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.

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.

Well, I don't like people who just dive in and talk crap on people for absolutely no reason. You probably consider yourself to be forthright, but the fact is, there's a massive difference between being forthright and being rude. Tact is a great virtue to possess.

Do you honestly think that this is a reasonable way to reply to someone?:

Gailbraith wrote:

Albatross wrote:I think a large part of this problem is the tendency for socialist academics to treat the 'proletariat' as children. Telling people what is good for them and imposing it upon them rarely ends well. It's just paternalism. Modern capitalist society works because everyone has equal opportunity for education, and accumulation of wealth. We have a choice.

That is so wrong as to border on being delusional.

Really? Not 'I'm going to have to disagree with that, and here's why etc.', or 'No, I happen to think that's incorrect'?

I've seen you act in similar ways in other threads, so excuse me if I'm not overflowing with sympathy for you. But again, I hadn't interacted directly with you before this thread so I hadn't made my mind up.


I have now.

WarOne wrote:
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.

His PMs directed towards me.

Dogma and Phyrxsis have both been flooding my PM box for weeks now, with messages full of personal attacks.

I'm pretty sure I stopped PMing you when it became clear that you didn't want any help with not pissing off the entire forum.

Hell, I deliberately stayed out of this thread because I didn't want to dogpile on you yet again, even though I find your rantings on "capitalism" to be intolerably ridiculous.

I'm sure in your mind you're a total victim of the conservative attack machine, but seriously, take some responsibility. For example, look at how you toss insults at Albatross, who is neither conservative, nor attacking you. You've got problems. You live in a conspiracy fantasy world, where everyone's a conservative trying to keep you down. In real life, this forum has a very small minority of conservatives, and a very large majority of left-leaning voices.

By American standards, this forum is quite left-of-center, given that a lot of the posters are in Europe.

I am not having fun here, to be honest.

You're REALLY bringing it upon yourself. You're EXTREMELY argumentative and insulting, and you have VERY extreme views which you seem to consider to be incontrovertible fact.

Nobody is saying you have to change your views, but you should really learn to present them with less hostility and more humility.

You want to blame this all on personal vendettas... Do you really think that dakka appoints somebody to personally attack all new posters and follow them around for their entire time here? No. It's because you're ridiculously rude, opinionated and intolerant.

I know, you don't believe it. It's ALL of us that are strange. ALL of us at once are part of a crazy conservative conspiracy, while you're just the victim of our hate.

Occam's razor, dude. Take a look into the mirror edge of it's blade, and see the source of your problems.

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

You are making these forums unpleasant for you.

If you walk into a bar, accuse everyone of being a racist, accuse everyone of being a jackbooted thug for a political ideology they don't even agree with, what do you think is going to happen?

It's going to be unpleasant for you.

You're being confronted with reality, and, as I suspect is par for the course with you, you're not able to perceive it with any accuracy.

Frazzled wrote:

Kragura wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:Marxist Communism seeks to use revolution to install a van garde (The Party)

Just a small thing. A revolutionary vanguard is never mentioned in Marxist writing, They came about through Lenin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Kragura wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I dont even think communism is a good idea..... trying to achieve an end state where everyone is happy is absurd. people are by nature impossible to satisfy. they're born to be unhappy bc they want things they cant have, and when they get the things they want they grow out of old desires and learn new ones. people who cannot limit their desires - who cannot learn to be content - can never be happy. as this will always be most of the people in the world a state or economic system that attempts to erase their unhappiness is doomed to failure, no matter what particular strategy for the distribution of goods it employs.

That's not the end goal we just think people would be happier with communism than without it. the same logic could be applied to any change in politics over the last 2000 years.

And where have you seen this actually happen in the many times Communism has been applied?

Although every time it was short lived, Socialism has worked before.

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

Communism has never been tried out has an ideology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Kragura wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I dont even think communism is a good idea..... trying to achieve an end state where everyone is happy is absurd. people are by nature impossible to satisfy. they're born to be unhappy bc they want things they cant have, and when they get the things they want they grow out of old desires and learn new ones. people who cannot limit their desires - who cannot learn to be content - can never be happy. as this will always be most of the people in the world a state or economic system that attempts to erase their unhappiness is doomed to failure, no matter what particular strategy for the distribution of goods it employs.

That's not the end goal we just think people would be happier with communism than without it. the same logic could be applied to any change in politics over the last 2000 years.

I disagree. Marx and his followers talked about the utopia that was just around the corner from the 1st to the last day they were in power. It never got here. It cant get here. People dont want to be happy. They want what they want. There is no end state for growing, changing beings. AF

I have never heard a communist refer to communism as a utopia.

Phryxis wrote:I'm sure in your mind you're a total victim of the conservative attack machine, but seriously, take some responsibility. For example, look at how you toss insults at Albatross, who is neither conservative...

*cough* Yes I am! *cough*



Well, maybe not by US standards, but I am a supporter of the Conservative party.

Phryxis wrote: In real life, this forum has a very small minority of conservatives, and a very large majority of left-leaning voices.

By American standards, this forum is quite left-of-center, given that a lot of the posters are in Europe.

I don't agree with the first part. Speaking as a conservative I'd say it's a pretty good blend really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kragura wrote:


Communism has never been tried out has an ideology.

I'd say that's a mark against it then if no one can be bothered or convinced to try it out.

I have never heard a communist refer to communism as a utopia.

I have heard people insinuate exactly that pretty clearly.

Wow.

Guys - seriously - STOP the personal attacks.

Use the MOD ALERT button if there's a problem.

ALL the rules of this site apply to the Off Topic Forum.

Oh, and to PMs too.

So, before this thread de-rails...

Are communist women pretty? Lol

In all seriousness though, I can't imagine that it's really that bad, is it? Ideologies aside, but day to day life under communism isn't radically different, is it?

I <3 this thread.

Albatross wrote:

Phryxis wrote:I'm sure in your mind you're a total victim of the conservative attack machine, but seriously, take some responsibility. For example, look at how you toss insults at Albatross, who is neither conservative...

*cough* Yes I am! *cough*



Well, maybe not by US standards, but I am a supporter of the Conservative party.

yeah it is kinda funny how different a conservative in england is to a conservative in the us, hell we'd probably call you a commie basterd

*cough* Yes I am! *cough*

This statement is so preposterously naiveomyopic it made my boohoo come out my crycry. You, sir, are a liar/fascist/Pinochet/chimp!

How dare you, sir?

HOW?

DARE?



....




...

YOUSIR!?!?[1]

----------------------------------------------------------------
1. How dare you sir?

Phryxis wrote:
This statement is so preposterously naiveomyopic it made my boohoo come out my crycry.

I'm saying this for the only second time in months, but... ahem... "lol".

Phryxis wrote:it made my boohoo come out my crycry

Let's keep this thread PG13 people!

youbedead wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Phryxis wrote:I'm sure in your mind you're a total victim of the conservative attack machine, but seriously, take some responsibility. For example, look at how you toss insults at Albatross, who is neither conservative...

*cough* Yes I am! *cough*



Well, maybe not by US standards, but I am a supporter of the Conservative party.

yeah it is kinda funny how different a conservative in england is to a conservative in the us, hell we'd probably call you a commie basterd

That's probably because your conservative party has this bad image for having a bunch of crazy religious folk in it. Your liberal party has all those crazy folk in it too they're just hid much better.

We have a conservative party in charge here and gay marriage and abortions are legal and there is no movement to change that. Our government has actually been subtly reducing it's size too. Fortunately our governments have also started to realize socialized medicine isn't the best solution and are starting to allow privatization of medical services.

On topic though, until there is a radical change in human behaviour communism won't work. Of course when we change enough for communism to work, pretty much every other system we have thought of would work.

Kragura wrote:I'm a little confused are you saying that the worker supported the revolution but not the end result of the revolution?

No, I'm saying that the overthrow of the Kaiser's regime was not a communist revolution. Some revolutionary elements were communist but they were a minority. This is clear, because in the wake of the revolution a representative democracy was built, which still looked to include the aristrocracy. There was no significant push to build a communist state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If you pay people based on the work they do instead of according to need, you're doing the opposite of what communism says to do. The doctor being paid more than a street sweeper is just one of those things done temporarily while the revolution sorts out, it's not supposed to happen in the end result.

The state at the end of the process is poorly defined. It relies, basically, on moving into a post-scarcity economy, in large part because the desire to acquire goods as a means of social status was removed, because there would be no higher classes to aspire to, because there would be no classes. We produce more than enough to meet our needs, and our wants would be nowhere near as great.

The idea of 'each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is predicated around a completely new form of society - applying a modern aspirational mindset to it doesn't work. The only situation in which that criticism could be levelled is to the transitional state, in which, as is noted, communist states still pay differential rates of pay.

Democratic socialism is not communism, regardless of what propaganda against it said. Most notably, it actually has a track record of not killing off huge chunks of the population when someone attempts to put it into practice.

Yeah, that's fair enough. Point well made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I dont even think communism is a good idea..... trying to achieve an end state where everyone is happy is absurd. people are by nature impossible to satisfy.

Actually that's a condition that communism seeks to address. Marx observed that the modern aspirational society was a new phenomenon, the desire to consume more and more was actually quite ahistoric. For centuries society, despite individual points of overt wealth, had few material goods, as most status was gained through other means. Nobles would live in large manors that were sparsely furnished, instead they spent their wealth on keeping large retainers of men as that was a greater indicator of status. Many villages were highly communal in structure, there was little private property and status was based on seniority.

Marx reasoned that if we moved past a class defined society, people wouldn't need to buy all that stuff to prove we held greater status than our neighbours. While I disagree with a lot of Marx economic arguments, I thnk there's a lot to consider in his reasoning above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

I think the level of China envy that's developing is very scary. Yes, they are currently exporting more than they're importing. They only achieve this through having a much lower rate of pay, and keeping the yuan artificially low (which has the effect of making imports more expensive, again lowering the living standards of their citizens). Meanwhile there's rampant corruption, a syphoning of wealth towards the wealthy and connected, while the poor and marginalised are utterly screwed. A couple of days ago three men set themselves on fire in protest against the forced acquisition of their homes - it was the only means of protest available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Thankyou. I read that line about 'communism works in theory but in practice...' and it's always annoyed me, though I've found it hard to find the words to explain why. You really nailed it there, and will be stealing your argument for my own use later on. Cheers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

In Tibet there likely wasn't that marked a decline. Equality before the law for women and minorities improved in general... not because China is good or anything, but because life in Tibet was life living under a Theocracy.

People don't pay much attention to that because it's good to rail on China, and the Dalai Lama seems a pretty cool guy, but the reality is as it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Awesome!

Nevermind


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kragura wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kragura wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:Marxist Communism seeks to use revolution to install a van garde (The Party)

Just a small thing. A revolutionary vanguard is never mentioned in Marxist writing, They came about through Lenin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Kragura wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I dont even think communism is a good idea..... trying to achieve an end state where everyone is happy is absurd. people are by nature impossible to satisfy. they're born to be unhappy bc they want things they cant have, and when they get the things they want they grow out of old desires and learn new ones. people who cannot limit their desires - who cannot learn to be content - can never be happy. as this will always be most of the people in the world a state or economic system that attempts to erase their unhappiness is doomed to failure, no matter what particular strategy for the distribution of goods it employs.

That's not the end goal we just think people would be happier with communism than without it. the same logic could be applied to any change in politics over the last 2000 years.

And where have you seen this actually happen in the many times Communism has been applied?

Although every time it was short lived, Socialism has worked before.

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

Communism has never been tried out has an ideology.

What do you call the former USSR? North Korea? China?

Consider as an alternative, the benevolent dictatorship. If I asked everyone to just trust me and do as I tell them, and I actually tell them the right thing to do on all fronts and regarding all issues and they just agree to do it, then everyone would get along, everyone would be happier. Trouble is, nobody will listen to a single voice of wisdom and reason as egos get in the way. If a single person was in charge of everything, deciding what is a good or a bad way to behave, and doing it for the good of all, you could have a utopian society, so long as everyone lays aside ego and power struggles and listens to the big voice of reason. Okay I admit I've had a coupple off beeers at this point and I suddenly realize I am spouting Anekin Skywalker rhetoric, so I'll just stop.

But ohh... what if.... what if...

Guitardian wrote:Consider as an alternative, the benevolent dictatorship. If I asked everyone to just trust me and do as I tell them, and I actually tell them the right thing to do on all fronts and regarding all issues and they just agree to do it, then everyone would get along, everyone would be happier. Trouble is, nobody will listen to a single voice of wisdom and reason as egos get in the way. If a single person was in charge of everything, deciding what is a good or a bad way to behave, and doing it for the good of all, you could have a utopian society, so long as everyone lays aside ego and power struggles and listens to the big voice of reason. Okay I admit I've had a coupple off beeers at this point and I suddenly realize I am spouting Anekin Skywalker rhetoric, so I'll just stop.

But ohh... what if.... what if...

I think Lord Acton had a pretty poignant quote on the subject.

“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The Imperial march resonates triumphantly as I wield my Light-Keyboard in the name of bringing order to the galaxy.

I think Guitardian does make a useful point, though...

This thread is all about hyperbole. Capitalism is BROKEN, is EVIL. Communism is a MASS MURDERER, BLARG BLARG. G-baby's "liberal" system is UTOPIA PERFEKT.

If everything has to be the best worst representation of its class, then what is the absolute best system of government?

The best form of government is the benevolent dictatorship. As long as it's truly benevolent, ie. the hyperbolic positive version of it, it's the best. It's the most positive, most rapidly reacting option available.

So, if we're allowed to just make up rules for what represents a given system, then we should really all be arguing in favor of a benevolent dictatorship.

But we're not. And that's why hyperbolic exaggeration isn't helpful.

Well then yes. In a perfect world I suppose Benevolent Dictatorship is the way to go.

Problem there is, nobody can agree on who the 'benevolent dictator' should be. I would like to suggest myself... if you get my meaning.

Guitardian wrote:Problem there is, nobody can agree on who the 'benevolent dictator' should be. I would like to suggest myself... if you get my meaning.

I would suggest Chuck Norris.

I would suggest G-baby. Dogma for VP.

I dont trust Chuck Norris I think he's up to something.
I don't trust Dogma just based on the name...
I don't trust me because I'm thoroughly incompetent and kind of a jerk...

seee.... now we have political factions again!

ack.. all my plans have gone awry in 3 or 4 posts!

We should just do as god told us to.



The only good dictator is a cute dictator

Phryxis wrote:I think Guitardian does make a useful point, though...

This thread is all about hyperbole. Capitalism is BROKEN, is EVIL. Communism is a MASS MURDERER, BLARG BLARG. G-baby's "liberal" system is UTOPIA PERFEKT.

If everything has to be the best worst representation of its class, then what is the absolute best system of government?

The best form of government is the benevolent dictatorship. As long as it's truly benevolent, ie. the hyperbolic positive version of it, it's the best. It's the most positive, most rapidly reacting option available.

So, if we're allowed to just make up rules for what represents a given system, then we should really all be arguing in favor of a benevolent dictatorship.

But we're not. And that's why hyperbolic exaggeration isn't helpful.

There is also the problem of the dictator making a mistake. There are experts on all kinds of things and they will often make mistakes. Most of the financial experts thought the housing bubble would be a hickup in the economy. When you have one person, or even a select few making all the decisions any mistake they make will be compounded by everyone who is doing what they are told. At least with capitalism everyone is free to try different approaches and the chances of everyone making a big mistake is relatively slim.

There are experts on all kinds of things and they will often make mistakes.

Sure, and really a dictatorship is a terrible system of government.

I'm just saying, as long as we're dealing in hyperbolic exaggerations, why not choose the best possible case, which is the omnipotent omniscient benevolent dictator?

It's roughly as realistic as G-baby's version of what capitalism is.

I'd agree with that.

What do you call the former USSR? North Korea? China?

As I said in one of my first posts they are socialist republics, the translational phase in-between capitalism and communism.

No, I'm saying that the overthrow of the Kaiser's regime was not a communist revolution. Some revolutionary elements were communist but they were a minority. This is clear, because in the wake of the revolution a representative democracy was built, which still looked to include the aristrocracy. There was no significant push to build a communist state.

Actually two governments were set up, one made of aristocrats and one made up of soviets, the soviet government came in power in October under Lenin.