant get here. People dont want to be happy. They want what they want. There is no end state for growing, changing beings. AF
A lot of Cubans, when interviewed back in the 90s, seemed quite happy with their regime. Perhaps they only interviewed a priveliged minority, I don't know, but most people I heard on the 60 minutes special were glad that their state was run the way it was. Castro however has recently claimed that it was more or less steering a sinking ship. With all the sanctions and such there's no way they could have pulled it off in the long run, but for a while they seemed to be happy little commies.
Homeless tribes and Gangs and labor unions are all communistic in their outlook, as are shared housing roommates, the guys from 'accounting' versus the guys from 'HR', nuclear families, and so on. I got along fine in all of the above scenarios, but if the group in question grew too big so as to become impersonal, without a direct connection on a personal level to the person you are helping/being helped by, then the commune idealism starts to break down into resentment. If you work it on a very small level, it is a boon for all involved. Once it becomes state mandated Communism, instead of communalism, you get a mess, as we have seen in the previous posts examples of failed commie regimes.
China does seem to be a functionally growing superpower despite being commies with harsh treatment of dissenters. Will they just collapse and fall like the U.S.S.R. once they have reached the target mark of American TV commercials seen by their public? I dunno about you, but they seem pretty solid to me. We can denounce their harsh legal system and civil rights restrictions, but we can't say they are a 'failed' government when we are the ones borrowing money from them and buying stuff produced over there because its cheaper while we dont produce it at home. Not to say I really like china or anything, but so far, they have been a pretty successful commie establishment and I dont see them getting any weaker.
Not everybody is insatiable AbbadonFidelis, Buddhism has been around far longer than Christ, and their entire culture is based on a paradoxical want to not want.
Frazzled wrote:Interesting. However, capitalist economies are older than the 1930s concept of fascism by about 25,000 years.
frazzled..... ummmm.... capitalism isnt quite the same thing as trade. capitalism refers specifically to a modern, industrial, lassaiz fair economy. trade may be 25k years old. capitalism is less than a few hundred. AF
True dat. Of course thats way longer than fascism.
Frazzled wrote:This is a thread about communism. Again, where has it been enforced where the people like it better? By people lets just say majority of the population?
When I lived in Eastern Europe I met many, many Eastern Europeans who believed that things were better under communism, and still supported the communist party. They were not the majority, but they were a very large minority (like conservatives in America). And often heard people say that what they objected to about the Soviets was the totalitarianism, the spying, the control of media and the like, none of which they associated with communism.
4M2A wrote:I like the of communism but I think it's downfall is human's faults rather than anything wrong with communism.
I hear this said and it universally seems to me - not meaning to offend - like complete nonsense. Communism is a social/political/economic theory. It is a theory about how people act. If it fails to understand how people act it fails as a theory, just as surely as a cure for a disease in medicine fails if it doesn't accurately assess human physiology. Reality isn't at fault when a theory fails to describe it, the theory is, no matter how wonderful the result of the theory having been accurate may have been.
Imagine a doctor published a paper in which he said skin cancer was caused by having a bad gizzard. You wouldn't say "well it's still a good theory, even though humans don't actually have gizzards. I mean, that's our fault, not his. Think about how great things would be if we didn't have skin cancer!" That would be silly.
4M2A wrote:I like the of communism but I think it's downfall is human's faults rather than anything wrong with communism.
I hear this said and it universally seems to me - not meaning to offend - like complete nonsense. Communism is a social/political/economic theory. It is a theory about how people act. If it fails to understand how people act it fails as a theory, just as surely as a cure for a disease in medicine fails if it doesn't accurately assess human physiology. Reality isn't at fault when a theory fails to describe it, the theory is, no matter how wonderful the result of the theory having been accurate may have been.
Imagine a doctor published a paper in which he said skin cancer was caused by having a bad gizzard. You wouldn't say "well it's still a good theory, even though humans don't actually have gizzards. I mean, that's our fault, not his. Think about how great things would be if we didn't have skin cancer!" That would be silly.
The end result is what appeals to people.
Utopia. Of course it's not possible, but the idea is nice. You know, like ice cream that doesn't melt or something.
Guitardian wrote:A lot of Cubans, when interviewed back in the 90s, seemed quite happy with their regime. Perhaps they only interviewed a priveliged minority, I don't know, but most people I heard on the 60 minutes special were glad that their state was run the way it was. Castro however has recently claimed that it was more or less steering a sinking ship. With all the sanctions and such there's no way they could have pulled it off in the long run, but for a while they seemed to be happy little commies.
Homeless tribes and Gangs and labor unions are all communistic in their outlook, as are shared housing roommates, the guys from 'accounting' versus the guys from 'HR', nuclear families, and so on. I got along fine in all of the above scenarios, but if the group in question grew too big so as to become impersonal, without a direct connection on a personal level to the person you are helping/being helped by, then the commune idealism starts to break down into resentment. If you work it on a very small level, it is a boon for all involved. Once it becomes state mandated Communism, instead of communalism, you get a mess, as we have seen in the previous posts examples of failed commie regimes.
China does seem to be a functionally growing superpower despite being commies with harsh treatment of dissenters. Will they just collapse and fall like the U.S.S.R. once they have reached the target mark of American TV commercials seen by their public? I dunno about you, but they seem pretty solid to me. We can denounce their harsh legal system and civil rights restrictions, but we can't say they are a 'failed' government when we are the ones borrowing money from them and buying stuff produced over there because its cheaper while we dont produce it at home. Not to say I really like china or anything, but so far, they have been a pretty successful commie establishment and I dont see them getting any weaker.
Not everybody is insatiable AbbadonFidelis, Buddhism has been around far longer than Christ, and their entire culture is based on a paradoxical want to not want.
Of course that was after the Mariel boatlift. Say hello to my little friend!
4M2A wrote:I like the of communism but I think it's downfall is human's faults rather than anything wrong with communism.
I hear this said and it universally seems to me - not meaning to offend - like complete nonsense. Communism is a social/political/economic theory. It is a theory about how people act. If it fails to understand how people act it fails as a theory, just as surely as a cure for a disease in medicine fails if it doesn't accurately assess human physiology. Reality isn't at fault when a theory fails to describe it, the theory is, no matter how wonderful the result of the theory having been accurate may have been.
Imagine a doctor published a paper in which he said skin cancer was caused by having a bad gizzard. You wouldn't say "well it's still a good theory, even though humans don't actually have gizzards. I mean, that's our fault, not his. Think about how great things would be if we didn't have skin cancer!" That would be silly.
I think a better analogy would be "we can cure your lung cancer but not if you keep smoking". If people practiced what they preached (many do, but as said before, all it takes is one bad apple) if people walked the walk as well as talking the utopian talk, then yes it would work. I believe the next stage of human evolution will not be a physical one, but an evolution of our ethical and moral responsibilities as self-aware beings. I hope it happens in my lifetime, but so long as we gripe about ownership, lines on maps, and cultural incompatabilities we will continue to live in our enlightened modern dark age, caught between dogmas and rationality.
Gallup wrote:Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.
Gailbraithe wrote:Socialism, defined as worker ownership of the means of production, is the opposite of capitalism, defined as capital ownership of the means of production. (...) Some people will protest that fascists don't believe in the free market, which is true, but capitalism ≠ free market. Two very different ideas really.
The definitions you're using aren't the definitions used by proponents of capitalism. To argue against capitalism as perceived by socialists may not be too difficult, but as you can probably see in this thread, to argue against socialism as defined by capitalists isn't either.
And that's before we reach the socialist/communist distinction.
Gallup wrote:Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.
Gallup is obviously an arm of the Conservative Fascist Lie Machine.
Gallup wrote:Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.
40% is a very large minority, dogma. 40% is not a majority.
Guitardian wrote:I think a better analogy would be "we can cure your lung cancer but not if you keep smoking".
Eh, utopian socialism maybe, but not the scientific socialism that most communists saw themselves as subscribers to. They needed to have a system in place. A theory about human action.
(The biggest problem with utopian socialism is that it's sort of a no-brainer. Yeah, if everyone was nice it would be good, okay.)
Edit: I should probably explain a little more fully. I think there's a key difference to be made between the hard theories of socialism and the more squishy ones. Utopian socialism never really came to any sort of power, and honestly, I don't really consider many forms of "utopian socialism" to be socialism at all, because they simply seem too deficient in explanations of how the means of production interact (i.e. they don't really seem to be economic theories). I would consider these people to be anarchists (generally), and collectivists (probably), but not really socialists. While Frazzled was probably joking about marriage being communist, I think I can still use it serve as an example; marriage isn't a "communistic" (or "socialistic") relationship, even if they own things communally, unless they own things communally that are used in the production of other things.
Thus, when socialism (or communism) is discussed I think forms of "scientific socialism" - Marxian or otherwise - are the ones that really need to be addressed. Socialist theories about how the capitalist system works, how it distributes goods, what effect it has on society, how changes made to the capitalist system could effect society, and so forth. In these matters, a socialist (or anybody else) can't afford to be (very) wrong on aspects of human nature, presently or under a proposed system. Human nature is a fundamental part of any of these theories, and these theories are - in accordance with the notion of being scientific - positive, rather than normative, and so cannot be excused from inaccuracy on account of perceived immorality.
However, in retrospect, I may have jumped to conclusions about how 4M2A was defining things (these damn definitions! They're wrecking havoc on the thread!), so for that I apologize, if he thinks me overly critical of him.
Gallup wrote:Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.
40% is a very large minority, dogma. 40% is not a majority.
You didn't read the link, did you?
"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group right there at the top.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Ah, see I think the bolded part is just a very poor description. I think it doesn't capture the reality at all. I think it would be far more to say that "Modern liberalism allows for a balance between the fascist tendencies of capitalism and the communist tendencies of socialism." When you say that "modern capitalism allows for that balance between liberalism and capitalism" you imply that liberalism is the opposite of capitalism, but it's not at all. Socialism, defined as worker ownership of the means of production, is the opposite of capitalism, defined as capital ownership of the means of production.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, condescending sermons aside, isn't what I said awfully similar to what you say here RE: Liberalism?:
pragmatic government policy to mediate the damaging effects of capitalism while maintaining capitalist property rights.
This suggests a balance to me. Not all 'balances' consist of two opposing forces like a set of scales. How about the sound-field? A graphic equaliser allows you to balance the different frequencies (bass, middle, treble - sometimes subdivided further) in order to produce a desirable sound-field. There's nothing wrong with balancing social liberalism, capitalism and socialism to create a desirable system.
That doesn't disguise the fact that we live in a capitalist hegemony, and that such a system is possible under it.
Meanwhile Fascism is the most capitalist of all systems, as in a fascist government the state takes a direct role in promoting the interest and fortunes of the existing capitalist class. Some people will protest that fascists don't believe in the free market, which is true, but capitalism ≠ free marrket. Two very different ideas really.
This is basically the heart of my point. When people make the argument they would rather live in a capitalist country than a communist country, or some variation on it (such as the "Nobody shoots Americans trying to leave America" rhetoric), they are being a bit disingenuous, because America isn't actually a capitalist society. It's a liberal society with a mix of capitalist and socialist features.
A capitalist society -- one in which only capitalist conceptions of property rights were respected -- would be fascist, if history is any indication. Because all capitalist states that have made no concessions to socialist moral claims have been fascist dictatorships. And that have proven themselves to be every bit as violent, repressive, and bloodthirsty as their communist counter-parts -- though far less successful.
I think you're an essentialist. You seem to believe fervently in the 'essential' nature of political ideology, and as such you seem to drift towards the extreme.
'Believe in capitalism? Fine, that means you believe in social darwinism, the weak preying on the strong, 'wild-west' economics.'
I'm sorry, but that has no basis in reality. Compromise. Balance.
Well, I guess I'm just a better person than you, because I care about how my actions affect everyone they affect. I don't suddenly go blind at the borders.
In all seriousness, you may have a point. I'm an avowed pragmatist. I'm pretty happy with my life. If that means someone-else's life has to suck, then that's sad but so be it. I'm not running for pope here.
But you are trying to claim that the system you prefer is morally superior to this other system.
If I said it, quote me. Anything else is just posturing.
Gailbraithe wrote:Socialism, defined as worker ownership of the means of production, is the opposite of capitalism, defined as capital ownership of the means of production. (...) Some people will protest that fascists don't believe in the free market, which is true, but capitalism ≠ free market. Two very different ideas really.
The definitions you're using aren't the definitions used by proponents of capitalism. To argue against capitalism as perceived by socialists may not be too difficult, but as you can probably see in this thread, to argue against socialism as defined by capitalists isn't either.
The proponent's of capitalism use disingenuous definitions. They perform a bait and switch, substituting free market and trade for capitalism when it suits them, but capitalism ≠ free market ≠ trade.
And since the term capitalism was really invented by socialists, I think its reasonable to use the socialist definition of capitalist. When we speak of capitalists as those who own the means of production we have more clarity than when we speak of capitalists as anyone engaged in trade of any kind. We should be able to draw meaningful distinctions between the capitalist, the mercantilist, the craftsmen, the professional, and skilled and unskilled labor. We can't do that with the definition offered by most proponent's of capitalism, which attempts to obfuscate the problems created by capitalists by hiding the capitalists amongst craftsmen, merchants, and professionals.
I would think it is a slight minority. Perhaps the semanics got misread. 40% is a chunk, but hey Dubyah pulled it off with a (false) 51% didn't he? so on a macro scale 40% seems like a big gap, when it really only comes down to 1% majority/minority to secure an office. I'm glad that 6/10 people I may meet walking down the street are pro-choice and support gay marriage rights and so on. I am likewise glad that 4/10 might want to hand me a bible as a way to reach out and are armed well enough to defend me when I read it. 40% is a big chunk of people, but the problem with partisan politics is that middle ground. 10% is a big gap of middle ground.
40% is a very large minority, dogma. 40% is not a majority.
What? No.
Majority does not necessarily mean 'more than 50%.' Majority necessarily means (ie. minimally) only that there exists a greater quantity of something.
Try again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gailbraithe wrote:
The proponent's of capitalism use disingenuous definitions. They perform a bait and switch, substituting free market and trade for capitalism when it suits them, but capitalism ≠ free market ≠ trade.
And since the term capitalism was really invented by socialists, I think its reasonable to use the socialist definition of capitalist. When we speak of capitalists as those who own the means of production we have more clarity than when we speak of capitalists as anyone engaged in trade of any kind. We should be able to draw meaningful distinctions between the capitalist, the mercantilist, the craftsmen, the professional, and skilled and unskilled labor. We can't do that with the definition offered by most proponent's of capitalism, which attempts to obfuscate the problems created by capitalists by hiding the capitalists amongst craftsmen, merchants, and professionals.
dogma wrote:Majority does not necessarily mean 'more than 50%.' Majority necessarily means (ie. minimally) only that there exists a greater quantity of something.
The relevant definition:
majority.n. 1 - the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total ( opposed to minority): the majority of the population.
Quite alto of the people in the Tienanmen square protests, are dead communists who protested the authoritarian government.
Fixed it for you. Let's not forget about how wild the people of Tibet or Cambodia were when the Communists took over. Is it just me, or does it seem whenever the Communists come into power, there is a resulting decline in liberty and the dissenter population?
Gailbraithe wrote:
Okay, dogma, you're right, one can be very pedantic and argue that 40% is a majority in some cases, however that's a bit different than demonstrating I was wrong in my original statement (because if 40% of people are conservatives, and 60% aren't conservatives, then the majority of people aren't conservatives and conservatives are a minority).
No, that's not different. You're simply wrong.
It really sucks when your argument cannot be supported by elimination.
Gailbraithe wrote:
To take a swipe at my education because of some over-wrought twisting of meanings only shows how very shallow, disingenous, and trolling you really are.
Thanks for confirming my feeling that there really is no good reason to ever look under the ignore and read the crap you post.
Monster Rain wrote:What was wrong with Dogma's definition, again?
Isn't 40% a greater quantity or share than 21%?
It is, but it's still not the greatest part of 100% -- and that's what a majority means. That's why when Bill Clinton won in 1992 with 34% of the vote he had the greatest share of votes, but not the majority of votes.
But here's what's really wrong with dogma's definition, here's what shows it to be the pedantic, twisted, and overwrought bit of nonsense that it is. According to dogma's interpretation of "majority" both of the following statements are true:
1. The majority of Americans identify as conservatives.
2. The majority of Americans do not identify as conservatives.
See, that's a paradox. Both of those statements can't be true -- unless you change the definition of "majority" in each statement. But that's disingenuous. It would be far more accurate to say: There are more Americans that identify as conservative than Americans who identify as liberals or moderates, but the majority of Americans do not identify as conservative.
But even if we accept dogma's tortured logic, the idea that he has somehow showed me up, and caught me in an error is laughable. Because, using the conventional, normal and commonly accepted definition of majority, conservative Americans are a minority of Americans -- 60% of Americans are not conservative, which makes conservatives a minority -- which is all I said.
Gailbraithe wrote:
But here's what's really wrong with dogma's definition, here's what shows it to be the pedantic, twisted, and overwrought bit of nonsense that it is. According to dogma's interpretation of "majority" both of the following statements are true:
1. The majority of Americans identify as conservatives.
2. The majority of Americans do not identify as conservatives.
See, that's a paradox. Both of those statements can't be true -- unless you change the definition of "majority" in each statement. But that's disingenuous.
If your definition of majority is consistent with number 2, then you don't need to alter your definition.
G-baby, you really need to familiarize yourself with logical possibility.
Gailbraithe wrote:
It would be far more accurate to say: There are more Americans that identify as conservative than Americans who identify as liberals or moderates, but the majority of Americans do not identify as conservative.
The first statement is highly accurate, the latter is not. Moreover, you should only critique a given argument given its terminological assumptions.
Gailbraithe wrote:
But even if we accept dogma's tortured logic, the idea that he has somehow showed me up, and caught me in an error is laughable. Because, using the conventional, normal and commonly accepted definition of majority, conservative Americans are a minority of Americans -- 60% of Americans are not conservative, which makes conservatives a minority -- which is all I said.
Meriam-Webster is predicated on tortured logic? Wow, I almost assumed it was a common dictionary. Thanks for saving me there, G-baby.
He's never attacked me personally, or far as I'm aware, anyone apart from you. In fact, I find dogma to be one of the more reasonable Dakkites - don't make the mistake of thinking it's because we agree with each other all the time. We rarely interact, but when we do it's civil, even if it's a subject we disagree strongly on. That's pretty much how he seems to conduct himself on here all the time.
It's at this point you need to look in the mirror and try to figure out why you seem to bring out the worst in people. You and I have never interacted before this thread, and the first time you replied to me it was just so unnecessarily rude as to defy belief. You replied as if we'd had countless arguments in the past and this was just the latest round. Why do you feel the need to be so abrasive all the time? I mean, coming here is supposed to be fun - a little banter doesn't hurt anyone, even when people get fairly heated (as I and many others have done on a number of occasions) - but can you honestly say that you're enjoying yourself here? It doesn't seem like it from where I'm sitting. You just seem angry.
I think you should try to re-adjust your attitude to posting here, or just move on. Better to do it voluntarily than to have no say in the matter.
Albatross wrote:He's never attacked me personally, or far as I'm aware, anyone apart from you. In fact, I find dogma to be one of the more reasonable Dakkites - don't make the mistake of thinking it's because we agree with each other all the time. We rarely interact, but when we do it's civil, even if it's a subject we disagree strongly on. That's pretty much how he seems to conduct himself on here all the time.
It's at this point you need to look in the mirror and try to figure out why you seem to bring out the worst in people. You and I have never interacted before this thread, and the first time you replied to me it was just so unnecessarily rude as to defy belief. You replied as if we'd had countless arguments in the past and this was just the latest round. Why do you feel the need to be so abrasive all the time? I mean, coming here is supposed to be fun - a little banter doesn't hurt anyone, even when people get fairly heated (as I and many others have done on a number of occasions) - but can you honestly say that you're enjoying yourself here? It doesn't seem like it from where I'm sitting. You just seem angry.
I think you should try to re-adjust your attitude to posting here, or just move on. Better to do it voluntarily than to have no say in the matter.
Just saying.
From the first day I started posting here, I came under constant attack from dogma, Phyrxis and Monster Rain. Dogma and Phyrxsis have both been flooding my PM box for weeks now, with messages full of personal attacks. Dogma has, in PM, made nasty comments about my employers, about my art education, and refused to comply with mutliple requests to stop harassing me. In addition he has lied to the moderators and got me banned. Twice.
I am not having fun here, to be honest. I feel like dogma in particular is gievn free reign to attack and harass me whenever he wants, however he wants. He has been acting out some kind of personal vendetta against me from my first posts, and given the rage-filled PM he sent me when I put him on ignore I suspect he is attacking me because he knows I am ignoring him.
I'm sorry if you found my dismissal of your argument too blunt. I thought it was a ridiculous argument, I said so. It wasn't meant personally. But I am on edge in this forum, because I feel like every single thing I say will be attacked by people like dogma and Monster Rain, and I think there attacks are ridiculous, unfair, disingenuous, and vindictive. And after contacting the mods and being ignored, I feel like I have no option but to endure their constant trolling and flamebaiting.
They are making this forum unpleasant for me, and I suspect I will give up soon. And I'm sure you'll be glad that they were able to drive me off.
Albatross wrote:He's never attacked me personally, or far as I'm aware, anyone apart from you. In fact, I find dogma to be one of the more reasonable Dakkites - don't make the mistake of thinking it's because we agree with each other all the time. We rarely interact, but when we do it's civil, even if it's a subject we disagree strongly on. That's pretty much how he seems to conduct himself on here all the time.
It's at this point you need to look in the mirror and try to figure out why you seem to bring out the worst in people. You and I have never interacted before this thread, and the first time you replied to me it was just so unnecessarily rude as to defy belief. You replied as if we'd had countless arguments in the past and this was just the latest round. Why do you feel the need to be so abrasive all the time? I mean, coming here is supposed to be fun - a little banter doesn't hurt anyone, even when people get fairly heated (as I and many others have done on a number of occasions) - but can you honestly say that you're enjoying yourself here? It doesn't seem like it from where I'm sitting. You just seem angry.
I think you should try to re-adjust your attitude to posting here, or just move on. Better to do it voluntarily than to have no say in the matter.
Just saying.
From the first day I started posting here, I came under constant attack from dogma, Phyrxis and Monster Rain. Dogma and Phyrxsis have both been flooding my PM box for weeks now, with messages full of personal attacks. Dogma has, in PM, made nasty comments about my employers, about my art education, and refused to comply with mutliple requests to stop harassing me. In addition he has lied to the moderators and got me banned. Twice.
I am not having fun here, to be honest. I feel like dogma in particular is gievn free reign to attack and harass me whenever he wants, however he wants. He has been acting out some kind of personal vendetta against me from my first posts, and given the rage-filled PM he sent me when I put him on ignore I suspect he is attacking me because he knows I am ignoring him.
I'm sorry if you found my dismissal of your argument too blunt. I thought it was a ridiculous argument, I said so. It wasn't meant personally. But I am on edge in this forum, because I feel like every single thing I say will be attacked by people like dogma and Monster Rain, and I think there attacks are ridiculous, unfair, disingenuous, and vindictive. And after contacting the mods and being ignored, I feel like I have no option but to endure their constant trolling and flamebaiting.
They are making this forum unpleasant for me, and I suspect I will give up soon. And I'm sure you'll be glad that they were able to drive me off.
In relation to attempting an intellectual debate, be prepared to defend your statements when you are crticized by people who seem to know things about logic and debate as well as arguments.
Unfortunately people like dogma will breakdown the fallacies of your argument and rationalize why you are wrong if you wish to hold a conversation with them as a peer.
Why is this unfortunate? Because people do not like criticism when it is blunt and direct. With the internet, you cannot gauge a person's intent with their words so you cannot see how they feel when they tell you, "Your wrong." You have to accept at face value they may be nice people who are attempting to show you the other side of an argument rather then be an ass and make you feel like an idiot/jerk.
Gailbraithe wrote:The proponent's of capitalism use disingenuous definitions. They perform a bait and switch, substituting free market and trade for capitalism when it suits them, but capitalism ≠ free market ≠ trade.
Members of every ideology have a habit of doing this, often without meaning to. For instance, look at how easily communal ownership of consumer goods and communal ownership of capital goods became conflated. And the debates between the meaning of communism and socialism, what fascism is, over the word "liberal" and, hell, what "majority" means.
Furthermore, while the words you mentioned aren't truly the same, they include many of the same concepts. A market represents trade. Capitalism relies on the trade of capital goods (in any serious use of the term I can imagine). Capitalists invariably consider free trade and the free market to be essential components of their theory.
And since the term capitalism was really invented by socialists, I think its reasonable to use the socialist definition of capitalist.
Except it isn't, because then you would be arguing against something that isn't widely supported per se (a small group of people owning most land and capital). Same as if I considered conservatism to be support of a monarch, and used it to rail against the Republican party. Generally speaking, you need to let people define the position they support themselves. They don't want to try and defend a strawman.
When we speak of capitalists as those who own the means of production we have more clarity than when we speak of capitalists as anyone engaged in trade of any kind. We should be able to draw meaningful distinctions between the capitalist, the mercantilist, the craftsmen, the professional, and skilled and unskilled labor.
The immediate problem that springs to mind here is that the word "capitalist" most commonly refers to an ideological supporter of capitalism, rather than an economic position at all.
We can't do that with the definition offered by most proponent's of capitalism, which attempts to obfuscate the problems created by capitalists by hiding the capitalists amongst craftsmen, merchants, and professionals.
Well, many capitalists are many of those things; still, it would seem perfectly acceptable to talk about people in a certain capacity, even if they exist in other capacities as well. I think the issue here is that the term "capitalist" (in the sense used by socialists) is often seen as only being meaningful when a socialistic conception of capitalistic production is assumed. It's hardly obfuscation then, unless you're complaining that the refusal to accept socialist economic theory is likewise obfuscation.
In any case, if you want to talk about the socialist conception of capitalism and capitalists, you'll probably have to start with a theory on how industrial production occurs, so that people have sufficient understanding of what exactly it is that you're referring to.
Gailbraithe wrote: Dogma has, in PM, made nasty comments about my employers, about my art education, and refused to comply with mutliple requests to stop harassing me. In addition he has lied to the moderators and got me banned. Twice.
Really? Fine, let's post some G-baby PMs.
Go feth yourself.
And you can get testicular cancer and die from exploding balls for all I fething care. Go. Die. Now.
Go take a very large knife and stick it in your ear.
Oh, so civil.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I feel like dogma in particular is gievn free reign to attack and harass me whenever he wants, however he wants.
Does anyone else want to explain the feud between Fraz and myself?
Gailbraithe wrote: Dogma has, in PM, made nasty comments about my employers, about my art education, and refused to comply with mutliple requests to stop harassing me. In addition he has lied to the moderators and got me banned. Twice.
Really? Fine, let's post some G-baby PMs.
Go feth yourself.
And you can get testicular cancer and die from exploding balls for all I fething care. Go. Die. Now.
Go take a very large knife and stick it in your ear.
Oh, so civil.
Gailbraithe wrote: I feel like dogma in particular is gievn free reign to attack and harass me whenever he wants, however he wants.
Does anyone else want to explain the feud between Fraz and myself?
Now are these e-mails you sent to him, or are these e-mails you got from him?
EDIT: Clicking the Alert Mod Button now, as this is getting way out of control.
Albatross wrote:He's never attacked me personally, or far as I'm aware, anyone apart from you. In fact, I find dogma to be one of the more reasonable Dakkites - don't make the mistake of thinking it's because we agree with each other all the time. We rarely interact, but when we do it's civil, even if it's a subject we disagree strongly on. That's pretty much how he seems to conduct himself on here all the time.
It's at this point you need to look in the mirror and try to figure out why you seem to bring out the worst in people. You and I have never interacted before this thread, and the first time you replied to me it was just so unnecessarily rude as to defy belief. You replied as if we'd had countless arguments in the past and this was just the latest round. Why do you feel the need to be so abrasive all the time? I mean, coming here is supposed to be fun - a little banter doesn't hurt anyone, even when people get fairly heated (as I and many others have done on a number of occasions) - but can you honestly say that you're enjoying yourself here? It doesn't seem like it from where I'm sitting. You just seem angry.
I think you should try to re-adjust your attitude to posting here, or just move on. Better to do it voluntarily than to have no say in the matter.
Just saying.
From the first day I started posting here, I came under constant attack from dogma, Phyrxis and Monster Rain. Dogma and Phyrxsis have both been flooding my PM box for weeks now, with messages full of personal attacks. Dogma has, in PM, made nasty comments about my employers, about my art education, and refused to comply with mutliple requests to stop harassing me. In addition he has lied to the moderators and got me banned. Twice.
I am not having fun here, to be honest. I feel like dogma in particular is gievn free reign to attack and harass me whenever he wants, however he wants. He has been acting out some kind of personal vendetta against me from my first posts, and given the rage-filled PM he sent me when I put him on ignore I suspect he is attacking me because he knows I am ignoring him.
I'm sorry if you found my dismissal of your argument too blunt. I thought it was a ridiculous argument, I said so. It wasn't meant personally. But I am on edge in this forum, because I feel like every single thing I say will be attacked by people like dogma and Monster Rain, and I think there attacks are ridiculous, unfair, disingenuous, and vindictive. And after contacting the mods and being ignored, I feel like I have no option but to endure their constant trolling and flamebaiting.
They are making this forum unpleasant for me, and I suspect I will give up soon. And I'm sure you'll be glad that they were able to drive me off.
Well, I don't like people who just dive in and talk crap on people for absolutely no reason. You probably consider yourself to be forthright, but the fact is, there's a massive difference between being forthright and being rude. Tact is a great virtue to possess.
Do you honestly think that this is a reasonable way to reply to someone?:
Gailbraith wrote:
Albatross wrote:I think a large part of this problem is the tendency for socialist academics to treat the 'proletariat' as children. Telling people what is good for them and imposing it upon them rarely ends well. It's just paternalism. Modern capitalist society works because everyone has equal opportunity for education, and accumulation of wealth. We have a choice.
That is so wrong as to border on being delusional.
Really? Not 'I'm going to have to disagree with that, and here's why etc.', or 'No, I happen to think that's incorrect'?
I've seen you act in similar ways in other threads, so excuse me if I'm not overflowing with sympathy for you. But again, I hadn't interacted directly with you before this thread so I hadn't made my mind up.
Dogma and Phyrxsis have both been flooding my PM box for weeks now, with messages full of personal attacks.
I'm pretty sure I stopped PMing you when it became clear that you didn't want any help with not pissing off the entire forum.
Hell, I deliberately stayed out of this thread because I didn't want to dogpile on you yet again, even though I find your rantings on "capitalism" to be intolerably ridiculous.
I'm sure in your mind you're a total victim of the conservative attack machine, but seriously, take some responsibility. For example, look at how you toss insults at Albatross, who is neither conservative, nor attacking you. You've got problems. You live in a conspiracy fantasy world, where everyone's a conservative trying to keep you down. In real life, this forum has a very small minority of conservatives, and a very large majority of left-leaning voices.
By American standards, this forum is quite left-of-center, given that a lot of the posters are in Europe.
I am not having fun here, to be honest.
You're REALLY bringing it upon yourself. You're EXTREMELY argumentative and insulting, and you have VERY extreme views which you seem to consider to be incontrovertible fact.
Nobody is saying you have to change your views, but you should really learn to present them with less hostility and more humility.
You want to blame this all on personal vendettas... Do you really think that dakka appoints somebody to personally attack all new posters and follow them around for their entire time here? No. It's because you're ridiculously rude, opinionated and intolerant.
I know, you don't believe it. It's ALL of us that are strange. ALL of us at once are part of a crazy conservative conspiracy, while you're just the victim of our hate.
Occam's razor, dude. Take a look into the mirror edge of it's blade, and see the source of your problems.
They are making this forum unpleasant for me, and I suspect I will give up soon. And I'm sure you'll be glad that they were able to drive me off.
You are making these forums unpleasant for you.
If you walk into a bar, accuse everyone of being a racist, accuse everyone of being a jackbooted thug for a political ideology they don't even agree with, what do you think is going to happen?
It's going to be unpleasant for you.
You're being confronted with reality, and, as I suspect is par for the course with you, you're not able to perceive it with any accuracy.
Gailbraithe wrote:Marxist Communism seeks to use revolution to install a van garde (The Party)
Just a small thing. A revolutionary vanguard is never mentioned in Marxist writing, They came about through Lenin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Kragura wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I dont even think communism is a good idea..... trying to achieve an end state where everyone is happy is absurd. people are by nature impossible to satisfy. they're born to be unhappy bc they want things they cant have, and when they get the things they want they grow out of old desires and learn new ones. people who cannot limit their desires - who cannot learn to be content - can never be happy. as this will always be most of the people in the world a state or economic system that attempts to erase their unhappiness is doomed to failure, no matter what particular strategy for the distribution of goods it employs.
That's not the end goal we just think people would be happier with communism than without it. the same logic could be applied to any change in politics over the last 2000 years.
And where have you seen this actually happen in the many times Communism has been applied?
Although every time it was short lived, Socialism has worked before.
This is a thread about communism. Again, where has it been enforced where the people like it better? By people lets just say majority of the population?
Communism has never been tried out has an ideology.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Kragura wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I dont even think communism is a good idea..... trying to achieve an end state where everyone is happy is absurd. people are by nature impossible to satisfy. they're born to be unhappy bc they want things they cant have, and when they get the things they want they grow out of old desires and learn new ones. people who cannot limit their desires - who cannot learn to be content - can never be happy. as this will always be most of the people in the world a state or economic system that attempts to erase their unhappiness is doomed to failure, no matter what particular strategy for the distribution of goods it employs.
That's not the end goal we just think people would be happier with communism than without it. the same logic could be applied to any change in politics over the last 2000 years.
I disagree. Marx and his followers talked about the utopia that was just around the corner from the 1st to the last day they were in power. It never got here. It cant get here. People dont want to be happy. They want what they want. There is no end state for growing, changing beings. AF
I have never heard a communist refer to communism as a utopia.
Phryxis wrote:I'm sure in your mind you're a total victim of the conservative attack machine, but seriously, take some responsibility. For example, look at how you toss insults at Albatross, who is neither conservative...
*cough* Yes I am! *cough*
Well, maybe not by US standards, but I am a supporter of the Conservative party.
In all seriousness though, I can't imagine that it's really that bad, is it? Ideologies aside, but day to day life under communism isn't radically different, is it?
Phryxis wrote:I'm sure in your mind you're a total victim of the conservative attack machine, but seriously, take some responsibility. For example, look at how you toss insults at Albatross, who is neither conservative...
*cough* Yes I am! *cough*
Well, maybe not by US standards, but I am a supporter of the Conservative party.
yeah it is kinda funny how different a conservative in england is to a conservative in the us, hell we'd probably call you a commie basterd
Phryxis wrote:I'm sure in your mind you're a total victim of the conservative attack machine, but seriously, take some responsibility. For example, look at how you toss insults at Albatross, who is neither conservative...
*cough* Yes I am! *cough*
Well, maybe not by US standards, but I am a supporter of the Conservative party.
yeah it is kinda funny how different a conservative in england is to a conservative in the us, hell we'd probably call you a commie basterd
That's probably because your conservative party has this bad image for having a bunch of crazy religious folk in it. Your liberal party has all those crazy folk in it too they're just hid much better.
We have a conservative party in charge here and gay marriage and abortions are legal and there is no movement to change that. Our government has actually been subtly reducing it's size too. Fortunately our governments have also started to realize socialized medicine isn't the best solution and are starting to allow privatization of medical services.
On topic though, until there is a radical change in human behaviour communism won't work. Of course when we change enough for communism to work, pretty much every other system we have thought of would work.
Kragura wrote:I'm a little confused are you saying that the worker supported the revolution but not the end result of the revolution?
No, I'm saying that the overthrow of the Kaiser's regime was not a communist revolution. Some revolutionary elements were communist but they were a minority. This is clear, because in the wake of the revolution a representative democracy was built, which still looked to include the aristrocracy. There was no significant push to build a communist state.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BearersOfSalvation wrote:"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If you pay people based on the work they do instead of according to need, you're doing the opposite of what communism says to do. The doctor being paid more than a street sweeper is just one of those things done temporarily while the revolution sorts out, it's not supposed to happen in the end result.
The state at the end of the process is poorly defined. It relies, basically, on moving into a post-scarcity economy, in large part because the desire to acquire goods as a means of social status was removed, because there would be no higher classes to aspire to, because there would be no classes. We produce more than enough to meet our needs, and our wants would be nowhere near as great.
The idea of 'each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is predicated around a completely new form of society - applying a modern aspirational mindset to it doesn't work. The only situation in which that criticism could be levelled is to the transitional state, in which, as is noted, communist states still pay differential rates of pay.
Democratic socialism is not communism, regardless of what propaganda against it said. Most notably, it actually has a track record of not killing off huge chunks of the population when someone attempts to put it into practice.
Yeah, that's fair enough. Point well made.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I dont even think communism is a good idea..... trying to achieve an end state where everyone is happy is absurd. people are by nature impossible to satisfy.
Actually that's a condition that communism seeks to address. Marx observed that the modern aspirational society was a new phenomenon, the desire to consume more and more was actually quite ahistoric. For centuries society, despite individual points of overt wealth, had few material goods, as most status was gained through other means. Nobles would live in large manors that were sparsely furnished, instead they spent their wealth on keeping large retainers of men as that was a greater indicator of status. Many villages were highly communal in structure, there was little private property and status was based on seniority.
Marx reasoned that if we moved past a class defined society, people wouldn't need to buy all that stuff to prove we held greater status than our neighbours. While I disagree with a lot of Marx economic arguments, I thnk there's a lot to consider in his reasoning above.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:China does seem to be a functionally growing superpower despite being commies with harsh treatment of dissenters. Will they just collapse and fall like the U.S.S.R. once they have reached the target mark of American TV commercials seen by their public? I dunno about you, but they seem pretty solid to me. We can denounce their harsh legal system and civil rights restrictions, but we can't say they are a 'failed' government when we are the ones borrowing money from them and buying stuff produced over there because its cheaper while we dont produce it at home. Not to say I really like china or anything, but so far, they have been a pretty successful commie establishment and I dont see them getting any weaker.
I think the level of China envy that's developing is very scary. Yes, they are currently exporting more than they're importing. They only achieve this through having a much lower rate of pay, and keeping the yuan artificially low (which has the effect of making imports more expensive, again lowering the living standards of their citizens). Meanwhile there's rampant corruption, a syphoning of wealth towards the wealthy and connected, while the poor and marginalised are utterly screwed. A couple of days ago three men set themselves on fire in protest against the forced acquisition of their homes - it was the only means of protest available.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:I hear this said and it universally seems to me - not meaning to offend - like complete nonsense. Communism is a social/political/economic theory. It is a theory about how people act. If it fails to understand how people act it fails as a theory, just as surely as a cure for a disease in medicine fails if it doesn't accurately assess human physiology. Reality isn't at fault when a theory fails to describe it, the theory is, no matter how wonderful the result of the theory having been accurate may have been.
Thankyou. I read that line about 'communism works in theory but in practice...' and it's always annoyed me, though I've found it hard to find the words to explain why. You really nailed it there, and will be stealing your argument for my own use later on. Cheers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:Fixed it for you. Let's not forget about how wild the people of Tibet or Cambodia were when the Communists took over. Is it just me, or does it seem whenever the Communists come into power, there is a resulting decline in liberty and the dissenter population?
In Tibet there likely wasn't that marked a decline. Equality before the law for women and minorities improved in general... not because China is good or anything, but because life in Tibet was life living under a Theocracy.
People don't pay much attention to that because it's good to rail on China, and the Dalai Lama seems a pretty cool guy, but the reality is as it is.
Gailbraithe wrote:Marxist Communism seeks to use revolution to install a van garde (The Party)
Just a small thing. A revolutionary vanguard is never mentioned in Marxist writing, They came about through Lenin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Kragura wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I dont even think communism is a good idea..... trying to achieve an end state where everyone is happy is absurd. people are by nature impossible to satisfy. they're born to be unhappy bc they want things they cant have, and when they get the things they want they grow out of old desires and learn new ones. people who cannot limit their desires - who cannot learn to be content - can never be happy. as this will always be most of the people in the world a state or economic system that attempts to erase their unhappiness is doomed to failure, no matter what particular strategy for the distribution of goods it employs.
That's not the end goal we just think people would be happier with communism than without it. the same logic could be applied to any change in politics over the last 2000 years.
And where have you seen this actually happen in the many times Communism has been applied?
Although every time it was short lived, Socialism has worked before.
This is a thread about communism. Again, where has it been enforced where the people like it better? By people lets just say majority of the population?
Communism has never been tried out has an ideology.
What do you call the former USSR? North Korea? China?
Consider as an alternative, the benevolent dictatorship. If I asked everyone to just trust me and do as I tell them, and I actually tell them the right thing to do on all fronts and regarding all issues and they just agree to do it, then everyone would get along, everyone would be happier. Trouble is, nobody will listen to a single voice of wisdom and reason as egos get in the way. If a single person was in charge of everything, deciding what is a good or a bad way to behave, and doing it for the good of all, you could have a utopian society, so long as everyone lays aside ego and power struggles and listens to the big voice of reason. Okay I admit I've had a coupple off beeers at this point and I suddenly realize I am spouting Anekin Skywalker rhetoric, so I'll just stop.
Guitardian wrote:Consider as an alternative, the benevolent dictatorship. If I asked everyone to just trust me and do as I tell them, and I actually tell them the right thing to do on all fronts and regarding all issues and they just agree to do it, then everyone would get along, everyone would be happier. Trouble is, nobody will listen to a single voice of wisdom and reason as egos get in the way. If a single person was in charge of everything, deciding what is a good or a bad way to behave, and doing it for the good of all, you could have a utopian society, so long as everyone lays aside ego and power struggles and listens to the big voice of reason. Okay I admit I've had a coupple off beeers at this point and I suddenly realize I am spouting Anekin Skywalker rhetoric, so I'll just stop.
But ohh... what if.... what if...
I think Lord Acton had a pretty poignant quote on the subject.
“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
I think Guitardian does make a useful point, though...
This thread is all about hyperbole. Capitalism is BROKEN, is EVIL. Communism is a MASS MURDERER, BLARG BLARG. G-baby's "liberal" system is UTOPIA PERFEKT.
If everything has to be the best worst representation of its class, then what is the absolute best system of government?
The best form of government is the benevolent dictatorship. As long as it's truly benevolent, ie. the hyperbolic positive version of it, it's the best. It's the most positive, most rapidly reacting option available.
So, if we're allowed to just make up rules for what represents a given system, then we should really all be arguing in favor of a benevolent dictatorship.
But we're not. And that's why hyperbolic exaggeration isn't helpful.
Guitardian wrote:Problem there is, nobody can agree on who the 'benevolent dictator' should be. I would like to suggest myself... if you get my meaning.
I dont trust Chuck Norris I think he's up to something.
I don't trust Dogma just based on the name...
I don't trust me because I'm thoroughly incompetent and kind of a jerk...
seee.... now we have political factions again!
ack.. all my plans have gone awry in 3 or 4 posts!
Phryxis wrote:I think Guitardian does make a useful point, though...
This thread is all about hyperbole. Capitalism is BROKEN, is EVIL. Communism is a MASS MURDERER, BLARG BLARG. G-baby's "liberal" system is UTOPIA PERFEKT.
If everything has to be the best worst representation of its class, then what is the absolute best system of government?
The best form of government is the benevolent dictatorship. As long as it's truly benevolent, ie. the hyperbolic positive version of it, it's the best. It's the most positive, most rapidly reacting option available.
So, if we're allowed to just make up rules for what represents a given system, then we should really all be arguing in favor of a benevolent dictatorship.
But we're not. And that's why hyperbolic exaggeration isn't helpful.
There is also the problem of the dictator making a mistake. There are experts on all kinds of things and they will often make mistakes. Most of the financial experts thought the housing bubble would be a hickup in the economy. When you have one person, or even a select few making all the decisions any mistake they make will be compounded by everyone who is doing what they are told. At least with capitalism everyone is free to try different approaches and the chances of everyone making a big mistake is relatively slim.
There are experts on all kinds of things and they will often make mistakes.
Sure, and really a dictatorship is a terrible system of government.
I'm just saying, as long as we're dealing in hyperbolic exaggerations, why not choose the best possible case, which is the omnipotent omniscient benevolent dictator?
It's roughly as realistic as G-baby's version of what capitalism is.
What do you call the former USSR? North Korea? China?
As I said in one of my first posts they are socialist republics, the translational phase in-between capitalism and communism.
No, I'm saying that the overthrow of the Kaiser's regime was not a communist revolution. Some revolutionary elements were communist but they were a minority. This is clear, because in the wake of the revolution a representative democracy was built, which still looked to include the aristrocracy. There was no significant push to build a communist state.
Actually two governments were set up, one made of aristocrats and one made up of soviets, the soviet government came in power in October under Lenin.
Phryxis wrote:This thread is all about hyperbole. Capitalism is BROKEN, is EVIL. Communism is a MASS MURDERER, BLARG BLARG. G-baby's "liberal" system is UTOPIA PERFEKT.
...
And that's why hyperbolic exaggeration isn't helpful.
I would love for you to explain how liberalism, the dominant political ideology of America, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and the rest of the "free world," could possibly be described as belonging to me. How does it become my liberal system, exactly?
You know what that is? That's hyperbolic exaggeration.
As is claiming that anyone, let alone me, claimed that liberalism is UTOPIA PERFEKT. Again, hyperbolic exaggeration. All I said is that when people say that capitalism is better than communism, and cite the western democracies as examples of capitalism, they are wrongly attributing the benefits of liberalism to capitalism.
History offers examples of capitalism without liberalism, and authoritarian-capitalist societies are just as brutal as communist countries. The 18th and 19th century in America and Europe, for example, was marked by bitter and bloody violence inflicted on working people for exercising their rights by both government agents and mercenaries in the employ of capitalists. Which, not coincidentally, is what gave rise to socialism. And on top of that violence against its own citizenry, capitalism has always been a driving force behind wars of conquest, colonialism, and imperialism. Even today many American corporations are intimately connected to corrupt and tyrannical governments that brutalize their working class citizens to keep labor costs down and sell off their natural resources for kickbacks.
I would love for you to explain how liberalism, the dominant political ideology of America, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and the rest of the "free world," could possibly be described as belonging to me. How does it become my liberal system, exactly?
I've gotta ask, are you joking?
Seriously, are you?
Phryxis plainly used euphemistic quotation marks in order to indicate that the word 'liberal' was not to be regarded as a proper term. You yourself have done this, and taken umbrage when people have remarked to that fact.
I'm guessing you love to criticize people for 'disingenuous' behavior because you are well aware that you engage in it in nearly all your posts.
Stop it. Don't be a prick.
Gailbraithe wrote:
You know what that is? That's hyperbolic exaggeration.
No, it isn't. If its anything to be criticized, its false attribution. This is basic logic. Like, high school level.
Guitardian wrote:Problem there is, nobody can agree on who the 'benevolent dictator' should be. I would like to suggest myself... if you get my meaning.
No, the problem is that there will never be an omniscient, benevolent dictator. As Phryxis rightly points out it's an impossibility, and like all extreme, hypothetical states there's little value in discussing it.
All that really matters is how the world really works, what forms of government are really available, and which of those is best.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kragura wrote:
No, I'm saying that the overthrow of the Kaiser's regime was not a communist revolution. Some revolutionary elements were communist but they were a minority. This is clear, because in the wake of the revolution a representative democracy was built, which still looked to include the aristrocracy. There was no significant push to build a communist state.
Actually two governments were set up, one made of aristocrats and one made up of soviets, the soviet government came in power in October under Lenin.
Kaiser's regime, dude. Germany. We were discussing whether there'd been a revolution in industrialised Europe. You started talking about Germany, and linked to the German 1918 Revolution. Now you're talking about the whites and the reds in Russia.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I think Lord Acton had a pretty poignant quote on the subject.
“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
I prefer the version from John Lehman, former Secretary of the Navy'
sebster wrote:
Kaiser's regime, dude. Germany. We were discussing whether there'd been a revolution in industrialised Europe. You started talking about Germany, and linked to the German 1918 Revolution. Now you're talking about the whites and the reds in Russia.
Whoops my bad. in my original question (I'm confused... are you saying... blabbity blabitty blah) I was referring to the Russian revolution I should of made this clear.
sebster said something a couple of posts back that I found inspirational. It was along the lines of "all that matters is how the world really works".
Well the world is really ugly and brutal and life is short and it is a struggle, no matter what walk of life you come from.
Leona Helmsley died after being a kept princess for years and essentially one of the only people I can say I'm glad the b!tch died finally. She left millions of dollars to her little yappie dog. That's the reality.
Obama almost lost the Presidential election because superstitious religious-rights kept to their guns and voted against him because their pastor told them that if a Muslim gets into power the world will end; Completely ignorant of the fact that he is not a Muslim, and that god thinks on a rather larger scale than the white house.
Accident forgiveness exists in insurance companies... so for every person who gets killed by a bad driver, there is a bad driver happy that he got the right insurance policy.
Hurricanes evidently hate us all, but especially people with a southern accent.
The United Statesian powers that be did not (by their own definition) torture any of the unlawfully detained possible terrorists because waterboarding and humiliation and prolonged positions are not technically (according to their own convenient definition) 'torture' just interrogation.
Dogs and Cats still hate each other, Food rots in silos while farmers get subsidies and foreign nations starve sometimes and beg for help on late-night infomercials. Africa is full of despotic warlords, but nothing is done about them because nobody here gives a gak because Africa is not a financially viable investment for the people in the position to give a gak. Meanwhile China has a horrible human rights violation record, yet is still on our 'good' list because we owe them money... money spent on a military effort to topple a dictor because of his.. hmm... human rights violations?
Need I go on... I could write several pages of ugly truth and I'm sure so can all of you. The point being, utopian goals are the only thing we have to cling to in a world that is so obviously flawed.
It is not unrealistic, it is not unattainable, it is just going to take some time for the lines on maps and sense of greed and viciousness and ownership become as much a thing of the past as thinking the world was flat.
how much more reality do you want?
Kragura wrote:Whoops my bad. in my original question (I'm confused... are you saying... blabbity blabitty blah) I was referring to the Russian revolution I should of made this clear.
No problem, you've been replying to a load of people in this thread, easy to lose track of things. But to move the conversation on, do you agree that there hasn't been a communist revolution in industrialised Europe? That while the German revolution had communist elements, it was not a communist revolution because the final result was nothing like a communist state?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:Need I go on... I could write several pages of ugly truth and I'm sure so can all of you. The point being, utopian goals are the only thing we have to cling to in a world that is so obviously flawed.
But that isn't the real world. Focusing on the ugliest and worst parts of our society is not any more real than ignoring them entirely, both are fantasies.
The real world has a lot of beauty, a lot of ugliness, but more than either it's got a whole lot of very boring bleh. It might be simpler, and more exciting, to focus intensely on the beauty or the ugliness, but it isn't very true and it won't help with making decent government.
It is not unrealistic, it is not unattainable, it is just going to take some time for the lines on maps and sense of greed and viciousness and ownership become as much a thing of the past as thinking the world was flat.
how much more reality do you want?
Utopian visions have a place, but it isn't as an escape from the real world. More's Utopia, for instance, is a great read, but not because we should aspire to that world, but because it casts a light on what life is really like and why it is that way. For instance, More notes that in Utopia the rules of law are short and written in plain language, because any law that can't be understood by the common man is inherently unfair. It isn't practical to have a legal code written that's that simple, but it should indicate we should make the law as simple as is possible, and capable of being understood by everyone wherever possible.
Yes in that case I will agree that the German revolution was not a communist one and no I cannot think of another example of a communist revolution in industrial Europe, (unless you count Hungary) however I still hold that the Russian revolution is an example of workers leading a revolution.
I bet that community college education is biting you in the ass right about now.
Hey play nice. Community college is filled with people who couldn't afford to go to the big leagues for their full degree or hard working peeps going for vocational.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gailbraithe wrote:
Albatross wrote:He's never attacked me personally, or far as I'm aware, anyone apart from you. In fact, I find dogma to be one of the more reasonable Dakkites - don't make the mistake of thinking it's because we agree with each other all the time. We rarely interact, but when we do it's civil, even if it's a subject we disagree strongly on. That's pretty much how he seems to conduct himself on here all the time.
If you are getting PMs and you have asked the poster to stop, then tell the Mods. Now.
If they are rude PMs then tell the poster to stop. If they do not, tell the Mods and forward the message.Now
On the positive the Ignore feature is being worked on to extend to PMs, but its not done yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you can get testicular cancer and die from exploding balls for all I fething care. Go. Die. Now.
I am going to have to remember that one...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Gailbraithe (sp) and Dogma, please see your private message inbox.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cryonicleech wrote:So, before this thread de-rails...
Are communist women pretty? Lol
In all seriousness though, I can't imagine that it's really that bad, is it? Ideologies aside, but day to day life under communism isn't radically different, is it?
You mean other than the Gulag/concentration camp thing?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:I dont trust Chuck Norris I think he's up to something.
I don't trust Dogma just based on the name...
I don't trust me because I'm thoroughly incompetent and kind of a jerk...
seee.... now we have political factions again!
ack.. all my plans have gone awry in 3 or 4 posts!
Remember, a vote for Frazzled is a vote for Freedom!
Relapse wrote:I really don't hear about many people from a Capitalist society risking thier lives jumping the fence to live in a Communist one.
On the other hand, I lived around and worked with quite a few people that have risked their liberty and lives to get out of Communist societies to live in the good ole' repressive, capitalist, U.S.A.
It used to happen quite a lot before their economies collapsed in the 80s. It's not a surprise that you didn't hear about it much if you think about it. Nobody want's that kind of thing promoted.
I just wnt to make sure I read you correctly. Are you saying people risked being machine gunned, sent to detention, etc. in droves to escape England, the U.S., Canada to live in the welcome, free, and heady climates of free thinking Red China, Russia and other communist countries?
Sorry in advance if I misunderstand. It's just that I know people that were sent to "reeducation" camps in communist countries and I laugh if that's what you are saying.
No, they just got on an airliner and flew there, getting in is easy. The Soviet Union welcomed skilled communist westerners.
The picture painted here is that Communist countries seek to implrison and enslave everyone in their population. This seems silly. I'm sure there were plenty of compliant hard working 'good' citizens in the U.S.S.R. who may not have been overjoyed by their system, but happy enough to live within it. You can't have a whole country populated by criminals. In the U.S.A. if you are a dissident, the law cracks down on you. You asked for it. The law dictates that you have to pay your taxes. If you don't you are a criminal. Criminals pay the consequences for breaking the law, no matter what the specific law is. Over here I cannot say "I want to kill the president" without getting into trouble. I cannot burn an American flag either. Dissidents are punished by governments who try to keep the population in line, and that has nothing to do with economic practice.
Kragura wrote:Yes in that case I will agree that the German revolution was not a communist one and no I cannot think of another example of a communist revolution in industrial Europe, (unless you count Hungary) however I still hold that the Russian revolution is an example of workers leading a revolution.
The paris commune. 1870s.
Just out of curiosity.... marx predicted that the revolution would start in industrialized countries like germany and the u.s. infact it happened in very agrarian countries like china and russia. how do you account for that? IMO communism in the 20th century has alot more to do with rebellion against feudalism than it does with rebellion against capitalism; as an international phenomena its more concerned with opposition to western imperialism than it is to the redistribution of goods within a state. north vietnam is a good example of how the 1st concern totally overrode the 2nd. How could Ho Chi Minh get russian support against the west except by embracing communism? If we'd kept our promise early on to help them gain their independence, we never would have had to fight there. AF
Frazzled wrote:Hey play nice. Community college is filled with people who couldn't afford to go to the big leagues for their full degree or hard working peeps going for vocational.
Absolutely, but how many of those vocational students are going to demand credentials from people on the internet, and condescendingly debate the various definitions of the word 'majority'?
Relapse wrote:I really don't hear about many people from a Capitalist society risking thier lives jumping the fence to live in a Communist one.
On the other hand, I lived around and worked with quite a few people that have risked their liberty and lives to get out of Communist societies to live in the good ole' repressive, capitalist, U.S.A.
It used to happen quite a lot before their economies collapsed in the 80s. It's not a surprise that you didn't hear about it much if you think about it. Nobody want's that kind of thing promoted.
I just wnt to make sure I read you correctly. Are you saying people risked being machine gunned, sent to detention, etc. in droves to escape England, the U.S., Canada to live in the welcome, free, and heady climates of free thinking Red China, Russia and other communist countries?
Sorry in advance if I misunderstand. It's just that I know people that were sent to "reeducation" camps in communist countries and I laugh if that's what you are saying.
No, they just got on an airliner and flew there, getting in is easy. The Soviet Union welcomed skilled communist westerners.
On the other side of the coin, people risked risked being machine gunned, sent to detention, etc. in droves to get out of Communist countries. It might have been easy to get in, but from what people I know that escaped from Communist countries told me, it was Hell's own time getting out.
Community college is just as difficult as 'real' schools. Hey freshman math doesn't change because you go to a cheaper school. 1+1=2 even if you go to a cheap school. If anything community college students have to try harder to excel because they often have sub-par 'instructors' instead of experienced professors. Math classes are one thing because a correct answer is a correct answer no matter what. Classes where the grades are more subjective (like anything involving critical thinking, and writing papers) are more difficult if your instructor is stupid, or biased. She got a C in her 'world religions' class because her teacher didn't agree with the subject matter of her paper. Her teacher was a Catholic, and she wrote from an agnostic point of view. That kind of grading bias doesn't occur as much in 'real' colleges, but it's all over the place in community colleges. Another good one is the man-hating lesbien 'womens studies' teacher who had only two males in her class, both of whom got Fs. It was a good paper, I know because I proofread it for my friend. I know this from watching my GF struggle through her classes, not for lack of intelligence, but because the person responsible for grading her papers was an idiot. So community college is actually more difficult than 'real' college, not because of the subject matter, but because you often end up with a really stupid person responsible for your GPA.
Frazzled wrote:Hey play nice. Community college is filled with people who couldn't afford to go to the big leagues for their full degree or hard working peeps going for vocational.
Absolutely, but how many of those vocational students are going to demand credentials from people on the internet, and condescendingly debate the various definitions of the word 'majority'?
Very few and I understood your point entirely. On that note, it was mildly offensive but I am not particularly concerned. You could play nicer though.
I am relatively happy with the concept that I can get an AA through community college, followed by 2 years of general ed. before 3 more in a standard college.
6-7 years of education in the long run, money saved and the option to round that off with a 2-3 year masters degree, leaving me with a decade of study. Serious fething business.
I wouldn't be able to do go to a 4-year if it weren't for the community college format supporting my endeavor.
Dogma's comment wasn't a slap at Community College as I understand it.
It was a whimsical poke at someone's rather unreasonable behavior and inflated opinion of himself. That's all I'm going to say about the subject, just throwing my interpretation out there.
Frazzled wrote:Hey play nice. Community college is filled with people who couldn't afford to go to the big leagues for their full degree or hard working peeps going for vocational.
Absolutely, but how many of those vocational students are going to demand credentials from people on the internet, and condescendingly debate the various definitions of the word 'majority'?
I didn't demand credentials from anyone in particular, I just said that I didn't want to talk about race issues with anyone who hadn't taken at least a college level course on the issue. Mostly because I get tired of having the same old ignorant arguments, and because a lot of people can't handle having their racism pointed out.
And I'm not condescendingly debating the definition of 'majority,' you're the one doing that. I used majority exactly as the word is used by most people everyday, and you made this smart-alecky, condescending comment about community colleges because according to some really pedantic, nonstandard definition of majority that didn't fit my context you claim I was wrong. Or something. You didn't really claim anything, you were just being a condescending jerk. Like always.
How long exactly are you warranted to punish me for the crimes you think I've committed before your behavior stops being my fault and you start taking responsibility for the fact that you keep derailing threads on these stupid, trivial and pedantic arguments you feel the obsessive need to start with me?
Or are you Internet Police Powers infinite, and you get to keep attacking me over and over and over, derailing thread after thread, never taking responsibility for yourself, because everything you do is my fault, because of something I said a month ago? two months ago? A year from now are you still going to be nitpicking and making these cockamamie arguments because I once got frustrated and petulantly demanded that if anyone was going to argue with me on a subject, I wanted them to at least present an informed argument?
Grow the feth up, dogma. You are such a hypocrite.
Dogma
hey.... dont be down on community college grads. if you disagree with the guy just disagree with him. Guitardian is right - just because you didnt go to a name brand school doesnt mean you're wrong or uneducated. Its the argument not the person that matters.
I think that you all are arguing about a pretty small point anyway. According to Merriam Webster both definition sof a majority are valid.
AF
Ahhh the lovely lovely difficulty of sarcasm in type. In the past few days I have become accused of being a reckless fugitive, a KKK member, a homophobe, an anti-semite, and a Jesus hating Satanist. In all fairness it is hard to tell when people are joking sometimes, so maybe I am all of those things and just don't know it. All of this from the comfort of our own living rooms/cubicles/etc.
Frazzled wrote:Hey play nice. Community college is filled with people who couldn't afford to go to the big leagues for their full degree or hard working peeps going for vocational.
Absolutely, but how many of those vocational students are going to demand credentials from people on the internet, and condescendingly debate the various definitions of the word 'majority'?
I didn't demand credentials from anyone in particular, I just said that I didn't want to talk about race issues with anyone who hadn't taken at least a college level course on the issue. Mostly because I get tired of having the same old ignorant arguments, and because a lot of people can't handle having their racism pointed out.
And I'm not condescendingly debating the definition of 'majority,' you're the one doing that. I used majority exactly as the word is used by most people everyday, and you made this smart-alecky, condescending comment about community colleges because according to some really pedantic, nonstandard definition of majority that didn't fit my context you claim I was wrong. Or something. You didn't really claim anything, you were just being a condescending jerk. Like always.
How long exactly are you warranted to punish me for the crimes you think I've committed before your behavior stops being my fault and you start taking responsibility for the fact that you keep derailing threads on these stupid, trivial and pedantic arguments you feel the obsessive need to start with me?
Oh, I wouldn't go throwing around accusations concerning derailed threads if I were you, Brohemoth.
Guitardian wrote:Ahhh the lovely lovely difficulty of sarcasm in type. In the past few days I have become accused of being a reckless fugitive, a KKK member, a homophobe, an anti-semite, and a Jesus hating Satanist. In all fairness it is hard to tell when people are joking sometimes, so maybe I am all of those things and just don't know it. All of this from the comfort of our own living rooms/cubicles/etc.
I think you're all those things, but I appreciate you.
This thread is awesome. I still can't get over how an Ivy leaguer is "having a poke" at someone's "inflated opinion" of themselves by rubbishing community education. classic.
whatwhat wrote:This thread is awesome. I still can't get over how an Ivy leaguer is "having a poke" at someone's "inflated opinion" of themselves by rubbishing community education. classic.
Only someone that went to a community would misinterpret the statement in such a way.
*adjusts monocle and goes back to reading Le Monde*
My dad is a college professor and dean. He has made some of the dumbest life decisions I have ever seen. I am a college dropout (just shy of the finish line), and dropping out was probably one of the best decisions I ever made.
back to commies though... this college thing kind of peeks its ugly head into the university culture. A lot of students recieve loans to go to a school they cannot afford, have no intention to pay back, but feel they need to in order to qualify for a 'better' job, even if they aren't exactly 'college material'.
Who pays for these unpaid loans? See we have our social policies here too, regardless of whether it's a totaltarian fascist government or a capitalist democracy we still pay taxes. We just disguise our slavery with democracy, and the fact that dumbass-johnny the lawn-mowing guy or Joe-the-plumber can go get an edumacation he will never understand or use, so he can get a piece of paper in order to plug back into the system and work.
Doesn't it seem like communist economic idealism is just doing the same thing but without disguising it behind stupid students buying a degree they later have to pay for that did them and no-one else any good except a piece of paper that is often a requirement for many jobs. May as well just go to the factory in the first place like the commies do.
I have tutored college level students who didn't even know how to use a period, and wrote papers that use 'like' and 'y'know' in their actual text. Do they really need to be in college? Yet our culture encourages, often requires, a stupid piece of paper that someone has to pay for before they are allowed to be happy wage slaves and contribute to our greater good. Cut out the middle man and teach people what they need to do. Why mess around with academics for a guy who just wants to be a welder? Just teach him to weld and let him get to work. Critical thinking classes aren't really necessary. (One of my students was a welder, who was required to go to cc when his company changed their policies of hiring, is why I used that as an example... no offense to welders.)
Ohio. They decided that all of them needed a secondary education program. Just a semester, and just some basic classes at the 101 CC level. 'critical thinking 101' 'english 101' 'math 101' etc.
hey you asked.
actually I have a hunch it was a way to cull the numbers for economic depression reasons and this was a good way to weed people out without having to pay them unemployment benefits. that's just my hunchy conspiratorial mind at work though.
It is not legally mandatory, many many kids drop out of high-school let alone going to college. Our undergrad degrees are kind of paralell to your 'A-levels' but with dumbed down testing, churn down lots of idiots with pieces of paper who think they got an education.
It is often a criteria to be allowed to qualify for many jobs though. That's where the community colleges and trade schools come from/ They give you the piece of paper you need and that's about it.
I think allowing people to do what they can do without having to jump through hoops in dumbed down 'college level' classes, learning nothing, and racking up debt for a dumb piece of paper to qualify for the job is a better idea. I didn't learn a single thing in school that I didn't already know going in, I just had to go through the class to prove I knew it. Waste of time, money, and effort. But evidently a necessary waste of time, money and effort.
I didn't demand credentials from anyone in particular, I just said that I didn't want to talk about race issues with anyone who hadn't taken at least a college level course on the issue.
No?
Seriously, from now on, if any of you are going to try to argue with me on this, I want credentials. I want the name of the school where you studied racism academically, and I want to know what classes you took on the subject.
If you say so.
Seriously dude, your actions have consequences. Stop blaming dogma for your inability to converse respectfully with people, for your own limitless hypocrisy, and for the myriad other social disfunctions you're perpetually inflicting on this forum.
YOU did it.
Be polite, respectful, and gracious for a while, and see if dogma doesn't back off you. Earn respect, don't assume you're entitled.
Oh, and for your reference, I attended a small liberal arts college that is consistently ranked in the top 20 nationwide. I'd tell you which one, but unlike you, I have at least a vague clue of how to protect my online anonymity.
Regardless, it's a pretty highly regarded liberal arts college. With the emphasis on LIBERAL. So that's where your online jackbooted thug conservatives got their brownshirt training, dude.
Also, while it wasn't my chosen major, I had sufficient credits to major in American Studies which was a very left-leaning courseload with considerable content focused on race relations in America.
All that said, I have very minimal respect for the importance of a degree. It doesn't make one's words worth more than anybody else's. I actually loathe credentialism. But as long as you're going to come here, playing credentialist with people, here's the score: I win. Now let's not play anymore, because it's a stupid game.
Seriously dude, you aren't as worldly wise as you think you are. Have some humility and start treating people with some respect. Like I said, see if the "conservative thugs" don't suddenly vanish.
Guitardian wrote:what if he really knew what he was doing?
How would I know that? He's not going to tell me he's useless, is he?
The idea behind qualifications is that they are proof of a certain level of proficiency and training in a given subject. They also serve as an indicator of commitment and application.
If I'm going to pay someone to fix my sink, or re-wire my house, then I want to know what qualifies them to do the job. Now, I'll agree that an illiterate plumber is not necessarily a BAD plumber - but I think that a general level of literacy and numeracy is desirable amongst the young people of a given country. Certainly desirable enough to make it mandatory for under-16s.
What else are they going to do? They can't legally get a job.
wrong. I have worked for guys with 'credentials' before and often had to fix their mess ups, or lack of attention to detail. I know a ten year old I would trust to help me fix my drywall more than a contracted union 'credendials' worker. The problem with this culture is the emphasis on credentials over ability. That same ten year old could tutor a college kid at math, but hey he doessn't qualify so he is stuck playing video games. Credentials are for people who CAN'T show that they know what they are doing, so they just show a piece of paper with a signiature at the bottom that they payed for in exchange for the chance to learn the job ON the job, like any less 'qualified' person could also do.
Guitardian wrote:wrong. I have worked for guys with 'credentials' before and often had to fix their mess ups, or lack of attention to detail. I know a ten year old I would trust to help me fix my drywall more than a contracted union 'credendials' worker. The problem with this culture is the emphasis on credentials over ability. That same ten year old could tutor a college kid at math, but hey he doessn't qualify so he is stuck playing video games. Credentials are for people who CAN'T show that they know what they are doing, so they just show a piece of paper with a signiature at the bottom that they payed for in exchange for the chance to learn the job ON the job, like any less 'qualified' person could also do.
That's fine for hiring people that you know personally, but how do you judge whether or not to hire someone that you have no prior experience with?
Automatically Appended Next Post: it is not mandatory on an official level, it is often 'mandatory' to have your credentials though in order to just be considered for jobs in most positions where their abilities could actually be put to use with or without the stupid paper. So if you dont want to to be poor and jobless and wont work shovelling gak for a living or flipping burgers for arrogant gak talking yuppies, yeah you kind of have to submit to the slowed college requirement, pay them their dues, and get your pass to the cushy pussy jobs..
I didn't demand credentials from anyone in particular, I just said that I didn't want to talk about race issues with anyone who hadn't taken at least a college level course on the issue.
No?
Seriously, from now on, if any of you are going to try to argue with me on this, I want credentials. I want the name of the school where you studied racism academically, and I want to know what classes you took on the subject.
If you say so.
Thanks for proving my point.
Oh, and for your reference, I attended a small liberal arts college that is consistently ranked in the top 20 nationwide. I'd tell you which one, but unlike you, I have at least a vague clue of how to protect my online anonymity.
No, you mean unlike me you hide behind anonymity so that you can attack people in a personal manner without fear of reprisal. You're basically a coward, sniping from shadows. Just like dogma, and most other condescending, disingenuous jerks on the internet. I know how to hide who I am, I just don't, because I'd rather be honest about where I'm coming from than try to pretend I'm someone I'm not.
I mean, you can make all kinds of claims about where you went to school, and who you are. Same as dogma. But none of it means anything. You're nobody. You're a big nothing. Just a bunch of opinions, coming from nowhere, amounting to nothing. Until you're willing to own who you are, then you are no one.
Seriously dude, you aren't as worldly wise as you think you are. Have some humility and start treating people with some respect. Like I said, see if the "conservative thugs" don't suddenly vanish.
And you are not as benevolent and superior as you think you are. You're just a condescending, judgmental jerk who can't make a real argument. A snipe who hides his inability to offer anything cognizant to conversation behind heaps of sarcasm and elitism.
You two need to put yer dicks on the table and just hash it out and speak your minds. I respect and question everything both of you have posted, which is a good thing. If you want to play with big dogs, dont be afraid to bark. No reason to trash each other in public or accuse each other of cowardice. Just speak your mind! that's what we are all here to read. Try to be civil, but feel free to be ornary in the points you make guys... we can all hate each others opinions without hating each other, if that makes sense.
I guess I'm just playing devils advocate about your arguement but it is something to think about. When we converse, we argue, when we argue we get opinionated, etc etc. dude we're all one community of rude, opinionated, nerdy, intelligent bastards. Act like it, not like a 8 year old who is bigger than all the other kids in the line for the slide on the playground.
Guitardian wrote:You two need to put yer dicks on the table and just hash it out and speak your minds. I respect and question everything both of you have posted, which is a good thing. If you want to play with big dogs, dont be afraid to bark. No reason to trash each other in public or accuse each other of cowardice. Just speak your mind! that's what we are all here to read. Try to be civil, but feel free to be ornary in the points you make guys... we can all hate each others opinions without hating each other, if that makes sense.
I guess I'm just playing devils advocate about your arguement but it is something to think about. When we converse, we argue, when we argue we get opinionated, etc etc. dude we're all one community of rude, opinionated, nerdy, intelligent bastards. Act like it, not like a 8 year old who is bigger than all the other kids in the line for the slide on the playground.
I didn't demand credentials from anyone in particular, I just said that I didn't want to talk about race issues with anyone who hadn't taken at least a college level course on the issue.
No?
Seriously, from now on, if any of you are going to try to argue with me on this, I want credentials. I want the name of the school where you studied racism academically, and I want to know what classes you took on the subject.
If you say so.
Thanks for proving my point.
You didn't demand credentials from anyone in particular, but you did demand credentials. And all I claimed was that you chose to demand credentials.
Gailbraithe wrote:
No, you mean unlike me you hide behind anonymity so that you can attack people in a personal manner without fear of reprisal. You're basically a coward, sniping from shadows. Just like dogma, and most other condescending, disingenuous jerks on the internet. I know how to hide who I am, I just don't, because I'd rather be honest about where I'm coming from than try to pretend I'm someone I'm not.
I mean, you can make all kinds of claims about where you went to school, and who you are. Same as dogma. But none of it means anything. You're nobody. You're a big nothing. Just a bunch of opinions, coming from nowhere, amounting to nothing. Until you're willing to own who you are, then you are no one.
Didn't you call Phyxis a stalker for looking through the links in your signature?
If you're so keen on 'owning' yourself, then that hardly seems like an appropriate response.
Regardless, the origin of opinion has not bearing on the merit of an opinion. A well supported, respectful opinion is well supported and respectful regardless of its origin. You may not realize, but by assuming that identity governs what someone can, and cannot know you are necessarily marking yourself as a credentialist.
Gailbraithe wrote:
And you are not as benevolent and superior as you think you are. You're just a condescending, judgmental jerk who can't make a real argument. A snipe who hides his inability to offer anything cognizant to conversation behind heaps of sarcasm and elitism.
And you project. A lot.
At this point I think its pretty clear that the only one projecting is you. I've never seen someone behave as condescendingly as you do on a consistent basis. You even go so far as to accuse people of lying simply because they don't agree with your perspective on an issue. Its tired, self-important nonsense that has seen every person you've interacted with on this forum come away with a negative perspective of your online persona.
I won't lie, I can come off as being arrogant, but I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong, and I don't assume people are evil, immoral liars because they disagree with me. Just those two things alone seem to have elicited more positive than negative reactions to my posting, and I've been here a lot longer than you have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gailbraithe wrote: I used majority exactly as the word is used by most people everyday, and you made this smart-alecky, condescending comment about community colleges because according to some really pedantic, nonstandard definition of majority that didn't fit my context you claim I was wrong. Or something. You didn't really claim anything, you were just being a condescending jerk. Like always.
I claimed that you were wrong because polling data didn't support your claim.
But anyway, you don't get to determine what constitutes the standard definition of majority. You can determine what definition of the word majority that you are using a given context, but that's all. I could have given you the benefit of the doubt regarding what the intent of your comment is, but I've not seen much reason to do that. Strange, considering I'm usually willing to do the same for other posters.
Gailbraithe wrote:
A year from now are you still going to be nitpicking and making these cockamamie arguments because I once got frustrated and petulantly demanded that if anyone was going to argue with me on a subject, I wanted them to at least present an informed argument?
No, you wanted them to present credentials. Credentials do not necessarily translate into informed arguments.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Grow the feth up, dogma. You are such a hypocrite.
So my petulant remarks make me a hypocrite, but yours do not?
That's just about the best example of your nominal double standard that I've seen thus far. And, lets be honest, its not simply a matter of that one instance. Our first argument ended with you calling me a disingenuous, racist, liar.
are any of us that post our opinions not arrogant in just that act? Dogma has good wisdom, not just stupid dogma. I assume the name is a work of sarcasm.
Wanna talk about commie-ism? here we have all been around a virtual campfire swapping quips and rebuttals and trying to get insight, which all of us have to offer. It is very sophomoric to trounce another's post because of misunderstandings, or rude language, if the origional idea is to view, as a communistic group where everyone is equal, our own thread as a form of people attacking each other's freedom to speak.
Just so you can't say I didn't tell you: you can't hurt my feelings. You can try to think of words you think will upset me, but I can see you trying to play Psych 101 with the imaginary Neocon Thug you think I am, and it just makes me an even bigger fan of your work.
Until you're willing to own who you are, then you are no one.
So now you're an existentialist? Let me guess: you're in the midst of a correspondence course on Sartre?
And you are not as benevolent and superior as you think you are.
I don't think I'm benevolent. I'm telling you how reality works. I'm FULLY congizent that you will ignore me, and I have no real desire to help you. It's just that you're fascinatingly, fantastically broken. It's interesting to try to fix you. I'm sure I'll fail. It's still interesting.
And YES, before you think I didn't know it, that previous paragraph was PHENOMENALLY arrogant. But it's just for you, G-baby. I can picture you reading this, feeling SO victimized by my awfulness, and I can see it feeding your whole worldview. Honestly, in doing you that service, I feel like I'm the good guy here.
And you project. A lot.
Really? How so?
You didn't demand credentials from anyone in particular, but you did demand credentials.
Well, he did demand credentials from anybody daring to challenge his wisdom. That's pretty particular. Well, who knows, maybe it's not, given how many people probably want to challenge his presumed wisdom on a daily basis. Never mind, you're right.
Honestly, this is so totally awesome, and the Mods are gonna shut it down...
Kragura wrote:Yes in that case I will agree that the German revolution was not a communist one and no I cannot think of another example of a communist revolution in industrial Europe, (unless you count Hungary) however I still hold that the Russian revolution is an example of workers leading a revolution.
Cool. Thing is, though, once you start looking at the Russian revolution you start to notice how little it had to do with Marx' predictions. It was not a mature capitalist society, where the imbalances inherent in capitalism finally forced a revolution. It was still a largely agricultural society in the process of beginning to industrialise. "Peace, Bread, Land" is the rallying cry of a feudal economy in the wake of a war, not a mature capitalist economy moving to the next stage of human society.
What Marx didn't predict was that in mature capitalist economies other factors would come in to adjust for the imbalances inherent in capitalism. As I've mentioned before, unions, minimum wages, worker's rights and all that. I think it is reasonable that Marx would miss those factors, they would have been very hard to predict in the mid-19th C, but I don't think people today have any excuse for missing them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:The picture painted here is that Communist countries seek to implrison and enslave everyone in their population. This seems silly. I'm sure there were plenty of compliant hard working 'good' citizens in the U.S.S.R. who may not have been overjoyed by their system, but happy enough to live within it. You can't have a whole country populated by criminals. In the U.S.A. if you are a dissident, the law cracks down on you. You asked for it. The law dictates that you have to pay your taxes. If you don't you are a criminal. Criminals pay the consequences for breaking the law, no matter what the specific law is. Over here I cannot say "I want to kill the president" without getting into trouble. I cannot burn an American flag either. Dissidents are punished by governments who try to keep the population in line, and that has nothing to do with economic practice.
Dude, just no. It would be fair to say that the horrors of life in post-Stalin Russia have been exaggerated. It would be fair to say we are often blind to hardships here.
But it is absolutely ludicrous to make a claim that life in Soviet Russia, at any point, was ever preferable to life in the US or any other liberal democracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:The paris commune. 1870s.
Just out of curiosity.... marx predicted that the revolution would start in industrialized countries like germany and the u.s. infact it happened in very agrarian countries like china and russia. how do you account for that? IMO communism in the 20th century has alot more to do with rebellion against feudalism than it does with rebellion against capitalism; as an international phenomena its more concerned with opposition to western imperialism than it is to the redistribution of goods within a state. north vietnam is a good example of how the 1st concern totally overrode the 2nd. How could Ho Chi Minh get russian support against the west except by embracing communism? If we'd kept our promise early on to help them gain their independence, we never would have had to fight there. AF
Yeah, the Paris communes were mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't think a revolution lasting a month or two were really what Marx had in mind. To matter, it needs to actually form a new government with some semblance of permanancy.
The second point you make is the one I've been arguing as well, that Marx' theories predicted communism would rise out of mature capitalist economies as the imbalances inherent in capitalism became greater and greater. That this hasn't happened, and that the only communist revolutions we've seen have been in largely feudal, agrarian societies is a big cross against Marx' theories.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:Who pays for these unpaid loans? See we have our social policies here too, regardless of whether it's a totaltarian fascist government or a capitalist democracy we still pay taxes. We just disguise our slavery with democracy, and the fact that dumbass-johnny the lawn-mowing guy or Joe-the-plumber can go get an edumacation he will never understand or use, so he can get a piece of paper in order to plug back into the system and work.
There's an interesting conversation to be had challenging the idea that higher and higher levels of education are necessary for everyone. I really don't see how that conversation relates in any way to some grand notion that we're all oppressed or whatever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:If I'm going to pay someone to fix my sink, or re-wire my house, then I want to know what qualifies them to do the job. Now, I'll agree that an illiterate plumber is not necessarily a BAD plumber - but I think that a general level of literacy and numeracy is desirable amongst the young people of a given country. Certainly desirable enough to make it mandatory for under-16s.
What else are they going to do? They can't legally get a job.
But you don't hire a 16 year old plumber. You hire a credentialed plumber, and he brings with him his 16 year old apprentice. That apprentice can learn on the job, and then go on to gain his own plumbing licence. If he doesn't care about the symoblism in Lord of the Flies, I don't see how it benefits anyone to have him sit in class for the last two years of school before going out to get a job.
dogma wrote:Didn't you call Phyxis a stalker for looking through the links in your signature?
If you're so keen on 'owning' yourself, then that hardly seems like an appropriate response.
Don't be ridiculous. Just because I don't hide my identity doesn't mean I am granting people blanket permission to look into my life for ways to hurt me. I make that information available because I trust people to use it responsibly. You and Phyxis both sought after that information with ill intent, and that's stalking. Worse, and I think a real sign of your character, you used that information to make ridiculous and baseless attacks (hint: I had nothing to do with the design of my employer's website) in private while affecting a polite and reasoned facade in public. And then you had the nerve to pick a fight with me and report me to the moderator when I took you up on it. It is behavior I can only describe as "weaselly."
I won't lie, I can come off as being arrogant, but I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong, and I don't assume people are evil, immoral liars because they disagree with me. Just those two things alone seem to have elicited more positive than negative reactions to my posting, and I've been here a lot longer than you have.
Yeah, and all the mods tell me they hate you. So nyah.
Gailbraithe wrote: I used majority exactly as the word is used by most people everyday, and you made this smart-alecky, condescending comment about community colleges because according to some really pedantic, nonstandard definition of majority that didn't fit my context you claim I was wrong. Or something. You didn't really claim anything, you were just being a condescending jerk. Like always.
I claimed that you were wrong because polling data didn't support your claim.
Actually, it does. Because -- duh -- 40% is not the majority of Americans. 40% if a minority of Americans.
See, I've had some time to think about it, and I was wrong to cede any kind of point to you. I granted that you might have some very niggling, pedantic point, but you really didn't. You're just wrong. Because 40% is never the greater part of 100%, and while 40% is greater than 35% or 20%, being the greatest part in a collection of parts is not the same thing as being the greatest part of a thing. In fact there is a word for being the largest of a group of minority parts: a plurality. Amazing what you remember a day or so after an argument. Which, again, is why Bill Clinton, who got a plurality of votes, won the '92 election despite lacking a majority. And so conservatives -- at 40% of the total population -- have a plurality, but not a majority.
But anyway, you don't get to determine what constitutes the standard definition of majority. You can determine what definition of the word majority that you are using a given context, but that's all. I could have given you the benefit of the doubt regarding what the intent of your comment is, but I've not seen much reason to do that. Strange, considering I'm usually willing to do the same for other posters.
The dictionary is the generally agreed upon authority on the used definitions of words, and the first definition given is the standard definition used most commonly. We can check a multitude of dictionaries, and you will see that all of them given "more than half" as the standard definition of majority. Even the dictionary you cited gave "more than half" as the standard definition.
Gailbraithe wrote:A year from now are you still going to be nitpicking and making these cockamamie arguments because I once got frustrated and petulantly demanded that if anyone was going to argue with me on a subject, I wanted them to at least present an informed argument?
No, you wanted them to present credentials. Credentials do not necessarily translate into informed arguments.
Way to completely dodge the question there.
You're right dogma, credentials do not necessarily translate into informed arguments. But having credentials indicates that some attempt was made at educating one's self, and it is reasonable to assume that those with credentials are more likely to provide informed arguments than those without.
Now you want to actually answer the question, or should I just expect the same disingenuous shifting of topic and changing the subject that is typical of Mustela forumus.
So my petulant remarks make me a hypocrite, but yours do not?
I'm not the one using someone else's petulant remarks to justify my own. You've claimed you are justified in being a dick to me because I am a dick to others, but you have no authority. You're not a moderator here. You don't actually have any power to persecute me for my bad behavior. You're just a vigilante, which is Italian for " hypocritical criminal."*
I don't actually have a problem with you being a dick to me. I have a problem with the mod's letting you be a dick to me and then preventing me from kicking you in your e-balls like you deserve, and I have a problem with you pretending you have a right to be a dick to me, but the sole reason I want you to stop being a dick to me is because I'm tired of getting banned when I respond in kind.
That's just about the best example of your nominal double standard that I've seen thus far. And, lets be honest, its not simply a matter of that one instance. Our first argument ended with you calling me a disingenuous, racist, liar.
I stand by that claim. You're an apologist in favor of a white supremacist position, you give tacit endorsement to white supremacy through your arguments, you make deliberately erroneous claims to support your arguments, and you frequently use weasel arguments -- like changing the subject, shifting goalpost, refuge in absurdity, etc. The only reason I have stopped calling you those things is because the moderators said it's not polite.
And so allow me to apologize for any rudeness in this comment. My intention is only to honestly and accurately say what I think and what I perceive the situation to be. If my perception offends, that is not the intent. However I think the bluntness with which you have chosen to address me invites a blunt reply.
*PS: I know that's not what vigilante actually means.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:Just so you can't say I didn't tell you: you can't hurt my feelings. You can try to think of words you think will upset me, but I can see you trying to play Psych 101 with the imaginary Neocon Thug you think I am, and it just makes me an even bigger fan of your work.
I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. I'm assassinating your character in public to influence other people's perception of you.
But clearly I've hurt your feelings. I'm sorry.
So now you're an existentialist? Let me guess: you're in the midst of a correspondence course on Sartre?
I read Sarte when I was 15.
I don't think I'm benevolent. I'm telling you how reality works. I'm FULLY congizent that you will ignore me, and I have no real desire to help you. It's just that you're fascinatingly, fantastically broken. It's interesting to try to fix you. I'm sure I'll fail. It's still interesting.
And YES, before you think I didn't know it, that previous paragraph was PHENOMENALLY arrogant. But it's just for you, G-baby. I can picture you reading this, feeling SO victimized by my awfulness, and I can see it feeding your whole worldview. Honestly, in doing you that service, I feel like I'm the good guy here.
No, I just think its funny how completely delusional, self-important and ridiculous you're being, and I'm hoping everyone else can see what a dork you clearly are.
And you project. A lot.
Really? How so?
Well, for one, I'm not a particularly arrogant person. But you clearly are, and you project your arrogance on me.
I stand by that claim. You're an apologist in favor of a white supremacist position, you give tacit endorsement to white supremacy through your arguments, you make deliberately erroneous claims to support your arguments, and you frequently use weasel arguments -- like changing the subject, shifting goalpost, refuge in absurdity, etc. The only reason I have stopped calling you those things is because the moderators said it's not polite.
It isn't polite, nor is it based on reason. I would elaborate... yeah, probably shouldn't.
You see? I put on some Rage Against The Machine to celebrate G-baby and he rewards me with a moutainous CRAZY CAKE! Thank you Zack and thank you G!
You and Phyxis both sought after that information with ill intent
What ill intentions were those, G-bizzle? What malevolent plan do you think I have in store for you? Did I not send you a "threatening" PM in which I specifically told you "I'm not going to come and get you" ? Indeed, did I not say that "Nobody is going to come and get you" ?
I did. I now regret sending you that, because I feel like it probably is slightly undermining your fantasy world, and that makes me less of a nurturing provider of loon fodder than I have it in me to be.
But, seriously, I'm not going to come get you. I'm sorry if that kills your wood, but I'm just not. Sorry.
I had nothing to do with the design of my employer's website
Are you gonna tell me that you didn't paint the stuff on your site either? Because then I won't know what to believe anymore.
It is behavior I can only describe as "weaselly."
That, sir, is a LIE. You, sirrah, are a lieur, sieur. To suggeste that you are constrainede in this manneur is an outrighte falsehoode of the most base and viele sorte, sieur. I have verilee witnessed you, with mine owne eyes, also reffere to my personne as "cowardeley." A LIEUR SIR! THOU ART! AND I MIGHT VENTURE TO SAY, THOU ART NOTHINGE MORE THAN SUCHE!
Zack De La Rocha agrees, he says: "No more lies." Take the Power Back, G-baby.
I'm assassinating your character in public to influence other people's perception of you.
First off, this is a PERFECT place for flowery metaphor, and you TOTALLY didn't do it. Assassination? Dude, USE IT.
Also, dude, seriously, nobody here likes you. Nobody. You can't influence their perception of me. I probably am making them think I'm an idiot by responding to you in such a juvenile fashion, but that's really me assassinating my own character.
But I'm ok with that. I want you to know that for you, for the health and wellbeing of your fantasy world, I'm ok with it.
Well, for one, I'm not a particularly arrogant person. But you clearly are, and you project your arrogance on me.
Dude, you're an ARTIST of arrogance.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty arrogant, but you do it with such a relentless vigor... It's captivating.
You've crafted this crazy fantasy world, and you're just FURIOUS and totally DISAPPOINTED with anybody who isn't sharing it with you 24/7. UGH! Why won't people stop WASTING YOUR TIME with their delusional refusal to recognize that the Republicans REALLY ARE NAZIS? UGH!
It just makes me want to ball up my fists and literally SPRAY boohoo out my crycry.
Phryxis wrote:What ill intentions were those, G-bizzle
To find things about which to make personal attacks. Specifically, these personal attacks, from a PM you sent me:
Phryxis wrote:1) Why are you so awesome?
2) Are you actually Keith Olbermann? If not, how much do you love him? Wouldn't life be cool if you just had him playing on loop into an earbud all the time, even when you were sleeping or bathing?
3) Do you suffer from Asperger's syndrome?
4) What's the deal with the Art Institute of Seattle that they couldn't teach you better design sense than this: [employer's website address removed]?
5) Why do you run a comission painting service when your skill level is a 5 on CMON at best? You consider simple color blocking to be "high quality?" If that's "high quality" than what does that make this: http://coolminiornot.com/257412 ?
6) You should probably shave, and get smaller glasses.
7) Was that last thing even a question?
Classy stuff. And so very original and witty.
Dude, you're an ARTIST of arrogance.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty arrogant, but you do it with such a relentless vigor... It's captivating.
You've crafted this crazy fantasy world, and you're just FURIOUS and totally DISAPPOINTED with anybody who isn't sharing it with you 24/7. UGH! Why won't people stop WASTING YOUR TIME with their delusional refusal to recognize that the Republicans REALLY ARE NAZIS? UGH!
That would make me, at worst, delusional.
It seems obvious to me (and many others) that the Republicans are fascists. I am bewildered that other people don't see it, and I am frustrated by my inability to get (some) people to see it. But that doesn't make me arrogant. I do not believe that I am the only person who has noted this, nor do I think I have noted this because I am especially brilliant, well-educated, or insightful. In fact, I am bewildered that more people don't see it precisely because I don't think I am significantly smarter or more observant than the average person.
However, you are clearly quite arrogant. Who else would send someone a PM like this:
Phryxis wrote:Honestly, you've already made a fool of yourself, and everyone in this forum thinks you're an idiot. I'm getting PMs asking me "what's with this guy, is he crazy?" That's why I took it offline. Anything I say against you in the forums, I'll have everyone in there getting may back, ganging up on you. I don't want that, and I don't need it. I want you to understand that I'm telling you what's up for YOUR benefit. Just between you and me. Not for onlookers who might think I'm "cool" for beating up on the crazy kid.
Amazing.
Did the rest of you know that if Phryxis attacks someone on the forums, the rest of you will simply follow along like lemmings? Because you'll all be so impressed with how "cool" he is. But Phryxis is a noble dude, he doesn't want to take advantage of your sheep-like tendencies.
Guess I'll try to slip in here before this gets locked due to OT bickering. Communism, while in THEORY desirable, will never work with human society. Someone needs to be the one signing checks and driving the Ferrari, and someone needs to be asking if you want fries with that. It's how our society functions, the poor actually fill an important role, as seen in fight club (can't find a forum-appropriate clip )
Gailbraithe wrote:
Don't be ridiculous. Just because I don't hide my identity doesn't mean I am granting people blanket permission to look into my life for ways to hurt me. I make that information available because I trust people to use it responsibly.
By making information publicly available you are granting permission to fair use. That's really all that matters here, as no one has done anything that jeopardizes your safety, or in any way injured you. Not any more than occurs in the course of normal conversation.
Gailbraithe wrote:
You and Phyxis both sought after that information with ill intent, and that's stalking.
I never went looking for anything. All the information that I've used to criticize you was posted by you, or by someone else. The community college bit came when you asked for credentials, the art school bit is something that Phyxis posted.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Worse, and I think a real sign of your character, you used that information to make ridiculous and baseless attacks (hint: I had nothing to do with the design of my employer's website) in private while affecting a polite and reasoned facade in public. And then you had the nerve to pick a fight with me and report me to the moderator when I took you up on it. It is behavior I can only describe as "weaselly."
I didn't pick a fight with you.. I made an attempt to carry on a conversation about a tangent from another thread. I presented myself civilly, and you told me to stab myself in the head..
Gailbraithe wrote:
Actually, it does. Because -- duh -- 40% is not the majority of Americans. 40% if a minority of Americans.
See, I've had some time to think about it, and I was wrong to cede any kind of point to you. I granted that you might have some very niggling, pedantic point, but you really didn't. You're just wrong. Because 40% is never the greater part of 100%, and while 40% is greater than 35% or 20%, being the greatest part in a collection of parts is not the same thing as being the greatest part of a thing.
No, it actually is. To be the greatest part of a thing implies that there is more than one part of that thing. If there are only two parts, then the greatest part of the thing must be more than 51% of that thing (also called an absolute majority). If there are 3 or more parts, then the greatest part of the thing can be any share of thing insofar as its larger than either one of the other two parts.
Gailbraithe wrote:
In fact there is a word for being the largest of a group of minority parts: a plurality. Amazing what you remember a day or so after an argument. Which, again, is why Bill Clinton, who got a plurality of votes, won the '92 election despite lacking a majority. And so conservatives -- at 40% of the total population -- have a plurality, but not a majority.
Plurality and majority are often regarded as synonymous. I could have given you the benefit of the doubt, as I have already said, but I chose not to.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The dictionary is the generally agreed upon authority on the used definitions of words, and the first definition given is the standard definition used most commonly.
That depends on the dictionary. Some list words in order of commonality of use, others list them by historical order, and still others list definitions in order of minimalism.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Now you want to actually answer the question, or should I just expect the same disingenuous shifting of topic and changing the subject that is typical of Mustela forumus.
Why should I answer a question that requires me to refer to my arguments as cockamamie?
Here's the thing, I've tried to argue with you on a reasonable level, and every time you have called me a liar for my efforts. If you can keep yourself from going that route, then I will happily engage with you in a more serious manner. If not, then expect me to keep pointing out when you're making invalid assumptions.
Gailbraithe wrote:
You've claimed you are justified in being a dick to me because I am a dick to others, but you have no authority. You're not a moderator here. You don't actually have any power to persecute me for my bad behavior. You're just a vigilante, which is Italian for " hypocritical criminal."*
I haven't claimed that my behavior is justified. I explained why I react this way to you.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I stand by that claim. You're an apologist in favor of a white supremacist position, you give tacit endorsement to white supremacy through your arguments, you make deliberately erroneous claims to support your arguments, and you frequently use weasel arguments -- like changing the subject, shifting goalpost, refuge in absurdity, etc. The only reason I have stopped calling you those things is because the moderators said it's not polite.
Here's the thing, I don't care what you call me insofar as you present a case for doing so. You have never, ever, made a case which supported your allegations that I'm presenting disingenuous arguments. You've presented once claim, and I've presented a different take on that claim, and then you said that I was lying. When people don't agree with you regarding what is, or is not, relevant information it does not follow that they are lying.
As for the white supremacy: you made an argument to support your claim which I felt was based on inaccurate information. I never claimed that you were lying, I think that you really believe what you say, but when I mounted a defense of myself by presenting a different version of the history of the word 'racism' you again called me a liar. All this was, of course, predicated on the idea that because one given body of people use an argument anyone else who uses a similar argument must support all things claimed by those people.
Gailbraithe wrote:Did the rest of you know that if Phryxis attacks someone on the forums, the rest of you will simply follow along like lemmings? Because you'll all be so impressed with how "cool" he is. But Phryxis is a noble dude, he doesn't want to take advantage of your sheep-like tendencies.
Dude, Phryxis and I argue about a lot of stuff on this site. Like, a lot. Despite this, we haven't ever gotten in a flamewar with him (that I can remember...) because I think we both put the effort in to make our arguments reasonable.
Thing is, I actually agree with a number of your points in general. I think the Republicans have really lost their way in the last couple of decades. But I wouldn't call them fascist because that word actually means something, and what is wrong with the Republicans has nothing to do with that word. It just makes you sound silly.
And that's really the problem here, you sound off whatever comes into your head, whatever you think helps in the next line in the argument, without ever stopping to think if what you're saying is reasonable. The claim above is the classic example, this site really isn't noted for having any real leaders, that others sheepishly follow. To the extent that might even be happening, we sure aren't following Phryxis (sorry Phryxis... ). But you make the claim, because it's first thing that comes in to your head to counter Phyrxis' point.
Just... don't do that. It keeps leading you to make ludicrous claims. Debate isn't just denying what the other guy claimed, it's forming a reasonable argument of your own.
Guitardian wrote:what if he really knew what he was doing? (the 15 year old hypothetical plumber I mean)
my guess is that Phyrexis went to Evergreen or Reed or maybe Berkley... but like he said, anonymity. Just a hunch.
I recruit people for my department.
Every year I have 20-30 CVs presented, and I only want to interview about eight people, so I want to eliminate at least half the CVs. An easy way to do so is to reject anyone who can't write a proper letter, and/or doesn't follow the instruction to include a portfolio.
These guys could be a whizz at the practicalities of the job, but I'll never know.
BTW you can burn a US national flag in the USA. It is protected free speech.
sebster wrote:Dude, Phryxis and I argue about a lot of stuff on this site. Like, a lot. Despite this, we haven't ever gotten in a flamewar with him (that I can remember...) because I think we both put the effort in to make our arguments reasonable.
Thing is, I actually agree with a number of your points in general. I think the Republicans have really lost their way in the last couple of decades. But I wouldn't call them fascist because that word actually means something, and what is wrong with the Republicans has nothing to do with that word. It just makes you sound silly.
I think my arguments (qua the conservative movement as a nascent fascist movement) are actually very reasonable, if one is willing to hear me out. But most people aren't willing to hear me out (due in large part to social conditioning to discount any claims that anyone is a fascist, an inadvertent side effect of a joke Mike Godwin once made), and right-wingers in particular go on the warpath (incidentaly this is exactly what my theory about movement conservatives predicts) when I make the claim.
Honestly, I think a lot of people know its true but simply don't want to believe it, because if it's true it raises the question "Yeah, but what do we do about it?" and that way leads to a real bind. But I really do believe, especially for Americans, this issue has become the "elephant in the room" that everyone is desperately trying to avoid acknowledging. Pursuing a policy of appeasement, as it were.
I will grant that there is a possibility that I am being alarmist, but I really don't believe I'm being unreasonable. Only impolitic. And having people like Phryxis and his ilk become obsessed with silencing and discrediting me by any means necessary (except the one acceptable means: reasoned argument) does not do anything to convince me I'm wrong, conversely it only convinces me that I am, in fact, on to something.
Gailbraithe wrote:Did the rest of you know that if Phryxis attacks someone on the forums, the rest of you will simply follow along like lemmings? Because you'll all be so impressed with how "cool" he is. But Phryxis is a noble dude, he doesn't want to take advantage of your sheep-like tendencies.
And that's really the problem here, you sound off whatever comes into your head, whatever you think helps in the next line in the argument, without ever stopping to think if what you're saying is reasonable. The claim above is the classic example, this site really isn't noted for having any real leaders, that others sheepishly follow. To the extent that might even be happening, we sure aren't following Phryxis (sorry Phryxis... ). But you make the claim, because it's first thing that comes in to your head to counter Phyrxis' point.
Obviously this site doesn't have any real leaders, no gaming/geek forum of any size does. There may be cliques, but there will always be way too many iconoclasts and dedicated individualists on a board like this for one user to have the sort of power Phryxis claims. And that's the point: Phyrxis claims to have that kind of power. I was being facetious and mocking Phryxis's self-importance, knowing that if I told y'all that you would follow Phyrxis lead it wouldn't be long before y'all started debunking that little notion.
Gailbraithe wrote:Honestly, I think a lot of people know its true but simply don't want to believe it, because if it's true it raises the question "Yeah, but what do we do about it?" and that way leads to a real bind. But I really do believe, especially for Americans, this issue has become the "elephant in the room" that everyone is desperately trying to avoid acknowledging. Pursuing a policy of appeasement, as it were.
Let's be entirely clear here. You have suggested a great deal of things. It seems a bit worthless to target specific arguments on your part, as you have made your intentions clear to most everyone.
I stand by that claim. You're an apologist in favor of a white supremacist position, you give tacit endorsement to white supremacy through your arguments, you make deliberately erroneous claims to support your arguments, and you frequently use weasel arguments -- like changing the subject, shifting goalpost, refuge in absurdity, etc. The only reason I have stopped calling you those things is because the moderators said it's not polite.
This is bloody nonsense. You can call my opinion of your position whatever the hell you like, but that is capital P, preposterous. It's absurd. I can throw out many more suggestions.
I will grant that there is a possibility that I am being alarmist, but I really don't believe I'm being unreasonable. Only impolitic. And having people like Phryxis and his ilk become obsessed with silencing and discrediting me by any means necessary (except the one acceptable means: reasoned argument) does not do anything to convince me I'm wrong, conversely it only convinces me that I am, in fact, on to something.
While I agree that you have faced the hammer more than once, from many perspectives, it doesn't strike me as a particularly mystical result to your actions.
Phryxis and his ilk. That just about sums what you are attempting to convey. You're wrong on that point and choose not to take much else into consideration, as you are clearly with intention. This is one of the strangest conversations I have read in the OT, I mean fething honestly, what in holy hell is this? What brought such wrath upon us?
In a thread about communism, that has to mean something important.
Obviously this site doesn't have any real leaders, no gaming/geek forum of any size does. There may be cliques, but there will always be way too many iconoclasts and dedicated individualists on a board like this for one user to have the sort of power Phryxis claims. And that's the point: Phyrxis claims to have that kind of power. I was being facetious and mocking Phryxis's self-importance, knowing that if I told y'all that you would follow Phyrxis lead it wouldn't be long before y'all started debunking that little notion.
It is obvious, isn't it.
Phryxis does not claim to have much of anything, as far as I am concerned. He has made a few statements that could be considered untrue, but for the most part I happen to agree with what he says. This conversation was taken off track, a mile underground and you appear to be a very significant contributor to that fact.
I don't hate you mate. You're at least mildly amusing and in most cases well written. You come across (so far as the internet would allow) as attention hoarding and mildly egocentric. Through what limited lens I can offer, this is ridiculous and you are a very noticeable factor in all of it. I wish you well on these forums and hope that you can work at least some understanding out with those that are involved in the dispute.
I am frustrated by my inability to get (some) people to see it.
Have you considered insulting them at length when they fail to do so?
Did the rest of you know that if Phryxis attacks someone on the forums, the rest of you will simply follow along like lemmings?
Ugh, dude WHY are you doing this to yourself?
They don't follow me because I'm awesome, they gang up on you because you do things EXACTLY LIKE THIS.
I told you, I took it to PM to AVOID embarassing you. I guess you think I was lying? Now you're posting in here for everyone to see that I tried to talk sense to you, and in response you told me you hoped I would get testicular cancer and die.
Which is actually the exact same thing you told dogma.
Why are you doing this to yourself? And what, exactly, do you have against testiculars?
I think my arguments (qua the conservative movement as a nascent fascist movement) are actually very reasonable, if one is willing to hear me out.
Obviously you think that.
Let me assure you, THEY'RE NOT. And even if they were, they're presented with such haze of obvious lunacy that they immediately become unreasonable on that basis alone.
You don't seem to be able to grasp a basic concept... why are all these people siding against you? I'm OBVIOUSLY a douchebag, and they're still taking my side against you. Why would they do that?
I'll tell you why: you're intolerable.
Now FIX IT, or accept the consequences, but please stop whining about it.
I was being facetious and mocking Phryxis's self-importance, knowing that if I told y'all that you would follow Phyrxis lead it wouldn't be long before y'all started debunking that little notion.
Oh, god, dude, STOP.
PLEASE, PLEASE STOP.
Do you even read the thread? You post a PM I sent you, suggesting that people will side with me over you, expecting it to make everyone side with you. What happens? Immediately sebster sides with me, or more accurately against you, because you're intolerable.
What is your response? You pat yourself on the back your brilliant plan to turn everyone against me. And then Wrex sides against you. When will it end, dude?
They're not going to turn against me, G-biz. They don't give a crap about me. They just find you intolerable.
Wrexasaur wrote:Phryxis does not claim to have much of anything, as far as I am concerned. He has made a few statements that could be considered untrue, but for the most part I happen to agree with what he says. This conversation was taken off track, a mile underground and you appear to be a very significant contributor to that fact.
I don't hate you mate. You're at least mildly amusing and in most cases well written. You come across (so far as the internet would allow) as attention hoarding and mildly egocentric. Through what limited lens I can offer, this is ridiculous and you are a very noticeable factor in all of it. I wish you well on these forums and hope that you can work at least some understanding out with those that are involved in the dispute.
Well, I aim for mildly amusing and well written, so that's good. I don't mean to hoard attention, I just get bored easily and type fast, so I tend to post a lot.
I really don't want to keep turning threads into threads about me, and if you look carefully I think you'll see the issues is that I'm prone to defending myself when attacked, and that dogma, Phryxis and Monster Rain have display a strong desire to turn any thread I post into a thread about me by making claims about me that compel a defense. I'm not the one who keeps bringing me up. It may be a bit insecure on my part to be so defensive, but it not egotism.
I can see that you post very quickly, sometimes without (again, as far as I can tell) thinking.
One of the reasons I enjoy using forums is because it forces me to think about what I am saying. I am speaking now, my brain is making my fingers move and you can hear it. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of miles away, you are reading me write. It is quite spectacular, I mean really, that is some amazing stuff.
While I do not agree with you on your second point (Gailbrathe is simply defending his or her self.) it could be seen as the case. I skim threads and pick out what is important, I am not here to mine through blarrghabarg, unless it is a thread that needs more cowbell.
I appreciate that you have spent some time trying to ease the gas pedal, but you should consider taking your foot off of it altogether. It is not beyond someone with your writing skills to convey a clear and polite argument, even including a humorous twist or two.
You can contribute positively far more than you have so far.
Phryxis wrote:I told you, I took it to PM to AVOID embarassing you. I guess you think I was lying? Now you're posting in here for everyone to see that I tried to talk sense to you, and in response you told me you hoped I would get testicular cancer and die.
Which is actually the exact same thing you told dogma.
Why are you doing this to yourself? And what, exactly, do you have against testiculars?
It's just a funny thing to say as a kiss-off. I'm also fond of "Get fethed with a rusty chainsaw."
Let me assure you, THEY'RE NOT. And even if they were, they're presented with such haze of obvious lunacy that they immediately become unreasonable on that basis alone.
Considering that I have never been given the opportunity to present those arguments, all you've really done here is admit that you are prejudiced and have reached your conclusion without any consideration of the facts. I'm sure no one saw that coming.
You don't seem to be able to grasp a basic concept... why are all these people siding against you? I'm OBVIOUSLY a douchebag, and they're still taking my side against you. Why would they do that?
I don't actually see anyone taking your side against me. But I agree, you are obviously a douchebag. Not being rude, just agreeing with you.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:Guess I'll try to slip in here before this gets locked due to OT bickering. Communism, while in THEORY desirable, will never work with human society. Someone needs to be the one signing checks and driving the Ferrari, and someone needs to be asking if you want fries with that. It's how our society functions, the poor actually fill an important role, as seen in fight club (can't find a forum-appropriate clip )
EDIT: removed clip, inappropriate
Right lets try and pull this back on course.
This is very much what communism argues, that the poor play the most important part in society and should be rewarded as such.
(p.s seen fight club and loved it )
Gailbraithe wrote:I think my arguments (qua the conservative movement as a nascent fascist movement) are actually very reasonable, if one is willing to hear me out. But most people aren't willing to hear me out (due in large part to social conditioning to discount any claims that anyone is a fascist, an inadvertent side effect of a joke Mike Godwin once made), and right-wingers in particular go on the warpath (incidentaly this is exactly what my theory about movement conservatives predicts) when I make the claim.
Honestly, I think a lot of people know its true but simply don't want to believe it, because if it's true it raises the question "Yeah, but what do we do about it?" and that way leads to a real bind. But I really do believe, especially for Americans, this issue has become the "elephant in the room" that everyone is desperately trying to avoid acknowledging. Pursuing a policy of appeasement, as it were.
I will grant that there is a possibility that I am being alarmist, but I really don't believe I'm being unreasonable. Only impolitic. And having people like Phryxis and his ilk become obsessed with silencing and discrediting me by any means necessary (except the one acceptable means: reasoned argument) does not do anything to convince me I'm wrong, conversely it only convinces me that I am, in fact, on to something.
You've just gone off on a rant about why people won't consider they're fascist without actually giving the case for how they might be fascist. And again, I actually think a lot has gone wrong with the GOP in the last couple of decades, but using the word fascist is just wrong. It means something and it's meaning has nothing to do with what is going on in the GOP. A party disappearing further and further into the fantasy of rugged individualism is not fascist. If anything, the idea that the individual should work to enhance the power of the nation would be a welcome antidote to what's going on.
Obviously this site doesn't have any real leaders, no gaming/geek forum of any size does. There may be cliques, but there will always be way too many iconoclasts and dedicated individualists on a board like this for one user to have the sort of power Phryxis claims. And that's the point: Phyrxis claims to have that kind of power. I was being facetious and mocking Phryxis's self-importance, knowing that if I told y'all that you would follow Phyrxis lead it wouldn't be long before y'all started debunking that little notion.
No, there aren't any real leaders because geeks love to stand apart from the crowd, as you rightly say. But I've never seen a site in my life that didn't love to dogpile on someone, especially a new poster, and as you can see that's what is going on.
Phyxis didn't need to claim leadership qualities to know that if he started to call you out then it was likely the rest of us would come in to dogpile.
In fact facists have nothing to do with conservatives.
Radical Conservatives are Reactionary. As Radical Socialist are Communists (Librals -> Anarchists).
Facist are Radicals Unhappy people not more not less. Mostly Facists are more closely allegiant to Socialists than to that of the two other ideologies (Like in Germany and Italy during WW2)
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:Guess I'll try to slip in here before this gets locked due to OT bickering. Communism, while in THEORY desirable, will never work with human society. Someone needs to be the one signing checks and driving the Ferrari, and someone needs to be asking if you want fries with that. It's how our society functions, the poor actually fill an important role, as seen in fight club (can't find a forum-appropriate clip )
EDIT: removed clip, inappropriate
Right lets try and pull this back on course.
This is very much what communism argues, that the poor play the most important part in society and should be rewarded as such.
(p.s seen fight club and loved it )
But if they are rewarded and made equal, then there is no more lower class, thus no one to keep the gears of society oiled. Communism wants everyone to be equal, and human society hasn't allowed that since we lived in caves as hunter-gatherers.
Wrexasaur wrote:I can see that you post very quickly, sometimes without (again, as far as I can tell) thinking.
One of the reasons I enjoy using forums is because it forces me to think about what I am saying. I am speaking now, my brain is making my fingers move and you can hear it. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of miles away, you are reading me write. It is quite spectacular, I mean really, that is some amazing stuff.
While I do not agree with you on your second point (Gailbrathe is simply defending his or her self.) it could be seen as the case. I skim threads and pick out what is important, I am not here to mine through blarrghabarg, unless it is a thread that needs more cowbell.
I appreciate that you have spent some time trying to ease the gas pedal, but you should consider taking your foot off of it altogether. It is not beyond someone with your writing skills to convey a clear and polite argument, even including a humorous twist or two.
You can contribute positively far more than you have so far.
Basically, this.
I've had some pretty ridiculous blazing rows with people on this site, including some people who have posted in this very thread. What I've usually found is that an argument on here usually reaches a critical mass of ridiculousness, someone posts a 'You Mad?'-type image, and the whole thing is just laughed off.
Gailbraithe, you'lll find on this site an insanely varied mix of people - Neo-cons (Frazzled, Fateweaver), Liberals (sebster, Wrex (arguably)), Liberal Nationalists (Me), Conservatives (mattyrm, Phryxis), Socialists (MeanGreenStompa), Nihilists (ShumaGorath), Christians (GeneralGrog, Manchu, JEB), Atheists (me again) and, well, dogma. Who knows what THAT fether believes in!
My point is this: Very few of us actually agree on everything, but one thing we all have in common is that we're all able to co-exist here on dakka. I put this down to the fact that we all know that as individuals there comes a point where you have to accept that you're taking yourself a wee bit seriously. I think the problem people seem to be having with you is that you don't seem to have realised this yet. But that's ok - we've all been there. Some stay there for longer than others, some 'get it' pretty quickly. But it's cool - you'll find that people here are actually pretty forgiving. I've said some horrendous things to people on this site, and they've said some back to me - but like I said, if you're prepared to laugh it off and call a truce, you can start afresh the very next day as if nothing ever happened. No-one has to be a pariah. A good example of this is me and Manchu - I'm a British Atheist, he's an American Christian. We seemed to have very little in common at all, and REALLY didn't get on. Like, really. We had a big argument, but once we managed to laugh it off we found that we actually DO have things in common. We're pals now.
I'm sure that can happen for you. After all, we all like 40K don't we?
I'm not on anyone's side but my own, all I'm saying is that if you can keep the aggressive rudeness to a minimum you'll be fine. Works for me.
SIDEBAR: How fethed up is it that I'M the voice of reason in this thread? All we need now is for Shuma to come in and remind everyone of Dakka's Rule No. 1!
Wow Albatross got to use the phrase nihilist. yea baby!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Modquisition on.
Certain posters have now opted for the nonvoluntary vacation program. To the rest, it would be prudent to chillaxify. Personal attacks, except by the Worst Mod Evah!, are generally not permitted, even in the OT Zone. Lets remember that and move forward. Personal attacks beyond this post will be dealt with accordingly.
Let me assure you, THEY'RE NOT. And even if they were, they're presented with such haze of obvious lunacy that they immediately become unreasonable on that basis alone.
Why is it that when I read this my mind jumped right to Glen Beck :S
That vicious bastard from frazz's link was not caused by communism, he was caused by being a vicious bastard. There are plenty of psychological studies done about the prisoner/guard relationship, and in my own experience, a lot of people are just donkey-caves because they can be. Give someone a slight amount of authority over another and they will become an donkey-cave about it. We see it in cops, toll booth attendants, middle managers, prison guards, bank loan managers, etc. That kind of assholery is not specific to communism, it happens every day in your shopping malls, gas stations, cop shops. Give a man power over another man and it makes them a bit irrational when it comes to moral decisions.
You missed the part about the numbers and what the communists did Guiti. It wasn't just a few camp guards. Estimates are 1 in 4 Cambodians were killed. Think about that in terms of US/Europe population. Hitler/Stalin were choir boys in comparison.
Perhaps the 'we-are-not-at-war' napalm drops weren't entirely inappropriate then. What sensible so-called-government would think they could get ahead by killing off a quarter of their population? Oh yeah the savage overpopulated ones. Wait, that was a different thread that got locked on the grounds of being racist.
A Communism doesn't have to be savage and brutal, it just happens that it is a form of government that has historically been adopted by savage and brutal minded cultures... You don't have enough food, so kill all the rich people and take their stuff! This is hardly a good PR job for communist nations. Usually their change to commie-ism has to do with being a culture run down by feudal old ways and getting sick of it. What would it be like if an enlightened moral culture decided to try communism? You cannot hand an angry downtrodden kid a sword and let him loose on the playground, and then say "see I told you so, we shouldn't give a kid a sword"... when really the only lesson to be learned is that we cannot hand an ANGRY TOWNTRODDEN kid a sword. Some cultures are angry and downtrodden kids and they will lash out given the opportunity to be vicious. If a foreward thinking, morally high grounded culture tried to adopt commie-ism it might have very different results... but those cultures wouldn't want to adopt communism, since they aren't angry and downtrodden.
I like being free. I like the fact that if the guy next door is too good to work a menial job starting out in life ( oh im not doing this or that) he better actually be too good /qualified which in turn requires some work/smarts. If he doesnt wanna do anything then he finds himself screwed later. I like the fact that if I'm good at something I dont have to do it because im forced to do it. Whether I hate it or because I just dont like you. My hands are mine. I can get up and go when I want to where I want.
Problem is our country has been so loaded with social programs for so long that most young people really cant contrast . I dont owe anybody anything and nobody owes me anything just because I exist. You want utopia get a job save your money and that still wont gaurantee the wife , the kids and hapiness BUT your free to find WHAT makes YOU happy. I really cant understand what about communism is attractive to some people. It doesnt work; it merely exists.
Waagh!Balzsmasha! wrote:I like being free. I like the fact that if the guy next door is too good to work a menial job starting out in life ( oh im not doing this or that) he better actually be too good /qualified which in turn requires some work/smarts. If he doesnt wanna do anything then he finds himself screwed later. I like the fact that if I'm good at something I dont have to do it because im forced to do it. Whether I hate it or because I just dont like you. My hands are mine. I can get up and go when I want to where I want.
Problem is our country has been so loaded with social programs for so long that most young people really cant contrast . I dont owe anybody anything and nobody owes me anything just because I exist. You want utopia get a job save your money and that still wont gaurantee the wife , the kids and hapiness BUT your free to find WHAT makes YOU happy. I really cant understand what about communism is attractive to some people. It doesnt work; it merely exists.
QFT... partially...
WE, as a people, as a culture, as a nation, whatever you want to call it... like to help where we can. We help if we can and kill if we must. This is a human condition of having compassion for those less fortunate than ourself. Communism is an extension of that ideal in government form. I will help when I can whether or not I am required by law to, but I see in my SSi payments and income tax that I am already doing that anyways. My hands are my own too, and I have worked plenty of cash out jobs underneath the system, out of necessity, but the moment you get that payroll check with that mandatory deduction on it, then you know you too are a slave to something. If you dont like it, grab a backpack and live in the woods like I did. In a commune. They work on small levels, they are actually wonderful on small levels. The bigger it gets, to the point of being a national government, the love and fellowship is no longer there and everyone is resentful of their inferiors.
I resent that my GF's friend had 2 kids from 2 dads, neither of which are around, gets a giant flatcreen TV with her government stipend, gets rent relief so she only pays about 60 bucks a month, eats out all the time, and thinks she 'earned' it for being a mom. To me, she is just a dumbass leech who couldnt keep her legs shut... but hey that's communism for you. We engage in it all the time whenever you cash your paycheck with 'your own hands' you support dumbassery like that and you have NO CHOICE in the matter.
Waagh!Balzsmasha! wrote:I like being free. I like the fact that if the guy next door is too good to work a menial job starting out in life ( oh im not doing this or that) he better actually be too good /qualified which in turn requires some work/smarts. If he doesnt wanna do anything then he finds himself screwed later. I like the fact that if I'm good at something I dont have to do it because im forced to do it. Whether I hate it or because I just dont like you. My hands are mine. I can get up and go when I want to where I want.
Problem is our country has been so loaded with social programs for so long that most young people really cant contrast . I dont owe anybody anything and nobody owes me anything just because I exist. You want utopia get a job save your money and that still wont gaurantee the wife , the kids and hapiness BUT your free to find WHAT makes YOU happy. I really cant understand what about communism is attractive to some people. It doesnt work; it merely exists.
QFT... partially...
WE, as a people, as a culture, as a nation, whatever you want to call it... like to help where we can. We help if we can and kill if we must. This is a human condition of having compassion for those less fortunate than ourself. Communism is an extension of that ideal in government form. I will help when I can whether or not I am required by law to, but I see in my SSi payments and income tax that I am already doing that anyways. My hands are my own too, and I have worked plenty of cash out jobs underneath the system, out of necessity, but the moment you get that payroll check with that mandatory deduction on it, then you know you too are a slave to something. If you dont like it, grab a backpack and live in the woods like I did. In a commune. They work on small levels, they are actually wonderful on small levels. The bigger it gets, to the point of being a national government, the love and fellowship is no longer there and everyone is resentful of their inferiors.
I resent that my GF's friend had 2 kids from 2 dads, neither of which are around, gets a giant flatcreen TV with her government stipend, gets rent relief so she only pays about 60 bucks a month, eats out all the time, and thinks she 'earned' it for being a mom. To me, she is just a dumbass leech who couldnt keep her legs shut... but hey that's communism for you. We engage in it all the time whenever you cash your paycheck with 'your own hands' you support dumbassery like that and you have NO CHOICE in the matter.
I wasnt commenting on your post- but. WE shouldnt be helping, we arent supposed to help as a government.Charity. If you want to help ;you help. If you dont want to or cant or feel its unfair you dont. No debates its your money. Now we all gotta get taxed for reasonable stuff but the politicians love bailing out people because theyre brainless and or dishonest and want to get votes. I'll help anybody but I'm the judge with what I earned and you are with your money. Anyway your example is where we started going down this road to socialism. That girl wants to have kids i'm not gonna bash her USA dude but she shouldnt get a dime from me. Our taxes are enormous, businesses get smashed too. It goes to the basic principle of why communism doesnt work. WHY should I work to earn a little bit more than a person who doesnt work at ALL! So they can get all the respect and benefits that I've earned and do jack. I dont have a house couldn't afford one prices are still too high but people got debt relief I just got bills and no house. Thats the biggest slap. I dont want a check. People like that girl go around me to get the government to steal from me and if I dont hand it over I go to jail. Does that sound logical at all? Trust me 2 kids no dads. No government to help; someone would but it would be the appropiate amount of help and plenty of incentive to get off her ass. I should have wrote my hands are supposed to be my own but arent right now.
Dark Scipio wrote:In fact facists have nothing to do with conservatives.
Radical Conservatives are Reactionary. As Radical Socialist are Communists (Librals -> Anarchists).
Facist are Radicals Unhappy people not more not less. Mostly Facists are more closely allegiant to Socialists than to that of the two other ideologies (Like in Germany and Italy during WW2)
You mean the socialists who were the first to die in Hitlers genocides and made up the 2nd largest portion of people in the concentration camps*. or do you mean to say the socialists who ran into the mountains and instigated a guerilla war against binito Mussolini in Italy.
*(if you don't split them up on a per nation bases they were the largest group)
Waagh!Balzsmasha! wrote:I like being free. I like the fact that if the guy next door is too good to work a menial job starting out in life ( oh im not doing this or that) he better actually be too good /qualified which in turn requires some work/smarts. If he doesnt wanna do anything then he finds himself screwed later. I like the fact that if I'm good at something I dont have to do it because im forced to do it. Whether I hate it or because I just dont like you. My hands are mine. I can get up and go when I want to where I want.
Problem is our country has been so loaded with social programs for so long that most young people really cant contrast . I dont owe anybody anything and nobody owes me anything just because I exist. You want utopia get a job save your money and that still wont gaurantee the wife , the kids and hapiness BUT your free to find WHAT makes YOU happy. I really cant understand what about communism is attractive to some people. It doesnt work; it merely exists.
If capitalism was a fair system then yes I think this could be true. however nowhere is capitalism fair, to become qualified he needs higher education to get higher education he needs money and what if his parent and friends aren't wealthy, then what? where does he make the money to make more money. he doesn't, he gets stuck in a poverty cycle that he has almost no chance of ever breaking out of, he ends up having more kids and sending them away to do cheap labour just so the family can be fed. he resorts to theft and violence to get what he needs however it's against the law for him to steal what now?. he does nothing he become another statistic to be glassed over by the people who scream capitalism has triumphed while ignoring the fact that 1.7 billion people live in absolute poverty.
capitalism is great in theory but has never worked in practice.
Waagh!Balzsmasha! wrote:I like being free. I like the fact that if the guy next door is too good to work a menial job starting out in life ( oh im not doing this or that) he better actually be too good /qualified which in turn requires some work/smarts. If he doesnt wanna do anything then he finds himself screwed later. I like the fact that if I'm good at something I dont have to do it because im forced to do it. Whether I hate it or because I just dont like you. My hands are mine. I can get up and go when I want to where I want.
Problem is our country has been so loaded with social programs for so long that most young people really cant contrast . I dont owe anybody anything and nobody owes me anything just because I exist. You want utopia get a job save your money and that still wont gaurantee the wife , the kids and hapiness BUT your free to find WHAT makes YOU happy. I really cant understand what about communism is attractive to some people. It doesnt work; it merely exists.
If capitalism was a fair system then yes I think this could be true. however nowhere is capitalism fair, to become qualified he needs higher education to get higher education he needs money and what if his parent and friends aren't wealthy, then what? where does he make the money to make more money. he doesn't, he gets stuck in a poverty cycle that he has almost no chance of ever breaking out of, he ends up having more kids and sending them away to do cheap labour just so the family can be fed. he resorts to theft and violence to get what he needs however it's against the law for him to steal what now?. he does nothing he become another statistic to be glassed over by the people who scream capitalism has triumphed while ignoring the fact that 1.7 billion people live in absolute poverty.
capitalism is great in theory but has never worked in practice.
Who said communism was fair? Who said life was fair?
Waagh!Balzsmasha! wrote:I like being free. I like the fact that if the guy next door is too good to work a menial job starting out in life ( oh im not doing this or that) he better actually be too good /qualified which in turn requires some work/smarts. If he doesnt wanna do anything then he finds himself screwed later. I like the fact that if I'm good at something I dont have to do it because im forced to do it. Whether I hate it or because I just dont like you. My hands are mine. I can get up and go when I want to where I want.
Problem is our country has been so loaded with social programs for so long that most young people really cant contrast . I dont owe anybody anything and nobody owes me anything just because I exist. You want utopia get a job save your money and that still wont gaurantee the wife , the kids and hapiness BUT your free to find WHAT makes YOU happy. I really cant understand what about communism is attractive to some people. It doesnt work; it merely exists.
If capitalism was a fair system then yes I think this could be true. however nowhere is capitalism fair, to become qualified he needs higher education to get higher education he needs money and what if his parent and friends aren't wealthy, then what? where does he make the money to make more money. he doesn't, he gets stuck in a poverty cycle that he has almost no chance of ever breaking out of, he ends up having more kids and sending them away to do cheap labour just so the family can be fed. he resorts to theft and violence to get what he needs however it's against the law for him to steal what now?. he does nothing he become another statistic to be glassed over by the people who scream capitalism has triumphed while ignoring the fact that 1.7 billion people live in absolute poverty.
capitalism is great in theory but has never worked in practice.
Is it the job of an individual government to make sure everyone in the world is happy?
Do the 1.7 billion poor people bear no responsibility for improving their situation?
Frazzled wrote:Its irrelevant. Its still a group trying to tell the majority what to do.
But Frazz... it's for our own good!
What if we didn't have such enlightened people making our decisions for us?
And no, I was thinking more in line with 1984. Where 2+2 = 5 not because it is, but because we say it is.
When Im free to walk across the street where I please, then I can say I am. Until then, everyone simply lives within the constraints of the society they happen to live in.
Wrexasaur wrote:I can see that you post very quickly, sometimes without (again, as far as I can tell) thinking.
One of the reasons I enjoy using forums is because it forces me to think about what I am saying. I am speaking now, my brain is making my fingers move and you can hear it. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of miles away, you are reading me write. It is quite spectacular, I mean really, that is some amazing stuff.
While I do not agree with you on your second point (Gailbrathe is simply defending his or her self.) it could be seen as the case. I skim threads and pick out what is important, I am not here to mine through blarrghabarg, unless it is a thread that needs more cowbell.
I appreciate that you have spent some time trying to ease the gas pedal, but you should consider taking your foot off of it altogether. It is not beyond someone with your writing skills to convey a clear and polite argument, even including a humorous twist or two.
You can contribute positively far more than you have so far.
Basically, this.
I've had some pretty ridiculous blazing rows with people on this site, including some people who have posted in this very thread. What I've usually found is that an argument on here usually reaches a critical mass of ridiculousness, someone posts a 'You Mad?'-type image, and the whole thing is just laughed off.
Gailbraithe, you'lll find on this site an insanely varied mix of people - Neo-cons (Frazzled, Fateweaver), Liberals (sebster, Wrex (arguably)), Liberal Nationalists (Me), Conservatives (mattyrm, Phryxis), Socialists (MeanGreenStompa), Nihilists (ShumaGorath), Christians (GeneralGrog, Manchu, JEB), Atheists (me again) and, well, dogma. Who knows what THAT fether believes in!
My point is this: Very few of us actually agree on everything, but one thing we all have in common is that we're all able to co-exist here on dakka. I put this down to the fact that we all know that as individuals there comes a point where you have to accept that you're taking yourself a wee bit seriously. I think the problem people seem to be having with you is that you don't seem to have realised this yet. But that's ok - we've all been there. Some stay there for longer than others, some 'get it' pretty quickly. But it's cool - you'll find that people here are actually pretty forgiving. I've said some horrendous things to people on this site, and they've said some back to me - but like I said, if you're prepared to laugh it off and call a truce, you can start afresh the very next day as if nothing ever happened. No-one has to be a pariah. A good example of this is me and Manchu - I'm a British Atheist, he's an American Christian. We seemed to have very little in common at all, and REALLY didn't get on. Like, really. We had a big argument, but once we managed to laugh it off we found that we actually DO have things in common. We're pals now.
I'm sure that can happen for you. After all, we all like 40K don't we?
I'm not on anyone's side but my own, all I'm saying is that if you can keep the aggressive rudeness to a minimum you'll be fine. Works for me.
SIDEBAR: How fethed up is it that I'M the voice of reason in this thread? All we need now is for Shuma to come in and remind everyone of Dakka's Rule No. 1!
Sorry i feel i have been misquoted here, i wish to confirm that i dont get on with anybody and i have a deep all consuming hatred for you all.
Dark Scipio wrote:In fact facists have nothing to do with conservatives.
Radical Conservatives are Reactionary. As Radical Socialist are Communists (Librals -> Anarchists).
Facist are Radicals Unhappy people not more not less. Mostly Facists are more closely allegiant to Socialists than to that of the two other ideologies (Like in Germany and Italy during WW2)
You mean the socialists who were the first to die in Hitlers genocides and made up the 2nd largest portion of people in the concentration camps*. or do you mean to say the socialists who ran into the mountains and instigated a guerilla war against binito Mussolini in Italy.
*(if you don't split them up on a per nation bases they were the largest group)
There's a decent argument that fascists can't be well placed on the political spectrum occupied by conservatives and liberals. There's a better argument that the entire notion of a political spectrum based on left and right only really makes sense in the context of individual nations; ie. all the parties in a given state can be placed on a certain spectrum that they themselves define. In either case, the confluence between corporatism and nationalism is a strange one given that corporatism isn't confined to any conventionally defined incidence of the political right or left. Sweden, for example, is corporatist and socialist but not nationalist in the expansionary sense of a place like fascist Italy or Nazi Germany.
Waagh!Balzsmasha! wrote:I like being free. I like the fact that if the guy next door is too good to work a menial job starting out in life ( oh im not doing this or that) he better actually be too good /qualified which in turn requires some work/smarts. If he doesnt wanna do anything then he finds himself screwed later. I like the fact that if I'm good at something I dont have to do it because im forced to do it. Whether I hate it or because I just dont like you. My hands are mine. I can get up and go when I want to where I want.
Problem is our country has been so loaded with social programs for so long that most young people really cant contrast . I dont owe anybody anything and nobody owes me anything just because I exist. You want utopia get a job save your money and that still wont gaurantee the wife , the kids and hapiness BUT your free to find WHAT makes YOU happy. I really cant understand what about communism is attractive to some people. It doesnt work; it merely exists.
If capitalism was a fair system then yes I think this could be true. however nowhere is capitalism fair, to become qualified he needs higher education to get higher education he needs money and what if his parent and friends aren't wealthy, then what? where does he make the money to make more money. he doesn't, he gets stuck in a poverty cycle that he has almost no chance of ever breaking out of, he ends up having more kids and sending them away to do cheap labour just so the family can be fed. he resorts to theft and violence to get what he needs however it's against the law for him to steal what now?. he does nothing he become another statistic to be glassed over by the people who scream capitalism has triumphed while ignoring the fact that 1.7 billion people live in absolute poverty.
capitalism is great in theory but has never worked in practice.
See, you're equating 'capitalism' with 'anarcho-capitalism'. This is a problem. A purely capitalist country doesn't exist at the moment, which is why I was talking about a balanced system being my ideal earlier.
I am in the process of becoming qualified. I am not wealthy. My family isn't wealthy, in fact growing up we were the poorest of the poor. Remember that kid at your school who's mum cut their hair and who had crappy 'no-name' trainers? That was me. Even so, I live in a country in which a person like me can get a good education, has access to good health care, but also has pretty much zero in terms of a ceiling for what they can acheive with a bit of hard work. I have choice. REAL choice.
Frazzled wrote:Who said communism was fair? Who said life was fair?
If you don't think life is fair you should be striving to make it fair.
Albatross the fact you can go to a school means either that you were not one of the people I was talking about or the only reason you could go to school was because of a socialist ideal. also I understand the idea of anarcho capitalism, and your right no purely capitalist country exists on earth atm.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
Kragura wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:Guess I'll try to slip in here before this gets locked due to OT bickering. Communism, while in THEORY desirable, will never work with human society. Someone needs to be the one signing checks and driving the Ferrari, and someone needs to be asking if you want fries with that. It's how our society functions, the poor actually fill an important role, as seen in fight club (can't find a forum-appropriate clip )
EDIT: removed clip, inappropriate
Right lets try and pull this back on course.
This is very much what communism argues, that the poor play the most important part in society and should be rewarded as such.
(p.s seen fight club and loved it )
But if they are rewarded and made equal, then there is no more lower class, thus no one to keep the gears of society oiled. Communism wants everyone to be equal, and human society hasn't allowed that since we lived in caves as hunter-gatherers.
Why would giving the people who create all the wealth in society some of that wealth back, stop them from creating wealth.
Kragura wrote:Albatross the fact you can go to a school means either that you were not one of the people I was talking about or the only reason you could go to school was because of a socialist ideal.
While I can't really speak on the UK's education system, I know public education in the US was supported by Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and our public education system eventually came to be modelled after that of Prussia (an extremely right-wing nation, by nearly any metric). It's quite a stretch to equate acceptance of public education with acceptance of the socialist ideology, that will just bring you to the "we can't build roads; Hitler built roads!" territory.
If you don't think life is fair you should be striving to make it fair.
As you say this, you should bear in mind that "fair" doesn't have a specific meaning or implementation.
The law of the jungle is perfectly fair. Everyone is thrown into the world with the same laws of physics, the same laws of nature, and off they go to try to make something of themselves. Is it "unfair" if a mouse gets nailed by a hawk? I wouldn't say so.
But people don't like the law of the jungle.
Ok, so what's fair? Is it fair when everyone gets provided with the same exact apartment, food, clothing, etc? Nobody goes without, everyone has the same things, nobody has any more than the next person?
I think that's more in line with your version of "fair," the communist notion of "fair." But I think it's pretty "unfair" that a worthless layabout of low moral character should see the same success in life as a dedicated, hard working individual.
At the end of the day, I'm not concerned with fairness. Not in your terms, not in mine. I'm concered with showing everyone due compassion, and from there letting the chips fall where they may.
"Fair" is too complicated and too subjective to bother with. We shouldn't spend our time on it. Instead we should be pramatically compassionate, and let God/Buddha/Fate/The Universe worry about fairness.
Everyone should have a roof over their head, food to eat, and some good but basic healthcare. Nothing fancy, just the bare minimum. Beyond that, people should be allowed to get what they can get.
That's not communism. Communism seeks to bring everyone to roughly the same level, to deny anybody much in the way of great property wealth. It's appealing when most people have nothing, but when most people are doing pretty well, as they are in the first world, it's not at all appealing.
Kragura wrote:Albatross the fact you can go to a school means either that you were not one of the people I was talking about or the only reason you could go to school was because of a socialist ideal.
While I can't really speak on the UK's education system, I know public education in the US was supported by Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and our public education system eventually came to be modelled after that of Prussia (an extremely right-wing nation, by nearly any metric). It's quite a stretch to equate acceptance of public education with acceptance of the socialist ideology, that will just bring you to the "we can't build roads; Hitler built roads!" territory.
no matter how basic and accepted the step is it is still a step towards socialism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:"Fair" is too complicated and too subjective to bother with. We shouldn't spend our time on it. Instead we should be pramatically compassionate, and let God/Buddha/Fate/The Universe worry about fairness.
So are morals, should we bother with those?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Do the 1.7 billion poor people bear no responsibility for improving their situation?
Are you saying that they are poor because their lazy?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Its irrelevant. Its still a group trying to tell the majority what to do.
The same could be said for every governmental system except for anarchy and communism.
Kragura wrote:
The same could be said for every governmental system except for anarchy and communism.
Anarchy and communism are, by definition, not governmental systems.
The problem is that, anarchy being what it is, there is no unifying force to ensure that everyone will work to maintain an anarchic system. If such a force existed, then the system wouldn't be anarchic. Indeed, there are many theorists that argue that anarchy isn't sustainable given the social nature of the human animal.
Communism deals with this by positing that all people will be free from want, and will therefore no longer need to impose their will on others, intentionally or otherwise. The problem with that idea is twofold:
First, freedom from want pretty much entails the absence of scarcity, and that's not going to come about any time soon.
Second, there's a very real sense in which material desire is not the sole motivation for human interaction, exploitation, and oppression.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kragura wrote:
So are morals, should we bother with those?
Systemically?
I think there's a pretty good argument that morality has no significant place in any conversation about what constitutes the best possible system of government, or economic allocation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kragura wrote:
If you don't think life is fair you should be striving to make it fair.
Only if you think fairness is good.
If I'm on top of the so-called pyramid, then why should I be interested in fairness if fairness has no bearing on my ability to remain at the top of the pyramid?
why shouldn't morals be considered when forming a government? I'm sorry but your entire post strikes me as cruel and callous. maybe I'm confused. are you saying we should only look out for our own interests?
Dogma
you said: I think there's a pretty good argument that morality has no significant place in any conversation about what constitutes the best possible system of government, or economic allocation.
the argument can be made.... but I think its inescapable that a government of bad men will necessarily enact bad policies, no matter what particular forms it follows. Therefore I, you, the community, the state - everyone - has a legitimate interest in seeing that people do not become bad - that they become and remain moral. For me to be at least reasonably certain that my neighbor is a moral, or at least a quasi-moral, person, is not an intrusion on liberty - its a gauruntee of it.
Although I'm pretty moderate on most things, in this one area I'm a reactionary conservative. Morality matters because the quality of human being in the community matters. It has direct political consequences for me and the people I care about - thats why I have a right to look into how other people live their lives, and to express approval or disapproval, not just through my opinion, but through the laws. If someone wants to opt out of the scrutiny, he should be allowed to - by opting out of the political process. By disenfranchising himself. Then, as long as he's not hurting me or anyone else, I could care less. But as long as he's voting, I care.
IMO whats really driving the whole "you cant legislate morality" idea is that theres no real consensus on what mroality is anymore. If we all agreed tomorrow what it was, we wouldnt be taking such a hands off approach. A couple generations back no one hesitated. Rightly or wrongly, they believed they had knowledge and werent afraid to act on it.
AF
Yes and no. We should certainly "bother" with morals, and, honestly, we should all have an opinion on what it means for things to be fair and/or moral.
But we shouldn't build our system of government to enforce our opinions on these matters, at least not too dogmatically.
In the end, "fairness calculation" is really just a subset of "moral calculation." We all make our moral calculations on what is right, and what is wrong, and even to what degree things are right and wrong. We'd all agree, for example, that insulting somebody is not as bad as killing them, but both are in some degree immoral. I think we'd also probably agree that it should be legal to insult people, but not legal to kill them (obvious exceptions aside).
So, why shouldn't we legislate against insulting people? It's immoral, so why should it be tolerated?
The same goes for fairness. If you're not willing to legislate towards enforcing perfect morality, then why legislate towards enforcing perfect fairness? Certainly there's a debate here, what's "too immoral" to be tolerated? What's "too unfair." Clearly we accept that some things are "too" whatever, and we make laws to try to prevent/mitigate them.
But, as you can see, the idea that some immoralities, some unfairnesses, should go "uncorrected" is part and parcel of how all societies operate.
So, it's not about declining to think about morality... It's just about trying to limit enforcing your morality on people, and doing it only in situations in which the most immoral events occur.
Kragura wrote:why shouldn't morals be considered when forming a government? I'm sorry but your entire post strikes me as cruel and callous. maybe I'm confused. are you saying we should only look out for our own interests?
I'm not saying that we should do anything.
I'm asking you two questions:
1. Why is fairness good?
2. Are you arguing that morality should be significant to considerations of systematic value?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the argument can be made.... but I think its inescapable that a government of bad men will necessarily enact bad policies, no matter what particular forms it follows. Therefore I, you, the community, the state - everyone - has a legitimate interest in seeing that people do not become bad - that they become and remain moral. For me to be at least reasonably certain that my neighbor is a moral, or at least a quasi-moral, person, is not an intrusion on liberty - its a gauruntee of it.
Sure, its a guarantee of liberty insofar as what is thought of as moral can be agreed to be a singular thing. I really don't think that's possible on a practical, or theoretical, level so to me any attempt to regulate morality on a systemic level works against liberty.
To me any given society should be designed to perpetuate itself, and that means being as minimally restrictive as possible. Things like the prohibition of murder, theft, etc. while based on the regulation of morality, are founded on the base consensus necessary for the establishment of social trust. This is distinct from determining the nature of an abstract ethical concept like fairness, or good.
Well, the question on fairness is an off-shoot of Phyxis comment regarding the ambiguity of the term. Its sort of a thought exercise to get you to articulate what sort of fairness you mean, and why it would be a good thing.
For example, in the past I've argued that a 'good' definition of fairness is "The provision of reward in accordance with relevant criteria." I consider this to be a 'good' definition of fairness because it establishes a criterion for specific applications of the term without forcefully eliminating a lot of possible options.
The second question regards how the state should determine how to govern its populace. Is it a matter of morality, economic returns, sustainability, power, etc.?
I used to literally be a card carrying member of the communist party. I even lived in Russia for 6 months on a foreign exchange program........Now I think it's about the worst system that can be enacted. It's a beautiful idea in a Utopian society, but we don't live there. It also a beautiful idea with Utopians....but a large portion of humans are garbage.
I have now gone almost 180 and gone straight to regulated social libertarian. I believe regulated libertarianism is the way to go
While I loved the Idea of communism, I realized it is basically anathema to human nature. IMHO it's smarter to use a system the nurtures and embraces basic human nature of greed and competition. I think anything else is like spitting at the rain. Most communist governments have fallen to the exact ideology they denounce, greed.
Communism always sounds good, until you get a job, earn a "decent" human wage,and have bills and taxes to pay. It killed me when I was struggling and treading water with my job (paying student loans) and I saw my tax money going to baby momas and corner hustlers. I had a decent job and a old used car. They had no job, temp tags on the new explorer and flat panel TV's, buying better food then I did at the store and threw it on a government card....THAT"S MY MONEY!
I pretty much hate communism (and unfettered socialism) now. The real workers (middle class) get screwed by management (the rich) and bums (the poor).
dogma wrote:Well, the question on fairness is an off-shoot of Phyxis comment regarding the ambiguity of the term. Its sort of a thought exercise to get you to articulate what sort of fairness you mean, and why it would be a good thing.
For example, in the past I've argued that a 'good' definition of fairness is "The provision of reward in accordance with relevant criteria." I consider this to be a 'good' definition of fairness because it establishes a criterion for specific applications of the term without forcefully eliminating a lot of possible options.
The second question regards how the state should determine how to govern its populace. Is it a matter of morality, economic returns, sustainability, power, etc.?
1. I've never really thought about this before and will have to get back to you.
2.well in my opinion morality while it exists. nothing when it doesn't (obviously).
Dark Scipio wrote:In fact facists have nothing to do with conservatives.
Radical Conservatives are Reactionary. As Radical Socialist are Communists (Librals -> Anarchists).
Facist are Radicals Unhappy people not more not less. Mostly Facists are more closely allegiant to Socialists than to that of the two other ideologies (Like in Germany and Italy during WW2)
I agree that radical conservatives becomes reactionaries, not fascists. But it isn't true that fascism is more closely tied to socialism, that just makes no sense. Fascism rose up to oppose socialism. Franco's coup in socialist Spain didn't happen because the socialists and Franco's fascists had so much in common. The conservatives and the aristocrats allied with Hitler's Nazis against the socialists for clear reasons.
Fascism is not socialism, it was the direct response to socialism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:That vicious bastard from frazz's link was not caused by communism, he was caused by being a vicious bastard.
No. What happened there was the direct result of their ideology, and their commitment to that ideology above and beyond their interest in the welfare of their people.
You can look to Mao's Five Year Plans and the collectivisation in Soviet Russia to see the same thing - 'no seriously do this thing we're building a great new state it's going to be awesome wait what did you say how many people are dead?'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Waagh!Balzsmasha! wrote:I like being free. I like the fact that if the guy next door is too good to work a menial job starting out in life ( oh im not doing this or that) he better actually be too good /qualified which in turn requires some work/smarts. If he doesnt wanna do anything then he finds himself screwed later. I like the fact that if I'm good at something I dont have to do it because im forced to do it.
Okay that's nice and all but it really, really has nothing to do with communism. Seriously, would people just accept that communism is not just a really extreme version of the welfare system? In many, if not all communist countries, people who weren't able to keep gainful employment were dealt with incredibly harshly.
No communist state has ever set about trying give everyone the same level of wealth, doctors are paid more than street sweepers. No communist state would ever tolerate the idea of welfare mums, the child is put in a creche and the mother keeps on working her job on the steel press.
The actual substance of communism is all to do with the state owning the means of production. The debate is over the flexibility and profit motive of capitalism to drive economic growth, against the stability and potential removal of externalities of a state based economic system. Understand this, then comment on the system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Its irrelevant. Its still a group trying to tell the majority what to do.
And the two only start to look similar to one peculiar brand of American conservatives who view the entirety of politics as good wholesome freedom and government. To those of us not afflicted with that brain eating virus, the many actual differences between socialism and fascism actually matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:That's not communism. Communism seeks to bring everyone to roughly the same level, to deny anybody much in the way of great property wealth. It's appealing when most people have nothing, but when most people are doing pretty well, as they are in the first world, it's not at all appealing.
No, as I explained in this thread earlier on, no communist nation ever tried to put everyone on the same level of income. Doctors got better houses and nicer cars* than street sweepers.
The real difference was that no-one was able to generate income from owning factories or the like. This flattened income distribution because there were no Bill Gates, no Rupert Murdochs. The problem isn't that no-one bothered to become doctors, there were plentiful doctors and they were perfectly capable. The problem was that medical science didn't improve, because they didn't have the business sector to develop new drugs and medical equipment.
So, again, the debate isn't about the individual working hard to get a higher paying job. You can still do that.
*Well, nice by the standards of communist countries. Whatever else may be true in history, we know no communist country ever produced a decent car.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:I used to literally be a card carrying member of the communist party. I even lived in Russia for 6 months on a foreign exchange program........Now I think it's about the worst system that can be enacted. It's a beautiful idea in a Utopian society, but we don't live there. It also a beautiful idea with Utopians....but a large portion of humans are garbage.
I have now gone almost 180 and gone straight to regulated social libertarian. I believe regulated libertarianism is the way to go
I remember reading a dissection of the neo-cons back in the day, and they noted that a fair few of them had started out extreme left wing. They came to see the many failings of communism and swung 180 to become neocons, replacing their grand sweeping theories of the wonderousness of communal living with grand sweeping theories of the wonderousness of the freedom of rugged individualism.
The writer of the article pointed out that perhaps what these people had missed was that the real problem is with thinking any grand sweeping theory could possibly account the complexity of the modern world at all.
The actual substance of communism is all to do with the state owning the means of production.
No it's not, no matter what countries branded communist by the west have done, communism is about making the means of production communily owned by everyone and abolishing wage slavery and private property.
Kragura wrote:No it's not, no matter what countries branded communist by the west have done, communism is about making the means of production communily owned by everyone and abolishing wage slavery and private property.
If you put it into the hands of the community, then you put it into the hands of the representatives of the community, and that means it's controlled by the state.
And there would still be private property. You could still own your own hat. I think you mean there would be no private ownership of the means of production.
Kragura wrote:
Albatross the fact you can go to a school means either that you were not one of the people I was talking about or the only reason you could go to school was because of a socialist ideal.
There have been grammar schools in England since the Tudor times.
Kragura wrote:Great post Sebster but this needs addressing
The actual substance of communism is all to do with the state owning the means of production.
No it's not, no matter what countries branded communist by the west have done, communism is about making the means of production communily owned by everyone and abolishing wage slavery and private property.
Thats the same. So you are saying, that there never was a communist nation. Thats partly true, because it doesnt work.
I think Christianity is the better path: It focuses not the political bodies and nations, but the Individual. In fact the outcome is much better. If everybody would be a real and good Christan (wich almost nobody is) it would be even better than if every nation would be communist (wich does not work/is impossible).
Kragura wrote:The same could be said for every governmental system except for anarchy and communism.
Are you intentionally playing ignorant here? Every communist system tried has been a bloodbath and failed utterly. Just because you choose to ignore doesn't mean it didn't occur.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:And the two only start to look similar to one peculiar brand of American conservatives who view the entirety of politics as good wholesome freedom and government. To those of us not afflicted with that brain eating virus, the many actual differences between socialism and fascism actually matter.
Real classy way to argue a point there Sebster. Whats stage II-do you just start throwing poo?
To the point. Taken to their logical conclusion both socialism and fascism are kissing cousins. At the end of the day they are still dictatorial governments telling the average person what to. Whether its what type of food they can or can't have, it doesn't matter if the guy telling you is wearing a brown shirt or a red shirt. he's still telling you what to do and using government power to make you do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kragura wrote:Great post Sebster but this needs addressing
The actual substance of communism is all to do with the state owning the means of production.
No it's not, no matter what countries branded communist by the west have done, communism is about making the means of production communily owned by everyone and abolishing wage slavery and private property.
What mythical state is this? The state owns the preprty. The "people" only have a small use of it. Wage slavery is abolished? So you haven't actually studied any communist states then. Everything is now clear.
I pretty much hate communism (and unfettered socialism) now. The real workers (middle class) get screwed by management (the rich) and bums (the poor).
feth the middle class. The REAL workers are the poor. The ones who don't sit in cushy offices and actually have to WORK while they are at work, and live from one paycheck to the next. Lucky you with your foreign exchange program in russia to decide that communism sucks. All of us mooching bums didn't get that opportunity. So sorry we are screwing over the middle class with our 40 hour a week slaving away at construction sites for gak wages so you can have a nice middle class office job. What you said was just plain insulting, whether you have been to russia or not doesn't change the fact that poor people try hard too. Who brings your lunch to your work? Who builds the office building the 'middle class' work in? Who takes away your garbage? Oh yeah, all of us 'bums' who are clearly just mooching off of society, and hoping they can make the rent from month to month.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the argument can be made.... but I think its inescapable that a government of bad men will necessarily enact bad policies, no matter what particular forms it follows. Therefore I, you, the community, the state - everyone - has a legitimate interest in seeing that people do not become bad - that they become and remain moral. For me to be at least reasonably certain that my neighbor is a moral, or at least a quasi-moral, person, is not an intrusion on liberty - its a gauruntee of it.
Sure, its a guarantee of liberty insofar as what is thought of as moral can be agreed to be a singular thing. I really don't think that's possible on a practical, or theoretical, level so to me any attempt to regulate morality on a systemic level works against liberty.
To me any given society should be designed to perpetuate itself, and that means being as minimally restrictive as possible. Things like the prohibition of murder, theft, etc. while based on the regulation of morality, are founded on the base consensus necessary for the establishment of social trust. This is distinct from determining the nature of an abstract ethical concept like fairness, or good.
well I think that if you let people do whatever comes naturally they'll degenerate.... so over the long term a society that does this, that has too much freedom, wont perpetuate itself. it will implode. its not really practical right now bc theres no agreement on what morality is, which is really too bad....
I pretty much hate communism (and unfettered socialism) now. The real workers (middle class) get screwed by management (the rich) and bums (the poor).
feth the middle class. The REAL workers are the poor.
Who do you think pays for all of the social programs that the "real workers" enjoy so much?
I don't enjoy any social programs, never have, never will. And yeah I have done some gak jobs for gak pay in my time. Maybe social programs for the welfare cases are a roundabout way of bribing the unprivelliged to not break into your house and just take your nice 'middle class' stuff.
I pretty much hate communism (and unfettered socialism) now. The real workers (middle class) get screwed by management (the rich) and bums (the poor).
feth the middle class. The REAL workers are the poor.
Who do you think pays for all of the social programs that the "real workers" enjoy so much?
I don't enjoy any social programs, never have, never will. And yeah I have done some gak jobs for gak pay in my time. Maybe social programs for the welfare cases are a roundabout way of bribing the unprivelliged to not break into your house and just take your nice 'middle class' stuff.
They would anyway. Thats what the boobytrapped rocket propelled chainsaw is for.
Monster Rain wrote:Do the 1.7 billion poor people bear no responsibility for improving their situation?
Are you saying that they are poor because their lazy?
Re-read my statement and you tell me if that's what I'm saying.
You're missing a key word, I think.
Guitardian wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Guitardian wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
I pretty much hate communism (and unfettered socialism) now. The real workers (middle class) get screwed by management (the rich) and bums (the poor).
feth the middle class. The REAL workers are the poor.
Who do you think pays for all of the social programs that the "real workers" enjoy so much?
I don't enjoy any social programs, never have, never will. And yeah I have done some gak jobs for gak pay in my time. Maybe social programs for the welfare cases are a roundabout way of bribing the unprivelliged to not break into your house and just take your nice 'middle class' stuff.
So if the people that "the man" are keeping down are unprivileged, that would mean that I, a contributing member of society am privileged? If I am, it's only because I've worked my ass to become so.
. Though I still stand by my assesment.
you Europeans have turned union striking into a pass time.
)
