Okay so after reading some of the oddest thing people have said about communism (and a mention of liberty prime from fallout which was funny) I have decided to post this on the off-topic thing. I myself am a Communist so please feel free to make any compelling argument you wish, however please keep the talks relative to the subject nothing stupid like references from fallout I'm serious.
Communism cannot work, it is a noble principle but ultimately total equality is a myth unobtainable to a species who compete as we do. (the term 'supreme soviet' should speak volumes on how it really cannot be realised).
Socialist state control of principle national resources (water, fuel, transport, national grid, military, health service etc) is what I think remains a more viable solution. With a healthy free market economy in luxuries, technologies and tertiary resources.
Monster Rain wrote:Oh good another communism thread.
I love communism, I'm all for it. Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh comrades?
Wait huh? Now I'm confused cause in that thread about the garfield person you seemed kinda serious. In anycase I'm kinda hoping somebody comes in here trying to talk about things they dont know about with communism so that there can be a debate
Monster Rain wrote:And if communists are so smart, how come they live in igloos?
I'm not ashamed to admit I laughed out loud to that for a minute or so.
I'm also amazed that someone from the states would think that 'odd things' were said about communism. The only way one would be an American communist and suprised by anti-communist sentiment is if they are a) trolling us, as this same thread popped up a month or so ago, or b) they are so ignorant of American and world history that they think Communism is a seafood dish and don't understand why we make fun of food.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Communism cannot work, it is a noble principle but ultimately total equality is a myth unobtainable to a species who compete as we do. (the term 'supreme soviet' should speak volumes on how it really cannot be realised).
Socialist state control of principle national resources (water, fuel, transport, national grid, military, health service etc) is what I think remains a more viable solution. With a healthy free market economy in luxuries, technologies and tertiary resources.
Well I mean it CAN work people are simply so devided they dont really see where it currently is working. Now we as humans do we truly compete as a species? Or has the modern mentality made us adapt to become competitive? Anyway look at cuba for instance they have a 1.5%? Unemployment rate, they have a lower child mortality rate than the US (and frankly a better healthcare system despite the embargo impedeing on what they could do better to achieve) Well to go alittle bit closer more modernized countries well the US healthcare system is broken and pretty corrupt. Whereas the UK, Canadian Healthcare is much better in all terms. I dont think a free market economy has done much wonders for the world seeing how there is a pretty much global economic crisis and China and the US are looking at a war over currency it seems clearly obvious seeing how the US is taking direct hostile action against china (non-militant but they seem to be forming a coalition against china. why? Because our leaders are weak and cant admit they owe a freaking debt they cant payback)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:And if communists are so smart, how come they live in igloos?
I'm not ashamed to admit I laughed out loud to that for a minute or so.
I'm also amazed that someone from the states would think that 'odd things' were said about communism. The only way one would be an American communist and suprised by anti-communist sentiment is if they are a) trolling us, as this same thread popped up a month or so ago, or b) they are so ignorant of American and world history that they think Communism is a seafood dish and don't understand why we make fun of food.
Hang on sorry about slow replies one person here, umm for the Igloo thing what are you talking about? I meant moreso the references to fallout3 is what I define by odd. and I am by no means ignorant of american or world history infact I absolutely love world history it interest me, also I'm not trolling please dont accuse me of that
Elmodiddly wrote:Oh jesus. A trolling thread. This will only end in tears. I can see it coming already.
Do you really think that saying "I am a communist, please talk to me" is going anywhere sensible?
Naw I dont think it will, sure people will troll but still its the internet I can take some trolling lol.
Well I didnt exactly say that I just merely suggested that I am open to friendly debate if a flamewar starts I'm having a mod lock this pronto,the nature of the topic I posted is harmless, and besides if they do troll so what? It's not gonna glorify them or make their cause look all that more viable than my cause
Well I mean it CAN work people are simply so devided they dont really see where it currently is working. Now we as humans do we truly compete as a species? Or has the modern mentality made us adapt to become competitive? Anyway look at cuba for instance they have a 1.5%? Unemployment rate, they have a lower child mortality rate than the US (and frankly a better healthcare system despite the embargo impedeing on what they could do better to achieve) Well to go alittle bit closer more modernized countries well the US healthcare system is broken and pretty corrupt. Whereas the UK, Canadian Healthcare is much better in all terms. I dont think a free market economy has done much wonders for the world seeing how there is a pretty much global economic crisis and China and the US are looking at a war over currency it seems clearly obvious seeing how the US is taking direct hostile action against china (non-militant but they seem to be forming a coalition against china. why? Because our leaders are weak and cant admit they owe a freaking debt they cant payback)
Tip 1: When trying to put forward an argument, use correct grammar.
Tip 2: When trying to put forward an argument against a point on socialist state control of national resources, going off on an irrelevant rant about Obama, China and currency only hurts your point.
I personally think it a good idea, state controlled property is a good thing; it decreases unemployment, raises production and lowers prices. The downside of it means that supply and demand goes out the window; one year there may be need for lots of soap, the government issues a plan to make thousands of bars of soap within the next five years, but after the first year there is too much soap, the state can't sell it at the right price because state controlled property had thrown supply and demand out of the window making it hard to trade with the rest of the world.
But as I've said before, to maintain communism requires the restriction of some liberties, not everyone is happy with that.
Maybe, we should instate a system of government where the system rotates every couple of years, or the populace votes on which system of government they want after every five years.
Also, may I add a few people may be interested in talking about this, I don't see this thread as a troll, I see this as a response to recent ignorance in this forum (not mentioning any names Monster Rain)
Well im not exactly a master of the english language (despite it being my natural native language) I mean ladies and gentlemen I try with my grammar I really do lets not completely hammer me on that.
Well it started off as a point of relevancy and kinda side-tracked which still somewhat stayed on point then completely wandered off.
Well why cant I use cuba as an example? North Korea certainly isnt communist (during the whole thing between the soviets and china north korean invented juche to stay out of it which later became son-gon which puts military at a higher level and somehow ended with theocracy) China certainly is not communist
Automatically Appended Next Post:
wizard12 wrote:I personally think it a good idea, state controlled property is a good thing; it decreases unemployment, raises production and lowers prices. The downside of it means that supply and demand goes out the window; one year there may be need for lots of soap, the government issues a plan to make thousands of bars of soap within the next five years, but after the first year there is too much soap, the state can't sell it at the right price because state controlled property had thrown supply and demand out of the window making it hard to trade with the rest of the world.
But as I've said before, to maintain communism requires the restriction of some liberties, not everyone is happy with that.
Maybe, we should instate a system of government where the system rotates every couple of years, or the populace votes on which system of government they want after every five years.
Also, may I add a few people may be interested in talking about this, I don't see this thread as a troll, I see this as a response to recent ignorance in this forum (not mentioning any names Monster Rain)
Well to start under a REAL communism there is no currency period (marxists theory and economics very complicated) and I doubt there would be a shortage of soap or the like, but I get what you are trying to say. What liberties would it restrict, because as true marxsist theory goes no liberties need be restricted or taken away. Umm the rotating government sounds interesting but that sounds like it would go out in flames.
Thankyou for defending me on that note
It's pretty useless to talk about "communism" without defining what sort of communism you mean.
This article would provide a good starting point to define for us what branch of communism you support and allow us to see if we agree or disagree with different parts of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Terminology
As MGS said, I prefer a mixed economy where some aspects are controlled by the government to prevent profiteering and ensure a fair and comprehensive service to all citizens, and others are left open to the free market.
I would also say that the level of socialism I am in favour of depends on the physical situation of the country. For example, in smaller nations that are geographically bounded (islands for example) or even larger nations that are very spread out, I think the government can do a better job of running certain utilities (electricity and transport are my two best examples, but stuff like broadband infastructure and so on is also a good example) than private companies.
If you start a debate with a very ambiguous premise, the likelyhood is that people will argue across each other with only a limited understanding of what the other person is on about.
Da Boss wrote:It's pretty useless to talk about "communism" without defining what sort of communism you mean.
This article would provide a good starting point to define for us what branch of communism you support and allow us to see if we agree or disagree with different parts of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Terminology
As MGS said, I prefer a mixed economy where some aspects are controlled by the government to prevent profiteering and ensure a fair and comprehensive service to all citizens, and others are left open to the free market.
I would also say that the level of socialism I am in favour of depends on the physical situation of the country. For example, in smaller nations that are geographically bounded (islands for example) or even larger nations that are very spread out, I think the government can do a better job of running certain utilities (electricity and transport are my two best examples, but stuff like broadband infastructure and so on is also a good example) than private companies.
If you start a debate with a very ambiguous premise, the likelyhood is that people will argue across each other with only a limited understanding of what the other person is on about.
True, very true. Well in all truth Im more of a moasit-marxist (granted all forms of communism generally do use Marxism as the very basis) so we can start there. Why am I Moaist? Well because of the flexibility of Moaism (promotion of womens rights, worker controlled means of production, ect.) I think Moaism is very misunderstood
Reading up on Maoism, it seems like it would require a pretty drastic shift in US infastructure to make it happen. Do you think that that is likely to happen, and is it something you would actively campaign for?
I know that many Americans (and others) that I have spoken with online equate Communism with Stalinism, which means that it is viewed really negatively and constructive debate is difficult. Personally, I couldn't see Maoism ever catching on in the states due to the independant, competative nature of Americans.
If you look at his posting history, you'll see that he often displays that sort of humour. I thought the Garfield thread was one of his funniest, actually.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
camboyaz wrote:JK! I liked Communist Russia more than post Communist Russia. Communisum is good in theory, it just has not been exicuted properly yet.
If a theory does not produce the predicted results, then it is not a good theory. For this reason, I would say that communism is not a good theory, as far as the evidence we have thus far can show us.
It appeals to our sense of fairness, but then, at the base, so should capitalism.
Da Boss wrote:Reading up on Maoism, it seems like it would require a pretty drastic shift in US infastructure to make it happen. Do you think that that is likely to happen, and is it something you would actively campaign for?
I know that many Americans (and others) that I have spoken with online equate Communism with Stalinism, which means that it is viewed really negatively and constructive debate is difficult. Personally, I couldn't see Maoism ever catching on in the states due to the independant, competative nature of Americans.
It would require a drastic shift no doubt at all, honestly its something I do not expect to see in my lifetime but it is something I do actively (and peacefully at that) rally for and actually talk to people about, because no matter how rude or crude they can and have been I will never return the favor with equal crulety, also stalinism is very hard to really explain what with the bad winter harvest, many dead and damage done to the land post WWII, and most people not even knowing what the gulags actually were it had put stalin in a well bad imagery. Honestly your probably right but when you do say americans dont include me in that I have no love for the US and dont plan to be a citizen here forever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote:I'm not a communist because I believe in equality, I'm a communist because I want to take people's hard earned money and give it to the frivolous.
That wasnt a very educated statement at all try for something valid, also I think you have communism and capitalism mixed up
If a theory does not produce the predicted results, then it is not a good theory. For this reason, I would say that communism is not a good theory, as far as the evidence we have thus far can show us.
.
So true. I can make a theory about what an ideal world it would be if every time I dropped a rock, it floated, but at the end of the day, if its virtually impossible to make the rocks float, then its a bad theory.
Da Boss wrote:If you look at his posting history, you'll see that he often displays that sort of humour. I thought the Garfield thread was one of his funniest, actually.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
camboyaz wrote:JK! I liked Communist Russia more than post Communist Russia. Communisum is good in theory, it just has not been exicuted properly yet.
If a theory does not produce the predicted results, then it is not a good theory. For this reason, I would say that communism is not a good theory, as far as the evidence we have thus far can show us.
It appeals to our sense of fairness, but then, at the base, so should capitalism.
Well technically communism did work in maoist china they were pretty damn near absolute communism as for the great leap forward mao didnt even do that, that was deng xiaoping(a capitalist) and mao even told him do not lie about our food production your plan wont work, lo and behold mao was right and deng xiaoping apologized to the chinese people, also pol pot was not a maoist he didnt even say he was until after mao had died and he didnt even support the gang of four
I don't have to be very educated, just better educated than you!
Which you clearly arent now go away troll, and if you did believe in eqality why not tell companies like nike to stop using failed athletes like micheal jordan to promote their shoes which are produced in illegal sweatshops on the coastal regions in china where little girls are chained to desk to make those, if you believe in equality why not help those who are poor and suffering?
Whats so funny? Honestly mao turned a socially and technologically backwards country and completely advanced it, the people had the power they deserved. Farms were turned into cooperatives and later the peoples communes eliminating competition to enhance production and later develop more technology so workers could do other things they wanted to do. The poor and middle-lower were huge fans of this because food production was doubled, Industry became less lopsided and grew to meet the needs of chinas military, chinese agriculture was also rapidly mechanized infact by 1973 90% of counties in china had repair shops for agricultural machinery
ShadowZetki wrote:
Well technically communism did work in maoist china they were pretty damn near absolute communism as for the great leap forward mao didnt even do that, that was deng xiaoping(a capitalist) and mao even told him do not lie about our food production your plan wont work, lo and behold mao was right and deng xiaoping apologized to the chinese people, also pol pot was not a maoist he didnt even say he was until after mao had died and he didnt even support the gang of four
If you're telling me that the dictator responsible for the highest death rate of any nation in the history of the world ever, was a 'success', then you're going on ignore for creating an intentionally flamebaiting and trolling thread.
65 Million people died in China as a result of violence and starvation under that monster. His ideology and vision was bathed in blood, seas of it.
ShadowZetki wrote:
Well technically communism did work in maoist china they were pretty damn near absolute communism as for the great leap forward mao didnt even do that, that was deng xiaoping(a capitalist) and mao even told him do not lie about our food production your plan wont work, lo and behold mao was right and deng xiaoping apologized to the chinese people, also pol pot was not a maoist he didnt even say he was until after mao had died and he didnt even support the gang of four
If you're telling me that the dictator responsible for the highest death rate of any nation in the history of the world ever, was a 'success', then you're going on ignore for creating an intentionally flamebaiting and trolling thread.
65 Million people died in China as a result of violence and starvation under that monster. His ideology and vision was bathed in blood, seas of it.
Well 1. Mao didnt do that, I just said it was Deng Xiaoping 2. No actuall known number of deaths is really known so to say 65 million you dont truly know that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote:You make that sound like a bad thing.
I thought I told you to go away and stop trolling cause your pretty bad at it, you have absolutely nothing to contribute in this debate and until you do goodday
I think debating the NUMBER of MILLIONS of DEATHS in something like this is...uh, well.
Irrelevant?
The forced industrialisation of China killed tens of millions. That is to me, a failure of the policy. If medicare killed tens of millions, you can bet you'd call it a failure.
wizard12 wrote:Also, may I add a few people may be interested in talking about this, I don't see this thread as a troll, I see this as a response to recent ignorance in this forum (not mentioning any names Monster Rain)
What sad days are these; when the sweet, sweet truth is seen as ignorance.
Da Boss wrote:I think debating the NUMBER of MILLIONS of DEATHS in something like this is...uh, well. Irrelevant? The forced industrialisation of China killed tens of millions. That is to me, a failure of the policy. If medicare killed tens of millions, you can bet you'd call it a failure.
Well yes the unkown amount of deaths is irrelevant I suppose, in anycase Mao's great leap forward policy wouldnt have had the stravation deaths had Dang Xiaoping actually listened to Mao when he had said do not lie about our food production it will not work hence Mao was right and despite Dang Xiaoping publicly apologizing to the chinese people for what he had done Mao took all the "heat" from the western media. But you must realise Mao made china able to support itself in so many ways there is so much unheard good he did because not many care to listen.
Monster Rain wrote:Oh good another communism thread.
I love communism, I'm all for it. Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh comrades?
I for one welcome our new Communist Overlords and look forward to my new Dacha as part of the ruling elite. After all, even though we are all equal in the worker's paradise, some are more equal than others.
Monster Rain wrote:Oh good another communism thread.
I love communism, I'm all for it. Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh comrades?
I for one welcome our new Communist Overlords and look forward to my new Dacha as part of the ruling elite. After all, even though we are all equal in the worker's paradise, some are more equal than others.
Oh come on man, you could have atleast made a compelling argument or something other than that!
Oh, well then, if Deng Xiaoping was at fault and not communism, that makes it all right. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggheads, amirite?
Nurglitch wrote:Oh, well then, if Deng Xiaoping was at fault and not communism, that makes it all right. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggheads, amirite?
What makes you think I approve of what Deng Xiaoping did? Did I say that just because it was him and not communism it makes things okay? No I didnt think so so dont put words in my mouth
ShadowZetki wrote:
Well technically communism did work in maoist china they were pretty damn near absolute communism as for the great leap forward mao didnt even do that, that was deng xiaoping(a capitalist) and mao even told him do not lie about our food production your plan wont work, lo and behold mao was right and deng xiaoping apologized to the chinese people, also pol pot was not a maoist he didnt even say he was until after mao had died and he didnt even support the gang of four
If you're telling me that the dictator responsible for the highest death rate of any nation in the history of the world ever, was a 'success', then you're going on ignore for creating an intentionally flamebaiting and trolling thread.
65 Million people died in China as a result of violence and starvation under that monster. His ideology and vision was bathed in blood, seas of it.
Also China did not start improving economically until POST MAO with internal regime and strategy change.
Monster Rain wrote:Oh good another communism thread.
I love communism, I'm all for it. Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh comrades?
I for one welcome our new Communist Overlords and look forward to my new Dacha as part of the ruling elite. After all, even though we are all equal in the worker's paradise, some are more equal than others.
Oh come on man, you could have atleast made a compelling argument or something other than that!
Why? I look forward to my new Dacha. Unlike the workers I won't be starving come winter. Ain't life grand?
ShadowZetki wrote:Yes, but is it really that wrong to half-way expect sensible people let alone compelling comments?
You are young; life has been kind to you.
You will learn.
Are you kidding me? Life has not been kind to me, I just simply believe people can be halfway decent
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
ShadowZetki wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Oh good another communism thread.
I love communism, I'm all for it. Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh comrades?
I for one welcome our new Communist Overlords and look forward to my new Dacha as part of the ruling elite. After all, even though we are all equal in the worker's paradise, some are more equal than others.
Oh come on man, you could have atleast made a compelling argument or something other than that!
Why? I look forward to my new Dacha. Unlike the workers I won't be starving come winter. Ain't life grand?
Well because oh why the feth am I even bothering at this point? You people barely listen at all or just for the most part say some slowed gak
I don't have to be very educated, just better educated than you!
Slonshal Nurglitch. I never saw the
"just have to swim faster than my friend when the shark comes" theory applied so uniquely.
Yeah but I mean one it dosent seem like he was very capable of proving he is better educated than me, and isnt that you know pretty pathetic?
Someone who believes the bs put out by Cuba really shouldn't be making statements about who's more educated. If Nurglitch and I agree on something: 1) yes ma a rip in space and time has just occurred; 2) the other side is really really off; 3) even though we are in agreement Nurglitch is still a poopy head.
I don't have to be very educated, just better educated than you!
Slonshal Nurglitch. I never saw the
"just have to swim faster than my friend when the shark comes" theory applied so uniquely.
Yeah but I mean one it dosent seem like he was very capable of proving he is better educated than me, and isnt that you know pretty pathetic?
Someone who believes the bs put out by Cuba really shouldn't be making statements about who's more educated. If Nurglitch and I agree on something: 1) yes ma a rip in space and time has just occurred; 2) the other side is really really off; 3) even though we are in agreement Nurglitch is still a poopy head.
Actually I havent heard anything from cubam so dont assume things. No idea what a rip in space and time has to do with anything, well I'm not exactly really really off per se. Personally I think he is a dick at this point
Thats not slowed. I thought you were educated. An educated person would know about Animal Farm if he's going to discuss the glories of being a commie pinko. Sadly this opponent is unworthy. Where's Dogma and his multiquotes when you need him?
I think it's more the fact you hold up maoist china as an example of working communism, a regime which killed tens of millions of people. Then when that's pointed out, you try and wave it under the carpet. That kind of makes Western Humanists stop taking you seriously, y'know?
ShadowZetki wrote:Well because oh why the feth am I even bothering at this point? You people barely listen at all or just for the most part say some slowed gak
The little critters of nature. They don't know that they're ugly!
That's very funny; a fly marrying a bumblebee.
Frazzled wrote:Thats not slowed. I thought you were educated. An educated person would know about Animal Farm if he's going to discuss the glories of being a commie pinko. Sadly this opponent is unworthy. Where's Dogma and his multiquotes when you need him?
We'd end up discussing something completely beside the point and debating the meaning of the word "as" before you could blink.
ShadowZetki wrote:Well because oh why the feth am I even bothering at this point? You people barely listen at all or just for the most part say some slowed gak
Hold on everyone I'm only one person I cant keep up with all the posting its seriously starting to wear me out. okay monster rain no idea what anything you said means. Ketara I'm not trying to sweep anything under the carpet not at all, western humanists? Dude I dont quite care what people think of me and honestly nobody ever takes me seriously to begin with because I'm 16 so good one with that comment Frazzled Have you actually been to cuba? Probably not, have I? No, what does sadly this opponent is unworthy even mean?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
ShadowZetki wrote:Well because oh why the feth am I even bothering at this point? You people barely listen at all or just for the most part say some slowed gak
I didnt say everyone in anycase come on man thats so uncalled for
Frazzled, Monster Rain, and so on are continuing the usual running jokes. All we need now is a weiner dog picture, and we have the full deck.
And you say you are not trying to sweep it under the carpet, but when someone points out the fact that killing all those people might make it be seen as less than an amazing model, you basically go , 'nuh uh! They were never really sure how many died!' as if its a counterargument.
Like I said, things like that means that people who would otherwise weigh in seriously to a debate think that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and just crack jokes instead.
If you going to argue the merits of seomthing you need to actually know what those merits and limitations are. Animal Farm was an allegorical critique of communism.
Raul Castro said recently that they needed to start privatizing or Cuba would not survive.
Ketara wrote:Frazzled, Monster Rain, and so on are continuing the usual running jokes. All we need now is a weiner dog picture, and we have the full deck.
And you say you are not trying to sweep it under the carpet, but when someone points out the fact that killing all those people might make it be seen as less than an amazing model, you basically go , 'nuh uh! They were never really sure how many died!' as if its a counterargument.
Like I said, things like that means that people who would otherwise weigh in seriously to a debate think that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and just crack jokes instead.
Yeah I noticed it's kinda sad to know, I mean I'm fully aware between 15-50million people died I was just merely pointing something out, but how much better does it look for them to use dated childish jokes to a 16 year old trying to actually you know have a serious conversation? Also I was in now way trying to sweep something under the carpet
Ignoring the millions of people who died as part of Maoist China, you'll notice that China did not join the ranks of the industrialized nations until private industry invested in the country and a certain amount of *gasp* capitalism took hold.
Also, this is the OT Forum. Serious conversations are few and far between.
I think it's mainly because every two months or so, we have a teenager come on OT who espouses how amazing communism is, and how they can defend it against any serious critique, yet never seems capable of providing a coherent argument or counterargument. The result being that most people have stopped taking it seriously. It's actually become a bi-monthly event by this stage of the game.
Yup. Communism didn't work until some towering giants of industry grasped their own bootstraps and pulled themselves and China itself out of agrarian poverty.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Ignoring the millions of people who died as part of Maoist China, you'll notice that China did not join the ranks of the industrialized nations until private industry invested in the country and a certain amount of *gasp* capitalism took hold.
Also, this is the OT Forum. Serious conversations are few and far between.
Yeah I hadnt really known serious conversations were pretty much all but dead
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iur_tae_mont wrote:
Yay full deck!
What is that!?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:I think it's mainly because every two months or so, we have a teenager come on OT who espouses how amazing communism is, and how they can defend it against any serious critique, yet never seems capable of providing a coherent argument or counterargument. The result being that most people have stopped taking it seriously. It's actually become a bi-monthly event by this stage of the game.
Seriously? Oh holy crap, and here I was hoping people would actually take me serious at any point to begin with...
Ketara wrote:
Frazzled, Monster Rain, and so on are continuing the usual running jokes. All we need now is a weiner dog picture, and we have the full deck.
Soviet Union: 10MM to 25MM from internal purges and starvation. Entire peoples wiped out.
Mao your hero: 25MM to 100MM wiped out in camps and starvation. China set back in its unique form of hell until the new regime which realized you can make money and get rich.
Cambodia: 1 in 4 people died when the Khmer Rouge took over. 1 in 4.
Vietnam: re-education camps. tens of thousands died. o one is sure.
North Korea: literally hell on earth.
Cuba: formerly one of the leading Latin countries, now an absolute backwater. Even Ecuador can kick its ass.
Frazzled wrote:Soviet Union: 10MM to 25MM from internal purges and starvation. Entire peoples wiped out.
Mao your hero: 25MM to 100MM wiped out in camps and starvation. China set back in its unique form of hell until the new regime which realized you can make money and get rich.
Cambodia: 1 in 4 people died when the Khmer Rouge took over. 1 in 4.
Vietnam: re-education camps. tens of thousands died. o one is sure.
North Korea: literally hell on earth.
Cuba: formerly one of the leading Latin countries, now an absolute backwater. Even Ecuador can kick its ass.
Can we atleast agree North Korea is a Theocracy? Khmer Rouge okay that is how you spell it thankyou, odd thing is I kinda think pol pot was an opportunist he didnt declare himself a maoist until mao had died and he didnt even support the gang of four. I thought the estimated deaths for the great leap forward was 16-50million? Eh tbh I'm not oo much a fan of fidel castro he distorted Che's Image (hence why I originally wanted to stick with just plain marxism it's not truly as warped as many may think, mostly just people adding thier own spin on it to call it theirs)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yeah I'm pretty much leading to the end of this, also that pic with the two dogs is kinda creepy
ShadowZetki wrote:Okay umm, that is also odd. Can we umm lock this thread? please?
BLAME THE VICTIM!!!11!!
What?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Seriously can any mod close this thread or something? And I had kinda just realised that this setting was on where I get emailed everytime someone posts on this so uh my email is likely flooded
It's a running joke in OT to try and derail threads with pictures of daschunds, probably because Frazzled owns a couple.
I'm a bit disappointed with the fervour that some of you have tried to derail this thread- I'm pretty sure it is violating the much vaunted rule 1. I also don't think anyone will do anything about it though. If the OP asks, seriously, for people to stop the jokes, it's polite to do so.
Go take a political science degree. I'm sure there are people in academia who can discuss your opinions with you without openly mocking you to your face.
Nurglitch wrote:Go take a political science degree. I'm sure there are people in academia who can discuss your opinions with you without openly mocking you to your face.
I have a feeling even if I did that people would still not discuss my open opinions and just simply mock me with different things than what you guys are mocking me with
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:I'm sure he will, when he's out of highschool.
What did he do to provoke you? Be a kid who is interested in politics?
1. Writing a coherent and grammatically correct response adds weight to your argument.
2. Bandying your age around as an excuse does not endear you or what you're saying.
3. Lacking the humility, wisdom, maturity and insight to simply admit you are wrong does not speak volumes about how you will further conduct your debating here.
5. Having a fit of pique when people take your fairly odd arguments and statements and mock them simply provides further excuse (and perhaps justification) for it to continue.
6.Grow up. If you want a sensible discussion, conduct yourself with more bloody gravitas.
Meh. Works on paper, not in reality. Humans are corruptable, other such arguments for why it won't work. Socailism, a la Sweden/Norway ( I think...) seems like a much better alternative.
Da Boss wrote:It's a running joke in OT to try and derail threads with pictures of daschunds, probably because Frazzled owns a couple.
I'm a bit disappointed with the fervour that some of you have tried to derail this thread- I'm pretty sure it is violating the much vaunted rule 1. I also don't think anyone will do anything about it though. If the OP asks, seriously, for people to stop the jokes, it's polite to do so.
I thought he was just sort of playing the "straight man" if you will.
If I actually upset anyone, I apologize. It certainly wasn't my intention. :0
You can tell who's read Das Kapital by the people able to list the theoretical absurdities that Marx piles on. Problem was that dialectical material was basically Hegel turned on his head, which is like crazy squared from a logic perspective.
In all seriousness communism (IMO) works well on paper and in small isolated settings, however the natural tendency of human nature towards greed prevents it from becoming a viable base around which to build a government.
Wrong - communism doesn't work well on paper, and rings a false positive only in some small isolated and artificial settings.
I don't know what bothers me more, that somebody thinks communism is a good idea, or someone that doesn't understand why communism is a bad idea despite agreeing that it is.
I mean it's bad enough that people keep slinging around cliches like "It works on paper.." or "At the end of the day..." but when cliche replaces the capacity for critical thought the communists might as well have won.
ShadowZetki wrote:Well I mean it CAN work people are simply so devided they dont really see where it currently is working. Now we as humans do we truly compete as a species? Or has the modern mentality made us adapt to become competitive?
No you will find that hundreds of thousand years of evolution and thousands of years of civilisation has caused the 'competative mindset' humans have, empires and kingdoms have risen on this, our species advanced on this, not only did they compete, they out competed every other intelligent biped.
Humanity is made up of alot of humans of varied ability with different strengths and weaknesses, no one is equal, if we were we would all look the same, all have the same physical and mental strength and abiliies. it is the inequality by birth and setting that leads to humanities best (inventive leaps in science, great leaders, arts) and worst (poverty, starvation, war) aspects.
Communism has never worked, there has been no example of a true working communist state:
The sovient union failed with poverty, starvation, corrupt goverment and police, terror of the people.
Cuba has lead to one of the highest literacy rates of a country but massive poverty.
China is founded on the graves of millions of people and is now requiring capitalism to stay afloat, they also still have outbreaks of the plague.
North Korea has massive state censorship human rights violations a mountain high.
Communism fails because it relies on a blatent misconclusion that everyone thinks the same, that everyone wants the same thing. We don't and until the day we all get brainslugs/body snatched/hive minded we won't.
I do believe that utilities such as health, power and water should be owned by the state to protect the people from being abused for the interest of a few shareholders.
A snake came at me, GC, Shanker, and Tbone Friday night, right out of a front yard. It was crazy. Captain dumbass (the Shanker ) ran right past it without noticing and I pushed GC out of the way. TBone caught air as he was attached to GC via harness. TBone was not a happy camper.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiksnoob wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
I'm sure frazzled would be able to tell us more about this.
Wait, who snapped a pic of the WeinerDog / Kangaroo genetics program. Quick to the weiner car! Wait, stop someone hit the brakes!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:It's a running joke in OT to try and derail threads with pictures of daschunds, probably because Frazzled owns a couple.
I'm a bit disappointed with the fervour that some of you have tried to derail this thread- I'm pretty sure it is violating the much vaunted rule 1. I also don't think anyone will do anything about it though. If the OP asks, seriously, for people to stop the jokes, it's polite to do so.
Actually thats not rule #1 its more rule #2 or #3, both have which are regularly rolled like a Chicago politician at a Texas rodeo.
I'll just have to shut this all down by saying that Marx was both a factory owner and anti-semitic. Therefore, he is a Hippocrate and a nazi. and the Nazis were lead by Hitler.
micahaphone wrote:I'll just have to shut this all down by saying that Marx was both a factory owner and anti-semitic. Therefore, he is a Hippocrate and a nazi. and the Nazis were lead by Hitler.
Nurglitch wrote:Wrong - communism doesn't work well on paper, and rings a false positive only in some small isolated and artificial settings.
I don't know what bothers me more, that somebody thinks communism is a good idea, or someone that doesn't understand why communism is a bad idea despite agreeing that it is.
I mean it's bad enough that people keep slinging around cliches like "It works on paper.." or "At the end of the day..." but when cliche replaces the capacity for critical thought the communists might as well have won.
Its almost as if someone was posting in this thread on my behalf.
Communism is the political theory version of "Step 1, Step 2, Profit". Marx had no idea how to realize his utopia, and it shows in his writing.
micahaphone wrote:I'll just have to shut this all down by saying that Marx was both a factory owner and anti-semitic. Therefore, he is a Hippocrate and a nazi. and the Nazis were lead by Hitler.
Y'all just got hit by Godwin's law.
Okay look, first off communism is not when the state owns everything nowhere in the communist manifesto does marx even imply this. second Marx didnt own a factory he lived in an English slum. In "on the Jewish question" the pamphlet that proves marxs anti-Semitism It's true he states that jews are apparently profiting most off of capitalism or something to that effect but as he was born Jewish i'm not absolutely convinced that he hated himself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BluntmanDC wrote:
ShadowZetki wrote:Well I mean it CAN work people are simply so devided they dont really see where it currently is working. Now we as humans do we truly compete as a species? Or has the modern mentality made us adapt to become competitive?
No you will find that hundreds of thousand years of evolution and thousands of years of civilisation has caused the 'competative mindset' humans have, empires and kingdoms have risen on this, our species advanced on this, not only did they compete, they out competed every other intelligent biped.
Humanity is made up of alot of humans of varied ability with different strengths and weaknesses, no one is equal, if we were we would all look the same, all have the same physical and mental strength and abiliies. it is the inequality by birth and setting that leads to humanities best (inventive leaps in science, great leaders, arts) and worst (poverty, starvation, war) aspects.
Communism has never worked, there has been no example of a true working communist state:
The sovient union failed with poverty, starvation, corrupt goverment and police, terror of the people.
Cuba has lead to one of the highest literacy rates of a country but massive poverty.
China is founded on the graves of millions of people and is now requiring capitalism to stay afloat, they also still have outbreaks of the plague.
North Korea has massive state censorship human rights violations a mountain high.
Communism fails because it relies on a blatent misconclusion that everyone thinks the same, that everyone wants the same thing. We don't and until the day we all get brainslugs/body snatched/hive minded we won't.
I do believe that utilities such as health, power and water should be owned by the state to protect the people from being abused for the interest of a few shareholders.
Id like to attempt something, can you tell me what YOU think communism is, and I'll correct anything you get wrong.
Final point you say that humans have different abilities and a system which forces us to utilise them is good? How about if instead of intelligence of work drive or luck we created a system that rewarded peoples good looks would you support this?
Kragura wrote:
Okay look, first off communism is not when the state owns everything nowhere in the communist manifesto does marx even imply this.
Very true, but given that "dictatorship of the proletariat" is never explicitly defined it doesn't really matter.
Kragura wrote:
Final point you say that humans have different abilities and a system which forces us to utilise them is good? How about if instead of intelligence of work drive or luck we created a system that rewarded peoples good looks would you support this?
We have that already. Its called the entertainment industry.
Being attractive is useful to the attractive person, and anyone who might employ them.
Frazzled wrote:If you going to argue the merits of seomthing you need to actually know what those merits and limitations are. Animal Farm was an allegorical critique of communism.
Raul Castro said recently that they needed to start privatizing or Cuba would not survive.
Animal farm is not exactly that great of a critique, honestly some posters here can do a lot better than Mr Orwell. And cuba privitising what did you expect? we are very famously a global movement and if theres one thing the USSR proved it's that socialism in one country=bad idea.
Frazzled wrote:If you going to argue the merits of seomthing you need to actually know what those merits and limitations are. Animal Farm was an allegorical critique of communism.
Raul Castro said recently that they needed to start privatizing or Cuba would not survive.
Animal farm is not exactly that great of a critique, honestly some posters here can do a lot better than Mr Orwell. And cuba privitising what did you expect? we are very famously a global movement and if theres one thing the USSR proved it's that socialism in one country=bad idea.
I think it's pretty spot on.
The pigs start acting like the humans that they hated so much in the first place.
Kragura wrote:
Okay look, first off communism is not when the state owns everything nowhere in the communist manifesto does marx even imply this.
Very true, but given that "dictatorship of the proletariat" is never explicitly defined it doesn't really matter.
Kragura wrote:
Final point you say that humans have different abilities and a system which forces us to utilise them is good? How about if instead of intelligence of work drive or luck we created a system that rewarded peoples good looks would you support this?
We have that already. Its called the entertainment industry.
Being attractive is useful to the attractive person, and anyone who might employ them.
Your correct the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't defined at least not by Marx. this however is where we other communists step up to the plate and how things like Leninism left communism and Maoism (of which i suspect the OP is a fan) step up to the plate.
Okay fine you got me on the attractiveness thing but what if I changed it to length of ears or something equally ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Kragura wrote:
Frazzled wrote:If you going to argue the merits of seomthing you need to actually know what those merits and limitations are. Animal Farm was an allegorical critique of communism.
Raul Castro said recently that they needed to start privatizing or Cuba would not survive.
Animal farm is not exactly that great of a critique, honestly some posters here can do a lot better than Mr Orwell. And cuba privitising what did you expect? we are very famously a global movement and if theres one thing the USSR proved it's that socialism in one country=bad idea.
I think it's pretty spot on.
The pigs start acting like the humans that they hated so much in the first place.
The problem is that it doesn't show any specific reason why the pigs did this apart from really, Napoleons a douche. it's more of critique of Stalinism then the communist movement as a whole
Kragura wrote:
Your correct the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't defined at least not by Marx. this however is where we other communists step up to the plate and how things like Leninism left communism and Maoism (of which i suspect the OP is a fan) step up to the plate.
Both of those systems got quite a few people killed and have been largely phased out by the nations that practiced them.
More to the point, if you're going to argue that all you're really doing is saying that utopia is good, and that we should try to make the world a utopia. No one is going to disagree with that argument because, ultimately, Marx's communist utopia is really, really generic and does not appear especially distinct from any other, even a Randian one.
Kragura wrote:
Okay fine you got me on the attractiveness thing but what if I changed it to length of ears or something equally ridiculous.
Its only ridiculous because there is no meaningful reason to select people based on the size of their ears (barring some weird fetish).
Were there a meaningful reason to do so it wouldn't be ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
I think it's pretty spot on.
The pigs start acting like the humans that they hated so much in the first place.
There are tons of really good arguments predicated on the idea that revolutions, as we understand them, aren't about changing the system of governance but the nature of the elite class.
Kragura wrote:
Your correct the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't defined at least not by Marx. this however is where we other communists step up to the plate and how things like Leninism left communism and Maoism (of which i suspect the OP is a fan) step up to the plate.
Both of those systems got quite a few people killed and have been largely phased out by the nations that practiced them.
More to the point, if you're going to argue that all you're really doing is saying that utopia is good, and that we should try to make the world a utopia. No one is going to disagree with that argument because, ultimately, Marx's communist utopia is really, really generic and does not appear especially distinct from any other, even a Randian one.
Kragura wrote:
Okay fine you got me on the attractiveness thing but what if I changed it to length of ears or something equally ridiculous.
Its only ridiculous because there is no meaningful reason to select people based on the size of their ears (barring some weird fetish).
Were there a meaningful reason to do so it wouldn't be ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
I think it's pretty spot on.
The pigs start acting like the humans that they hated so much in the first place.
There are tons of really good arguments predicated on the idea that revolutions, as we understand them, aren't about changing the system of governance but the nature of the elite class.
To the best of my knowledge left communism has never been attempted?
In our current society the best way to make money is to climb up the corporate ladder as it were and I don't really see how that benefits anyone but the person moving up in the world. I could accept slight social stratification if it were to the benefit of all by means of increasing our progress in science and technology, but you must agree that our current society neither attempts makes everyone equal or explicitly rewards those who are making advances in medicine or agricultural studies. it would seem we have the worst of two worlds.
Finally in almost all society up till now there hasn't really been a difference between the government and the ruling class, which is one reason why we seek to eliminate them both.
Kragura wrote:
To the best of my knowledge left communism has never been attempted?
Left communism? I'm not sure what you mean.
Kragura wrote:
In our current society the best way to make money is to climb up the corporate ladder as it were and I don't really see how that benefits anyone but the person moving up in the world.
It doesn't, not directly. The collective benefits come from the maintenance of social order, and the division of labor.
Kragura wrote:
I could accept slight social stratification if it were to the benefit of all by means of increasing our progress in science and technology, but you must agree that our current society neither attempts makes everyone equal or explicitly rewards those who are making advances in medicine or agricultural studies. it would seem we have the worst of two worlds.
I don't agree, actually. But then I have a much broader definition of what constitutes rewarding someone. I'm probably not going to make millions with my PhD when I get it, but I'm not terribly concerned with that because what I'm really after is the lifestyle that a PhD provides. Sure, money is related to that, but its not the sum of it.
Also, I have to say that if your desire is to end social economic stratification (there will always be a social hierarchy, so there's no point in fighting that), then you have a serious uphill battle. Quite simply, no society has ever managed to do that, and I'm fairly confident that it isn't possible given our current technological frontier.
Kragura wrote:
Finally in almost all society up till now there hasn't really been a difference between the government and the ruling class, which is one reason why we seek to eliminate them both.
There's never been a difference between the government and the powerful, in part because the the authority to govern makes one powerful, but more directly because the powerful have no reason to allow themselves to be governed without input.
Kragura wrote:
To the best of my knowledge left communism has never been attempted?
Left communism? I'm not sure what you mean.
He means a true communist Scottsman. You know, sure, there have been communist countries and attempts at communism, but there hasn't been any true attempts at it.
Kragura wrote:
To the best of my knowledge left communism has never been attempted?
Left communism? I'm not sure what you mean.
Left communism is an ideology that emphasises direct worker control over the means of production and the establishment of true soviet democracy, although still a communist ideology it is probably closer to the form of anarchism practised by the CNT-FAI during Catalonias anarchist phase in the Spanish civil war.
Kragura wrote:
In our current society the best way to make money is to climb up the corporate ladder as it were and I don't really see how that benefits anyone but the person moving up in the world.
It doesn't, not directly. The collective benefits come from the maintenance of social order, and the division of labor.
I'm going to come out and say it, I Have only just read the Wikipedia page for division of labour and so I don't know all that much about it, but from what I took from wikipedia I see no reason why this couldn't occur minus the big corporate heads.
Kragura wrote:
I could accept slight social stratification if it were to the benefit of all by means of increasing our progress in science and technology, but you must agree that our current society neither attempts makes everyone equal or explicitly rewards those who are making advances in medicine or agricultural studies. it would seem we have the worst of two worlds.
I don't agree, actually. But then I have a much broader definition of what constitutes rewarding someone. I'm probably not going to make millions with my PhD when I get it, but I'm not terribly concerned with that because what I'm really after is the lifestyle that a PhD provides. Sure, money is related to that, but its not the sum of it.
Also, I have to say that if your desire is to end social economic stratification (there will always be a social hierarchy, so there's no point in fighting that), then you have a serious uphill battle. Quite simply, no society has ever managed to do that, and I'm fairly confident that it isn't possible given our current technological frontier.
I see what you mean when you talk about reward I to hope I can mange to gain a PhD one day and I know I don't want it for the money. but a monetary reward is still a reward and they are still being given out unessasarily (excuse my spelling) to factory owners, Movie stars and the like.
I don't seek to completely destroy all heirachy however I do believe that we can come pretty close to eliminating economic stratification. also I realise that this wasent the basis of your argument but just because no ones ever done something that doesn't make it impossible.
Kragura wrote:
Finally in almost all society up till now there hasn't really been a difference between the government and the ruling class, which is one reason why we seek to eliminate them both.
There's never been a difference between the government and the powerful, in part because the the authority to govern makes one powerful, but more directly because the powerful have no reason to allow themselves to be governed without input.
Kragura wrote:
Left communism is an ideology that emphasises direct worker control over the means of production and the establishment of true soviet democracy, although still a communist ideology it is probably closer to the form of anarchism practised by the CNT-FAI during Catalonias anarchist phase in the Spanish civil war.
You should look into Mondragon. Its basically what you're describing, and its pretty ugly.
Kragura wrote:
I'm going to come out and say it, I Have only just read the Wikipedia page for division of labour and so I don't know all that much about it, but from what I took from wikipedia I see no reason why this couldn't occur minus the big corporate heads.
It certainly could, if the people controlling everything weren't interested in their own well being just like everyone else.
Kragura wrote:
I see what you mean when you talk about reward I to hope I can mange to gain a PhD one day and I know I don't want it for the money. but a monetary reward is still a reward and they are still being given out unessasarily (excuse my spelling) to factory owners, Movie stars and the like.
It isn't necessary to give anyone anything in most cases. The powerful don't have to give workers anything without cause.
Don't mistake a distribution that you like for a distribution that is necessary,
Kragura wrote:
I don't seek to completely destroy all heirachy however I do believe that we can come pretty close to eliminating economic stratification. also I realise that this wasent the basis of your argument but just because no ones ever done something that doesn't make it impossible.
Of course not, but it begs a certain question regarding human nature.
Kragura wrote: Okay look, first off communism is not when the state owns everything nowhere in the communist manifesto does marx even imply this.
Very true, but given that "dictatorship of the proletariat" is never explicitly defined it doesn't really matter.
Kragura wrote: Final point you say that humans have different abilities and a system which forces us to utilise them is good? How about if instead of intelligence of work drive or luck we created a system that rewarded peoples good looks would you support this?
We have that already. Its called the entertainment industry.
Being attractive is useful to the attractive person, and anyone who might employ them.
Your correct the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't defined at least not by Marx. this however is where we other communists step up to the plate and how things like Leninism left communism and Maoism (of which i suspect the OP is a fan) step up to the plate.
Okay fine you got me on the attractiveness thing but what if I changed it to length of ears or something equally ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Kragura wrote:
Frazzled wrote:If you going to argue the merits of seomthing you need to actually know what those merits and limitations are. Animal Farm was an allegorical critique of communism.
Raul Castro said recently that they needed to start privatizing or Cuba would not survive.
Animal farm is not exactly that great of a critique, honestly some posters here can do a lot better than Mr Orwell. And cuba privitising what did you expect? we are very famously a global movement and if theres one thing the USSR proved it's that socialism in one country=bad idea.
I think it's pretty spot on.
The pigs start acting like the humans that they hated so much in the first place.
The problem is that it doesn't show any specific reason why the pigs did this apart from really, Napoleons a douche. it's more of critique of Stalinism then the communist movement as a whole
Umm Actually I wouldnt say that I'm a fan of maoism at the beginning I was asked what sepcifics so I just went with maoism because it is rather flexible other than that I'm mostly just marxist with different influences, though I gotta admit I'm not as good with maoism as I should have been for this topic
And why is there a picture of obama naked riding a unicorn?
Kragura wrote:
To the best of my knowledge left communism has never been attempted?
Left communism? I'm not sure what you mean.
He means a true communist Scottsman. You know, sure, there have been communist countries and attempts at communism, but there hasn't been any true attempts at it.
Scottish Communism: You're doing it wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShadowZetki wrote:And why is there a picture of obama naked riding a unicorn?
Kragura wrote:
To the best of my knowledge left communism has never been attempted?
Left communism? I'm not sure what you mean.
He means a true communist Scottsman. You know, sure, there have been communist countries and attempts at communism, but there hasn't been any true attempts at it.
Did I ever once say that left communism was perfect or the only True attempt. as a matter of fact I also called Leninism and Maoism communism how can I evoke three different systems as the one true system.
Kragura wrote:
To the best of my knowledge left communism has never been attempted?
Left communism? I'm not sure what you mean.
He means a true communist Scottsman. You know, sure, there have been communist countries and attempts at communism, but there hasn't been any true attempts at it.
Did I ever once say that left communism was perfect or the only True attempt. as a matter of fact I also called Leninism and Maoism communism how can I evoke three different systems as the one true system.
By not understanding what I am saying, or more importantly, not understanding what a No True Scottsman fallacy is.
I'll leave a couple of responses in here for ShadowZetki in case he decides to return. Spamming the thread with the same old jokes was poor form, fellas, if you don't care about the debate just don't post in it.
ShadowZetki wrote:Anyway look at cuba for instance they have a 1.5%? Unemployment rate, they have a lower child mortality rate than the US (and frankly a better healthcare system despite the embargo impedeing on what they could do better to achieve) Well to go alittle bit closer more modernized countries well the US healthcare system is broken and pretty corrupt.
Cuban healthcare is good for the resources available, true. But Cuba is regularly named the worst nation for treatment of its media by Journalists without Borders. And while lots of people around the world champion Cuba, few continue to do so after having been to Cuba. And none choose to stay in Cuba.
Because despite the healthcare, it is not a very nice place to live.
Whereas the UK, Canadian Healthcare is much better in all terms.
None of which requires communism, which would require government ownership of all the means of production. Government intervention should be seen on a market by market instance, by considering how that market is structured. What is good for healthcare is not necessarily good for microchips.
I dont think a free market economy has done much wonders for the world
It has built the modern world. The computer you are typing on only exists because of the free market economy.
seeing how there is a pretty much global economic crisis and China and the US are looking at a war over currency it seems clearly obvious seeing how the US is taking direct hostile action against china (non-militant but they seem to be forming a coalition against china. why? Because our leaders are weak and cant admit they owe a freaking debt they cant payback)
No, it's because China is following a model of expansion that is effective for small economies, but starts causing considerable problems for everyone once they become a major economy. Simply put, China's model of devaluing the yuan to drive exports is suppressing living standards in China and causing massive trade imbalances around the world. It needs to be corrected.
wizard12 wrote:Maybe, we should instate a system of government where the system rotates every couple of years, or the populace votes on which system of government they want after every five years.
Umm, we do... it's called Democracy. Thing is, hardly anyone votes for the communists.
ShadowZetki wrote:Well to start under a REAL communism there is no currency period (marxists theory and economics very complicated)
Marxist economics more or less don't exist. Marx was not a trained economist and it shows - the labour theory of value is almost complete nonsense. The guy contributed an incredible amount to economic history, but that is a very different field.
The problem with 'real' communism is that it's never been properly, fully described, nor will find many (or any...) communists who can actually agree that one communist country actually represents what communism is supposed to be.
Now, the various attempts at communism have always ended in economic stagnation, with bloodshed and extreme oppression occurring as often as not. It is reasonable to say 'well that's not we want when we look at building our communist state' but it isn't reasonable to think that's enough and you can just start ignoring what happened in those communist countries. There needs to be a serious look into what happened, and a substantive set of reasons given why it won't happened next time. Communist intellectuals have not even tried, and it's a serious problem.
ShadowZetki wrote:I think Moaism is very misunderstood
Deng Xiaoping understood it very well. He was tied very closely to it's early attempted execution. He learnt from those dismal failures, and it's why when he came to power he brought China towards the centre and away from Maoism.
Deng was a smart fella.
ShadowZetki wrote:Well technically communism did work in maoist china
How many people have to starve to death for something to not work?
they were pretty damn near absolute communism as for the great leap forward mao didnt even do that, that was deng xiaoping(a capitalist)
The claims that Mao wasn't responsible for the failures of the Great Leap Forward are long discredited.
Your claim that Deng was a capitalist is also mistaken, he certainly was not a capitalist when he tried to execute Mao's Great Leap Forward. Once he reached power he was a pragmatist, a position he took having seen the terrible failures of Mao's theories.
lo and behold mao was right and deng xiaoping apologized to the chinese people
Don't make the mistake of thinking face saving exercises in public actually reflect on who actually drove policy.
ShadowZetki wrote:Well 1. Mao didnt do that, I just said it was Deng Xiaoping 2. No actuall known number of deaths is really known so to say 65 million you dont truly know that.
The most conservative, sensible estimates have it at 30 million.
Trying to put in on Deng is ridiculous. Understand that at this point you're arguing that Mao isn't responsible for the policies he championed while in almost complete control of the country. Don't be so silly.
Meanwhile, if Deng and Deng alone is to blame, don't you think there's a problem when the failures of one guy can produce 65 million deaths?
micahaphone wrote:If the state owns everything, then you'll be forced to share your toy soldiers with those annoying little kids.
No, communism does not outlaw private property.
Nurglitch wrote:Doesn't work on paper either...
You can tell who's read Das Kapital by the people able to list the theoretical absurdities that Marx piles on. Problem was that dialectical material was basically Hegel turned on his head, which is like crazy squared from a logic perspective.
The problem is not with the dialectical influences, that stuff is valuable, and I think still shows insight today. The problem is with the poor quality of his purely economic arguments, and the fact that ultimately a lot of conclusions were simplistic or just wrong. Which is not a hanging offense for someone working so early in the field, but it's certainly a problem for people who continue to defend his conclusions today.
micahaphone wrote:I'll just have to shut this all down by saying that Marx was both a factory owner and anti-semitic.
Your claims there are both groundless and irrelevant.
Marx had a Jewish background, and while quotes are often given to demonstrate his anti-semitism, these are frequently out of context, and when given in context are shown to be a lot less racist than the standard of the time.
Marx died in poverty, dependant on the financial support of others.
BluntmanDC wrote:its safe to say that Marx was an a grade ****head, he believed that everyone is equal but not those he thought were subhuman.
If you think communism is about recognising everyone as equal then you really need to read more.
Kragura wrote:The problem is that it doesn't show any specific reason why the pigs did this apart from really, Napoleons a douche. it's more of critique of Stalinism then the communist movement as a whole
If you consider Orwell's other works it becomes pretty clear it's because Orwell thinks any class distinction will produce a result like that.
What needs to be remembered is that Orwell was critical of dictatorial communism, not all possible forms of communism.
Kragura wrote:In our current society the best way to make money is to climb up the corporate ladder as it were and I don't really see how that benefits anyone but the person moving up in the world.
The benefit comes from the person moving up being encouraged to be more productive and more valuable, in order to be more likely to move up. This is by no means a perfect system, but the benefits are pretty obvious.
I could accept slight social stratification if it were to the benefit of all by means of increasing our progress in science and technology, but you must agree that our current society neither attempts makes everyone equal or explicitly rewards those who are making advances in medicine or agricultural studies. it would seem we have the worst of two worlds.
At no point in human history have so much of our resources been dedicated towards technological advancement. There are certainly problems of capitalism, but the failure to reward technological innovation is not one of them.
Finally in almost all society up till now there hasn't really been a difference between the government and the ruling class, which is one reason why we seek to eliminate them both.
That's just not true. Mercantilist society saw great wealth build among merchants, away from the politically powerful landed class. What happened then is what's happened every time since - the political class quickly absorbs the new rich into it's numbers.
Kragura wrote:Right now you've got me confused, What are you saying?
The One True Scotsman Fallacy includes a self-selecting definition. That is, a person would claim no True Scotsman would ever tell a lie, and then when it's pointed out that Angus McAngus told a lie just ten minutes ago, it is explained that Angus is no True Scotsman because he told a lie.
With communism it's much the same thing. People point out that efforts at communism have resulted in loads of deaths, and people say that wasn't really communism. The criteria is self-selecting to exclude all the times that it's gone wrong.
Well see that's what I though it was as well, hence my confusion over why I was accused of implying it when I stated that leninism and maoism ARE forms of communism*
*well actually they are a theory's on how to reach communism which is why I posted It in the first place.
ShadowZetki wrote: And why is there a picture of obama naked riding a unicorn?
Because Communism is stupid?
That serves as no relevancy period. Also sebster thankyou for defending me on the whole people just cracking jokes thing, dont worry for some odd reason I feel the need to keep comming back to this topic to see what others have to say. I have not been to cuba and honestly I dont forsee much international travel in my lifespan. True they do not require communism but they do require some amount of socialism (and whoever keeps saying obama is a socialist please stop saying that it really isnt true) Much like how laser eye surgery and artifical insolen were invented under attempted communism I mean things can be said about both sides. Yeah I've been trying to keep up with this whole china thing its a mess really, issue is they kind of cant devalue the yuan right now because their economy is growing fast, too fast. They need to slow down their economy before lowerng the yuan or they will have huge credit bubles and such.
Now thinking on it, hardly anyone even votes for third parties for a presidential office to begin with.
How so is the labour theory of value almost complete nonsense? I find it interesting but however Marxism is incomplete to an extent there are so many more things to take into mind in modern society and usually somebody either screws it up or kinda starts good then goes down in flames, nobody has reached communism however I do not believe for one second that it isnt possible, and I'll be honest I've read the manifesto and many other books on and about communism multiple times, Ive even begun reading theroies and such on economics and I still do not fully understand communsim. Nobody is ever going to uniformly agree on such things especially what country represents communism. What eaxactly do you mean communist intellectuals have not been tried? Do you mean in a sense of the court of law, or in the sense that their intellect is not being pressed hard enough? Yeah I thought the more commonly agreed upon deaths were estimated at 30million. Oh yeah it was a failed policy and yes I do think that is a serious issue that such a policy went horribly wrong.
It dosent outlaw private property in the sense that if you purchase a car or something it belongs to everyone it outlaws private property in the sense that a factory or a farm are owned by the people who work there. I think some of the issue with some of Marxist theory is how old it is, economics have changed greatly from his time to today but there are still some viable and interesting things he says.
umm bluntman I tink you have Marx greatly misunderstood.
True the benefits are obvious, however there is also a darker aspect to it (what is good without an evil) 1. you have to understand that the corporate ladder can be pretty ruthless at times especially in heavily contested areas, I dont mind seeing someone encouraged through promotion to become more productive and valuable but somethings could use a change.
Yeah capitalism does still reward technological achivements however I think my biggest thing is this, take for example you can do Job A or Job B. You absolutely love Job A its what you always wanted to do, but it's pay is absolutely horrendus compare to Job B and Job B has better promotion opportunities and benefits, are you still truly going to stick with Job A?
I'm not too educated on Scotsman, well yes I am very well aware of deaths and bad things that have been caused by attempted communism, however on that note there has also been achivements brought by it, well I wont deny that it is communism per se however has a true communism ever been reached? Also with capitalism I have met some people who do the exact same thing, so neither side is truly safe on that note.
ShadowZetki wrote:
That serves as no relevancy period.
Of course it does. See, you posted here in order to seek the opinions of others who also post here. I'm one of the more prolfici posters on this segment of the board, so it follows that I am included in that particular set. As such, we can conclude that anything I might post is relevant to the matter at hand, given that I am a part of set you described in the original post.
ShadowZetki wrote:
...I feel the need to keep comming back to this topic to see what others have to say.
And further evidence of the above.
ShadowZetki wrote:
True they do not require communism but they do require some amount of socialism (and whoever keeps saying obama is a socialist please stop saying that it really isnt true)
Obama is a socialist, as are most residents of the US, whether or not they know it. He enacted socialist policy via healthcare reform. You can argue that being a socialist isn't bad, but pretending that Obama isn't one is just nonsense.
ShadowZetki wrote:
(what is good without an evil)
Good. That should be obvious.
ShadowZetki wrote:
Yeah capitalism does still reward technological achivements however I think my biggest thing is this, take for example you can do Job A or Job B. You absolutely love Job A its what you always wanted to do, but it's pay is absolutely horrendus compare to Job B and Job B has better promotion opportunities and benefits, are you still truly going to stick with Job A?
If you really do love it, then yes. If not, then you didn't love it. This is like philosophy 101 dude.
Lets agree to disagree on the obama thing, an argument like that would simply end in (man I love those things)
I guess to a degree it has relevancy seeing how it is your opinion however can we not compare communism to a picture of obama naked riding a unicorn?
It should be obvious to all really.
I dunno I think for most people the profit motive is the defining factor which saddens me, me personally I'd take Job A perhaps you would too, but I have a much the majority would pick B
Of course it does. See, you posted here in order to seek the opinions of others who also post here. I'm one of the more prolfici posters on this segment of the board, so it follows that I am included in that particular set. As such, we can conclude that anything I might post is relevant to the matter at hand, given that I am a part of set you described in the original post.
ShadowZetki wrote:True they do not require communism but they do require some amount of socialism (and whoever keeps saying obama is a socialist please stop saying that it really isnt true)
Whatever they require, they have communism, and it is yet another oppressive communist state where people are jailed for criticising government.
Much like how laser eye surgery and artifical insolen were invented under attempted communism I mean things can be said about both sides.
There will always be invention. The issue is the quantity and nature of that innovation. Any government can take its brightest and tell them to fix some medical problem, but it takes an adaptive, market driven system to generate a constant stream of solutions to problems people didn't even realise they could solve.
In the end, the Russians gave up on communism, they saw how the US had prospered while their society had stagnated, because the private sector drives innovation in a way that a state planned economy just cannot do. Do you honestly think the revolution in personal computing could have come from a communist country?
Yeah I've been trying to keep up with this whole china thing its a mess really, issue is they kind of cant devalue the yuan right now because their economy is growing fast, too fast. They need to slow down their economy before lowerng the yuan or they will have huge credit bubles and such.
It's more direct than that. If China floated the yuan freely it would be a lot higher, and as a result Chinese goods would be much more expensive, while imports into China would be much cheaper. The direct result is that Chinese living standards would increase markedly, while ours would drop slightly as we couldn't access such cheap Chinese products. But more importantly, you would see a much closer balance in trade.
How so is the labour theory of value almost complete nonsense?
It completely fails to account for the idea that the organising of labour and resources might be a service with a value of it's own, with it's own market providing a value for that service. For anyone with any training in the most basic level of microeconomics it seems a very big thing to miss.
What eaxactly do you mean communist intellectuals have not been tried?
No, I meant they haven't tried to reconcile communist theory with communist reality. There have been no essays written explaining why communism went down in flames, and why newer models will be different. Just 'that wasn't communism', as if that was enough.
Think of it this way, if you thought plane flights were a great idea but the last dozen planes that were sent up into the sky exploded, wouldn't you wait for someone to write a really convincing piece on how they knew what really went wrong, and how they'll never do that again before you got into a plane?
Do you mean in a sense of the court of law, or in the sense that their intellect is not being pressed hard enough? Yeah I thought the more commonly agreed upon deaths were estimated at 30million. Oh yeah it was a failed policy and yes I do think that is a serious issue that such a policy went horribly wrong.
'Failed policy' refers to an initiative that ends up costing 50% more than planned. When you're talking about 30 million deaths at a minimum 'failed policy' doesn't really cut it. And recent studies have found that at least 10% of the deaths were from persecution - people deliberately killed because the upset the wrong government officials.
It dosent outlaw private property in the sense that if you purchase a car or something it belongs to everyone it outlaws private property in the sense that a factory or a farm are owned by the people who work there.
Umm, yes, I know. I was pointing that out to a poster who made the common mistake in assuming communism meant no-one could own anything, when it simply means no-one can own the means of production.
I think some of the issue with some of Marxist theory is how old it is, economics have changed greatly from his time to today but there are still some viable and interesting things he says.
Marx is certainly interesting and a worthwhile read. The Communist Manifesto remains an excellent, and stunningly predictive, criticism of capitalism. But that doesn't make communism a particularly good idea.
True the benefits are obvious, however there is also a darker aspect to it (what is good without an evil) 1. you have to understand that the corporate ladder can be pretty ruthless at times especially in heavily contested areas, I dont mind seeing someone encouraged through promotion to become more productive and valuable but somethings could use a change.
Dude, I'm on that corporate ladder, I know how political it can get. It is by no means a perfect system, but the alternatives are no better. Communism still has a hierarchy, and more wealth and more status for those who move up, and that is a real problem. But along with that it also has the stifling effect of state control.
Yeah capitalism does still reward technological achivements however I think my biggest thing is this, take for example you can do Job A or Job B. You absolutely love Job A its what you always wanted to do, but it's pay is absolutely horrendus compare to Job B and Job B has better promotion opportunities and benefits, are you still truly going to stick with Job A?
Lots of people do, lots of people don't. But as above, it isn't as though communism is any different - there's still a hierarchy that people look to move up. There's still pay grades.
I'm not too educated on Scotsman, well yes I am very well aware of deaths and bad things that have been caused by attempted communism, however on that note there has also been achivements brought by it, well I wont deny that it is communism per se however has a true communism ever been reached?
That the final stage is impossible to reach is not exactly a selling point. "Look, okay, so lots of people have died, but if we try again then this time maybe we'll figure out how to reach utopia" is a seriously bad idea.
Also with capitalism I have met some people who do the exact same thing, so neither side is truly safe on that note.
Sure, capitalism has also gotten people killed. The Irish and Indian famines, for instance. The difference is that capitalism has produced prospering economies that form the backbone on nations people actually want to live in. Communism has not.
ShadowZetki wrote:
I guess to a degree it has relevancy seeing how it is your opinion however can we not compare communism to a picture of obama naked riding a unicorn?
It should be obvious to all really.
If you think its obvious its because you aren't thinking.
My utilitarianism professor told me that on the first day of my first college class.
ShadowZetki wrote:
I dunno I think for most people the profit motive is the defining factor which saddens me, me personally I'd take Job A perhaps you would too, but I have a much the majority would pick B
So they dreamed of profit, and not a certain sort of job. Why is that bad?
dogma wrote:Obama is a socialist, as are most residents of the US, whether or not they know it. He enacted socialist policy via healthcare reform. You can argue that being a socialist isn't bad, but pretending that Obama isn't one is just nonsense.
Which is really just playing games with the extreme flexibility of the term 'socialist'. Yes, in the sense that any level of intervention in the market for the purpose of greater equity is socialism, then anyone who supports any level of welfare or progressive taxes is socialist.
In the sense in which socialism is used in the common charge 'Obama is a socialist'... not so much.
Kragura wrote:
Communism is stupid is not a compelling argument.
Its actually not an argument at all. Its an axiom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
In the sense in which socialism is used in the common charge 'Obama is a socialist'... not so much.
I mean, in the US 'socialist' means 'communist' so I'll agree with you on that, but I'm not terribly interested in granting credence to the predilections of the plebes.
I might be reading what you have typed on that part wrong, I'm sorry.
Yeah the Soviet Union collapsed (though I wouldnt exactly say I was a fan of stalin to begin with and the Bolshevik party had just lost itself along the way) Thing is I never believed any attempt at communism or and communism is meant to survive on a wartime economy, although I might be wrong on that one because I'm a pacifist. Well to be honest yes I do believe a revolution in personal computing could have happened in a communist country.
True, I just want this whole currency issue to be resolved in a peaceful manner.
Microeconomics? Umm sorry I'm not educated in that aspect I should study that though it sounds interesting.
Oh okay now I see, hmm cant say Ive seen anyone do that although I'd like to be one such individual to do so I'm starting to think my ideals of communism far differ from most other communists ideas, or on the other hand I might need to keep studying this.
Okay trying to keep up sorry I'm only runnin off a cup of coffee, well failed policy, murder technically go hand in hand to some degree. That I shall not deny.
Oh I know I was agreeing with you and also talking to the other poster.
Well it also does give credit to capitalism for certain aspects as well. Well that dosent make it a bad idea, socialism is not dead by any means yes the fall of the berlin wall did mark the end of an empire but not the end of an idea surely someone will eventually refine the ideals with viable proof.
Yeah, but on a same note what alternatives are there? As far as I have seen I do not much in the way of an alternative.
Unfortunately that is indeed the case however from my understanding under a socialist society you are to be payed based on the quality of your productivity.
I never said the final stage is impossible to reach.
Last I checked during the current world issues I think both are on the same line as far as prospering economies go at this moment. But it's too early to tell right now during all of this. However in previous situations yes capitalism has had prosperous economies.
ShadowZetki wrote:
And why is there a picture of obama naked riding a unicorn?
Because Communism is stupid?
Because this thread is stupid? Because the 'debate' is stupid? I mean, take your pick....
I think I should have ended this the second most people were posting old dated jokes that I couldnt understand (that and the pic of obama riding a unicorn naked was just plain creepy) How exactly do I end this thread? Cause I have sent 1 or 2 PMs to the mod who had posted here asking him to close this
Kragura wrote:I thought axiom was a self evident truth every one agreed on, such as the sky is blue that was the basis of a debate,such as why is the sky blue.
The sky is blue only holds as long as a majority believe it. When the majority believe it to be green, then it is green. This does not count the minority believing that it's red.
Reality only requires a majority to hold it as reality whilst a sizable minority can disagree with the perception.
well I guess your right there, didn't Descartes figure this out, that the only truly self evident truth is that we exist? however the sky being blue is pretty much as close as we can get to another absolute truth., if we were to deny that it is blue because we cant be sure then nothing can ever be believed again.
I think Communism is doomed to fail, even if 'done correctly', due to the fact that it focuses primarily on the material aspects of existence while completely ignoring the spiritual needs of man.
Obama is riding the Unicorn because it was the Pegasus' day off.
Kragura wrote:well I guess your right there, didn't Descartes figure this out, that the only truly self evident truth is that we exist? however the sky being blue is pretty much as close as we can get to another absolute truth., if we were to deny that it is blue because we cant be sure then nothing can ever be believed again.
The sky isn't actually blue. It is clear. However, due to the optical properties of our atmosphere and the particulate mater suspended in it and the nature of our sun, the sky does indeed appear, at times, to be blue. The sky itself, as stated, is not actually blue.
Kragura wrote:well I guess your right there, didn't Descartes figure this out, that the only truly self evident truth is that we exist? however the sky being blue is pretty much as close as we can get to another absolute truth., if we were to deny that it is blue because we cant be sure then nothing can ever be believed again.
The sky isn't actually blue. It is clear. However, due to the optical properties of our atmosphere and the particulate mater suspended in it and the nature of our sun, the sky does indeed appear, at times, to be blue. The sky itself, as stated, is not actually blue.
The other absolute truth is we all physically die.
Khornholio wrote:The other absolute truth is we all physically die.
Death and taxes...
To return slightly to the topic; some state control of the basics of modern life can be good - fuel (electricity, petrol, gas, oil etc), public transport, support infrastructure (phones, internet, roads, rail lines, etc), taxes and so on.
However, this should be supported and supporting a private sector (which typically is the driving force behind new products and so on). When the public sector controls everything and everyone is employed by it, weath and value gets progressively harder to create until you have a completely planned society.
Well then...we've laughed, we've cried... some of us might even have died a little on the inside. And yet the world still turns, the nights still draw in like some great dark cold thing, and Megan Fox is still married and feuding with Linda Carter over Wonder Woman ! What's that all about then eh ? Goddamned fishsticks melted all over my Weekly World News again ! No secrets left in the home of the free !
..is there anything out there to save us...wait ! Yes there is...
