Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Nationalism played a significant role in both world wars, and a lot of other wars besides.

Ok, I agree. I'm just not counting "nationalism" as a form of government. I mean, as far as causing great death, how about "intolerance" or "greed" or "hatred" or other more basic impulses? Clearly they're present in virtually every death.

So, to be clear (because I wasn't) I'm saying that Communism is the political system responsible for the most death in human history, and it did it a comparitively brief period of time, albeit at a time when there was a lot more people around to kill.

Because capitalism is beneficial when done right, when taken to the extreme it’s laissez faire and then you get dead people. In the same way socialism is beneficial when done right, but taken to extreme it’s communism and then you get dead people.

To me it's strange to say this... On the theoretical level, I can see the argument, and understand why you make it... But then there's reality, and it doesn't agree with you.

Clearly extremism is almost always bad. Extreme laissez faire would be bad, as is Communism. The problem is that Communism has a good 100 million bodies to its credit, and laissez faire capitalism does not. Furthermore, laissez faire capitalism has evolved into what the first world is today. Communism has evolved into collapse, Cuba and China.

It's as I said earlier, eventually the theories have to be discarded, and you have to look at the actual events. You have to say "ok, we KNOW Communism is a horrible mass killing failure. Why?"

Also, while all that was going on minorities, the handicapped and undesirables were being rounded up into workcamps.

Right, but this is about insanity, not about success. It actually COSTS money to do this, it's not like you get free labor and everything is great. Instead you get people who hate you, who you have to spend a lot of money to keep contained.

So, I'm not saying the Nazis were GOOD by any stretch. They were horrible. But they did oversee a huge boom in the German economy, and while it certainly was financed by debt, that's the same thing that the US did at the same basic time, and we came out of it with a huge period of prosperity.

So you don't consider yourself to be under government 'control'?

It's all by degrees. In Soviet Russia, they tell you where to live, where to work, what to think, what to wear. In the US they just tell you that you have to wear SOMETHING, and if you're at the beach, barely even that.

Yes we're all under control. But come on.

Communism has only historically been tried in corrupt and unstable nations such as china and the soviet union, both of which had historically weak and harsh forms of governance that were prone to violence against their own peoples anyway.

No question, all the places that have turned to Communism were pretty brutal places to begin with. But that brings two points to mind:

First, Communism is so transparently controlling, oppressive and dictatorial, that only people who are already in that situation will even consider it.

Second, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that Communism turned brutal, repressive countries into INSANELY brutal and repressive countries. The Tsars weren't the kindest and gentlest people, but they were looking to change and modernize even as the revolutionaries murdered them. And then the body count increased by several orders of magnitude in short order.

Take a look at the death of Alexander II. The lunacy of communism had already infected the Russian populace, and even when leadership attempted to give the people a better life, they just HAD to have their idiot revolution. Still, this gives a picture of just how "brutal and repressive" the monarchy was. They were looking to create a parliament, democratic reforms, etc. All Communism did was halt that progress, assure that something a hundred times worse would come about, and would last for a good 50 years and 30 million dead.

So, basically, while your facts are correct, your conclusions aren't. Communism doesn't have a history of near total failure because the people who try to implement it are bad people... On the contrary, it has a history of near total failure because it's an awful, awful system, and only bad people are stupid and damaged enough to think it will work.

To me it's strange to say this... On the theoretical level, I can see the argument, and understand why you make it... But then there's reality, and it doesn't agree with you.

Clearly extremism is almost always bad. Extreme laissez faire would be bad, as is Communism. The problem is that Communism has a good 100 million bodies to its credit, and laissez faire capitalism does not. Furthermore, laissez faire capitalism has evolved into what the first world is today. Communism has evolved into collapse, Cuba and China.

It's as I said earlier, eventually the theories have to be discarded, and you have to look at the actual events. You have to say "ok, we KNOW Communism is a horrible mass killing failure. Why?"

I take it you've never studied history before 1940. Why don't you check colonial africa, south america, north america, or asia as run under the western colonialist empires. Go ahead. I'll wait.

So, basically, while your facts are correct, your conclusions aren't.

The vast majority of the people that died during the cultural revolution died to the failures of implemented collectivist farming and the slow rehabilitation that that system received. Don't tell me that my facts are correct but my conclusions are wrong when you've managed to strike out on both counts please. Stalinist Soviet Governance was not communism. It did not function like communism, it was not run like communism. It was a collectivist industrial totalitarianism with a strong police state. You are drawing conclusions from a scant two cases and claiming that these are the nature of communism. That is foolish. That is not marxist communism, nor was it from the start. You blame communism for totalitarianism when you should be blaming totalitarianism for itself. Saddam was a president in a capitalist system and managed to kill millions of his own people (With a far cry from the populations of either china or russia). America was a firmly capitalist colony and state when it systematically committed genocide on the natives of south America, and colonial africa was a collection of massive slave states existing for the pure profit of their respective states. The congolese live in a "Democracy", funny how well it's going for them. You have yet to actually attempt to combat communism as a form of governance or argue against any of the ideals laid out by marx or other philosophers. You've pointed to a failure rate, which while significant, is erroneous.

Communism doesn't have a history of near total failure because the people who try to implement it are bad people... On the contrary, it has a history of near total failure because it's an awful, awful system, and only bad people are stupid and damaged enough to think it will work.

Communism has a historical failure rate because in 100% of cases it was instituted in a destitute and economically dead country after a bloody revolution. Quite a few people died in the American and french revolutions too you know. One hundred years of trials and tribulations later it turned out to be a success. Chinas "communist" (they are still not communist, they are dictatorial beuracracies with direct state control of many forms of private enterprise) economy is on track to rival most western nations in real purchasing power within 40 years. India with all it's lovely and ludicrously corrupt and beuracratic free state democratic controls is lagging far behind.

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Name a country that hasn't had a bloodbath.

As state policy?

You'd be hard-pressed to find one that hadn't had bloodbath as a state policy. The USA? Check. Australia? Check. Most of Asia? Check. Most of Europe? Check. Most of Africa? Check.

This isn't a trait of communist societies, it's a trait of human societies.

Not their own citizens, but whatever, I don't give a gak. If you like it, I strongly suggest you diligently work for your nation to become communist.

American Civil War.

Frazzled wrote:How do you think the communist state has to form? It needs a dictatorship. That comes from Marx himself.

No, that's Leninism, not Marxism. When Marx speaks of the dictatorship of the proletariat he using it in a sense which is akin to the tyranny of the majority postulated by Plato; ie. it is not to be thought of as one man with absolute control. Instead, the phrase denotes nothing more than the fact that ultimate authority will be vested in the proletariat. It isn't a literal dictatorship in the sense that you're using the word. In fact, it cannot be by the very definition of 'dictatorship'. If that's what you believe Marx was saying, then you don't understand Marx.

As I said much earlier, Marxist communism has the potential to share a great deal with democratic political theory when considering political methodology; its simply the economic methodology which differs. Indeed, Marx praised the Paris Commune for its use of universal suffrage in determining its leadership.

Frazzled wrote:
It never evolves beyond the wholesale killing stage. People who believe otherwise are kidding themselves or willfully ignorant.

Yes, that's what happened with Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maoism. There has never been a Marxist state, because Karl Marx never explicitly described how such a state would form. In fact, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maosim are all attempts to fill in the gap between Marx's general ideas and the practical act of revolution and governance.

ShumaGorath wrote:It did not function like communism, it was not run like communism.

There's this as well. Communism is the end result of a transitional process involving the dictatorship of the proletariat. Moreover, the only places in which something approximating a dictatorship of the proletariat has existed have been democratic nations.

I take it you've never studied history before 1940.

So standard with you. Now this is me politely receiving your standard ad hominem and requesting that you stop saying crap like this to me, at least. It does nothing for me, except make me dislike you, and quite frankly, I thought Inglourius Basterds was a great film, so I WANT to like you.

If you disagree, just state your point. No need for the categorical dismissal of everything the other person has said due to obviously inferior schooling.

Why don't you check colonial africa, south america, north america, or asia as run under the western colonialist empires.

None of which resulted in 100 million deaths alone, and probably not even combined. Communism caused a loss of life on a scale unlike anything we've seen before.

As I also already mentioned, and Frazz alluded to, it is unusual in terms of the inward direction of the violence. Human societies coming into conflict and lives being lost is as old as human societies. The systematic destruction of ones own populace on a massive scale for the purpose of terror and demographic reshuffle is new to Communism.

Stalinist Soviet Governance was not communism.

This is a common defense of Communism, and it's wrong. You can't say "anything that's not good isn't communism." The fact is Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc. all these cats were trying to implement Communism, they were talking about it, they all were students of Marx.

The fact that what happened wasn't what Marx described, doesn't mean it's not "Communism." On the contrary, what it means is that what Communism is "supposed" to be, and what it actually turns out to be, are different things.

Let's say I come up with a political system called "Anarchosweetness." The way it works, is there are no rules and then everyone lives happily ever after. Ok, so first, no rules. Then chaos and death ensue. Oh, well that's not Anarchosweetness, see, cause in Anarchosweetness, everyone lives happily ever after! I win!

You don't get to write the outcome into what you're doing, and then disavow the results if you fail. If you fail, you fail. And if EVERYONE who tries to do this thing fails, then the very nature of that thing is one of failure.

You are drawing conclusions from a scant two cases and claiming that these are the nature of communism.

Yeah, if it was 2 out of 120, with the other 118 being great successes. Trouble is, it's 2 out of about 7, and 7 out of 7 were dismal failures.

Chinas "communist" (they are still not communist, they are dictatorial beuracracies with direct state control of many forms of private enterprise) economy is on track to rival most western nations in real purchasing power within 40 years. India with all it's lovely and ludicrously corrupt and beuracratic free state democratic controls is lagging far behind.

More of this "if it's not awesome it's not Communism" stuff. The Chinese are Communist. They're not "dictatorial."

They're the only even marginally successful implementation, and that's after 60 million dead, and then eventually creating pockets of free enterprise in order to overcome the inherant weaknesses of Communism.

That said, you're right, the Chinese are doing very well for themselves. But here's a prediction: within 40 years they won't be Communist anymore, because as soon as you actually bring prosperity to a population, they lose interest in living like sheep. Even the Chinese.

Communism is the end result of a transitional process involving the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Well, that's how Marx felt it would come about. That's not what it is. I'll defer to wikipedia:

Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.

That's how I've been viewing it all along, because I read that long ago, and considered it valid. As has been pointed out, you could certainly have a democratic process to manage the operation of the state. But, you could also have a dictatorship, or a system of Soviets, or whatever.

It's all still Communism.

If you've got a classless system of communal ownership, that's Communism. All other details are specific forms of Communism, but still Communism. Just because the leadership is dictatorial or brutal, that doesn't make it not Communism.

Now, clearly, nowhere in that definition does it say "kill off 60 million people." So that's not part of the definition. But when it happens every friggin time, I'd say it's only the most ideologically zealous that don't accept that there's a pattern, and ask why that pattern is so consistent.

As I've said, I think there's a massive danger to the destruction of respect for the individual, and I think Communism seeks to explicitly do just that. That's why the result is mass death.

Phryxis wrote:The systematic destruction of ones own populace on a massive scale for the purpose of terror and demographic reshuffle is new to Communism.

Fascism did the same concurrently.

Phryxis wrote:
This is a common defense of Communism, and it's wrong. You can't say "anything that's not good isn't communism." The fact is Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc. all these cats were trying to implement Communism, they were talking about it, they all were students of Marx.

That's true, but Marx would not have called any of those states communist. Indeed, none of those states would have called themselves communist. They would have called themselves proletarian dictatorships, though they would be wrong to do so.

Phryxis wrote:
The fact that what happened wasn't what Marx described, doesn't mean it's not "Communism." On the contrary, what it means is that what Communism is "supposed" to be, and what it actually turns out to be, are different things.

Strictly speaking, it means that the transition from a dictatorship of the proletariat to a stateless, post-scarcity society (what Marx would call Communism) cannot be accomplished by force alone, if at all. It looks like you two are hung up on a terminological dispute in which one is arguing from a position regarding communism as defined by Marx, and the other arguing from a position of communism as defined by the Parties formed (ostensibly) in the pursuit of Marx's communism.

Phryxis wrote:
Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.

That's how I've been viewing it all along, because I read that long ago, and considered it valid. As has been pointed out, you could certainly have a democratic process to manage the operation of the state. But, you could also have a dictatorship, or a system of Soviets, or whatever.

It's all still Communism.

If a state exists, then it isn't a classless system. Marx makes a distinction between communism, and the transitional state which precedes it. There has never been a communist nation in the sense that 'communist' refers to a classless society in which property is commonly controlled. However, there have been communist nations in the sense that they have been controlled by social movements that advocated the creation of the former example.

How did this get turned into a debate about whether certain outcomes in a communist state are inevitable or not? What does a comment about unemployment checks and the OPs opinion of that comment have to do with communism?

To drag this kicking and screaming back on topic....While I think the idea that you can make a blanket statement that unemployment checks are the fastest way to create jobs is ridiculous, I don't understand why it is an issue anyhow. I never thought that the point of unemployment was to stimulate the economy, rather, I thought it was about providing for living expenses while someone is trying to find a job.

Frazzled wrote:I have, actually.

Then you'd be well aware that Marx' dictatorship of the proletariat didn't use the commonly understood meaning of dictatorship, but used it to refer to any kind of revolutionary government that had the majority support of the population. You would be aware that Marx gave little detail of the actual form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but did recommend the Paris Commune as a decent model, and that the Paris Commune fairly closely matched the modern idea of direct democracy.

Which would make your earlier comment nonsensical. But you've read Marx, so you'd know that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Not their own citizens, but whatever, I don't give a gak. If you like it, I strongly suggest you diligently work for your nation to become communist.

See, now you've gone and forgotten what discussion is about again. This thread has become a discussion of communism, more specifically what's wrong with communism. You've come in and said a few things about why you think communism is bad, and other posters have pointed out that they think you're in error.

That doesn't mean they like communism, or that they want to reform their nation under communist ideals. It just means that they think your reasons for criticising communism are wrong. From there, in a discussion, you would recognise concede some points, clarify or substantiate others, and criticise the points of other posters if necessary. However, you just tried to pretend the other posters like communism - that isn't discussion, that's poo-flinging.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Wait you think something on the OT reaches the level of a debate? That explains a lot.

Well, I was enjoying my conversation phryxis.

But yes, OT threads rarely reach the level of debate. You're not helping that.

Fascism did the same concurrently.

That's a good point, technically it did.

On the other hand, I'm not sure the Nazis felt it was "their own populace." In their estimation the Jews were an external enemy, and they were killing them regardless of nationality.

Still, motivation is only part of the equation, and you're right. I had considered the "final solution" as I described above, and thus didn't include it. I was lumping it in with the numerous genicides that have taken place throughout history.

In that respect, I still think the Communist internal purges are somewhat unique. I'm not aware of situations where such ruthless re-orgnization took place along those sorts of lines. Certain religious or ethnic groups are targetted, but never before has a huge cross section of the population been "discarded" as happenend under Mao.

This is the "human being as property/resource of the state" thing that seems endemic to all large scale Communist implementations we've seen.

Indeed, none of those states would have called themselves communist.

They tended most often to say "socialist" and I've never really understood why that appealed to them.

It looks like you two are hung up on a terminological dispute in which one is arguing from a position regarding communism as defined by Marx, and the other arguing from a position of communism as defined by the Parties formed (ostensibly) in the pursuit of Marx's communism.

Absolutely the case. I have no problem with discussing what Marx hoped Communism would be, and on that subject it seems as if Shuma is well informed.

The problem I have is when people pretend that Marx's hopes and dreams have any bearing on reality. Marx had a path and result that he felt Communism would take and result in. Turns out, in real life when people try to do Communism you get horror.

Honestly, if it REALLY matters to people, we can say that Stalin/Mao/Castro/Pol Pot didn't actually do Communism. All I'm saying is that every time it's been tried, it's resulted in horror. I would suggest that we should not try it any more, and anybody that suggests we should is not to be trusted.

So, I've been saying "Communism always goes badly." If people object to that, but can accept "trying to get to Communism always goes badly," then I can accept that too.

I'm not here to rally more hatred on Stalin/Mao/Castro/Pol Pot. I think everyone knows just what inhuman scum these people are. What I'm more interested in is living in a world where we have the sense to never try Communism ever again.

I get very nervous when I see people trying to defend Communism, as if defending it is going to benefit us in any way. I get VERY nervous when I hear about self-proclaimed Marxists in Obama's sphere of influence, and people he works with favorably quoting Mao. To me it's a bit terrifying that the ideas of Marx/Mao and others haven't been completely dismissed as viable options.

If a state exists, then it isn't a classless system.

I don't follow.

However, there have been communist nations in the sense that they have been controlled by social movements that advocated the creation of the former example.

Again, this goes back to my previous point... If it Communism never materialized in a fashion that fits your definition, then so be it. I just don't want to walk down that road. Whether people get to the end of it or not, the ditches get filled with bodies along the way.

Phryxis wrote:Ok, I agree. I'm just not counting "nationalism" as a form of government. I mean, as far as causing great death, how about "intolerance" or "greed" or "hatred" or other more basic impulses? Clearly they're present in virtually every death.

So, to be clear (because I wasn't) I'm saying that Communism is the political system responsible for the most death in human history, and it did it a comparitively brief period of time, albeit at a time when there was a lot more people around to kill.

Well, then I'd say 'nationalist governments' because that describes the WWII governments of Germany and Japan, and that's a whole load of people dead right there. You could then add in most, if not all, of the major participants in WWI, then go on to describe how nationalism played a major role in colonialism, and you'd have accounted for a whole lot of dead people.

To me it's strange to say this... On the theoretical level, I can see the argument, and understand why you make it... But then there's reality, and it doesn't agree with you.

Clearly extremism is almost always bad. Extreme laissez faire would be bad, as is Communism. The problem is that Communism has a good 100 million bodies to its credit, and laissez faire capitalism does not. Furthermore, laissez faire capitalism has evolved into what the first world is today. Communism has evolved into collapse, Cuba and China.

But as I said before, we don't have a straight capitalist system. We have a capitalist system moderated by social policy. The extremes of capitalism and socialism are very bad, but elements of each, moderated by the other, are good.

Compared to fascism, which is always bad. Do you see my point now?

So, I'm not saying the Nazis were GOOD by any stretch. They were horrible. But they did oversee a huge boom in the German economy, and while it certainly was financed by debt, that's the same thing that the US did at the same basic time, and we came out of it with a huge period of prosperity.

Sure, Keynesian economics are solid. Which is why it blows my mind when people keep going on about how deficit spending can't stimulate the economy. But stimulus spending is achievable by any government, and the rest of fascism is so abhorrent I really don't see the value in picking out that trivial element as something achieved by one fascist government, given other fascist governments achieved no similar success.

More importantly, the USSR industrialised incredibly over a few short decades, and they weren't just stimuluating existing capacity, they were reforming their economy. A planned economy can actually be used to industrialise an agricultural economy very quickly.

It's all by degrees. In Soviet Russia, they tell you where to live, where to work, what to think, what to wear. In the US they just tell you that you have to wear SOMETHING, and if you're at the beach, barely even that.

Umm, they didn't people where to work or what to wear in Soviet Russia. You're right that the level of government control was substantially greater, but it wasn't like you describe.

Take a look at the death of Alexander II. The lunacy of communism had already infected the Russian populace, and even when leadership attempted to give the people a better life, they just HAD to have their idiot revolution. Still, this gives a picture of just how "brutal and repressive" the monarchy was. They were looking to create a parliament, democratic reforms, etc. All Communism did was halt that progress, assure that something a hundred times worse would come about, and would last for a good 50 years and 30 million dead.

Except there really wasn't a revolution, the Bolsheviks had no general support. It was a coup, basically, that only survived because Lenin and Trotsky ran a skillful defence, and the collected forces of the Whites were disorganised and generally incompetent.

In Cuba and in China they had something closer to revolutions, but they were based more on the unpopularity of their governments than a genuine support for Communism. It's actually one of the biggest issues with Communism, Marx assumes the proletariat itself will rise up and embrace Communism, but the theory really has no truck with them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:That's a good point, technically it did.

On the other hand, I'm not sure the Nazis felt it was "their own populace." In their estimation the Jews were an external enemy, and they were killing them regardless of nationality.

The first targets of the Nazis were the communists and labour activists. And yeah, everyone finds a reason to make their scapegoats an 'external enemy' before sending them to the camps. To Stalin, the 'counter-revolutionaries' were as external as the Jews were to the Nazis.

This is the "human being as property/resource of the state" thing that seems endemic to all large scale Communist implementations we've seen.

The materialism of communism tends to lead to making people a resource. Fittingly, as per the argument I've been making in this thread, people as a resource is also a feature of extreme capitalist societies.

Which is my point, really, any government led by ideology first and practicality second is going to end up dehumanising it's population, and that will likely get a pile of people killed.

They tended most often to say "socialist" and I've never really understood why that appealed to them.

The socialist state is the stepping stone on the way to the communist state. The actual communist state is basically a classless utopia. By remaining socialist their governments could say 'alright it sucks now but just wait and we'll get to utopia!'

Honestly, if it REALLY matters to people, we can say that Stalin/Mao/Castro/Pol Pot didn't actually do Communism. All I'm saying is that every time it's been tried, it's resulted in horror. I would suggest that we should not try it any more, and anybody that suggests we should is not to be trusted.

Sort of, but if we were to genuinely follow Marx then we wouldn't be arguing for group action or revolution or any of that stuff. To Marx, the end of capitalism was an inevitability based on the essential nature of communism, just as mercantilism had inevitably led to capitalism.

Note that the communist states of the USSR, China and the rest were not capitalist beforehand. It's a big problem with Marx' predictions that the no capitalist society shifted to a socialist state. The release valve for the extremes of capitalism was not a move to a dictatorship of the proletariat, instead it was moderated socialist reform.

If a state exists, then it isn't a classless system.

Marx saw nations and nationalism as a product of class tension. The final communist state is international.

Well, then I'd say 'nationalist governments'

Right, but I'm saying that "nationalism" is not a form of government. It's more of an attribute of a nation. Any nation of any form of government could still be "nationalist" in temperment.

So it's clearly an aggressive posture, and you're accurate that it's present in many, many losses of life, but so are other adjectives like "aggressive," "imperialist," or just "human."

Compared to fascism, which is always bad. Do you see my point now?

I think I saw it all along... Immoderation is bad, right? I was simply trying to say that immoderate capitalism is still much, much better than immoderated socialism (Communism).

given other fascist governments achieved no similar success.

Spain was fascist for many years after WWII, wasn't it? Until the death of Franco in the 1970s? I'm not really familliar enough with Spanish history, but I was under the impression that it was certainly a better existance than contemporaries in China or the USSR.

Honestly I'm not very happy with the definitions I read for Fascism, nor with my understanding of it. I feel much more comfortable with my understanding of Communism, and the basic definitions of it.

It seems like "Communism" is defined in a pretty simple, clear way, and then has many specific implementations and views. By comparison, the definitions of Fascism seem to be "what Hitler and Mussolini did."

Regardless, you seem very convinced of the surpassing awfulness of Fascism, but based on my reading, I view it as being fairly similar to Communism in general evilness, and actually better in terms of outcomes for its citizens.

From what I've seen, I'd rather the nation I was living in turned to Fascism than Communism. Of course, I'd prefer that neither happened.

Umm, they didn't people where to work or what to wear in Soviet Russia.

Well, maybe not what to wear, but certainly where to work, no? That's the whole behavior of the managed economy/society. If they didn't tell you where to work, then why wouldn't everyone decide to be a state artist or chocolate taster, or whatever?

I'm far more familliar with China than Russia in this respect, and while China is much, much more open now, it was not as recently as 20 years ago. You go through school, they decide what you're good at, they assign you a job. There was some choice, for example, you might decide to join the military, or not, but they pretty much gave you an assignment, which would include location and job. Also, while China didn't necessarily tell you what to wear, it certainly seemed to end up with a very uniform dress code.

Phryxis wrote:
In that respect, I still think the Communist internal purges are somewhat unique. I'm not aware of situations where such ruthless re-orgnization took place along those sorts of lines. Certain religious or ethnic groups are targetted, but never before has a huge cross section of the population been "discarded" as happenend under Mao.

Well, one thing which is unique to communism is its propensity to look at class as more important than race, nationality, or anything else really. Unfortunately, only communists really see the world in terms of class identity, so a lot of their actions in purging demographics appear as though they are self-inflicted, when the communist may not see it that way.

Additionally, I think the communist focus on class did a great deal to expand the number of people who were susceptible to their purges. It let them find opponents and targets where they didn't necessarily exist simply because the notion of broad class identity was an entirely manufactured concept.

Phryxis wrote:
They tended most often to say "socialist" and I've never really understood why that appealed to them.

Marx considered socialism to be to be essential to the transition to communism, so it fits with the rhetoric.

Phryxis wrote:
The problem I have is when people pretend that Marx's hopes and dreams have any bearing on reality. Marx had a path and result that he felt Communism would take and result in. Turns out, in real life when people try to do Communism you get horror.

Yeah, and it seems that Marx at least had some inkling of that. After all, there's a reason he never really described what the proletarian revolution would be like.

Phryxis wrote:
If people object to that, but can accept "trying to get to Communism always goes badly," then I can accept that too.

What communists always seem to forget is that pretty much every single author after Marx identified post-scarcity as the point at which the proletariat could 'revolt'. And, really, that makes perfect sense. The worker's paradise is one where his labor is his to control because he isn't required to exert himself in the course of mere survival. Of course, that just leaves us to ponder what will bring about the end of scarcity, and whether or not its even something that can come about.

Phryxis wrote:
I get VERY nervous when I hear about self-proclaimed Marxists in Obama's sphere of influence, and people he works with favorably quoting Mao. To me it's a bit terrifying that the ideas of Marx/Mao and others haven't been completely dismissed as viable options.

Well, its hard to entirely dismiss Marx as he is the father of materialist social science, so he's always going to have some influence. To me he's just like any other thinker, he had some good ideas and some bad ones. Unfortunately, his bad ideas were the ones that were readily leveraged by more practical men.

Phryxis wrote:

doma wrote:
If a state exists, then it isn't a classless system.

I don't follow.

Marx's understanding of class was equal parts economic and social. The economic element, the relation to the means of production, was to be equal when considering all member of the commune. If there is a state present to control the means of production, then someone will necessarily have a distinctly different relationship to them when compared to those not in the state. Similarly, people that are part of the state will not have the same social relationship to other members of the commune as people who are not members of the state.

Phryxis wrote:It's as I said earlier, eventually the theories have to be discarded, and you have to look at the actual events. You have to say "ok, we KNOW Communism is a horrible mass killing failure when implemented immediately following a violent revolution in a dead economic system or doesn't lead to massive death and killing but is still only implemented immediately following a violent revolution in a dead economic system. Why?"

Fixed, mostly.

You're looking at and judging the worth and end result of a given economic system when it's only ever been tried out in exactly one kind of political environment, and when that implementation is not, in fact, said economic ystem by definition. Much as the government of any country likes to claim that it is the people, they are not. State owned property is not commonly owned.

sebster wrote:
Marx saw nations and nationalism as a product of class tension. The final communist state is international.

I'm using 'state' in the sense that it is juxtaposed with 'nation'. As I understand it, the final communist 'state' does not actually have a state at all, or at least nothing that would appear comparable to the states we have today.

Phryxis wrote:Right, but I'm saying that "nationalism" is not a form of government. It's more of an attribute of a nation. Any nation of any form of government could still be "nationalist" in temperment.

Communist is also an attribute.

I think I saw it all along... Immoderation is bad, right? I was simply trying to say that immoderate capitalism is still much, much better than immoderated socialism (Communism).

Maybe. Around 20 million Indians would disagree.

Spain was fascist for many years after WWII, wasn't it? Until the death of Franco in the 1970s? I'm not really familliar enough with Spanish history, but I was under the impression that it was certainly a better existance than contemporaries in China or the USSR.

Yeah, up until the 70s. They never managed anything like the economic growth of Nazi Germany. Nor did Mussolini's Italy, nor did Pinochet's Chile. It's fair to say the economic recovery of Hitler's Germany is not indicative of a feature of fascism.

And yeah, it was better than living in Russia in the 30s. It probably wasn't any better than living in Russia in the 70s, or Cuba today. Once Stalin and his ultra-paranoia were removed Communist Russia more or less settled down into being just another oppressive one party state.

Honestly I'm not very happy with the definitions I read for Fascism, nor with my understanding of it. I feel much more comfortable with my understanding of Communism, and the basic definitions of it.

It seems like "Communism" is defined in a pretty simple, clear way, and then has many specific implementations and views. By comparison, the definitions of Fascism seem to be "what Hitler and Mussolini did."

While the Communiusm tangent is entertaining it is OT.

Stimulate:

1.To rouse to activity or heightened action, as by spurring or goading; excite. See synonyms at provoke.
2.To increase temporarily the activity of (a body organ or part).
3.To excite or invigorate (a person, for example) with a stimulant.

In no way does an unemployment check do any of these. It only allows current expedenditures to continue (i.e. Food, rent payment, etc.) It doesn't foster any true growth, it just subsidizes exsistence. A $220 weekly check (or however small it is) doesn't excatly make the unemployed go out and buy anything more than they need.

I will quote Richard A. Ponser concerning tax cuts:

"Windfalls (tax rebates) are to a large extent saved rather than spent. Windfalls are what economists call "transitory" income, as distinct from "permanent"income. If taxes are cut in circumstances that lead people to believe the cut will be permanent, they infer that their permanent income has risen and that they can adjust their standard of living upward-which means spending more. But if the increase in income is transitory, they will have to retrench when the money runs out-a painful adjustment."


Getting off people's backs will help get our country back on track. Tax cuts are reviled because the evil rich might get to keep more of their money, that is an unfortunate collectivist idea that makes good behavior (being productive) a sin, and make being poor and dependent of government virtuous. I know that their are lots of tough situations out there, but punishing the people that are the biggest producers is the wrong thing to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. - Fascism and Communism are heads from the same Hydra. Collectivist ideals that can never be truly achieved no matter how many times they are tried.

They always lead to suffering and loss of liberty. I don't want anyone to work for my benefit, nor should I work for anyone else's benefit. I want to be productive for my own gains and no one else's. I can't do that in our quasi fascistic USA now (which it has been since the 1880's)

Stormrider wrote:
[b]2.To increase temporarily the activity of (a body organ or part).

Stormrider wrote:
In no way does an unemployment check do any of these. It only allows current expedenditures to continue (i.e. Food, rent payment, etc.) It doesn't foster any true growth, it just subsidizes exsistence. A $220 weekly check (or however small it is) doesn't excatly make the unemployed go out and buy anything more than they need.

If we accept that someone receiving unemployment benefits is spending money that they would otherwise not, then it isn't hard to see how the above definition applies.

It seems as though you're conflating growth with with job creation or stimulus, and that's foolish. I'm also unsure as to why you're discussing stimulus, when that wasn't a part of Pelosi's comment.

Stormrider wrote:
I will quote Richard A. Ponser concerning tax cuts:

"Windfalls (tax rebates) are to a large extent saved rather than spent. Windfalls are what economists call "transitory" income, as distinct from "permanent"income. If taxes are cut in circumstances that lead people to believe the cut will be permanent, they infer that their permanent income has risen and that they can adjust their standard of living upward-which means spending more. But if the increase in income is transitory, they will have to retrench when the money runs out-a painful adjustment."

I'll quote Posner too.

I think we needed the Keynesian stimulus (the $787 billion in tax cuts, benefits increases, and public works), although it could have been better designed; and the stress tests, a distant cousin of FDR's bank holiday (during which bank examiners examined the books of the banks and allowed only those adjudged solvent to reopen), apparently have assisted the major banks to obtain additional capital.

Moreover, it is entirely possible that a regular 'windfall' could be perceived as expected income. Just as its possible for a protracted tax cut to be perceived as an incentive to save.

Stormrider wrote:
Tax cuts are reviled because the evil rich might get to keep more of their money, that is an unfortunate collectivist idea that makes good behavior (being productive) a sin, and make being poor and dependent of government virtuous.

If an ideal society is one in which no one benefits from the effort of other, why is it good for people to act productively?

Stormrider wrote:
P.S. - Fascism and Communism are heads from the same Hydra. Collectivist ideals that can never be truly achieved no matter how many times they are tried.

They always lead to suffering and loss of liberty. I don't want anyone to work for my benefit, nor should I work for anyone else's benefit. I want to be productive for my own gains and no one else's. I can't do that in our quasi fascistic USA now (which it has been since the 1880's)

Society, even capitalist society, is based on the concept of working for the benefit of yourself and others. Without the concept of mutually beneficial associations there is little reason to form towns, corporations, or even nations. It even becomes difficult to understand why you would bother with something as basic as reproduction.

I don't like Leeches dogma. As for stimulus in the form of Un-Employment checks, it isn't creating new spending. It's merely replacing already accounted for spending. There's no real stimulus. If we were using stimulus money in the Keyensian way our recession would be over already. That Stimulus bill wasn't stimulus at all. It's a giant slush fund for projects that aren't appropriated for legitimately (which has been ignored for 90 years anyway).

As for perception of a tax rebate or cut. A rebate is a one time thing. Once the money is spent or squirreled away it's gone. A cut lasts much longer and could a permanent reduction in withholdings (if legislated correctly). And since Ponser was speaking in generalities, it's pretty irrelevant how it's percieved but to what it actually is. A cut will always boost consumer spending where as a rebate is a mixed bag.

As per my statement about Productivity. What was normal 150 years ago (having a job, making money, not breaking the law, taking care of your family, not being a government mooch) is not regarded by Politicians or the media as normal. They view every little group of people that have social discrepancies as a group to exploit. To keep them dependent on Government for all their solutions. They'll gladly use these groups to enact legislation that might have good intentions, but in the end hurts more people who aren't in any kind of dire straights since they get to foot the bill. That's what I oppose, a wholesale saddling of the entire nation to solve a problem that is regional in many cases. Let the state take care of it, not the Federal Government.

Look at the "Great Society" and "War On Poverty", those two programs were supposed to erase poverty and keep poor people & minorities from ever being in need. Look what they have done to the Black community, Black men have more incentive to not marry the mother of their kids so the mother can collect more dole from the Government. There's been trillions of dollars dumped into those programs and still nothing has changed. There's still the same underclass from the same demographics.

'War on Poverty'

It is a good clip, NPR usually has interesting guests.

Anyway, I am not following what you are on about Stormrider. If you hate social programs, and think they do more harm then good, I disagree with you. It does seem like many programs have work left to be done, and they need to be run in a more fiscally responsible way. When I read someone who starts a post using terms like 'leeches', then goes on to suggest the 'media' is trying to force people to be lazy... I mean, that is just weird, man.

Welfare queens are an anomaly, and if you disagree with that I suggest doing a bit more research. Alternatively, your boots could simply be put on the ground for the moment, pulling yourself up through powers of levitation is limited by the effects of gravity. I believe the saying should be changed to "you can fly if you pull on your bootstraps enough".




Alternatively...

Stormrider wrote:
As for stimulus in the form of Un-Employment checks, it isn't creating new spending. It's merely replacing already accounted for spending. There's no real stimulus.

Anything that serves to create demand through government spending is stimulus. If unemployment didn't exist, the demand it supports would not exist (as those collecting unemployment would have no individual income) therefore it is stimulus. The fact that it only comes into play in those conditions in which demand begins to fall is irrelevant.

Stormrider wrote:
If we were using stimulus money in the Keyensian way our recession would be over already. That Stimulus bill wasn't stimulus at all. It's a giant slush fund for projects that aren't appropriated for legitimately (which has been ignored for 90 years anyway).

Keynesians argue that deficit spending in periods of recession that feature persistently high unemployment minimizes the potential for the state to crowd the private sector out of the economy, and that the resultant accelerator effect would work to promote general economic growth. This deficit spending can come in the form of tax cuts, subsidies, public works programs, etc. but there is no specific Keynesian methodology of deficit spending outside the establishment of appropriate circumstances for its employ. All you're really saying is that the stimulus must not have been Keynesian because it hasn't performed to your expectations.

Also yes, it was stimulus, no economist in the world would ever claim it wasn't. They might claim that it wasn't administered effectively, or that it wasn't a good idea in the first place, but that doesn't change its fundamental nature.

Stormrider wrote:
As for perception of a tax rebate or cut. A rebate is a one time thing.

Rebates can occur in sequence, and in a way which can be anticipated; in fact that's pretty much the idea behind Friedman's negative income tax. Conversely, tax rates are relevant only in the periods (which can be anything from a short tax holiday to a decade) which they are relevant, there is nothing preventing the state from setting alternate tax rates in subsequent periods. The only thing that ensures the predictability of a given policy is the written language of the bill in which that policy laid down (and the willingness of politicians to avoid repealing or modifying said bill), everything else is little more than perception.

Stormrider wrote:
Once the money is spent or squirreled away it's gone.

This is true of all money, whether placed in the hands of consumers via tax cuts or rebates.

Stormrider wrote:
And since Ponser was speaking in generalities, it's pretty irrelevant how it's percieved but to what it actually is. A cut will always boost consumer spending where as a rebate is a mixed bag.

Any instance in which a given amount of currency is placed in the hands of consumer presents those consumer with the exact same set of choices. The only pertinent variable is the psychology surrounding future expectations, and that was the exact point Posner was making.

Stormrider wrote:
As per my statement about Productivity. What was normal 150 years ago (having a job, making money, not breaking the law, taking care of your family, not being a government mooch) is not regarded by Politicians or the media as normal. They view every little group of people that have social discrepancies as a group to exploit.

That's the nature of politics, as politics is the process by which groups of people make collective decisions.

Also, I'm not sure what political dialogue you're seeing, but I've not seen any indication that having a job is somehow unusual. Hell, most people in the US are employed; meaning that the most basic standard of normalcy (majority) indicates that employment is entirely normal. The same goes for everything in your list.

Stormrider wrote:
Look at the "Great Society" and "War On Poverty", those two programs were supposed to erase poverty and keep poor people & minorities from ever being in need. Look what they have done to the Black community, Black men have more incentive to not marry the mother of their kids so the mother can collect more dole from the Government. There's been trillions of dollars dumped into those programs and still nothing has changed. There's still the same underclass from the same demographics.

After the introduction of The War on Poverty the percentage of people below the poverty line fell from a variant range of 20-25% to 11-15%. You can argue that it didn't cause that drop, but then you have to account for it in an alternative manner; though I've not seen anything which can convincingly dismiss its role altogether.

I don't agree with the whole of the Great Society program, but its hard to argue that it hasn't affected the nation. After all, it included most of the relevant civil rights legislation, and Medicare/Medicaid. The latter of which I will grant has been mismanaged.

Here's a much better Democratic proposal for job-creation:

Alvin Greene wrote:Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids. That’s something that would create jobs.

So you see I think out of the box like that. It’s not something a typical person would bring up. That’s something that could happen, that makes sense. It’s not a joke.

Is that a serious quote?

... just tell me it's a real quote so I can laugh again.

Dude is obviously a martian trying to make his way into earth politics.




lolwut?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-alvin-greene-stimulus-package-create-alvin-greene-action-figures/

Stormrider wrote:They always lead to suffering and loss of liberty. I don't want anyone to work for my benefit, nor should I work for anyone else's benefit. I want to be productive for my own gains and no one else's. I can't do that in our quasi fascistic USA now (which it has been since the 1880's)

Uh huh. Words have meaning, even words as loosely defined as fascism.

Oh, and the the myth of being wholly responsible for one’s own pay cheque is goofy. The modern economy is incredibly inter-connected, you can’t earn a decent wage without relying on the output of tens of thousands of people, who each in turn were only able to produce what they produced because of the inputs of tens of thousands of others. You get to work in a car that had countless people design and manufacture it, which was only possible because of the financing and organisation of a whole host of other people. You leave your car and walk into your building, and it’s the same story, thousands of people worked to make that building. You sit at your computer, same story again. Once your computer is on and your coffee is in your hand, then you start work as a single cog in a massive corporation, where the value of your work is dependant on the input of thousands of others in the company. The final product of that corporation, in turn, is dependant on the outputs of thousands of other companies. That’s the nature of the modern, sophisticated economy, and it is incredibly simplistic to take your pay cheque and assume ‘that’s what I produced, it is all mine by right’.

I don't like Leeches dogma.

Why does ‘leeches’ gets capitalised? Are they some formal, distinct group with subscriptions and weekly meetings and everything? If this is your first time at Leeches Club you have to Leech.

As for stimulus in the form of Un-Employment checks, it isn't creating new spending. It's merely replacing already accounted for spending.

That’s nonsense. The marginal spending habits of people at all manner of different incomes have been studied countless times, and nothing like your claim above has ever been observed. You don’t just get to make things up to suit your ideology, reality doesn’t work that way.

There's no real stimulus. If we were using stimulus money in the Keyensian way our recession would be over already.

Again, that’s nonsense. Stimulus spending doesn’t just end a recession, attempting to spend enough to completely remove a cyclical downturn would fraught with danger, and very likely to overheat the economy. A stimulus program is aimed to reduce the downturn.

That Stimulus bill wasn't stimulus at all. It's a giant slush fund for projects that aren't appropriated for legitimately (which has been ignored for 90 years anyway).

There are legitimate complaints that the funds could have been allocated more effectively. Certainly the tax cuts were of dubious value.

As for perception of a tax rebate or cut. A rebate is a one time thing. Once the money is spent or squirreled away it's gone. A cut lasts much longer and could a permanent reduction in withholdings (if legislated correctly). And since Ponser was speaking in generalities, it's pretty irrelevant how it's percieved but to what it actually is. A cut will always boost consumer spending where as a rebate is a mixed bag.

No, again, that’s nonsense. The benefit of a rebate is that it gets money into the hands of consumers very quickly, they in turn spend the money, this is the quickest way to stimulate demand. This is offset by it having a lower stimulus effect that other forms of spending, most notably infrastructure – however infrastructure spending takes a long time to prepare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:Welfare queens are an anomaly, and if you disagree with that I suggest doing a bit more research. Alternatively, your boots could simply be put on the ground for the moment, pulling yourself up through powers of levitation is limited by the effects of gravity. I believe the saying should be changed to "you can fly if you pull on your bootstraps enough".

That bootstraps thing has always puzzled me. Okay, people say that the poor can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps… but you can’t actually pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

I mean, the US has the lowest rate of social mobility of any developed country, but even there it isn’t impossible to move from the lowest percentiles to a higher status. Its certainly a lot more likely than it is to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

My guess is the phrase came into existence as an exaggerated way to denote that a person had an especially large amount of grit, and so was able to do lift himself up in a way that may have been thought of as impossible. "Ole Billy there was born to a poor coal miner, but he pulled himself up by his bootstraps and became the CEO of Coal Inc in two years!"

So when people are using the phrase, they are suggesting doing the impossible, because Ole Billy did it.

I take it as a phrase used to cover up the lack of understanding and compassion an individual might have. We will breed a race of Rambos any time now, I swear! It is just taking longer than we thought.

To suggest that the impossible is indeed possible, your experiment is going to involve a feth-ton of Icarus' related results. At some point the ocean will fill up with hobos that thought they could fly, and we will all die from disease. Disease from Hobos, killing you. Terrible thought, really.

Along with having way too many dead hobos on our hands. Just can't have it, we need other options. Seriously.

Yeah it's kind of amusing looking at the likes of Rush Limbaugh as an example of bootstrap-economics too isn't it?

Phryxis wrote:No question, all the places that have turned to Communism were pretty brutal places to begin with. But that brings two points to mind:

First, Communism is so transparently controlling, oppressive and dictatorial, that only people who are already in that situation will even consider it.

Second, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that Communism turned brutal, repressive countries into INSANELY brutal and repressive countries. The Tsars weren't the kindest and gentlest people, but they were looking to change and modernize even as the revolutionaries murdered them. And then the body count increased by several orders of magnitude in short order.

Take a look at the death of Alexander II. The lunacy of communism had already infected the Russian populace, and even when leadership attempted to give the people a better life, they just HAD to have their idiot revolution. Still, this gives a picture of just how "brutal and repressive" the monarchy was. They were looking to create a parliament, democratic reforms, etc. All Communism did was halt that progress, assure that something a hundred times worse would come about, and would last for a good 50 years and 30 million dead.

So, basically, while your facts are correct, your conclusions aren't. Communism doesn't have a history of near total failure because the people who try to implement it are bad people... On the contrary, it has a history of near total failure because it's an awful, awful system, and only bad people are stupid and damaged enough to think it will work.

I'm not sure how I missed this before. Can someone explain to me why people assume that the communism by nature is dictatorial? It seems to be the main point of disagreement, given that I have no such premises in mind when I think of communism; it's an economics system, not a political system. It can be directly democratic (and this seems to me to be the most favoured form of government by communists locally, though this is largely statistically irrelevant), a representative democracy, a totalitarian regime, a dictatorship...

It has, historically, been not a nice system to live under because the few governments who were attempting to run it were not nice governments. This would have been true no matter what kind of economy they had in place. It does not follow that because a dictatorship or totalitarian regime attempts communism that all who attempt communism will become, or are, dictatorships or totalitarian regimes.

sebster wrote:Okay, people say that the poor can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps… but you can’t actually pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

More importantly, what if I don't have bootstraps, or boots for that matter?

Maybe we stop calling it the welfare state, and start calling it the public cobbler.

itt: idioms, idioms everywhere