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.

Frazzled wrote:This is a thread about communism. Again, where has it been enforced where the people like it better? By people lets just say majority of the population?

When I lived in Eastern Europe I met many, many Eastern Europeans who believed that things were better under communism, and still supported the communist party. They were not the majority, but they were a very large minority (like conservatives in America). And often heard people say that what they objected to about the Soviets was the totalitarianism, the spying, the control of media and the like, none of which they associated with communism.

4M2A wrote:I like the of communism but I think it's downfall is human's faults rather than anything wrong with communism.

I hear this said and it universally seems to me - not meaning to offend - like complete nonsense. Communism is a social/political/economic theory. It is a theory about how people act. If it fails to understand how people act it fails as a theory, just as surely as a cure for a disease in medicine fails if it doesn't accurately assess human physiology. Reality isn't at fault when a theory fails to describe it, the theory is, no matter how wonderful the result of the theory having been accurate may have been.

Imagine a doctor published a paper in which he said skin cancer was caused by having a bad gizzard. You wouldn't say "well it's still a good theory, even though humans don't actually have gizzards. I mean, that's our fault, not his. Think about how great things would be if we didn't have skin cancer!" That would be silly.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

4M2A wrote:I like the of communism but I think it's downfall is human's faults rather than anything wrong with communism.

I hear this said and it universally seems to me - not meaning to offend - like complete nonsense. Communism is a social/political/economic theory. It is a theory about how people act. If it fails to understand how people act it fails as a theory, just as surely as a cure for a disease in medicine fails if it doesn't accurately assess human physiology. Reality isn't at fault when a theory fails to describe it, the theory is, no matter how wonderful the result of the theory having been accurate may have been.

Imagine a doctor published a paper in which he said skin cancer was caused by having a bad gizzard. You wouldn't say "well it's still a good theory, even though humans don't actually have gizzards. I mean, that's our fault, not his. Think about how great things would be if we didn't have skin cancer!" That would be silly.

The end result is what appeals to people.

Utopia. Of course it's not possible, but the idea is nice. You know, like ice cream that doesn't melt or something.

Guitardian wrote:A lot of Cubans, when interviewed back in the 90s, seemed quite happy with their regime. Perhaps they only interviewed a priveliged minority, I don't know, but most people I heard on the 60 minutes special were glad that their state was run the way it was. Castro however has recently claimed that it was more or less steering a sinking ship. With all the sanctions and such there's no way they could have pulled it off in the long run, but for a while they seemed to be happy little commies.

Homeless tribes and Gangs and labor unions are all communistic in their outlook, as are shared housing roommates, the guys from 'accounting' versus the guys from 'HR', nuclear families, and so on. I got along fine in all of the above scenarios, but if the group in question grew too big so as to become impersonal, without a direct connection on a personal level to the person you are helping/being helped by, then the commune idealism starts to break down into resentment. If you work it on a very small level, it is a boon for all involved. Once it becomes state mandated Communism, instead of communalism, you get a mess, as we have seen in the previous posts examples of failed commie regimes.

China does seem to be a functionally growing superpower despite being commies with harsh treatment of dissenters. Will they just collapse and fall like the U.S.S.R. once they have reached the target mark of American TV commercials seen by their public? I dunno about you, but they seem pretty solid to me. We can denounce their harsh legal system and civil rights restrictions, but we can't say they are a 'failed' government when we are the ones borrowing money from them and buying stuff produced over there because its cheaper while we dont produce it at home. Not to say I really like china or anything, but so far, they have been a pretty successful commie establishment and I dont see them getting any weaker.

Not everybody is insatiable AbbadonFidelis, Buddhism has been around far longer than Christ, and their entire culture is based on a paradoxical want to not want.

Of course that was after the Mariel boatlift. Say hello to my little friend!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/mariel-boatlift.htm

Orkeosaurus wrote:

4M2A wrote:I like the of communism but I think it's downfall is human's faults rather than anything wrong with communism.

I hear this said and it universally seems to me - not meaning to offend - like complete nonsense. Communism is a social/political/economic theory. It is a theory about how people act. If it fails to understand how people act it fails as a theory, just as surely as a cure for a disease in medicine fails if it doesn't accurately assess human physiology. Reality isn't at fault when a theory fails to describe it, the theory is, no matter how wonderful the result of the theory having been accurate may have been.

Imagine a doctor published a paper in which he said skin cancer was caused by having a bad gizzard. You wouldn't say "well it's still a good theory, even though humans don't actually have gizzards. I mean, that's our fault, not his. Think about how great things would be if we didn't have skin cancer!" That would be silly.

I think a better analogy would be "we can cure your lung cancer but not if you keep smoking". If people practiced what they preached (many do, but as said before, all it takes is one bad apple) if people walked the walk as well as talking the utopian talk, then yes it would work. I believe the next stage of human evolution will not be a physical one, but an evolution of our ethical and moral responsibilities as self-aware beings. I hope it happens in my lifetime, but so long as we gripe about ownership, lines on maps, and cultural incompatabilities we will continue to live in our enlightened modern dark age, caught between dogmas and rationality.

Gailbraithe wrote: They were not the majority, but they were a very large minority (like conservatives in America).

Do we no longer read polling data?

Gallup wrote:Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.

Gailbraithe wrote:Socialism, defined as worker ownership of the means of production, is the opposite of capitalism, defined as capital ownership of the means of production. (...) Some people will protest that fascists don't believe in the free market, which is true, but capitalism ≠ free market. Two very different ideas really.

The definitions you're using aren't the definitions used by proponents of capitalism. To argue against capitalism as perceived by socialists may not be too difficult, but as you can probably see in this thread, to argue against socialism as defined by capitalists isn't either.

And that's before we reach the socialist/communist distinction.

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote: They were not the majority, but they were a very large minority (like conservatives in America).

Do we no longer read polling data?

Gallup wrote:Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.

Gallup is obviously an arm of the Conservative Fascist Lie Machine.

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote: They were not the majority, but they were a very large minority (like conservatives in America).

Do we no longer read polling data?

Gallup wrote:Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.

40% is a very large minority, dogma. 40% is not a majority.

Guitardian wrote:I think a better analogy would be "we can cure your lung cancer but not if you keep smoking".

Eh, utopian socialism maybe, but not the scientific socialism that most communists saw themselves as subscribers to. They needed to have a system in place. A theory about human action.

(The biggest problem with utopian socialism is that it's sort of a no-brainer. Yeah, if everyone was nice it would be good, okay.)

Edit: I should probably explain a little more fully. I think there's a key difference to be made between the hard theories of socialism and the more squishy ones. Utopian socialism never really came to any sort of power, and honestly, I don't really consider many forms of "utopian socialism" to be socialism at all, because they simply seem too deficient in explanations of how the means of production interact (i.e. they don't really seem to be economic theories). I would consider these people to be anarchists (generally), and collectivists (probably), but not really socialists. While Frazzled was probably joking about marriage being communist, I think I can still use it serve as an example; marriage isn't a "communistic" (or "socialistic") relationship, even if they own things communally, unless they own things communally that are used in the production of other things.

Thus, when socialism (or communism) is discussed I think forms of "scientific socialism" - Marxian or otherwise - are the ones that really need to be addressed. Socialist theories about how the capitalist system works, how it distributes goods, what effect it has on society, how changes made to the capitalist system could effect society, and so forth. In these matters, a socialist (or anybody else) can't afford to be (very) wrong on aspects of human nature, presently or under a proposed system. Human nature is a fundamental part of any of these theories, and these theories are - in accordance with the notion of being scientific - positive, rather than normative, and so cannot be excused from inaccuracy on account of perceived immorality.

However, in retrospect, I may have jumped to conclusions about how 4M2A was defining things (these damn definitions! They're wrecking havoc on the thread!), so for that I apologize, if he thinks me overly critical of him.

Gailbraithe wrote:

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote: They were not the majority, but they were a very large minority (like conservatives in America).

Do we no longer read polling data?

Gallup wrote:Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.

40% is a very large minority, dogma. 40% is not a majority.

You didn't read the link, did you?

"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group right there at the top.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Ah, see I think the bolded part is just a very poor description. I think it doesn't capture the reality at all. I think it would be far more to say that "Modern liberalism allows for a balance between the fascist tendencies of capitalism and the communist tendencies of socialism." When you say that "modern capitalism allows for that balance between liberalism and capitalism" you imply that liberalism is the opposite of capitalism, but it's not at all. Socialism, defined as worker ownership of the means of production, is the opposite of capitalism, defined as capital ownership of the means of production.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, condescending sermons aside, isn't what I said awfully similar to what you say here RE: Liberalism?:

pragmatic government policy to mediate the damaging effects of capitalism while maintaining capitalist property rights.

This suggests a balance to me. Not all 'balances' consist of two opposing forces like a set of scales. How about the sound-field? A graphic equaliser allows you to balance the different frequencies (bass, middle, treble - sometimes subdivided further) in order to produce a desirable sound-field. There's nothing wrong with balancing social liberalism, capitalism and socialism to create a desirable system.

That doesn't disguise the fact that we live in a capitalist hegemony, and that such a system is possible under it.

Meanwhile Fascism is the most capitalist of all systems, as in a fascist government the state takes a direct role in promoting the interest and fortunes of the existing capitalist class. Some people will protest that fascists don't believe in the free market, which is true, but capitalism ≠ free marrket. Two very different ideas really.

This is basically the heart of my point. When people make the argument they would rather live in a capitalist country than a communist country, or some variation on it (such as the "Nobody shoots Americans trying to leave America" rhetoric), they are being a bit disingenuous, because America isn't actually a capitalist society. It's a liberal society with a mix of capitalist and socialist features.

A capitalist society -- one in which only capitalist conceptions of property rights were respected -- would be fascist, if history is any indication. Because all capitalist states that have made no concessions to socialist moral claims have been fascist dictatorships. And that have proven themselves to be every bit as violent, repressive, and bloodthirsty as their communist counter-parts -- though far less successful.

I think you're an essentialist. You seem to believe fervently in the 'essential' nature of political ideology, and as such you seem to drift towards the extreme.

'Believe in capitalism? Fine, that means you believe in social darwinism, the weak preying on the strong, 'wild-west' economics.'
I'm sorry, but that has no basis in reality. Compromise. Balance.

Well, I guess I'm just a better person than you, because I care about how my actions affect everyone they affect. I don't suddenly go blind at the borders.

In all seriousness, you may have a point. I'm an avowed pragmatist. I'm pretty happy with my life. If that means someone-else's life has to suck, then that's sad but so be it. I'm not running for pope here.

But you are trying to claim that the system you prefer is morally superior to this other system.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:Socialism, defined as worker ownership of the means of production, is the opposite of capitalism, defined as capital ownership of the means of production. (...) Some people will protest that fascists don't believe in the free market, which is true, but capitalism ≠ free market. Two very different ideas really.

The definitions you're using aren't the definitions used by proponents of capitalism. To argue against capitalism as perceived by socialists may not be too difficult, but as you can probably see in this thread, to argue against socialism as defined by capitalists isn't either.

The proponent's of capitalism use disingenuous definitions. They perform a bait and switch, substituting free market and trade for capitalism when it suits them, but capitalism ≠ free market ≠ trade.

And since the term capitalism was really invented by socialists, I think its reasonable to use the socialist definition of capitalist. When we speak of capitalists as those who own the means of production we have more clarity than when we speak of capitalists as anyone engaged in trade of any kind. We should be able to draw meaningful distinctions between the capitalist, the mercantilist, the craftsmen, the professional, and skilled and unskilled labor. We can't do that with the definition offered by most proponent's of capitalism, which attempts to obfuscate the problems created by capitalists by hiding the capitalists amongst craftsmen, merchants, and professionals.

I would think it is a slight minority. Perhaps the semanics got misread. 40% is a chunk, but hey Dubyah pulled it off with a (false) 51% didn't he? so on a macro scale 40% seems like a big gap, when it really only comes down to 1% majority/minority to secure an office. I'm glad that 6/10 people I may meet walking down the street are pro-choice and support gay marriage rights and so on. I am likewise glad that 4/10 might want to hand me a bible as a way to reach out and are armed well enough to defend me when I read it. 40% is a big chunk of people, but the problem with partisan politics is that middle ground. 10% is a big gap of middle ground.

Gailbraithe wrote:


40% is a very large minority, dogma. 40% is not a majority.

What? No.

Majority does not necessarily mean 'more than 50%.' Majority necessarily means (ie. minimally) only that there exists a greater quantity of something.

Try again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gailbraithe wrote:
The proponent's of capitalism use disingenuous definitions. They perform a bait and switch, substituting free market and trade for capitalism when it suits them, but capitalism ≠ free market ≠ trade.

And since the term capitalism was really invented by socialists, I think its reasonable to use the socialist definition of capitalist. When we speak of capitalists as those who own the means of production we have more clarity than when we speak of capitalists as anyone engaged in trade of any kind. We should be able to draw meaningful distinctions between the capitalist, the mercantilist, the craftsmen, the professional, and skilled and unskilled labor. We can't do that with the definition offered by most proponent's of capitalism, which attempts to obfuscate the problems created by capitalists by hiding the capitalists amongst craftsmen, merchants, and professionals.

Don't use tautologies, they become no argument.

dogma wrote:Majority does not necessarily mean 'more than 50%.' Majority necessarily means (ie. minimally) only that there exists a greater quantity of something.

The relevant definition:

majority. n.
1 - the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total ( opposed to minority): the majority of the population.

Enjoy being wrong.

No, that isn't the only relevant definition,.

c : the greater quantity or share <the majority of the time>

Source.

I bet that community college education is biting you in the ass right about now.

Kragura wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Tianamen square

Hungary

Chechoslavakia

Romania

etc., etc.

People stand up to Communist society, also.

Quite alto of the people in the Tienanmen square protests, are dead communists who protested the authoritarian government.

Fixed it for you. Let's not forget about how wild the people of Tibet or Cambodia were when the Communists took over. Is it just me, or does it seem whenever the Communists come into power, there is a resulting decline in liberty and the dissenter population?

dogma wrote:No, that isn't the only relevant definition,.

c : the greater quantity or share <the majority of the time>

Source.

I bet that community college education is biting you in the ass right about now.

What an incredibly uncalled for, cheap, and underhanded little personal attack. I would respond in kind, but you would report me to the mods.

Here's the full definition from dogma's source:
a : a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total b : the excess of a majority over the remainder of the total : margin <won by a majority of 10 votes> c : the greater quantity or share <the majority of the time>

Okay, dogma, you're right, one can be very pedantic and argue that 40% is a majority in some cases, however that's a bit different than demonstrating I was wrong in my original statement (because if 40% of people are conservatives, and 60% aren't conservatives, then the majority of people aren't conservatives and conservatives are a minority).

To take a swipe at my education because of some over-wrought twisting of meanings only shows how very shallow, disingenous, and trolling you really are.

Thanks for confirming my feeling that there really is no good reason to ever look under the ignore and read the crap you post.

Also, stop PMing me. Seriously dude, you're freaking obsessed with me. It's creepy.

What was wrong with Dogma's definition, again?

Isn't 40% a greater quantity or share than 21%?

Gailbraithe wrote:
Okay, dogma, you're right, one can be very pedantic and argue that 40% is a majority in some cases, however that's a bit different than demonstrating I was wrong in my original statement (because if 40% of people are conservatives, and 60% aren't conservatives, then the majority of people aren't conservatives and conservatives are a minority).

No, that's not different. You're simply wrong.

It really sucks when your argument cannot be supported by elimination.

Gailbraithe wrote:
To take a swipe at my education because of some over-wrought twisting of meanings only shows how very shallow, disingenous, and trolling you really are.

Thanks for confirming my feeling that there really is no good reason to ever look under the ignore and read the crap you post.

Also, stop PMing me. Seriously dude, you're freaking obsessed with me. It's creepy.

Which one of us demanded credentials from other posters?

It wasn't me, so who might that leave? The person that went to community college?

Monster Rain wrote:What was wrong with Dogma's definition, again?

Isn't 40% a greater quantity or share than 21%?

It is, but it's still not the greatest part of 100% -- and that's what a majority means. That's why when Bill Clinton won in 1992 with 34% of the vote he had the greatest share of votes, but not the majority of votes.

But here's what's really wrong with dogma's definition, here's what shows it to be the pedantic, twisted, and overwrought bit of nonsense that it is. According to dogma's interpretation of "majority" both of the following statements are true:

1. The majority of Americans identify as conservatives.
2. The majority of Americans do not identify as conservatives.

See, that's a paradox. Both of those statements can't be true -- unless you change the definition of "majority" in each statement. But that's disingenuous. It would be far more accurate to say: There are more Americans that identify as conservative than Americans who identify as liberals or moderates, but the majority of Americans do not identify as conservative.

But even if we accept dogma's tortured logic, the idea that he has somehow showed me up, and caught me in an error is laughable. Because, using the conventional, normal and commonly accepted definition of majority, conservative Americans are a minority of Americans -- 60% of Americans are not conservative, which makes conservatives a minority -- which is all I said.

Gailbraithe wrote:
But here's what's really wrong with dogma's definition, here's what shows it to be the pedantic, twisted, and overwrought bit of nonsense that it is. According to dogma's interpretation of "majority" both of the following statements are true:

1. The majority of Americans identify as conservatives.
2. The majority of Americans do not identify as conservatives.

See, that's a paradox. Both of those statements can't be true -- unless you change the definition of "majority" in each statement. But that's disingenuous.

If your definition of majority is consistent with number 2, then you don't need to alter your definition.

G-baby, you really need to familiarize yourself with logical possibility.

Gailbraithe wrote:
It would be far more accurate to say: There are more Americans that identify as conservative than Americans who identify as liberals or moderates, but the majority of Americans do not identify as conservative.

The first statement is highly accurate, the latter is not. Moreover, you should only critique a given argument given its terminological assumptions.

Gailbraithe wrote:
But even if we accept dogma's tortured logic, the idea that he has somehow showed me up, and caught me in an error is laughable. Because, using the conventional, normal and commonly accepted definition of majority, conservative Americans are a minority of Americans -- 60% of Americans are not conservative, which makes conservatives a minority -- which is all I said.

Meriam-Webster is predicated on tortured logic? Wow, I almost assumed it was a common dictionary. Thanks for saving me there, G-baby.

Gailbraithe wrote:

dogma wrote:No, that isn't the only relevant definition,.

c : the greater quantity or share <the majority of the time>

Source.

I bet that community college education is biting you in the ass right about now.

What an incredibly uncalled for, cheap, and underhanded little personal attack. I would respond in kind, but you would report me to the mods.

Here's the full definition from dogma's source:
a : a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total b : the excess of a majority over the remainder of the total : margin <won by a majority of 10 votes> c : the greater quantity or share <the majority of the time>

Okay, dogma, you're right, one can be very pedantic and argue that 40% is a majority in some cases, however that's a bit different than demonstrating I was wrong in my original statement (because if 40% of people are conservatives, and 60% aren't conservatives, then the majority of people aren't conservatives and conservatives are a minority).

To take a swipe at my education because of some over-wrought twisting of meanings only shows how very shallow, disingenous, and trolling you really are.

Thanks for confirming my feeling that there really is no good reason to ever look under the ignore and read the crap you post.

Also, stop PMing me. Seriously dude, you're freaking obsessed with me. It's creepy.

He's never attacked me personally, or far as I'm aware, anyone apart from you. In fact, I find dogma to be one of the more reasonable Dakkites - don't make the mistake of thinking it's because we agree with each other all the time. We rarely interact, but when we do it's civil, even if it's a subject we disagree strongly on. That's pretty much how he seems to conduct himself on here all the time.

It's at this point you need to look in the mirror and try to figure out why you seem to bring out the worst in people. You and I have never interacted before this thread, and the first time you replied to me it was just so unnecessarily rude as to defy belief. You replied as if we'd had countless arguments in the past and this was just the latest round. Why do you feel the need to be so abrasive all the time? I mean, coming here is supposed to be fun - a little banter doesn't hurt anyone, even when people get fairly heated (as I and many others have done on a number of occasions) - but can you honestly say that you're enjoying yourself here? It doesn't seem like it from where I'm sitting. You just seem angry.

I think you should try to re-adjust your attitude to posting here, or just move on. Better to do it voluntarily than to have no say in the matter.

Just saying.

Albatross wrote:He's never attacked me personally, or far as I'm aware, anyone apart from you. In fact, I find dogma to be one of the more reasonable Dakkites - don't make the mistake of thinking it's because we agree with each other all the time. We rarely interact, but when we do it's civil, even if it's a subject we disagree strongly on. That's pretty much how he seems to conduct himself on here all the time.

It's at this point you need to look in the mirror and try to figure out why you seem to bring out the worst in people. You and I have never interacted before this thread, and the first time you replied to me it was just so unnecessarily rude as to defy belief. You replied as if we'd had countless arguments in the past and this was just the latest round. Why do you feel the need to be so abrasive all the time? I mean, coming here is supposed to be fun - a little banter doesn't hurt anyone, even when people get fairly heated (as I and many others have done on a number of occasions) - but can you honestly say that you're enjoying yourself here? It doesn't seem like it from where I'm sitting. You just seem angry.

I think you should try to re-adjust your attitude to posting here, or just move on. Better to do it voluntarily than to have no say in the matter.

Just saying.

From the first day I started posting here, I came under constant attack from dogma, Phyrxis and Monster Rain. Dogma and Phyrxsis have both been flooding my PM box for weeks now, with messages full of personal attacks. Dogma has, in PM, made nasty comments about my employers, about my art education, and refused to comply with mutliple requests to stop harassing me. In addition he has lied to the moderators and got me banned. Twice.

I am not having fun here, to be honest. I feel like dogma in particular is gievn free reign to attack and harass me whenever he wants, however he wants. He has been acting out some kind of personal vendetta against me from my first posts, and given the rage-filled PM he sent me when I put him on ignore I suspect he is attacking me because he knows I am ignoring him.

I'm sorry if you found my dismissal of your argument too blunt. I thought it was a ridiculous argument, I said so. It wasn't meant personally. But I am on edge in this forum, because I feel like every single thing I say will be attacked by people like dogma and Monster Rain, and I think there attacks are ridiculous, unfair, disingenuous, and vindictive. And after contacting the mods and being ignored, I feel like I have no option but to endure their constant trolling and flamebaiting.

They are making this forum unpleasant for me, and I suspect I will give up soon. And I'm sure you'll be glad that they were able to drive me off.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Albatross wrote:He's never attacked me personally, or far as I'm aware, anyone apart from you. In fact, I find dogma to be one of the more reasonable Dakkites - don't make the mistake of thinking it's because we agree with each other all the time. We rarely interact, but when we do it's civil, even if it's a subject we disagree strongly on. That's pretty much how he seems to conduct himself on here all the time.

It's at this point you need to look in the mirror and try to figure out why you seem to bring out the worst in people. You and I have never interacted before this thread, and the first time you replied to me it was just so unnecessarily rude as to defy belief. You replied as if we'd had countless arguments in the past and this was just the latest round. Why do you feel the need to be so abrasive all the time? I mean, coming here is supposed to be fun - a little banter doesn't hurt anyone, even when people get fairly heated (as I and many others have done on a number of occasions) - but can you honestly say that you're enjoying yourself here? It doesn't seem like it from where I'm sitting. You just seem angry.

I think you should try to re-adjust your attitude to posting here, or just move on. Better to do it voluntarily than to have no say in the matter.

Just saying.

From the first day I started posting here, I came under constant attack from dogma, Phyrxis and Monster Rain. Dogma and Phyrxsis have both been flooding my PM box for weeks now, with messages full of personal attacks. Dogma has, in PM, made nasty comments about my employers, about my art education, and refused to comply with mutliple requests to stop harassing me. In addition he has lied to the moderators and got me banned. Twice.

I am not having fun here, to be honest. I feel like dogma in particular is gievn free reign to attack and harass me whenever he wants, however he wants. He has been acting out some kind of personal vendetta against me from my first posts, and given the rage-filled PM he sent me when I put him on ignore I suspect he is attacking me because he knows I am ignoring him.

I'm sorry if you found my dismissal of your argument too blunt. I thought it was a ridiculous argument, I said so. It wasn't meant personally. But I am on edge in this forum, because I feel like every single thing I say will be attacked by people like dogma and Monster Rain, and I think there attacks are ridiculous, unfair, disingenuous, and vindictive. And after contacting the mods and being ignored, I feel like I have no option but to endure their constant trolling and flamebaiting.

They are making this forum unpleasant for me, and I suspect I will give up soon. And I'm sure you'll be glad that they were able to drive me off.

In relation to attempting an intellectual debate, be prepared to defend your statements when you are crticized by people who seem to know things about logic and debate as well as arguments.

Unfortunately people like dogma will breakdown the fallacies of your argument and rationalize why you are wrong if you wish to hold a conversation with them as a peer.

Why is this unfortunate? Because people do not like criticism when it is blunt and direct. With the internet, you cannot gauge a person's intent with their words so you cannot see how they feel when they tell you, "Your wrong." You have to accept at face value they may be nice people who are attempting to show you the other side of an argument rather then be an ass and make you feel like an idiot/jerk.

Gailbraithe wrote:The proponent's of capitalism use disingenuous definitions. They perform a bait and switch, substituting free market and trade for capitalism when it suits them, but capitalism ≠ free market ≠ trade.

Members of every ideology have a habit of doing this, often without meaning to. For instance, look at how easily communal ownership of consumer goods and communal ownership of capital goods became conflated. And the debates between the meaning of communism and socialism, what fascism is, over the word "liberal" and, hell, what "majority" means.

Furthermore, while the words you mentioned aren't truly the same, they include many of the same concepts. A market represents trade. Capitalism relies on the trade of capital goods (in any serious use of the term I can imagine). Capitalists invariably consider free trade and the free market to be essential components of their theory.

And since the term capitalism was really invented by socialists, I think its reasonable to use the socialist definition of capitalist.

Except it isn't, because then you would be arguing against something that isn't widely supported per se (a small group of people owning most land and capital). Same as if I considered conservatism to be support of a monarch, and used it to rail against the Republican party. Generally speaking, you need to let people define the position they support themselves. They don't want to try and defend a strawman.

When we speak of capitalists as those who own the means of production we have more clarity than when we speak of capitalists as anyone engaged in trade of any kind. We should be able to draw meaningful distinctions between the capitalist, the mercantilist, the craftsmen, the professional, and skilled and unskilled labor.

The immediate problem that springs to mind here is that the word "capitalist" most commonly refers to an ideological supporter of capitalism, rather than an economic position at all.

We can't do that with the definition offered by most proponent's of capitalism, which attempts to obfuscate the problems created by capitalists by hiding the capitalists amongst craftsmen, merchants, and professionals.

Well, many capitalists are many of those things; still, it would seem perfectly acceptable to talk about people in a certain capacity, even if they exist in other capacities as well. I think the issue here is that the term "capitalist" (in the sense used by socialists) is often seen as only being meaningful when a socialistic conception of capitalistic production is assumed. It's hardly obfuscation then, unless you're complaining that the refusal to accept socialist economic theory is likewise obfuscation.

In any case, if you want to talk about the socialist conception of capitalism and capitalists, you'll probably have to start with a theory on how industrial production occurs, so that people have sufficient understanding of what exactly it is that you're referring to.

Gailbraithe wrote: Dogma has, in PM, made nasty comments about my employers, about my art education, and refused to comply with mutliple requests to stop harassing me. In addition he has lied to the moderators and got me banned. Twice.

Really? Fine, let's post some G-baby PMs.

Go feth yourself.

And you can get testicular cancer and die from exploding balls for all I fething care. Go. Die. Now.

Go take a very large knife and stick it in your ear.

Oh, so civil.

Gailbraithe wrote:
I feel like dogma in particular is gievn free reign to attack and harass me whenever he wants, however he wants.

Does anyone else want to explain the feud between Fraz and myself?

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote: Dogma has, in PM, made nasty comments about my employers, about my art education, and refused to comply with mutliple requests to stop harassing me. In addition he has lied to the moderators and got me banned. Twice.

Really? Fine, let's post some G-baby PMs.

Go feth yourself.

And you can get testicular cancer and die from exploding balls for all I fething care. Go. Die. Now.

Go take a very large knife and stick it in your ear.

Oh, so civil.

Gailbraithe wrote:
I feel like dogma in particular is gievn free reign to attack and harass me whenever he wants, however he wants.

Does anyone else want to explain the feud between Fraz and myself?

Now are these e-mails you sent to him, or are these e-mails you got from him?

EDIT: Clicking the Alert Mod Button now, as this is getting way out of control.