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.

ShadowZetki wrote:
And why is there a picture of obama naked riding a unicorn?

Because Communism is stupid?

Ahtman wrote:

dogma wrote:

Kragura wrote:
To the best of my knowledge left communism has never been attempted?

Left communism? I'm not sure what you mean.

He means a true communist Scottsman. You know, sure, there have been communist countries and attempts at communism, but there hasn't been any true attempts at it.

Did I ever once say that left communism was perfect or the only True attempt. as a matter of fact I also called Leninism and Maoism communism how can I evoke three different systems as the one true system.

Kragura wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

dogma wrote:

Kragura wrote:
To the best of my knowledge left communism has never been attempted?

Left communism? I'm not sure what you mean.

He means a true communist Scottsman. You know, sure, there have been communist countries and attempts at communism, but there hasn't been any true attempts at it.

Did I ever once say that left communism was perfect or the only True attempt. as a matter of fact I also called Leninism and Maoism communism how can I evoke three different systems as the one true system.

By not understanding what I am saying, or more importantly, not understanding what a No True Scottsman fallacy is.

Right now you've got me confused, What are you saying?

I'll leave a couple of responses in here for ShadowZetki in case he decides to return. Spamming the thread with the same old jokes was poor form, fellas, if you don't care about the debate just don't post in it.

ShadowZetki wrote:Anyway look at cuba for instance they have a 1.5%? Unemployment rate, they have a lower child mortality rate than the US (and frankly a better healthcare system despite the embargo impedeing on what they could do better to achieve) Well to go alittle bit closer more modernized countries well the US healthcare system is broken and pretty corrupt.

Cuban healthcare is good for the resources available, true. But Cuba is regularly named the worst nation for treatment of its media by Journalists without Borders. And while lots of people around the world champion Cuba, few continue to do so after having been to Cuba. And none choose to stay in Cuba.

Because despite the healthcare, it is not a very nice place to live.

Whereas the UK, Canadian Healthcare is much better in all terms.

None of which requires communism, which would require government ownership of all the means of production. Government intervention should be seen on a market by market instance, by considering how that market is structured. What is good for healthcare is not necessarily good for microchips.

I dont think a free market economy has done much wonders for the world

It has built the modern world. The computer you are typing on only exists because of the free market economy.

seeing how there is a pretty much global economic crisis and China and the US are looking at a war over currency it seems clearly obvious seeing how the US is taking direct hostile action against china (non-militant but they seem to be forming a coalition against china. why? Because our leaders are weak and cant admit they owe a freaking debt they cant payback)

No, it's because China is following a model of expansion that is effective for small economies, but starts causing considerable problems for everyone once they become a major economy. Simply put, China's model of devaluing the yuan to drive exports is suppressing living standards in China and causing massive trade imbalances around the world. It needs to be corrected.

wizard12 wrote:Maybe, we should instate a system of government where the system rotates every couple of years, or the populace votes on which system of government they want after every five years.

Umm, we do... it's called Democracy. Thing is, hardly anyone votes for the communists.

ShadowZetki wrote:Well to start under a REAL communism there is no currency period (marxists theory and economics very complicated)

Marxist economics more or less don't exist. Marx was not a trained economist and it shows - the labour theory of value is almost complete nonsense. The guy contributed an incredible amount to economic history, but that is a very different field.

The problem with 'real' communism is that it's never been properly, fully described, nor will find many (or any...) communists who can actually agree that one communist country actually represents what communism is supposed to be.

Now, the various attempts at communism have always ended in economic stagnation, with bloodshed and extreme oppression occurring as often as not. It is reasonable to say 'well that's not we want when we look at building our communist state' but it isn't reasonable to think that's enough and you can just start ignoring what happened in those communist countries. There needs to be a serious look into what happened, and a substantive set of reasons given why it won't happened next time. Communist intellectuals have not even tried, and it's a serious problem.

ShadowZetki wrote:I think Moaism is very misunderstood

Deng Xiaoping understood it very well. He was tied very closely to it's early attempted execution. He learnt from those dismal failures, and it's why when he came to power he brought China towards the centre and away from Maoism.

Deng was a smart fella.

ShadowZetki wrote:Well technically communism did work in maoist china

How many people have to starve to death for something to not work?

they were pretty damn near absolute communism as for the great leap forward mao didnt even do that, that was deng xiaoping(a capitalist)

The claims that Mao wasn't responsible for the failures of the Great Leap Forward are long discredited.

Your claim that Deng was a capitalist is also mistaken, he certainly was not a capitalist when he tried to execute Mao's Great Leap Forward. Once he reached power he was a pragmatist, a position he took having seen the terrible failures of Mao's theories.

lo and behold mao was right and deng xiaoping apologized to the chinese people

Don't make the mistake of thinking face saving exercises in public actually reflect on who actually drove policy.

ShadowZetki wrote:Well 1. Mao didnt do that, I just said it was Deng Xiaoping 2. No actuall known number of deaths is really known so to say 65 million you dont truly know that.

The most conservative, sensible estimates have it at 30 million.

Trying to put in on Deng is ridiculous. Understand that at this point you're arguing that Mao isn't responsible for the policies he championed while in almost complete control of the country. Don't be so silly.

Meanwhile, if Deng and Deng alone is to blame, don't you think there's a problem when the failures of one guy can produce 65 million deaths?

micahaphone wrote:If the state owns everything, then you'll be forced to share your toy soldiers with those annoying little kids.

No, communism does not outlaw private property.

Nurglitch wrote:Doesn't work on paper either...

You can tell who's read Das Kapital by the people able to list the theoretical absurdities that Marx piles on. Problem was that dialectical material was basically Hegel turned on his head, which is like crazy squared from a logic perspective.

The problem is not with the dialectical influences, that stuff is valuable, and I think still shows insight today. The problem is with the poor quality of his purely economic arguments, and the fact that ultimately a lot of conclusions were simplistic or just wrong. Which is not a hanging offense for someone working so early in the field, but it's certainly a problem for people who continue to defend his conclusions today.

micahaphone wrote:I'll just have to shut this all down by saying that Marx was both a factory owner and anti-semitic.

Your claims there are both groundless and irrelevant.

Marx had a Jewish background, and while quotes are often given to demonstrate his anti-semitism, these are frequently out of context, and when given in context are shown to be a lot less racist than the standard of the time.

Marx died in poverty, dependant on the financial support of others.

BluntmanDC wrote:its safe to say that Marx was an a grade ****head, he believed that everyone is equal but not those he thought were subhuman.

If you think communism is about recognising everyone as equal then you really need to read more.

Kragura wrote:The problem is that it doesn't show any specific reason why the pigs did this apart from really, Napoleons a douche. it's more of critique of Stalinism then the communist movement as a whole

If you consider Orwell's other works it becomes pretty clear it's because Orwell thinks any class distinction will produce a result like that.

What needs to be remembered is that Orwell was critical of dictatorial communism, not all possible forms of communism.

Kragura wrote:In our current society the best way to make money is to climb up the corporate ladder as it were and I don't really see how that benefits anyone but the person moving up in the world.

The benefit comes from the person moving up being encouraged to be more productive and more valuable, in order to be more likely to move up. This is by no means a perfect system, but the benefits are pretty obvious.

I could accept slight social stratification if it were to the benefit of all by means of increasing our progress in science and technology, but you must agree that our current society neither attempts makes everyone equal or explicitly rewards those who are making advances in medicine or agricultural studies. it would seem we have the worst of two worlds.

At no point in human history have so much of our resources been dedicated towards technological advancement. There are certainly problems of capitalism, but the failure to reward technological innovation is not one of them.

Finally in almost all society up till now there hasn't really been a difference between the government and the ruling class, which is one reason why we seek to eliminate them both.

That's just not true. Mercantilist society saw great wealth build among merchants, away from the politically powerful landed class. What happened then is what's happened every time since - the political class quickly absorbs the new rich into it's numbers.

Kragura wrote:Right now you've got me confused, What are you saying?

The One True Scotsman Fallacy includes a self-selecting definition. That is, a person would claim no True Scotsman would ever tell a lie, and then when it's pointed out that Angus McAngus told a lie just ten minutes ago, it is explained that Angus is no True Scotsman because he told a lie.

With communism it's much the same thing. People point out that efforts at communism have resulted in loads of deaths, and people say that wasn't really communism. The criteria is self-selecting to exclude all the times that it's gone wrong.

Well see that's what I though it was as well, hence my confusion over why I was accused of implying it when I stated that leninism and maoism ARE forms of communism*


*well actually they are a theory's on how to reach communism which is why I posted It in the first place.

dogma wrote:

ShadowZetki wrote:
And why is there a picture of obama naked riding a unicorn?

Because Communism is stupid?

That serves as no relevancy period.
Also sebster thankyou for defending me on the whole people just cracking jokes thing, dont worry for some odd reason I feel the need to keep comming back to this topic to see what others have to say. I have not been to cuba and honestly I dont forsee much international travel in my lifespan. True they do not require communism but they do require some amount of socialism (and whoever keeps saying obama is a socialist please stop saying that it really isnt true)
Much like how laser eye surgery and artifical insolen were invented under attempted communism I mean things can be said about both sides.
Yeah I've been trying to keep up with this whole china thing its a mess really, issue is they kind of cant devalue the yuan right now because their economy is growing fast, too fast. They need to slow down their economy before lowerng the yuan or they will have huge credit bubles and such.

Now thinking on it, hardly anyone even votes for third parties for a presidential office to begin with.

How so is the labour theory of value almost complete nonsense? I find it interesting but however Marxism is incomplete to an extent there are so many more things to take into mind in modern society and usually somebody either screws it up or kinda starts good then goes down in flames, nobody has reached communism however I do not believe for one second that it isnt possible, and I'll be honest I've read the manifesto and many other books on and about communism multiple times, Ive even begun reading theroies and such on economics and I still do not fully understand communsim. Nobody is ever going to uniformly agree on such things especially what country represents communism. What eaxactly do you mean communist intellectuals have not been tried? Do you mean in a sense of the court of law, or in the sense that their intellect is not being pressed hard enough? Yeah I thought the more commonly agreed upon deaths were estimated at 30million. Oh yeah it was a failed policy and yes I do think that is a serious issue that such a policy went horribly wrong.

It dosent outlaw private property in the sense that if you purchase a car or something it belongs to everyone it outlaws private property in the sense that a factory or a farm are owned by the people who work there.
I think some of the issue with some of Marxist theory is how old it is, economics have changed greatly from his time to today but there are still some viable and interesting things he says.

umm bluntman I tink you have Marx greatly misunderstood.

True the benefits are obvious, however there is also a darker aspect to it (what is good without an evil) 1. you have to understand that the corporate ladder can be pretty ruthless at times especially in heavily contested areas, I dont mind seeing someone encouraged through promotion to become more productive and valuable but somethings could use a change.

Yeah capitalism does still reward technological achivements however I think my biggest thing is this, take for example you can do Job A or Job B. You absolutely love Job A its what you always wanted to do, but it's pay is absolutely horrendus compare to Job B and Job B has better promotion opportunities and benefits, are you still truly going to stick with Job A?

I'm not too educated on Scotsman, well yes I am very well aware of deaths and bad things that have been caused by attempted communism, however on that note there has also been achivements brought by it, well I wont deny that it is communism per se however has a true communism ever been reached? Also with capitalism I have met some people who do the exact same thing, so neither side is truly safe on that note.

ShadowZetki wrote:
That serves as no relevancy period.

Of course it does. See, you posted here in order to seek the opinions of others who also post here. I'm one of the more prolfici posters on this segment of the board, so it follows that I am included in that particular set. As such, we can conclude that anything I might post is relevant to the matter at hand, given that I am a part of set you described in the original post.

ShadowZetki wrote:
...I feel the need to keep comming back to this topic to see what others have to say.

And further evidence of the above.

ShadowZetki wrote:
True they do not require communism but they do require some amount of socialism (and whoever keeps saying obama is a socialist please stop saying that it really isnt true)

Obama is a socialist, as are most residents of the US, whether or not they know it. He enacted socialist policy via healthcare reform. You can argue that being a socialist isn't bad, but pretending that Obama isn't one is just nonsense.

ShadowZetki wrote:
(what is good without an evil)

Good. That should be obvious.

ShadowZetki wrote:
Yeah capitalism does still reward technological achivements however I think my biggest thing is this, take for example you can do Job A or Job B. You absolutely love Job A its what you always wanted to do, but it's pay is absolutely horrendus compare to Job B and Job B has better promotion opportunities and benefits, are you still truly going to stick with Job A?

If you really do love it, then yes. If not, then you didn't love it. This is like philosophy 101 dude.

Lets agree to disagree on the obama thing, an argument like that would simply end in (man I love those things)

I guess to a degree it has relevancy seeing how it is your opinion however can we not compare communism to a picture of obama naked riding a unicorn?

It should be obvious to all really.

I dunno I think for most people the profit motive is the defining factor which saddens me, me personally I'd take Job A perhaps you would too, but I have a much the majority would pick B

Of course it does. See, you posted here in order to seek the opinions of others who also post here. I'm one of the more prolfici posters on this segment of the board, so it follows that I am included in that particular set. As such, we can conclude that anything I might post is relevant to the matter at hand, given that I am a part of set you described in the original post.

Communism is stupid is not a compelling argument.

ShadowZetki wrote:True they do not require communism but they do require some amount of socialism (and whoever keeps saying obama is a socialist please stop saying that it really isnt true)

Whatever they require, they have communism, and it is yet another oppressive communist state where people are jailed for criticising government.

Much like how laser eye surgery and artifical insolen were invented under attempted communism I mean things can be said about both sides.

There will always be invention. The issue is the quantity and nature of that innovation. Any government can take its brightest and tell them to fix some medical problem, but it takes an adaptive, market driven system to generate a constant stream of solutions to problems people didn't even realise they could solve.

In the end, the Russians gave up on communism, they saw how the US had prospered while their society had stagnated, because the private sector drives innovation in a way that a state planned economy just cannot do. Do you honestly think the revolution in personal computing could have come from a communist country?

Yeah I've been trying to keep up with this whole china thing its a mess really, issue is they kind of cant devalue the yuan right now because their economy is growing fast, too fast. They need to slow down their economy before lowerng the yuan or they will have huge credit bubles and such.

It's more direct than that. If China floated the yuan freely it would be a lot higher, and as a result Chinese goods would be much more expensive, while imports into China would be much cheaper. The direct result is that Chinese living standards would increase markedly, while ours would drop slightly as we couldn't access such cheap Chinese products. But more importantly, you would see a much closer balance in trade.

How so is the labour theory of value almost complete nonsense?

It completely fails to account for the idea that the organising of labour and resources might be a service with a value of it's own, with it's own market providing a value for that service. For anyone with any training in the most basic level of microeconomics it seems a very big thing to miss.

What eaxactly do you mean communist intellectuals have not been tried?

No, I meant they haven't tried to reconcile communist theory with communist reality. There have been no essays written explaining why communism went down in flames, and why newer models will be different. Just 'that wasn't communism', as if that was enough.

Think of it this way, if you thought plane flights were a great idea but the last dozen planes that were sent up into the sky exploded, wouldn't you wait for someone to write a really convincing piece on how they knew what really went wrong, and how they'll never do that again before you got into a plane?

Do you mean in a sense of the court of law, or in the sense that their intellect is not being pressed hard enough? Yeah I thought the more commonly agreed upon deaths were estimated at 30million. Oh yeah it was a failed policy and yes I do think that is a serious issue that such a policy went horribly wrong.

'Failed policy' refers to an initiative that ends up costing 50% more than planned. When you're talking about 30 million deaths at a minimum 'failed policy' doesn't really cut it. And recent studies have found that at least 10% of the deaths were from persecution - people deliberately killed because the upset the wrong government officials.

It dosent outlaw private property in the sense that if you purchase a car or something it belongs to everyone it outlaws private property in the sense that a factory or a farm are owned by the people who work there.

Umm, yes, I know. I was pointing that out to a poster who made the common mistake in assuming communism meant no-one could own anything, when it simply means no-one can own the means of production.

I think some of the issue with some of Marxist theory is how old it is, economics have changed greatly from his time to today but there are still some viable and interesting things he says.

Marx is certainly interesting and a worthwhile read. The Communist Manifesto remains an excellent, and stunningly predictive, criticism of capitalism. But that doesn't make communism a particularly good idea.

True the benefits are obvious, however there is also a darker aspect to it (what is good without an evil) 1. you have to understand that the corporate ladder can be pretty ruthless at times especially in heavily contested areas, I dont mind seeing someone encouraged through promotion to become more productive and valuable but somethings could use a change.

Dude, I'm on that corporate ladder, I know how political it can get. It is by no means a perfect system, but the alternatives are no better. Communism still has a hierarchy, and more wealth and more status for those who move up, and that is a real problem. But along with that it also has the stifling effect of state control.

Yeah capitalism does still reward technological achivements however I think my biggest thing is this, take for example you can do Job A or Job B. You absolutely love Job A its what you always wanted to do, but it's pay is absolutely horrendus compare to Job B and Job B has better promotion opportunities and benefits, are you still truly going to stick with Job A?

Lots of people do, lots of people don't. But as above, it isn't as though communism is any different - there's still a hierarchy that people look to move up. There's still pay grades.

I'm not too educated on Scotsman, well yes I am very well aware of deaths and bad things that have been caused by attempted communism, however on that note there has also been achivements brought by it, well I wont deny that it is communism per se however has a true communism ever been reached?

That the final stage is impossible to reach is not exactly a selling point. "Look, okay, so lots of people have died, but if we try again then this time maybe we'll figure out how to reach utopia" is a seriously bad idea.

Also with capitalism I have met some people who do the exact same thing, so neither side is truly safe on that note.

Sure, capitalism has also gotten people killed. The Irish and Indian famines, for instance. The difference is that capitalism has produced prospering economies that form the backbone on nations people actually want to live in. Communism has not.

ShadowZetki wrote:
I guess to a degree it has relevancy seeing how it is your opinion however can we not compare communism to a picture of obama naked riding a unicorn?

It should be obvious to all really.

If you think its obvious its because you aren't thinking.

My utilitarianism professor told me that on the first day of my first college class.

ShadowZetki wrote:
I dunno I think for most people the profit motive is the defining factor which saddens me, me personally I'd take Job A perhaps you would too, but I have a much the majority would pick B

So they dreamed of profit, and not a certain sort of job. Why is that bad?

dogma wrote:Obama is a socialist, as are most residents of the US, whether or not they know it. He enacted socialist policy via healthcare reform. You can argue that being a socialist isn't bad, but pretending that Obama isn't one is just nonsense.

Which is really just playing games with the extreme flexibility of the term 'socialist'. Yes, in the sense that any level of intervention in the market for the purpose of greater equity is socialism, then anyone who supports any level of welfare or progressive taxes is socialist.

In the sense in which socialism is used in the common charge 'Obama is a socialist'... not so much.

Kragura wrote:
Communism is stupid is not a compelling argument.

Its actually not an argument at all. Its an axiom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
In the sense in which socialism is used in the common charge 'Obama is a socialist'... not so much.

I mean, in the US 'socialist' means 'communist' so I'll agree with you on that, but I'm not terribly interested in granting credence to the predilections of the plebes.

If it is an axiom then why am I here arguing it with you?

I might be reading what you have typed on that part wrong, I'm sorry.

Yeah the Soviet Union collapsed (though I wouldnt exactly say I was a fan of stalin to begin with and the Bolshevik party had just lost itself along the way) Thing is I never believed any attempt at communism or and communism is meant to survive on a wartime economy, although I might be wrong on that one because I'm a pacifist. Well to be honest yes I do believe a revolution in personal computing could have happened in a communist country.

True, I just want this whole currency issue to be resolved in a peaceful manner.

Microeconomics? Umm sorry I'm not educated in that aspect I should study that though it sounds interesting.

Oh okay now I see, hmm cant say Ive seen anyone do that although I'd like to be one such individual to do so I'm starting to think my ideals of communism far differ from most other communists ideas, or on the other hand I might need to keep studying this.

Okay trying to keep up sorry I'm only runnin off a cup of coffee, well failed policy, murder technically go hand in hand to some degree. That I shall not deny.

Oh I know I was agreeing with you and also talking to the other poster.

Well it also does give credit to capitalism for certain aspects as well. Well that dosent make it a bad idea, socialism is not dead by any means yes the fall of the berlin wall did mark the end of an empire but not the end of an idea surely someone will eventually refine the ideals with viable proof.

Yeah, but on a same note what alternatives are there? As far as I have seen I do not much in the way of an alternative.

Unfortunately that is indeed the case however from my understanding under a socialist society you are to be payed based on the quality of your productivity.

I never said the final stage is impossible to reach.

Last I checked during the current world issues I think both are on the same line as far as prospering economies go at this moment. But it's too early to tell right now during all of this. However in previous situations yes capitalism has had prosperous economies.

dogma wrote:

ShadowZetki wrote:
And why is there a picture of obama naked riding a unicorn?

Because Communism is stupid?

Because this thread is stupid? Because the 'debate' is stupid? I mean, take your pick....

Kragura wrote:If it is an axiom then why am I here arguing it with you?

Because you don't like the axiom.

I thought axiom was a self evident truth every one agreed on, such as the sky is blue that was the basis of a debate,such as why is the sky blue.

Albatross wrote:

dogma wrote:

ShadowZetki wrote:
And why is there a picture of obama naked riding a unicorn?

Because Communism is stupid?

Because this thread is stupid? Because the 'debate' is stupid? I mean, take your pick....

I think I should have ended this the second most people were posting old dated jokes that I couldnt understand (that and the pic of obama riding a unicorn naked was just plain creepy) How exactly do I end this thread? Cause I have sent 1 or 2 PMs to the mod who had posted here asking him to close this

Kragura wrote:I thought axiom was a self evident truth every one agreed on, such as the sky is blue that was the basis of a debate,such as why is the sky blue.

The sky is blue only holds as long as a majority believe it. When the majority believe it to be green, then it is green. This does not count the minority believing that it's red.

Reality only requires a majority to hold it as reality whilst a sizable minority can disagree with the perception.

well I guess your right there, didn't Descartes figure this out, that the only truly self evident truth is that we exist? however the sky being blue is pretty much as close as we can get to another absolute truth., if we were to deny that it is blue because we cant be sure then nothing can ever be believed again.

I think Communism is doomed to fail, even if 'done correctly', due to the fact that it focuses primarily on the material aspects of existence while completely ignoring the spiritual needs of man.

Obama is riding the Unicorn because it was the Pegasus' day off.

Kragura wrote:well I guess your right there, didn't Descartes figure this out, that the only truly self evident truth is that we exist? however the sky being blue is pretty much as close as we can get to another absolute truth., if we were to deny that it is blue because we cant be sure then nothing can ever be believed again.

The sky isn't actually blue. It is clear. However, due to the optical properties of our atmosphere and the particulate mater suspended in it and the nature of our sun, the sky does indeed appear, at times, to be blue. The sky itself, as stated, is not actually blue.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Kragura wrote:well I guess your right there, didn't Descartes figure this out, that the only truly self evident truth is that we exist? however the sky being blue is pretty much as close as we can get to another absolute truth., if we were to deny that it is blue because we cant be sure then nothing can ever be believed again.

The sky isn't actually blue. It is clear. However, due to the optical properties of our atmosphere and the particulate mater suspended in it and the nature of our sun, the sky does indeed appear, at times, to be blue. The sky itself, as stated, is not actually blue.

The other absolute truth is we all physically die.

Khornholio wrote:The other absolute truth is we all physically die.

Death and taxes...

To return slightly to the topic; some state control of the basics of modern life can be good - fuel (electricity, petrol, gas, oil etc), public transport, support infrastructure (phones, internet, roads, rail lines, etc), taxes and so on.

However, this should be supported and supporting a private sector (which typically is the driving force behind new products and so on). When the public sector controls everything and everyone is employed by it, weath and value gets progressively harder to create until you have a completely planned society.

Well then...we've laughed, we've cried... some of us might even have died a little on the inside. And yet the world still turns, the nights still draw in like some great dark cold thing, and Megan Fox is still married and feuding with Linda Carter over Wonder Woman ! What's that all about then eh ? Goddamned fishsticks melted all over my Weekly World News again ! No secrets left in the home of the free !

..is there anything out there to save us...wait ! Yes there is...