Realization

[Rosa Provokateur]

Was reading the parable of the talents and it hit me: property is provided by God. Now that being the case, to horde it is un-productive and actually condemned. After asking my youth minister, he defined greed as restricting people from access to things that dont belong to you. God having provided everything, nobody truly OWNS anything.

That plus Deuteronomy 8:17-18, I dont think un-restricted capitalism (as capitalism now exists) is compatible with my faith.

[Kronos]

Very good, young man.

One would have greater luck as a camel trying to pass through the eye of a needle than as a rich man trying to get into heaven.....or a revleft member trying to explain anything to Gacky.












p.s. of course that crap you are reading is nonsense, but here I must accept that the ends are more important then the means. If it takes fortune cookies to convince you that capitalism is bad....so be it.

[Havet]

Was reading the parable of the talents and it hit me: property is provided by God. Now that being the case, to horde it is un-productive and actually condemned. After asking my youth minister, he defined greed as restricting people from access to things that dont belong to you. God having provided everything, nobody truly OWNS anything.

That plus Deuteronomy 8:17-18, I dont think un-restricted capitalism (as capitalism now exists) is compatible with my faith.

Current Capitalism is UN-Restricted?

The U.S. is considered a mixed economy. Some examples of this include:


People can own their own businesses, but political leaders make policies concerning these.
The government controls the mail system.
The government controls most of the road networks.
The government controls most of the schools.
Waste collection and treatment are usually provided as a service by the local government.
The government has a virtual monopoly on the provision of policing.
Intercity passenger rail (Amtrak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak)) is a nationalized industry, as are almost all local trains.
All American airports are government operated but all American airlines are private.
The government tells manufacturers what to make if something is in need during war time.
The FDA bans certain drugs.
The government has created a minimum wage law.
The government provides social welfare payments to some citizens.
The majority of pre-college education is government-provided and a large part of tertiary education is run by state governments.
In recent years, the Federal government has given taxpayers money to failing businesses, in the form of bail outs.

Anyway, how is property provided by God? What is God? Can you prove its existence?

I hope you realize the burden of proof is on you. We (atheists) cannot negate a negative in order to prove a positive, which means it is not us who must prove God DOESN'T exist, it is you who must provide the facts that it does exist.

Greed is ambition, except usually people use it to refer to people with such great ambition that they are willing to murder, steal or enslave some to reach their goals.

[GracchusBabeuf]

I thought Bill Gates was God.:blushing:

[Kronos]

Anyway, how is property provided by God? What is God? Can you prove its existence?

Dude, what the fuck are you doing?! Don't convince him God doesn't exist! Have you lost your marbles? You think Dostoevsky was kidding when he said if God doesn't exist, all is permissible? These idiots need the noble lie. You convince them God doesn't exist and they plunge into nihilism. Keep that shit under wraps.

[Havet]

Dude, what the fuck are you doing?! Don't convince him God doesn't exist! Have you lost your marbles? You think Dostoevsky was kidding when he said if God doesn't exist, all is permissible? These idiots need the noble lie. You convince them God doesn't exist and they plunge into nihilism. Keep that shit under wraps.


haha, lol

You shouldn't try and convince him the current system is bad by believing in other lies. Especially lies that rely on mystical doctrines that are somehow similar to the doctrines some members hold here.

I don't give a shit about Dostoevsky. Everything is permissible even without God. You can try and steal from me, except I will defend myself. If i believed in God, maybe you could be a priest and pretend you weren't robbing me, and I could believe it, but it wouldn't change the nature of the action.

That said: PROVE GOD EXISTS

oh and he's not very bright for thinking that an argument against ANY POLITICAL IDEOLOGY could be the existence of an invisible man.

This is why I don't argue against some parts of communism and/or socialism here, as well as against other ideologies outside of revleft, by using GODLY arguments. The mystical is the idiotic, no matter whether preached by mystics of spirit or mystics of force.

[Kronos]

PROVE GOD EXISTS

No problem. I'll let Benny have this one:


Prop. I. Substance is by nature prior to its modifications
Prop. II. Two substances, whose attributes are different, have nothing in common
Prop III. Things, which have nothing in common, cannot be one the cause of the other
Prop. IV. Two or more distinct things are distinguished one from the other either by the difference of the attributes of the substance, or by the differences of their modifications
Prop. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute
Prop. VI. One substance cannot be produced by another substance
Prop. VII. Existence belongs to the nature of substance
Prop. VIII. Every substance is necessarily infinite
Prop. IX. The more reality or being a thing has, the greater the number of its attributes
Prop. X. Each particular attribute of the one substance must be conceived through itself
Prop. XI. God, or substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists
Prop. XII. No attribute of substance can be conceived, from which it would follow that substance can be divided
Prop. XIII. Substance absolutely infinite is indivisible
Prop. XIV. Besides God no substance can be granted or conceived
Prop. XV. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived

http://users.erols.com/nbeach/spinoza.html

[RGacky3]

or a revleft member trying to explain anything to Gacky. Without backing it up with logic or evidence


Fixed.

[mykittyhasaboner]

No problem. I'll let Benny have this one:



http://users.erols.com/nbeach/spinoza.html

Your going to have to do a little better than a bunch of prepositions to prove the existence of 'god'.

[Havet]

Your going to have to do a little better than a bunch of prepositions to prove the existence of 'god'.

Ditto


Prop. I. Substance is by nature prior to its modifications
Prop. II. Two substances, whose attributes are different, have nothing in common
Prop III. Things, which have nothing in common, cannot be one the cause of the other
Prop. IV. Two or more distinct things are distinguished one from the other either by the difference of the attributes of the substance, or by the differences of their modifications
Prop. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute

You just seem to be describing the Law of Identity (A is A).

Yet if one thing cannot be another at the same time (just as a table cannot be a table and a car at the same time), God cannot necessarily exist, because isn't God EVERYTHING? How can god be 2 different things at the same time? The proposition that God is Everything is surely contradictory with the Law of Identity.


Prop. VI. One substance cannot be produced by another substance

Either I am WAY misunderstanding this or you are stating that modern chemistry cannot exist, since, for example, the following chemical decomposition couldn't happen because one substance is producing 2 different substances:



Chemical decomposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_decomposition) or analysis, in which a compound is decomposed into smaller compounds or elements:

2 H2O (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water) → 2 H2 + O (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen)2

Prop. XI. God, or substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists

Here is where you make the fatal error most religious people commit: you are assuming God exists without showing any evidence than just "assuming", which can hardly be considered evidence.


Prop. XII. No attribute of substance can be conceived, from which it would follow that substance can be divided
Prop. XIII. Substance absolutely infinite is indivisible
Prop. XIV. Besides God no substance can be granted or conceived
Prop. XV. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived

and again you go on assuming something without proving that it exists, ignoring the fact that for something to be everything, it is going against the law of identity which you have identified as true in the first place. You are just naming everything after god, but the fact is just naming it doesn't mean it exists besides a name.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Current Capitalism is UN-Restricted?

The U.S. is considered a mixed economy. Some examples of this include:


People can own their own businesses, but political leaders make policies concerning these.
The government controls the mail system.
The government controls most of the road networks.
The government controls most of the schools.
Waste collection and treatment are usually provided as a service by the local government.
The government has a virtual monopoly on the provision of policing.
Intercity passenger rail (Amtrak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak)) is a nationalized industry, as are almost all local trains.
All American airports are government operated but all American airlines are private.
The government tells manufacturers what to make if something is in need during war time.
The FDA bans certain drugs.
The government has created a minimum wage law.
The government provides social welfare payments to some citizens.
The majority of pre-college education is government-provided and a large part of tertiary education is run by state governments.
In recent years, the Federal government has given taxpayers money to failing businesses, in the form of bail outs.
Anyway, how is property provided by God? What is God? Can you prove its existence?

I hope you realize the burden of proof is on you. We (atheists) cannot negate a negative in order to prove a positive, which means it is not us who must prove God DOESN'T exist, it is you who must provide the facts that it does exist.

Greed is ambition, except usually people use it to refer to people with such great ambition that they are willing to murder, steal or enslave some to reach their goals.

You mis-read. Capitalism as it exists today cant work un-restricted; now had it remained on a localized and purely barter kinda voluntary interaction, it might be otherwise. As it stands, being monopolized, it cant function creatively un-restricted.

Example: my t-shirt. God created the earth which grew the cotton that allowed my t-shirt to be made. All the resources are essentially His and to restrict others from what isnt mine is theft.

I'm not here to convince you of whether or not He exists, we have the religion board for that. I like atheists and cant imagine life without them; being a christian wouldnt be the same if you guys werent around to make it feel... subversive.

Ambition and greed are two different things: ambition moves people to act for the good of themselves, greed moves people to act for the good of themselves at the expense of others. Perfect example of greed: egoism.

[#FF0000]

I'm not here to convince you of whether or not He exists, we have the religion board for that. I like atheists and cant imagine life without them; being a christian wouldnt be the same if you guys werent around to make it feel... subversive.

Just remember that there are a ton more of you than of us. Who's being subversive now?


Ambition and greed are two different things: ambition moves people to act for the good of themselves, greed moves people to act for the good of themselves at the expense of others.

This is how you make a good post.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not here to convince you of whether or not He exists, we have the religion board for that. I like atheists and cant imagine life without them; being a christian wouldnt be the same if you guys werent around to make it feel... subversive.

Christianity has been a religion favoured by the ruling classes for nearly two millennia! How the fucking fuck can it be "subversive" to be a Christian?!

[JazzRemington]

Wasn't he some weird individualist anarchist, like, 5 minutes ago?

[Havet]

Wasn't he some weird individualist anarchist, like, 5 minutes ago?

I think he called himself an anarcho-capitalist 3 minutes ago.


You mis-read. Capitalism as it exists today cant work un-restricted; now had it remained on a localized and purely barter kinda voluntary interaction, it might be otherwise. As it stands, being monopolized, it cant function creatively un-restricted.

Are you referring to the artificial monopolies created by the state and the favoritism some government grants to some businesses, and the laws that restrict trade but actually end up benefiting some businesses?

Free enterprise, or laissez faire capitalism, or whatever can function, just get rid of the things that are legally allowing some to use taxpayers money to benefit others, or restricts the liberty of people entering a business and increasing competition.


Example: my t-shirt. God created the earth which grew the cotton that allowed my t-shirt to be made. All the resources are essentially His and to restrict others from what isnt mine is theft.

How do you know it was God that created the earth? Last time I checked it wasn't an invisible man that made it:

" the Earth and the other planets in the Solar System formed out of the solar nebula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_nebula)—a disk-shaped mass of dust and gas left over from the formation of the Sun."


I'm not here to convince you of whether or not He exists, we have the religion board for that. I like atheists and cant imagine life without them; being a christian wouldnt be the same if you guys werent around to make it feel... subversive.

If you are not willing to convince others of your main argument why you switched political sides, then I don't know why bother making this thread at all.



Ambition and greed are two different things: ambition moves people to act for the good of themselves, greed moves people to act for the good of themselves at the expense of others. Perfect example of greed: egoism.

How is egoism at the expense of others? If there is no physical force involved, how does someone who keeps the product of his labor selfish?

Are you preaching altruism and sacrifice perhaps?

Let me ask you some of the questions you might evade, regarding altruism and sacrifice.

Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own?

If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you?

If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others?

Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so?

Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away?

And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it?

If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it?

Does virtue consist of serving vice?

Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Christianity has been a religion favoured by the ruling classes for nearly two millennia! How the fucking fuck can it be "subversive" to be a Christian?!

Just ask the churches in Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, China, and Myanmar.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Just ask the churches in Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, China, and Myanmar.
You don't fucking live in those countries though, you live in the US, which has one of the highest populations of christians in the world, especially in the south. So how can it be "subversive" to be a christian, where christianity is widely accepted? Unless people take issue with you being gay; if that's the case then blame christianity. :lol:

[Rosa Provokateur]

Let me ask you some of the questions you might evade, regarding altruism and sacrifice.

Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own?

If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you?

If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others?

Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so?

Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away?


If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it?

Does virtue consist of serving vice?

Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?

Its not immoral to pursue happines, but to sacrifice other people's well-being for it is wrong.

Enjoyment isnt immoral provided it isnt gained by exploiting others.

If you are able to obtain cake on a regular basis then it shouldnt be any problem to give it to those who cant.

Desire isnt immoral; the action taken based off of that desire could possibly be immoral but each situation is different.

It's not, but you have to be the one that produces it.

Not if they are at the mercy of your giving.

No.

What is self-immolation?

[Rosa Provokateur]

You don't fucking live in those countries though, you live in the US, which has one of the highest populations of christians in the world, especially in the south. So how can it be "subversive" to be a christian, where christianity is widely accepted? Unless people take issue with you being gay; if that's the case then blame christianity. :lol:

There's a difference between calling yourself christian and actually folowing Jesus. A follower of Jesus would never say "God Hates Fags" or anything even near that.

[Lord Testicles]

There's a difference between calling yourself christian and actually folowing Jesus. A follower of Jesus would never say "God Hates Fags" or anything even near that.

O RLY?



Romans 1:26-32

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Corinthians 6:9-10

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


You seem to worship a homophobic god.

[mykittyhasaboner]

O RLY?



You seem to worship a homophobic god.

Now he'll say there is a difference between the bible and the actual word of 'god' or jesus (or whatever). :lol:

[Havet]

What is self-immolation?

Self Immolation: "The Latin-based English word immolate, which for centuries was rarely used, means sacrifice, without any reference to burning, so more generally self-immolation means suicide without specifying the method."


Not if they are at the mercy of your giving.

Care to explain? Just because someone needs something it means I should be forced to give that which another person needs, simply because he needs it, regardless or not of how I achieved that object?

[Jack]

Welcome back to Socialism, would you like some freshly baked muffins? They're distributed freely.

[Jack]

Welcome back to Socialism, would you like some freshly baked muffins? They're free.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Welcome back to Socialism, would you like some freshly baked muffins? They're distributed freely.

Ooh yes, thank you:)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Yes, welcome back to the Light, comrade! :)

I'd also like to note that, with or without God, people did not make the Earth. To assume ownership over natural resources is to assume ownership over something that is not rightfully yours by any imaginable code of ethics.

And of course, all the objects we use are ultimately made of natural resources plus human labour. The labour belongs to the workers who performed it, and the natural resources belong to all of Humanity.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I've been learning about Proudhon on a Mutualism thread I started. I think I found what I'm looking for.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I am very deeply opposed to any ideas for post-capitalist society that contain markets, because I do not believe it is possible to have markets without exploitation and class hierarchies.

All these market proposals sound great as long as you assume that every person (or workers' cooperative) holds a more-or-less equal amount of property. But if some have a lot more property than others - which is an inevitable result of markets - then they gain power over others. And exploitation begins.

[Robert]

You guys are harder on Green Apostle than the Christian Right is.


Ooh yes, thank you:)

This is one harmless individual.

G.A., while you're casting about for a philosophy, try Epicureanism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

Looks like you've tried everything else. :lol:

[MikeSC]

Any property I'd have thought would be incompatible with Christianity- especially in the US. Considering the European monarchs are responsible for the distribution of property and the seizure of common lands, claiming the divine right to do so- which I don't think anyone believes anymore. An American Christian who supports property is supporting the actions of a "false-prophet" who his/her country rebelled against (so if you do believe the monarchs had divine right you're an apostate for being an American, which shouldn't exist.)

Or so I think, I'm sure people know their own religions better than me.

[trivas7]

Christianity has historically been ambivalent towards property and the state. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

B/c salvation is a communal offering to the entirety of mankind and mankind is the vicar of God on earth in the Abrahamic traditions, there is justification for the communalism practiced by the early Christians. Medieval theologians condemned usury and the profit motive, but this was overturned in the Protestant revolutions of Germany and thus capitalism was justified by Church and state. Anyway, it's historically a mixed bag.

[Pogue]

Was reading the parable of the talents and it hit me: property is provided by God.


I can understand mate, just last night I abandoned socialism because I read Harry Potter and realised the true enemy is Voldemort.

[Nwoye]

I've been learning about Proudhon on a Mutualism thread I started. I think I found what I'm looking for.
i predict that in two weeks you will realize the necessity of the state in overthrowing the capitalist class and become a Marxist.

[Pogue]

i predict that in two weeks you will realize the necessity of the state in overthrowing the capitalist class and become a Marxist.

lol, is that before he becomes a social-democrat so he can 'give unto Caesar what is Caesars' and support progressive taxation.

[Jazzratt]

A christian with rapidly vacilating politics that change based on the flimsiest of bollocks? Colour me shocked.

Christian anarchism is the weirdest shit after "anarcho"-capitalism.

[Pogue]

well if you base your politics and worldview on one single work of fiction the resulting fucked up ideas are inevitable

christ christians are such a joke.

[Bud Struggle]

well if you base your politics and worldview on one single work of fiction the resulting fucked up ideas are inevitable

christ christians are such a joke.

You anarchists must be SOOOO jealous--you don't even have a work of fiction to support your politics and world view. :(

:D

[Rosa Provokateur]

You guys are harder on Green Apostle than the Christian Right is.



This is one harmless individual.

G.A., while you're casting about for a philosophy, try Epicureanism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

Looks like you've tried everything else. :lol:

A deist who believes in knowledge and friendship as the highest pleasure, you've sold me.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I am very deeply opposed to any ideas for post-capitalist society that contain markets, because I do not believe it is possible to have markets without exploitation and class hierarchies.

All these market proposals sound great as long as you assume that every person (or workers' cooperative) holds a more-or-less equal amount of property. But if some have a lot more property than others - which is an inevitable result of markets - then they gain power over others. And exploitation begins.

Property would be based on use. Example: a man finds fertile soil in a field in the middle of Kansas and decides to start farming it and planting crops. The area he's using was un-occupied, un-used, and upon putting it to use the area (not the entire field) becomes his.

Ownership based on use, not financial power.

[Nwoye]

Property would be based on use. Example: a man finds fertile soil in a field in the middle of Kansas and decides to start farming it and planting crops. The area he's using was un-occupied, un-used, and upon putting it to use the area (not the entire field) becomes his.

Ownership based on use, not financial power.
by george he's seen the light.

[Il Medico]

O RLY?



You seem to worship a homophobic god.
You must remember that these are works of theology by early christian leaders not anything Jesus (the christian god) said.

Also, on the OP. Anyone who is knowledgeable about the Christians faith, should have come to that conclusion long ago. However, it is better late then never. The fact is that, what the so-called leaders of Christianity preach is bullshit and not anything like what Jesus preached. This of course is because organized religion is in it's current state, a puppet of the upper class. They have tried, and quite successfully I might add, to destroy intellectual curiosity. Why do you think that people sit in church, hear a reading that clearly means one thing and the don't object when the pastor preaches something completely different? As evidence of just how bad this has become, I enter a comment by a friend of mine: "Communism is the most un-christian thing I can think of, because Jesus said blessed are the poor, and communist want to make it so no one is poor." Yeah, the studipity has reached that low (btw my friend who siad that is actually really smart, and AP student and all, but the amount of misconceptions he has is a bit ridiculous, he is one of those believe everything he hears kind of gys)

[hugsandmarxism]

well if you base your politics and worldview on one single work of fiction the resulting fucked up ideas are inevitable

christ christians are such a joke.

Them, and all the supposed leftists who've built their entire political philosophy around George Orwell's Animal Farm, according to this synopsis. :lol:

[Rosa Provokateur]

i predict that in two weeks you will realize the necessity of the state in overthrowing the capitalist class and become a Marxist.

Bakunin's argument against the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat" will keep me from going Marxist anytime soon.

The only purpose of any State is self-perpetuation: this explains the beuracracy that developed in the USSR, China, and Cuba; this explains the reluctancy to allow free elections; this explains why no Marxist-lead State has ever allowed opposition parties.

Its been 50 years since the Cuban revolution and still no elections. In China, Mao allowed himself to become a god. North Korea is a night-mare. I see no reason to go towards Marxism, Marx is innocent but his followers in power have been less than pleasant.

[Jack]

Actually, the Communist Party of San Marino was elected in 1954, democratically, without abolishing democracy.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Actually, the Communist Party of San Marino was elected in 1954, democratically, without abolishing democracy.

Fantastic but the majority of history shows that most communist movements, when in power, end up doing nothing but working to retain that power.

This creates a hierarchy of Party-members against non-Party members and then theres the hierarchy within the Party itself. Beuracracy takes over, the idealism gets hollowed out, and what we get left with is a State.

To prevent this from happening there must be no power, no State.

[Nwoye]

Bakunin's argument against the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat" will keep me from going Marxist anytime soon.

The only purpose of any State is self-perpetuation: this explains the beuracracy that developed in the USSR, China, and Cuba; this explains the reluctancy to allow free elections; this explains why no Marxist-lead State has ever allowed opposition parties.

Its been 50 years since the Cuban revolution and still no elections. In China, Mao allowed himself to become a god. North Korea is a night-mare. I see no reason to go towards Marxism, Marx is innocent but his followers in power have been less than pleasant.
so how would you avoid a counter revolution by reactionary capitalists? and what about dissenting capitalists or property holders? what if a big property holder refused to give up his land, and defended it with force? what if he laid a claim to collectivized land? how would you deal with these problems?

[Rosa Provokateur]

so how would you avoid a counter revolution by reactionary capitalists? and what about dissenting capitalists or property holders? what if a big property holder refused to give up his land, and defended it with force? what if he laid a claim to collectivized land? how would you deal with these problems?

If you've got no State, there's nothing to aim a counter-revolution at.

What about them?

Who would work for him? With the State destroyed and the economy in shambles, his money would be worthless.

His claim would be refuted unless he could show proof of it and then he'd have to actually be using it, otherwise what's to stop me from planting my apple-trees on it?

[cb9's_unity]

Your religion is filled with contradictions, to try to base any sort government or economic policy on it is simply impossible. It seems contradictory but history has shown that even basing a set of religious beliefs is difficult for your religion. That's why since Jesus died... again, people in your religion have been splitting into factions.

If your going to be religious, fine. Just don't try to fool yourself and think that Christianity is of any use as a guide to economics or politics.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Property would be based on use. Example: a man finds fertile soil in a field in the middle of Kansas and decides to start farming it and planting crops. The area he's using was un-occupied, un-used, and upon putting it to use the area (not the entire field) becomes his.

Ownership based on use, not financial power.
Ok, that works fine when it comes to land, but what about other forms of property? What about money? Can you still accumulate large amounts of money?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Ok, that works fine when it comes to land, but what about other forms of property? What about money? Can you still accumulate large amounts of money?

I propose barter. Value is relative and the flaw in monetary sytems is the assumption that value is universal; by allowing people to trade possessions instead of meaningless dollars we eliminate the power of accumulation and we keep the desire to produce in motion.

[Nwoye]

If you've got no State, there's nothing to aim a counter-revolution at.
sure there is. armies of the old state, big capitalists, and foreign states have vested interests in squelching your revolution. they could invade your commune, distribute propaganda, use terrorist techniques to scare your community into submission, etc.



What about them?

Who would work for him? With the State destroyed and the economy in shambles, his money would be worthless.
I just meant what if we he refused to give up his land. for example in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, property owners who controlled large sectors of agricultural land refused to give up their property. What if capitalists refused to give up their land/property, and defended it with force?


His claim would be refuted unless he could show proof of it and then he'd have to actually be using it, otherwise what's to stop me from planting my apple-trees on it?
him blowing your brains out with a twenty-two.

i think what you're not realizing is that people still use force after your revolution. not having a state means not having a monopolization of force over any geographical area, meaning any claims to property or authority over an area are not definite or legislated. they are solved by violence and whoever can protect it from aggression.

[Nwoye]

I propose barter. Value is relative and the flaw in monetary sytems is the assumption that value is universal; by allowing people to trade possessions instead of meaningless dollars we eliminate the power of accumulation and we keep the desire to produce in motion.
the issue is that money arises naturally. in barter economies there were still commodities that functioned as money (salt). People would judge the value of their commodity based on its value relative to salt.

[Rosa Provokateur]

sure there is. armies of the old state, big capitalists, and foreign states have vested interests in squelching your revolution. they could invade your commune, distribute propaganda, use terrorist techniques to scare your community into submission, etc.


I just meant what if we he refused to give up his land. for example in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, property owners who controlled large sectors of agricultural land refused to give up their property. What if capitalists refused to give up their land/property, and defended it with force?



i think what you're not realizing is that people still use force after your revolution. not having a state means not having a monopolization of force over any geographical area, meaning any claims to property or authority over an area are not definite or legislated. they are solved by violence and whoever can protect it from aggression.

I would think that foreign States would be glad to see another government go under. It'd probably make them feel they gain an edge of some sort.

Well then people would probably defend themselves. It's not about making people give up resources, it's about allowing other people access to those resources; I see no reason the owner shouldnt be allowed to keep his home and yard provided he still occupies them.

By wiping out the monopoly you wipe out the ability for that violence to be carried out effectively on a large-scale. Yes there'll be short-term conflict, there always is until people are able to figure out that they dont need an outside force in order to function.

[Dimentio]

Was reading the parable of the talents and it hit me: property is provided by God. Now that being the case, to horde it is un-productive and actually condemned. After asking my youth minister, he defined greed as restricting people from access to things that dont belong to you. God having provided everything, nobody truly OWNS anything.

That plus Deuteronomy 8:17-18, I dont think un-restricted capitalism (as capitalism now exists) is compatible with my faith.

And next week, you will discover some other ideology. :P

[Jack]

I propose barter. Value is relative and the flaw in monetary sytems is the assumption that value is universal; by allowing people to trade possessions instead of meaningless dollars we eliminate the power of accumulation and we keep the desire to produce in motion.

Say I'm a piano teacher, and want ot buy some bread but have nothing to trade for it, and the baker doesn't want piano lessons. That owuld mean that I would have to keep trading piano lessons for things until I get what the baker wants. It's extremely inneficent

[Nwoye]

Well then people would probably defend themselves. It's not about making people give up resources, it's about allowing other people access to those resources; I see no reason the owner shouldnt be allowed to keep his home and yard provided he still occupies them.
not everyone can defend themselves. a single mother with two kids cant be having gun fights with burglars. also, the issue is that people will defend what isn't rightfully theirs.

in my opinion, communities will organize militias and use them as defense agencies, protecting the communities they represent from opposition.

and this would effectively make the community a state.


By wiping out the monopoly you wipe out the ability for that violence to be carried out effectively on a large-scale. Yes there'll be short-term conflict, there always is until people are able to figure out that they dont need an outside force in order to function.
if you look at the history of revolutions and expecially anarchist uprisings, there are always opposing forces ready to obstruct the reconstruction of society. Avoiding counterrevolution is an incredibly important step in the revolutionary process.

[Robert]

Say I'm a piano teacher, and want ot buy some bread but have nothing to trade for it, and the baker doesn't want piano lessons.

If he doesn't want them, tell him he kneads them.

[Bud Struggle]

If he doesn't want them, tell him he kneads them.

Bada Bing! :D

[Jack]

If he doesn't want them, tell him he kneads them.

I lol'd, it was punny. (har har)

[Robert]

I shouldn't joke about serious matters, so I promise to make no more bad puns
for the bored.

[Kronos]

Your going to have to do a little better than a bunch of prepositions to prove the existence of 'god'. It is likely that you have a different conception of what a "god" would be, than Spinoza. In order to start in his direction you have to let go of the notions of anthropomorphic/centric deism...which were the dominant ideas in monotheistic philosophy after the Greek culture.

You won't find any neo-platonist theory as refined and precise as Spinoza's. His is the first time metaphysical theory has ever been put forth with such logical vigor, to the point where it is very difficult to disagree with him if you truly understand what he means. Of course, if you begin reading Spinoza with premonitions you have gathered from the study of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., you are bound to become confused. His ideas are extremely revolutionary, as far as "theology" is considered in acedemia. He developed the idea of pantheism, an immanent conception of "God", which is almost perfectly opposed to the prior metaphysics of philosophers like Descartes. And as you know, Descartes, following the platonist tradition, is the father of the "second substance" theory which most monotheistic religions are based on.

Many consider Spinoza an atheist materialist....and indeed he is...if one means by "atheist", a person who does not believe in a transcendental world beyond this material world. But does there need to be such things for a conception of "god" to be formed? Could it be that Spinoza attempts to make this world divine, rather than compromising it for another world....as we see in the gnostic and platonic traditions?

When you look at The Ethics you will see a body of axioms and propositions which are in a sense self contained, meaning, Spinoza does not take an idea of "god" (borrowing old concepts from history) and attempt to define it through rational thinking- he takes rational thinking and arrives at what must be defined as "god", and extraordinarily new idea in his time.

All one needs to do is drop the notion that a "god" must be personable, must be concerned with human beings, must be judgemental, must be wanting, must be working for an end, must be a designer, and must be "intelligent". These are the characteristics we attribute to God....as if he were a kind of super human being...as Feuerbach, Freud, and Einstein made clear. As Einstein (a self declared Spinozist) once said "God is a deity not a bit concerned with human nature, but rather a personification of order".

I really can't tell you how liberating, self empowering and fantastic understanding Spinoza is. I feel fabulous, though, and you should too.

Now if you can merge Spinoza's ideas with Nietzsche......you will get the crux of the biscuit.

[Kronos]

Yet if one thing cannot be another at the same time (just as a table cannot be a table and a car at the same time), God cannot necessarily exist, because isn't God EVERYTHING? How can god be 2 different things at the same time? The proposition that God is Everything is surely contradictory with the Law of Identity.


We do not have deductive knowledge of Substance (God), but only deductive knowledge of a finite number of attributes, all of which are extensions of the one Substance. This is to say that we must infer that since all things that exist are involved in a causal relationship, and therefore "determined" to exist in a specific way, that they must be reducible to one common feature...or "ontological" characteristic- they must be generic and homogenous- they must have a single common property. That property is Substance. All attributes and modes, or "things" and "processes", must proceed from Substance to be at all.

The table and chair are but two attributes of Substance (God). Also, we cannot really say that God is "everything", since that presupposes that all material things can be counted. We know that Substance must be infinite and therefore uncountable. For to say that the universe consists of a finite amount of material is to say that the universe is only what is "in it" and not beyond it...not on the "outside" of the "edge" of the field of material.

We also have the matter of the idea of infinite divisability- that anything with mass can be divided. This leads to a strange conceptual paradox which forces us to no longer think of material in terms of "things" with geometric properties...but rather as an interaction of forces...forces which are quantifiable only through mathematical modeling. I find Nietzsche's idea of "dynamic quanta" to be appropriate here...and in good company of Spinoza's idea of Substance.

So then maybe the chair and table are the same thing? Dynamic quanta?


Either I am WAY misunderstanding this or you are stating that modern chemistry cannot exist, since, for example, the following chemical decomposition couldn't happen because one substance is producing 2 different substances

Spinoza does not mean "elements" by Substance. He means by Substance "that which stands beneath", as with the original greek etymology. By this metaphor he does not imply that we literally stand beneath something....but that Substance is prior to any and all possible modifications. The elements you mention being modifications, extensions, for instance.


Here is where you make the fatal error most religious people commit: you are assuming God exists without showing any evidence than just "assuming", which can hardly be considered evidence.

If I mean by "God", "that which is", then I know God exists. It is that simple. I certainly don't think of God as the bearded guy in the clouds who keeps a journal.

We add nothing to nature by calling it "God", but this does not mean nature shouldn't be conceived of as divine. The universe is a fantastic, marvelous machine which is so vast, so complex, that the organization itself is inexplicable. "Why not nothing" people often ask. Well, duh! Substance must exist!


and again you go on assuming something without proving that it exists, ignoring the fact that for something to be everything, it is going against the law of identity which you have identified as true in the first place. You are just naming everything after god, but the fact is just naming it doesn't mean it exists besides a name.

The LOI doesn't work like that. One can define A as that which is p,x, and y. So when I say that God is a table and a chair....I assign the characteristic of "table" and "chair" to the definition of A. The only thing A cannot be is not-A. So if I define God as an A, which is a table and chair, I cannot define God as not a table and chair.

Negations and contradictions do not exist in God, because God's "essence" is positive. Only in our ideas do we conceive of negation....and that is the conception of absence. Absence does not really exist in such a way that we can affirm and observe absence like we can the presence of something. Can one say "look! There John isn't!"

Negatives only exist as a function/symbol in logic. The material world is positive.

[Kronos]

For those interested here is a thread on Spinoza at another site I hang out at.

http://iloveopinions.com/index.php?topic=973.0

The main contenders- XXX, James, and Gamer start the ball rolling. Of the three, XXX, who I have known on philosophy boards for many years, is very well learned in Spinoza's thought.

Of course the thread turns a bit sour between James and XXX eventually (don't all thread do that in the end?). I'm Zoot Allures, who posted a few times toward the end of the thread. Alas, the thread is collecting dust.

[RGacky3]

Kronos, since you seam to knwo a lot about Spinoza, what in hell are Monads? (please answer in terms applicable to the real world).


If I mean by "God", "that which is", then I know God exists. It is that simple.

In that case your reducing "God" to somethin meaningless, what you saying is "things that exist, exist" which means whatever you talk about after than on that subject is pointless and meaningless.

All of this metaphysics and philosophy really just ends up as a distortion of language.


I really can't tell you how liberating, self empowering and fantastic understanding Spinoza is. I feel fabulous, though, and you should too.

Redefining a word is liberating?

[Kronos]

Kronos, since you seam to knwo a lot about Spinoza, what in hell are Monads?

Read Leibniz's Monadology. He was influenced by Spinoza a great deal.


In that case your reducing "God" to somethin meaningless, what you saying is "things that exist, exist" which means whatever you talk about after than on that subject is pointless and meaningless.

I don't think it is "meaningless" at all. That the universe, or multiverse, or whatever the hell you want to call it, always existed and always will....is pretty far out, dude.


All of this metaphysics and philosophy really just ends up as a distortion of language.

The Wittgenstein in me agrees, but the Nietzsche in me says that all language is distortion (a "word" being a sensation transformed into an image)....even ordinary language, if there is such a thing. This is why Spinoza's "geometric body of propositions" is so attractive to me- he leaves very little space for ambiguity. The Ethics is the kind of work where you can't take out a single proposition and call it nonsense. It is not like what Wittgenstein called a "house of cards". The Ethics is like a building of heavy gauge metal framing. You have to knock out the foundational premises in order to stop it from standing. The whole thing is like a pyramid of logic where each individual proposition refers back to a definition...and again back to an axiom.....similar to Wittgenstein's Tractatus (in fact W modeled it off of The Ethics). Literary architecture at its best.

I'm tellin you this kind of synchronic writing is rare in philosophy. Generally we see amorphous blobs of writing which don't "build" like a structure. Even guys like Descartes and Kant accidentally become difficult to follow.

And when a philosopher writes like this....he is unwittingly using an aphoristic style...which makes clarity very difficult.....unless, like Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, one intentionally wants to create contradiction and paradox to seize the reader (nobody does maieutics better than Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, in my opinion).


Redefining a word is liberating?

All things noble are as difficult as they are rare, young man.

[trivas7]

(a "word" being a sensation transformed into an image)
The Buddhist in me says that language is a distortion insofar as it dichotomizes a unity.

[RGacky3]

Kronos, since you seam to knwo a lot about Spinoza, what in hell are Monads? Read Leibniz's Monadology. He was influenced by Spinoza a great deal.

I'm sorry, wrong philosopher :P: it was Leibniz, but I'm not going to read it, I have better things to do.


I don't think it is "meaningless" at all. That the universe, or multiverse, or whatever the hell you want to call it, always existed and always will....is pretty far out, dude.


Sure, but its still meaningless, because when people say god they are not saying the universe, when people say the universe they say the universe, so by you redefining the word god to mean universe you hav'nt discovered anything at all, you've just redefined something.


The Wittgenstein in me agrees, but the Nietzsche in me says that all language is distortion (a "word" being a sensation transformed into an image)....even ordinary language, if there is such a thing.

What does the Kronos in you think? Some OIers need to stop basing every thought of theirs on what some dead philosophers wrote.


This is why Spinoza's "geometric body of propositions" is so attractive to me- he leaves very little space for ambiguity. The Ethics is the kind of work where you can't take out a single proposition and call it nonsense. It is not like what Wittgenstein called a "house of cards". The Ethics is like a building of heavy gauge metal framing. You have to knock out the foundational premises in order to stop it from standing. The whole thing is like a pyramid of logic where each individual proposition refers back to a definition...and again back to an axiom.....similar to Wittgenstein's Tractatus (in fact W modeled it off of The Ethics). Literary architecture at its best.

I'm sorry where was I talking about Ethics?


I'm tellin you this kind of synchronic writing is rare in philosophy. Generally we see amorphous blobs of writing which don't "build" like a structure. Even guys like Descartes and Kant accidentally become difficult to follow.


Its still just redefining words and twisting language, and thus, meaningless bullshit.



Quote:
Redefining a word is liberating?
All things noble are as difficult as they are rare, young man.

What the hell are you talking about? my question was essencially "how is redefining a word liberating", and this is your answer?

[Kronos]

Sure, but its still meaningless, because when people say god they are not saying the universe, when people say the universe they say the universe, so by you redefining the word god to mean universe you hav'nt discovered anything at all, you've just redefined something.


Wait, are you telling me everything is meaningless? My God, I haven't felt like this since my days of drinking black coffee in quite Sartrean existential despair. Man is a useless passion.....values fly up from our feet like doves from the grass, yada, yada? Gee thanks, Gacky. Now I don't care about anything again. Not even Anarchy because it must be meaningless....just another word made up to define gratuitous, pointless existence.

I was trying to find a way to make sense of it all and you took that away from me.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Say I'm a piano teacher, and want ot buy some bread but have nothing to trade for it, and the baker doesn't want piano lessons. That owuld mean that I would have to keep trading piano lessons for things until I get what the baker wants. It's extremely inneficent

Nobody is ever limited to just one talent; you could offer to help the baker by protecting his bakery at night in exchange for bread.

[Nwoye]

Nobody is ever limited to just one talent; you could offer to help the baker by protecting his bakery at night in exchange for bread.
or you could just skip this meaningless debate and accept the usefulness of money as a medium of exchange.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nobody is ever limited to just one talent; you could offer to help the baker by protecting his bakery at night in exchange for bread.

"I don't have the time to play night watchman, I've got piano lessons to teach!"

[Rosa Provokateur]

or you could just skip this meaningless debate and accept the usefulness of money as a medium of exchange.

I dont deny the usefulness but with money comes the ability of accumulation, bribery, power, authority, a State, and then we're back where we started.

[Rosa Provokateur]

"I don't have the time to play night watchman, I've got piano lessons to teach!"

If your students truly value the lessons, they wont mind any time-changes you make as to when you give lessons.

[Lord Testicles]

I propose barter. Value is relative and the flaw in monetary sytems is the assumption that value is universal; by allowing people to trade possessions instead of meaningless dollars we eliminate the power of accumulation and we keep the desire to produce in motion.

IMO a barter economy is too simplistic for the modern era.

Lets say I'm a physicist and I want to get my hands on a particle accelerator, who would I barter with to get my hand on one of these and what could I give in exchange for it?
...or do you expect that the army of specialists needed to build such complex equipment will be happy with a homemade loaf of bread?

[Rosa Provokateur]

IMO a barter economy is too simplistic for the modern era.

Lets say I'm a physicist and I want to get my hands on a particle accelerator, who would I barter with to get my hand on one of these and what could I give in exchange for it?
...or do you expect that the army of specialists needed to build such complex equipment will be happy with a homemade loaf of bread?

To the best of my knowledge there arent all that many physicists wandering around and even so, barter is meant to meet the needs of individual-to-individual transaction without coercion or force on any outside parties.

I dont care about physics so I really dont feel any concern for these accelerators.

[mykittyhasaboner]

To the best of my knowledge there arent all that many physicists wandering around and even so, barter is meant to meet the needs of individual-to-individual transaction without coercion or force on any outside parties.

I dont care about physics so I really dont feel any concern for these accelerators.

So your simply going to right off the fact that barter-economics would not be able to provide physicists with particle accelerators in any efficient way? How then would you propose scientists acquire high-tech materials through a barter system?

In my opinion, Skinz is absolutely right in pointing out that barter-economics is simply to simplistic in it's nature and could never work on a large scale in such a complex society. All of this emphasis on "individual-to-individual transactions with out coercion or force" is simply idealist nonsense that is completely out of place when talking about economics. Idealist pipe dreams have no place in the development of economic production or the freedom and ability for people to acquire their needs; for that you need a system of universal value that can operate with out a direct exchange of goods (a system according to value that is universally accepted and used), or else things will simply never work out.

Without common plans or any kind of universal form of value, how is industrial infrastructure or large-scale development projects to be completed? Are developers supposed to trade items for manufactured steel or concrete? What on Earth can be traded for manufactured metals that can be done on some idealistic "individual to individual basis"? Industrial infrastructure, agriculture, and all other necessary forms of societal organization have to be done according to some plan where multiple pieces fit together, and cannot be completed if everyone is too busy trying to barter and trade whatever the hell people want to trade. Economics simply doesn't work like that. For example, how could a hospital treat patients in a barter system? Are sick people supposed to trade something for medial attention? What will people trade others in exchange for their labor? While barter systems may work in some cases, among simple situations where both parties agree on the terms of the trade, this form of exchange could never hope to work on a large scale without totally screwing up any hope of achieving a free-access economic system absent of any exploitation or oppression.

[Rosa Provokateur]

So your simply going to right off the fact that barter-economics would not be able to provide physicists with particle accelerators in any efficient way? How then would you propose scientists acquire high-tech materials through a barter system?

In my opinion, Skinz is absolutely right in pointing out that barter-economics is simply to simplistic in it's nature and could never work on a large scale in such a complex society. All of this emphasis on "individual-to-individual transactions with out coercion or force" is simply idealist nonsense that is completely out of place when talking about economics. Idealist pipe dreams have no place in the development of economic production or the freedom and ability for people to acquire their needs; for that you need a system of universal value that can operate with out a direct exchange of goods (a system according to value that is universally accepted and used), or else things will simply never work out.

Without common plans or any kind of universal form of value, how is industrial infrastructure or large-scale development projects to be completed? Are developers supposed to trade items for manufactured steel or concrete? What on Earth can be traded for manufactured metals that can be done on some idealistic "individual to individual basis"? Industrial infrastructure, agriculture, and all other necessary forms of societal organization have to be done according to some plan where multiple pieces fit together, and cannot be completed if everyone is too busy trying to barter and trade whatever the hell people want to trade. Economics simply doesn't work like that. For example, how could a hospital treat patients in a barter system? Are sick people supposed to trade something for medial attention? What will people trade others in exchange for their labor? While barter systems may work in some cases, among simple situations where both parties agree on the terms of the trade, this form of exchange could never hope to work on a large scale without totally screwing up any hope of achieving a free-access economic system absent of any exploitation or oppression.

I wouldnt. Science is great but technologically we could use a slow down, for the environment if nothing else.

I never said it would work on a large-scale; I have no intention nor desire to help formulate a large-scale system of any-sort for anyone. Economy should be localized and de-centralized. In both capitalist and Marxist dominated economies centalization has only lead to failure for the people and power for the ruling class, be it bourgeoise or Communist Party. Localized mutualism is possible, workable, and sustainable and leaves space open for those who wish to practice something different. It may be idealistic but in a certain sense, it must be. Without idealism you have no soul-power, no soul-power, no revolution.


Mass organization, rebuilding society, and creating networks from nation to nation dont interest me. I advocate that rather than attempt to build some complex and potentially bloated internationalist system, we aim for work on the local level in our own areas. Not to say that I believe in the Stalinist concept of "socialism in one nation", I dont. I think that post-capitalist life should be pursued within ones own domain, not by pushing onward some kind of Internationale program.

[Jazzratt]

I wouldnt. Science is great but technologically we could use a slow down, for the environment if nothing else.

That's utter balls. If anything we need more technology - it's the primitive nature of our current technology that is fucking everything up. Besides how many resources do you think go into other parts of science, say meteorology or environmental monitoring. Do you think that can be arranged in a barter based society at all.

Neglect science at your peril. It's how we end up with dark ages.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I wouldnt. Science is great but technologically we could use a slow down, for the environment if nothing else.
Jazzratt took care of this one.


I never said it would work on a large-scale; I have no intention nor desire to help formulate a large-scale system of any-sort for anyone.The do you ignore the fact that humans exist on a large scale, and need large-scale organization in order to function as a society?



Economy should be localized and de-centralized. In both capitalist and Marxist dominated economies centalization has only lead to failure for the people and power for the ruling class, be it bourgeoise or Communist Party. Lol. OK well if you simply want to "localize and decentralize" economics then how the hell will someone from Africa buy something from someone in Europe for example? Or how would resources that are produced in one part of the world be transported to another? Or are such endeavors simply unreasonable to you?

On centralized economics, I think your way to quick to just throw Marxist economics and capitalist economics both in the same category so you can easily right them off. First, a large part of Marxist economics, even in the Soviet Union, were centered on local economic structures and operations; hence the need for soviets, trade unions, and local committees in the first place. A common misconception (one that you are reinforcing) is that centralization and nationalized scale economics and politics cannot coexist with "smaller" organization on a local scale; this is obviously false because large, national or international scale economics rely on federations or similar groupings of smaller organization.

Second, centralized organization is not an objective or static from of economics; meaning that just because an economic system is centralized, does not imply "failure" for the people, centralized systems can be complete opposites, like the former Soviet Union and the USA. My point is that in the field of economics and determining which class has power, what's most important is class rule, meaning which close owns, controls, and operates the means of production; not whether a system is "centralized" or "de-centralized".


Localized mutualism is possible, workable, and sustainable and leaves space open for those who wish to practice something different. It may be idealistic but in a certain sense, it must be. Without idealism you have no soul-power, no soul-power, no revolution.Localized mutualism, sure; but you can't expect society to rely on just local mutualism.

You can't base economic theory or implement economic practice on idealism, because economics is dominated by material reality that is independent of the will of man.



Mass organization, rebuilding society, and creating networks from nation to nation dont interest me.No kidding.


I advocate that rather than attempt to build some complex and potentially bloated internationalist system, we aim for work on the local level in our own areas.So does this mean you advocate that all local areas work independently and without assistance from other areas? That all communities simply have to be 'self-sufficient'?


Not to say that I believe in the Stalinist concept of "socialism in one nation", I dont. I think that post-capitalist life should be pursued within ones own domain, not by pushing onward some kind of Internationale program.
What in the world does "Socialism In One Country" have to do with any of this? You completely misunderstood the concpet and taken it out of context, I suggest reading this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2070) as well as the link provided in it.

If "post-capitalist" life should only be pursued "within one's own domain", then what's the point of getting rid of capitalism?* The point of abolishing capitalism and establishing socialism is to get rid of alienation, and the need for people to pursue economic interests solely in their own areas. The whole point is to internationalize the entirety of economics so that there is an abundance of materials in order to support all humans with the qualities of life they desire. If communities were left to themselves, how would this be possible?






*Wait, aren't you an "anarcho-capitalist"?

[Lord Testicles]

To the best of my knowledge there arent all that many physicists wandering around and even so, barter is meant to meet the needs of individual-to-individual transaction without coercion or force on any outside parties.

I dont care about physics so I really dont feel any concern for these accelerators.

That's not the point, the point is, your proposed barter system wouldn't be able to provide people with what they need/want. I don't think your barter system could provide people with basic household appliances or even clothes let alone something as complex as a particle accelerator.

[Kronos]

Science is great but technologically we could use a slow down, for the environment if nothing else.

I agree with the Ratt. Technology isn't your problem. The problem is the free-market use of technology. Unbridled industry all over the world. You've got eighteen million privately owned shampoo factories all over the world belching crap into the sky so five million Stacys can have full bodied hair.

Why? Fuck Stacy and fuck her hair.

[Rosa Provokateur]

The do you ignore the fact that humans exist on a large scale, and need large-scale organization in order to function as a society?


Lol. OK well if you simply want to "localize and decentralize" economics then how the hell will someone from Africa buy something from someone in Europe for example? Or how would resources that are produced in one part of the world be transported to another? Or are such endeavors simply unreasonable to you?

On centralized economics, I think your way to quick to just throw Marxist economics and capitalist economics both in the same category so you can easily right them off. First, a large part of Marxist economics, even in the Soviet Union, were centered on local economic structures and operations; hence the need for soviets, trade unions, and local committees in the first place. A common misconception (one that you are reinforcing) is that centralization and nationalized scale economics and politics cannot coexist with "smaller" organization on a local scale; this is obviously false because large, national or international scale economics rely on federations or similar groupings of smaller organization.

Second, centralized organization is not an objective or static from of economics; meaning that just because an economic system is centralized, does not imply "failure" for the people, centralized systems can be complete opposites, like the former Soviet Union and the USA. My point is that in the field of economics and determining which class has power, what's most important is class rule, meaning which close owns, controls, and operates the means of production; not whether a system is "centralized" or "de-centralized".

Localized mutualism, sure; but you can't expect society to rely on just local mutualism.

You can't base economic theory or implement economic practice on idealism, because economics is dominated by material reality that is independent of the will of man.



So does this mean you advocate that all local areas work independently and without assistance from other areas? That all communities simply have to be 'self-sufficient'?


What in the world does "Socialism In One Country" have to do with any of this? You completely misunderstood the concpet and taken it out of context, I suggest reading this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2070) as well as the link provided in it.

If "post-capitalist" life should only be pursued "within one's own domain", then what's the point of getting rid of capitalism?* The point of abolishing capitalism and establishing socialism is to get rid of alienation, and the need for people to pursue economic interests solely in their own areas. The whole point is to internationalize the entirety of economics so that there is an abundance of materials in order to support all humans with the qualities of life they desire. If communities were left to themselves, how would this be possible?






*Wait, aren't you an "anarcho-capitalist"?

Humans dont need large-scale organization; States, authories, and powers that seek to control a large amount of people use things such as large-scale organization to broaden their coercion. If it where not so, States would always have been.

I dont know. I'm not trying to solve every for-seeable problem nor could I. From my understanding, barter is the most possible and could easily be done; it eliminates the need for money, wealth distribution, and throws in a good stumbling block to prevent a resurgence of mass-capitalism. I think it's socialism at the most personal level.

The original soviets before the Bolshevik take-over where a joy! If localized community-organizations like them could be re-built, I'd support it. Centralization can co-exist with localized economy but only in a desctructive way where power is directed from the top, barking demands to the lower levels. It's hierarchy and anyone that advocates such hierarchy should be met with skepticism.

I'm not concerned with class, I'm concerned with people. Even if it where the proletariat in power, under centralization it would be a minority of the proletariat in control or possibly some-sort of elitist vanguard. The Soviet Union is perfect evidence of why such structure should be avoided.

Society on the community level, yes, I do. This could mean anything from the communities in apartment complexes to the community of a neighborhood block to the community of an entire city-section like Deep Elum in Dallas or Harlem in New York. It leaves the possibilities open-handed and limited only by the capacity of people to deal with one-another.

Man has a degree of power in deciding what that material reality looks like and thus power in deciding what that economy is gonna be. Idealism applied accordingly based on the material conditions could be workable.

Self-sufficient if they choose but if one chooses to do mutual-aid with the other than why should I object.

I mentioned "Socialism In One Country" because usually if one isnt advocating an internationalist policy of creating networks globally, it might be construed that he could be calling for the Stalinist model. I'm not so I saved myself the trouble by saying so.

Capitalism is a man-made power-structure and thus requires abolition. I agree that alienation's end is what we aim for and by leaving communities to themselves so that each member may take a hand in operating it, we end that alienation. Centralization leaves this decision making to powers outside these communities and creates alienation between the Cental and the Local. Localization cant because all members of the Local must co-operate in order for the Local to function.

[laminustacitus]

I agree with the Ratt. Technology isn't your problem. The problem is the free-market use of technology. Unbridled industry all over the world. You've got eighteen million privately owned shampoo factories all over the world belching crap into the sky so five million Stacys can have full bodied hair.

Why? Fuck Stacy and fuck her hair.
Why are you so vehemently against individuals just wanting to live peacefully with their luxury goods? Seriously, how have they wronged you? Just because of the fact they do not desire the social order you do, you are so willingly to cast aside their desires like they are not a fellow human being?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Humans dont need large-scale organization; States, authories, and powers that seek to control a large amount of people use things such as large-scale organization to broaden their coercion. If it where not so, States would always have been.
This isn't an argument. Humans do need large scale organization, there are approx. 7 billions humans on the Earth.


I dont know. I'm not trying to solve every for-seeable problem nor could I. From my understanding, barter is the most possible and could easily be done; it eliminates the need for money, wealth distribution, and throws in a good stumbling block to prevent a resurgence of mass-capitalism. I think it's socialism at the most personal level.
Well your understanding is incredibly skewed. You can't barter for every single last exchange of resources, let alone across far distances. Barter economics isn't a "stumbling block" for "mass-capitalism", because it implies that ownership of production and distribution is not socially and collectively owned by all of society, thus exploitation can still occur.



The original soviets before the Bolshevik take-over where a joy!Ha, before the "Bolshevik take over"? Don't waste time with such (false) claims, as they aren't even relevant to the discussion.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105660/index.html?t=105660


If localized community-organizations like them could be re-built, I'd support it. Centralization can co-exist with localized economy but only in a desctructive way where power is directed from the top, barking demands to the lower levels. It's hierarchy and anyone that advocates such hierarchy should be met with skepticism.Oh no! Hierarchy! Too bad that hierarchical organization has nothing to do with what were talking about (barter economics, if you forgot). I'm terribly un-surprised at your description of hierarchy as "power directed from the top, barking demands to lower levels"; why not actually try looking into how the hierarchy of soviet's worked rather than boasting about how bad it is.

http://marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/index.htm

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n2/darcy.htm




I'm not concerned with class, I'm concerned with people.Maybe you need to go read some Marx and Engels.


Even if it where the proletariat in power, under centralization it would be a minority of the proletariat in control or possibly some-sort of elitist vanguard. The Soviet Union is perfect evidence of why such structure should be avoided.:lol: Yeah, yeah, yeah; nice little story. In fact, the Soviet Union is a great example of why it is necessary for such a structure. Never before the Soviet Union was such a large scale emancipation of workers and peasants from the tyranny of capitalism, and the unity of so many different peoples under one republic, in any way possible. A vanguard isn't an elitist concept, please stop pulling all of this shit out of your ass and try reading something for a change. The vanguard is simply a reality, some workers and revolutionaries are much more familiar and conscious of political economy and socialism than others. A political party, made up of the most advanced sections of class concious workers (the vanguard) is needed to overthrow capitalism; otherwise you would have an unorganized, dis unified riot at best.






Society on the community level, yes, I do. This could mean anything from the communities in apartment complexes to the community of a neighborhood block to the community of an entire city-section like Deep Elum in Dallas or Harlem in New York. It leaves the possibilities open-handed and limited only by the capacity of people to deal with one-another.How will a community in Africa purchase materials from a community in Europe? Through a mutual exchange? What constitutes the value of this exchange? How are these exchanges going to take place across the Mediterranean sea? Will you have to barter with transportation enterprises?

All of this endless bartering is so out of the question.




Man has a degree of power in deciding what that material reality looks like and thus power in deciding what that economy is gonna be. Idealism applied accordingly based on the material conditions could be workable.Yes, sure. But if your advocating barter economics then you are totally contradicting what you just said, because you neglect the fact that barter economics is unreliable and cannot work on the scale our society operates on.


Self-sufficient if they choose but if one chooses to do mutual-aid with the other than why should I object.Why are communities restricted to "mutually-aiding" other communities?


I mentioned "Socialism In One Country" because usually if one isnt advocating an internationalist policy of creating networks globally, it might be construed that he could be calling for the Stalinist model. I'm not so I saved myself the trouble by saying so.So you didn't read the thread I recommended? OK, I'll just have to post it here:


Stalin never promoted the ideology of 'socialism in one country' to mean that socialism would only be created in one country and that each revolutionary struggle would be disunified; the working class struggles being inconsistent with eachother. There's no source to support such a claim. Stalin and Lenin both realized that, contrary to Marx's theory, socialism would not take hold in industrialized nations and spread from nation to nation at the same general time. Revolutionary struggles, as history has shown us, vary based on national characteristics and the general ripeness and organization of the working class to forge revolution.

Socialism in one country does not mean that a socialist state would be isolated from other international revolutions. To the contrary, it means that each socialist country must develop and industrialize as if it would be the only socialist revolution. A nation must be prepared to defend itself from reactionary counterrevolution, as well as imperialism that attempts to undermine the struggle in favor of corporate and bourgeois interests. All workers struggles are united, but each struggle is unique based on industrial development and the preparation of the revolutionary vanguard.

A modern example would be Cuba. Cuba is not isolated from revolutionary struggle, as it collaborated with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China to maintain the workers state. Regardless, due to revisionism in China and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba is currently left to fend mostly for itself; standing defiantly in the face of the United States' military threats and imperialist exploitation. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the eastern socialist bloc, Cuba is left to fend for itself and it is experiencing serious setbacks because Fidel Castro did not make the nation totally self-sufficient; relying on Soviet trade and commodities to maintain itself. There is nothing wrong with revolutionary internationalism and collaboration, but there is a point in which self-sufficiency is imperative.

As I have said, all workers struggles must unite, regardless of borders. Regardless, each workers state must properly industrialize and maintain its strength, for revolutions are not fool-proof. Revisionism has brought down many revolutions that have been ignited by the working class, but the proper application of Marxism-Leninism can secure that socialism will thrive and continue, whether united with other nations or forced into isolation. One must not misread Stalin and Lenin's statements, as both of them rationally explain why socialism must spread to bring about world revolution, but we realize that the world is not surreal. Revolutions do not happen at the same time and often times, revisionism will bring economic turbulence or a rift between socialist states. Only through internal strengthening of the workers state can revolution hope to flourish.





Comrade Pokoyev,
I am late in replying, for which I apologize to you and your comrades.

Unfortunately, you have not understood our disagreements at the Fourteenth Congress. The point was not at all that the opposition asserted that we had not yet arrived at socialism, while the congress held that we had already arrived at socialism. That is not true. You will not find a single member in our Party who would say that we have already achieved socialism.
That was not at all the subject of the dispute at the congress. The subject of the dispute was this. The congress held that the working class, in alliance with the labouring peasantry, can deal the finishing blow to the capitalists of our country and build a socialist society, even if there is no victorious revolution in the West to come to its aid. The opposition, on the contrary, held that we cannot deal the finishing blow to our capitalists and build a socialist society until the workers are victorious in the West. Well, as the victory of the revolution in the West is rather late in coming, nothing remains for us to do, apparently, but to loaf around. The congress held, and said so in its resolution on the report of the Central Committee [1], that these views of the opposition implied disbelief in victory over our capitalists.

That was the point at issue, dear comrades.

This, of course, does not mean that we do not need the help of the West-European workers. Suppose that the West-European workers did not sympathise with us and did not render us moral support. Suppose that the West-European workers did not prevent their capitalists from launching an attack upon our Republic. What would be the outcome? The outcome would be that the capitalists would march against us and radically disrupt our constructive work, if not destroy us altogether. If the capitalists are not attempting this, it is because they are afraid that if they were to attack our Republic, the workers would strike at them from the rear. That is what we mean when we say that the West-European workers are supporting our revolution.
But from the support of the workers of the West to the victory of the revolution in the West is a long, long way. Without the support of the workers of the West we could scarcely have held out against the enemies surrounding us. If this support should later develop into a victorious revolution in the West, well and good. Then the victory of socialism in our country will be final. But what if this support does not develop into a victory of the revolution in the West? If there is no such victory in the West, can we build a socialist society and complete the building of it? The congress answered that we can. Otherwise, there would have been no point in our taking power in October 1917. If we had not counted on giving the finishing blow to our capitalists, everyone will say that we had no business to take power in October 1917. The opposition, however, affirms that we cannot finish off our capitalists by our own efforts.

That is the difference between us.

There was also talk at the congress of the final victory of socialism. What does that mean? It means a full guarantee against the intervention of foreign capitalists and the restoration of the old order in our country as the result of an armed struggle by those capitalists against our country. Can we, by our own efforts, ensure this guarantee, that is, render armed intervention on the part of international capital impossible? No, we cannot. That is something to be done jointly by ourselves and the proletarians of the entire West. International capital can be finally curbed only by the efforts of the working class of all countries, or at least of the major European countries. For that the victory of the revolution in several European countries is indispensable—without it the final victory of socialism is impossible.

What follows then in conclusion?

It follows that we are capable of completely building a socialist society by our own efforts and without the victory of the revolution in the West, but that, by itself alone, our country cannot guarantee itself against encroachments by international capital—for that the victory of the revolution in several Western countries is needed. The possibility of completely building socialism in our country is one thing, the possibility of guaranteeing our country against encroachments by international capital is another.
In my opinion, your mistake and that of your comrades is that you have not yet found your way in this matter and have confused these two questions.

With comradely greetings,
J. Stalin



Capitalism is a man-made power-structure and thus requires abolition. I agree that alienation's end is what we aim for and by leaving communities to themselves so that each member may take a hand in operating it, we end that alienation. Centralization leaves this decision making to powers outside these communities and creates alienation between the Cental and the Local. Localization cant because all members of the Local must co-operate in order for the Local to function.So capitalism requires abolition because it is a "man-made-power structure"? Then what is barter economics, or autonomous communities? Natural?

If you advocate communities being completely autonomous, then your not doing much to alleviate alienation; your simply advocating even more alienation by pushing for a society that is less integrated than it already is. Centralization (be it in political or economic structures) are created so that large-scale issues, activities, and other affairs can be managed, there's no other reason really. There is no explanation as to how centralization causes alienation, inequality, or oppressive authority because in itself, it doesn't: all this comes as a side effect of private ownership of production and the centralization of capital into the hands of a small minority.

[laminustacitus]

:lol: Yeah, yeah, yeah; nice little story. In fact, the Soviet Union is a great example of why it is necessary for such a structure. Never before the Soviet Union was such a large scale emancipation of workers and peasants from the tyranny of capitalism, and the unity of so many different peoples under one republic, in any way possible.

Are you seriously suggesting that the USSR was a good thing for Soviet citizens? Do you have any idea how many innocent individuals were massacred just because they had wealth of some kind, how many died during the Soviet genocide against the Ukranians, and how the USSR damned their entire populace to poverty? The USSR was one of the most despicable tyrannies ever to be seen in man's history.

[#FF0000]

Are you seriously suggesting that the USSR was a good thing for Soviet citizens? Do you have any idea how many innocent individuals were massacred just because they had wealth of some kind, how many died during the Soviet genocide against the Ukranians, and how the USSR damned their entire populace to poverty? The USSR was one of the most despicable tyrannies ever to be seen in man's history.

You guys have a really bad habit of peddling weak-ass economics to people who have their economics down (Vinnie) and weak-ass history to people who have their history down (Mykittyhasaboner).

[laminustacitus]

You guys have a really bad habit of peddling weak-ass economics to people who have their economics down (Vinnie) and weak-ass history to people who have their history down (Mykittyhasaboner).
I'm an egalitarian when it comes to critiquing.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Are you seriously suggesting that the USSR was a good thing for Soviet citizens?
Ummm, of course it was. I mean, seriously, just ask the Russians if you don't believe me. Polls consistently show a very high degree of nostalgia for Soviet times and regret about the fall of the USSR.

Compared to any other Russian government or economic system, the Soviet Union gave its citizens the best standard of living, the best education, the best health care, and the greatest degree of gender and ethnic equality. It also advanced science further and faster than any other system that ever existed in Russia, and life expectancy was higher in late Soviet times than in any other period in Russian history (today it is lower).


Do you have any idea how many innocent individuals were massacred just because they had wealth of some kind...
If they had wealth, they were not innocent. Especially considering the ways one acquired wealth under the Tsar.

However, it is true that many people who were indeed innocent - that is, people who had not owned means of production - were also killed, particularly during the Stalin period. That was due to the authoritarian and undemocratic political system, which allowed a person like Stalin to rise to power and put his paranoia into actions. This was the greatest flaw of the USSR (and the cause of its downfall).

Still, it doesn't change the fact that the Soviet Union was better for the Soviet peoples than any of the other social systems they've ever had.


...how many died during the Soviet genocide against the Ukranians...
It was not a genocide, but yes, many people died of hunger in the Soviet Union, particularly in Ukraine, between 1929 and 1933. However, the USSR eventually got its act together, and no one died of hunger after that (with the exception of the WW2 years, of course).

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people continue to die of hunger in capitalist societies around the world even today. If I'm not mistaken, the numbers add up to about one "Ukrainian genocide" every 10 years.


...and how the USSR damned their entire populace to poverty?
What crazy alternate reality are you living in? The people of the USSR were poor by Western standards, that is true, but they were wealthy by global standards. And, most importantly, they were better off under the Soviet government than under any other Russian government before or since.

The USSR should not be used as a model for any socialist society in the future. But it was a pretty good first try.

[laminustacitus]

Ummm, of course it was. I mean, seriously, just ask the Russians if you don't believe me. Polls consistently show a very high degree of nostalgia for Soviet times and regret about the fall of the USSR.
Doubt it.




Compared to any other Russian government or economic system, the Soviet Union gave its citizens the best standard of living, the best education, the best health care, and the greatest degree of gender and ethnic equality.
"Equality", really meaning that the higher you are up on the party-ladder the more you get (but we call know how socialists reply to that) as long as you swear fealty to the communist party, if you do not then you are simply executed.




If they had wealth, they were not innocent. Especially considering the ways one acquired wealth under the Tsar.
This is just foolish, wealth does not necessitate crime nor does it justify the utter annihilation of the land-owning peasantry.




However, it is true that many people who were indeed innocent - that is, people who had not owned means of production - were also killed, particularly during the Stalin period. That was due to the authoritarian and undemocratic political system, which allowed a person like Stalin to rise to power and put his paranoia into actions. This was the greatest flaw of the USSR (and the cause of its downfall).
Socialism is by its very definition authoritarian for it requires an authoritarian regime to truly control the factors of production. Plus, Comrade Lenin held no scruples against killing those who resisted him.




Still, it doesn't change the fact that the Soviet Union was better for the Soviet peoples than any of the other social systems they've ever had.
I would prefer being a living peasant under the Tsar then a dead peasant under Stalin; during the Tsarist regime Russia was Europe's breadbasket, after the reign of socialism, its food production was wretched.




It was not a genocide, but yes, many people died of hunger in the Soviet Union, particularly in Ukraine, between 1929 and 1933. However, the USSR eventually got its act together, and no one died of hunger after that (with the exception of the WW2 years, of course).
Blockading an entire nation, and not letting food in to starve the population into submission is simply genocide. The USSR used similarly heavy-handed techniques in order to maintain control of the Warsaw Pact, does




Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people continue to die of hunger in capitalist societies around the world even today. If I'm not mistaken, the numbers add up to about one "Ukrainian genocide" every 10 years.
There has not been a famine in any capitalist nation in history; it is capitalism, and the mass production that it brings that are the death-knell of famine.




What crazy alternate reality are you living in? The people of the USSR were poor by Western standards, that is true, but they were wealthy by global standards. And, most importantly, they were better off under the Soviet government than under any other Russian government before or since.
While the common man in the capitalist West flourished, in socialism he languished in poverty. In addition, the government of Kerensky was far better for the Russians than that of Lenin.

[mykittyhasaboner]

We should stop feeding this troll. They are really bringing down the quality of discussion in OI.

[#FF0000]

Doubt it.

You're wrong.

[Qayin]

"Equality", really meaning that the higher you are up on the party-ladder the more you get (but we call know how socialists reply to that) as long as you swear fealty to the communist party, if you do not then you are simply executed.


Seriously fuck off troll

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Doubt it.
Educate yourself:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2820061.stm
http://bd.english.fom.ru/report/map/spec/162_11695/ed013307
http://www.channel4.com/more4/documentaries/doc-feature.jsp?id=43&pageParam=1&letter=


"Equality", really meaning that the higher you are up on the party-ladder the more you get (but we call know how socialists reply to that) as long as you swear fealty to the communist party, if you do not then you are simply executed.
Actually, during Stalin's purges, members of the Communist Party were more at risk than non-members. The purges began within the party, and only extended to non-party members in their final stages.

Learn your history.


This is just foolish, wealth does not necessitate crime nor does it justify the utter annihilation of the land-owning peasantry.
In capitalism, wealth requires exploitation of the working class. Therefore it is a crime.

And under the Tsar, wealth also required patronage from the government, so it was a crime even by YOUR own standards.

The land-owning peasantry was not "annihilated." Most of them just had their land nationalized.


Socialism is by its very definition authoritarian for it requires an authoritarian regime to truly control the factors of production.
Right, because there are no such things as state-owned firms under democratic governments. :rolleyes:


Plus, Comrade Lenin held no scruples against killing those who resisted him.
That might have had something to do with the fact that he was fighting a civil war for the survival of his government, his party, himself, and Russia as a united country.


I would prefer being a living peasant under the Tsar then a dead peasant under Stalin; during the Tsarist regime Russia was Europe's breadbasket, after the reign of socialism, its food production was wretched.
You realize that the amount of grain a peasant produces for export has nothing to do with that peasant's quality of life, right?

You also realize that the strength of a country's economy is not measured by its agricultural production, right? Tsarist Russia was an impoverished backwater. The Soviet Union achieved the fastest industrialization in history, became the second largest economy in the world, and invented space travel. Oh, and yeah, most of the Soviet population moved to the cities and therefore stopped farming. Same as in every other developed country.


Blockading an entire nation, and not letting food in to starve the population into submission is simply genocide.
Ukraine was not selectively "blockaded"; the same famine that affected Ukraine also affected some other parts of the southern Soviet Union. And there was no need to starve anyone into any kind of submission. Ukraine was firmly under the Soviet government's control the whole time - what enemy was Stalin supposed to be fighting?

More importantly, are you saying that refusing to help people is equivalent to murdering them? I guess that means you advocate murder, since you advocate the rights of some to refuse to help others.


The USSR used similarly heavy-handed techniques in order to maintain control of the Warsaw Pact
As did the United States to maintain control of Latin America. All superpowers use heavy-handed techniques to maintain control of their sphere of influence.


There has not been a famine in any capitalist nation in history; it is capitalism, and the mass production that it brings that are the death-knell of famine.
Huh? Are you just ignoring the numerous famines in capitalist parts of Africa, or capitalist South Asia, or the many deaths by starvation in capitalist Latin America?

Or maybe you refuse to accept that those countries are capitalist?

Okay then. In that case, there was no famine in any socialist nation in history either, because the Soviet Union wasn't socialist.

We can both play this game.


While the common man in the capitalist West flourished...
...the common man in the capitalist rest of the world suffered under terrible poverty.


In addition, the government of Kerensky was far better for the Russians than that of Lenin.
What, all six months of it? The government of Kerensky was weak, incompetent, and not really in charge of most of the country. Kerensky didn't really do much of anything, except trying desperately (and unsuccessfully) to maintain the status quo.

[laminustacitus]

Seriously fuck off troll

Seriously, mature a bit before you ever speak to me again.

[laminustacitus]

Actually, during Stalin's purges, members of the Communist Party were more at risk than non-members. The purges began within the party, and only extended to non-party members in their final stages.

Learn your history.
I do not care who is "more at risk", I just care that innocent individuals are at risk! How about the persecution of the "ex-Kulaks" during the great purge, or is not a bourgeois myth?




In capitalism, wealth requires exploitation of the working class. Therefore it is a crime.
Too bad economics disproves that, nevertheless you will still execute those who have only helped their fellow man through commerce.

You seriously think the Kulaks deserved to be liquidated, and that the USSR was just in doing so?




And under the Tsar, wealth also required patronage from the government, so it was a crime even by YOUR own standards.
Immoral, not a crime.




The land-owning peasantry was not "annihilated." Most of them just had their land nationalized.
Have you ever read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's own accounts of how many Kulaks were killed? He estimated around 60 million Kulaks died at the hands of the USSR. It is a historical fact that the Kulaks were liquidated, not some opinion.




Right, because there are no such things as state-owned firms under democratic governments. :rolleyes:
A democratic government can very much be authoritarian.




That might have had something to do with the fact that he was fighting a civil war for the survival of his government, his party, himself, and Russia as a united country.
The ends do not justify the means.




You realize that the amount of grain a peasant produces for export has nothing to do with that peasant's quality of life, right?
It is merely a measure of how much food Russia created before the USSR destroyed its agrarian industry, perhaps that industry could have eventually benefited the peasants.




You also realize that the strength of a country's economy is not measured by its agricultural production, right? Tsarist Russia was an impoverished backwater.
Tsarist Russia had a robust agrarian sector, something that the starving USSR could not boast - it took until the 1970s for Russia to attain such a high production of food.




The Soviet Union achieved the fastest industrialization in history, became the second largest economy in the world, and invented space travel.
The wonders of slave labor. But how much did the Soviet citizen benefit from that industrialization, and how much did space travel benefit him?




Oh, and yeah, most of the Soviet population moved to the cities and therefore stopped farming. Same as in every other developed country.
Or the USSR liquidated the Kulaks.


Ukraine was not selectively "blockaded"; the same famine that affected Ukraine also affected some other parts of the southern Soviet Union. And there was no need to starve anyone into any kind of submission. Ukraine was firmly under the Soviet government's control the whole time - what enemy was Stalin supposed to be fighting?

More importantly, are you saying that refusing to help people is equivalent to murdering them? I guess that means you advocate murder, since you advocate the rights of some to refuse to help others.




As did the United States to maintain control of Latin America. All superpowers use heavy-handed techniques to maintain control of their sphere of influence.
I condemn the United States' actions as well, but those pall in comparison to what the USSR did in Hungary.




Huh? Are you just ignoring the numerous famines in capitalist parts of Africa, or capitalist South Asia, or the many deaths by starvation in capitalist Latin America?
What capitalist parts of Africa? What capitalist parts in South Asia? What capitalists parts of Latin America. I demand far proof than you have hitherto provided, and I can assure you that proof is not there.




Or maybe you refuse to accept that those countries are capitalist?
I actually have a criteria for a nation being capitalism. I will not count a nation where the state continuously interferes in the market at every possible opportunity, and refuses to protect the property rights of its citizens capitalist.




Okay then. In that case, there was no famine in any socialist nation in history either, because the Soviet Union wasn't socialist.
The USSR had nationalized factors of production: it is socialist.




We can both play this game.
It is truth, not a game.




...the common man in the capitalist rest of the world suffered under terrible poverty.
Again what is this "capitalist rest of the world"?




What, all six months of it? The government of Kerensky was weak, incompetent, and not really in charge of most of the country. Kerensky didn't really do much of anything, except trying desperately (and unsuccessfully) to maintain the status quo.
At least he did not liquidate the Kulaks.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Kulaks, Kulaks, Kulaks, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Kulaks, Kulaks.
Solzhenitsyn was a religious fanatic, a nostalgic of feudalism, an enemy of technological progress, and an advocate of absolute state power (though not Soviet state power, because the Soviet Union was secular, non-feudal, and promoted technological progress). Solzhenitsyn quite literally wished Russia would go back to the Middle Ages, and despised the "decadence" of the West as much as he despised the USSR. Is that the sort of person you want to be associated with?

Anyway, any "estimates" he may have made are nothing more than wild guesses - and clearly known to be false today. The virulently anti-communist Black Book of Communism estimates the total number of "victims" of the USSR at 20 million. Three times lower than the ridiculous number Solzhenitsyn gave for the Kulaks alone. More neutral sources put the total number of "victims" (Kulaks, starving Ukrainians, real purge victims, political prisoners in the Gulag, and war dead all added together) at around 10 million. Pro-Soviet sources put the number at between 1 and 3 million. Actual evidence exists only for less than 1 million people - those directly executed by the NKVD or who died in prison. All numbers higher than that are due to "estimates," which is to say guessing.

See here (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin) for a list of the various sources and their respective "estimates." Notice the extreme variation in the "estimates."

Nevertheless, it is of course true that some innocent people - probably a few hundred thousand of them - died as a result of the actions of the Soviet government under Stalin (and much smaller numbers in wartime under Lenin). This must be counted against the Soviet Union when deciding whether its record was positive or negative.

However, there are also numerous positive things that must be counted in the Soviet Union's favour. I have already listed many of them in my previous posts. I believe the positives far outweigh the negatives.


A democratic government can very much be authoritarian.
In that case, as long as it remains democratic and follows socialist principles, I have no objection to said authoritarianism.


The ends do not justify the means.
Yes they do. Especially in war.


I actually have a criteria for a nation being capitalism. I will not count a nation where the state continuously interferes in the market at every possible opportunity, and refuses to protect the property rights of its citizens capitalist.
Then no nation was ever capitalist. Which means that capitalism never did anything bad... but never did anything good, either.


The USSR had nationalized factors of production: it is socialist.
Hey, guess what? I actually have criteria for a nation being socialist. Socialism requires democratic collective control of the means of production. I am not very picky; this control does not have to be direct. The people can elect representatives to run the means of production on their behalf.

But the Soviet Union fails the test, no matter how lenient I may be. The Soviet people certainly did not have democratic collective control of the means of production. Especially under Stalin. Therefore the Soviet Union was not socialist.

[laminustacitus]

Solzhenitsyn was a religious fanatic, a nostalgic of feudalism, an enemy of technological progress, and an advocate of absolute state power (though not Soviet state power, because the Soviet Union was secular, non-feudal, and promoted technological progress). Solzhenitsyn quite literally wished Russia would go back to the Middle Ages, and despised the "decadence" of the West as much as he despised the USSR. Is that the sort of person you want to be associated with?

Anyway, any "estimates" he may have made are nothing more than wild guesses - and clearly known to be false today. The virulently anti-communist Black Book of Communism estimates the total number of "victims" of the USSR at 20 million. Three times lower than the ridiculous number Solzhenitsyn gave for the Kulaks alone. More neutral sources put the total number of "victims" (Kulaks, starving Ukrainians, real purge victims, political prisoners in the Gulag, and war dead all added together) at around 10 million. Pro-Soviet sources put the number at between 1 and 3 million. Actual evidence exists only for less than 1 million people - those directly executed by the NKVD or who died in prison. All numbers higher than that are due to "estimates," which is to say guessing.

See here (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin) for a list of the various sources and their respective "estimates." Notice the extreme variation in the "estimates."
You go so far to defend genocide, it boggles the mind. The USSR liquidated the Kulaks, that is a fact.




Nevertheless, it is of course true that some innocent people - probably a few hundred thousand of them - died as a result of the actions of the Soviet government under Stalin (and much smaller numbers in wartime under Lenin). This must be counted against the Soviet Union when deciding whether its record was positive or negative.
Some innocent people? Not only were the Kulaks persecuted, but the Ukranians were starved into submission, thousands upon thousands were sent to forced labor camps, Hungarians who opposed the Warsaw Pact were slaughtered, all who died because the USSR could simply not produce enough food thanks to the liquidation of the Kulaks, ect. This is murder on a grand scale, and you merely brush it off to the side.




However, there are also numerous positive things that must be counted in the Soviet Union's favour. I have already listed many of them in my previous posts. I believe the positives far outweigh the negatives.
You mean the positive things I displayed did not actually relieve the suffering of the Russian individual.




In that case, as long as it remains democratic and follows socialist principles, I have no objection to said authoritarianism.
Of course not.




Yes they do. Especially in war.
Disgusting. Seriously, why do you call yourself a "Christian" when you advocate nihilism?




Hey, guess what? I actually have criteria for a nation being socialist. Socialism requires democratic collective control of the means of production. I am not very picky; this control does not have to be direct. The people can elect representatives to run the means of production on their behalf.
That qualifies the USSR as socialist; nevertheless, I have no interest in you redefining an objective term to fit your own devices. While all capitalists would agree that my definition is true, ask any Neoclassical, Austrian, or even Keynesian economist. Nevertheless, not all socialists would agree with you, would NSDAP agree with your definition?




But the Soviet Union fails the test, no matter how lenient I may be. The Soviet people certainly did not have democratic collective control of the means of production. Especially under Stalin. Therefore the Soviet Union was not socialist.
The Soviet people obviously had democratic control of the factors of production because the Avant-Garde did, at least according to the Socialist theorists of the time.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Some innocent people?
Yes, some innocent people. Like the innocent people enslaved by the United States in the 19th century, or the innocent people who choked on soot and died in the gutters of Victorian Britain in its full capitalist glory, or the innocent people killed in the Congo Free State by that territory's individual private owner, Leopold II, or the innocent people who died as sacrificial victims to capitalist ambition in World War I, or the millions of wokers who were murdered by capitalist states or private thugs for daring to demand higher wages, or the tens of thousands of innocents who starve to death in the world every day, even as we speak, when they could be saved by confiscating the wealth of the world's 10 richest people.

The deaths of some of the Kulaks (most of them did not die) are a drop in the ocean compared to the monstrous trail of malnourished bodies, disease-infested slums and endless human suffering that capitalism has left in its wake.

The world is not a nice place. All those crimes must, of course, be weighed against the positive aspects of their respective societies. If you do not wish to do this - if you wish to look only at the negative aspects of every society - then prepare to stare long and hard into the abyss.


Disgusting. Seriously, why do you call yourself a "Christian" when you advocate nihilism?
I advocate utilitarianism. The life and happiness of each human being is equal to the life and happiness of every other human being. That is the logical conclusion of the principle "love your neighbor as yourself."

The ends justify the means. If you can save 100 lives by destroying 10, you should do so. To do any otherwise would be to say that one life is not equal to another, that the lives of the 10 are more valuable than the lives of the 100.


That qualifies the USSR as socialist;
The people of the USSR had control over their government, or over the use of the means of production? That's news to me.


nevertheless, I have no interest in you redefining an objective term to fit your own devices.
You mean the way you redefined capitalism?


While all capitalists would agree that my definition is true, ask any Neoclassical, Austrian, or even Keynesian economist.
All self-described capitalists agree that only countries with zero government intervention are capitalist!? Seriously, what the fuck are you smoking? Have you actually opened a simple textbook written by a Neoclassical or Keynesian economist to see what they say about capitalism? Or have you paid any attention to any statements made in favour of capitalism by liberals, conservatives, and a whole host of other politicians who call themselves capitalists without supporting pure laissez-faire?


Nevertheless, not all socialists would agree with you, would NSDAP agree with your definition?
Irrelevant, the NSDAP was not socialist any more than the German Democratic Republic was democratic. Or any more than the National Democratic Party of Germany supports democracy. Or any more than the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia supports liberal democracy. Or any more than the Holy Roman Empire was Roman.

Or any more than George W. Bush's numerous statements in favour of the free market make him a "true capitalist" by your definition.


The Soviet people obviously had democratic control of the factors of production because the Avant-Garde did, at least according to the Socialist theorists of the time.
Those socialist theorists who actually made that argument, were mistaken. The numerous socialist theorists of the time who did not make that argument - and whom you conveniently ignore - were correct. Are you familiar with a certain Rosa Luxemburg? Karl Liebknecht? Leon Trotsky? Or any socialist at all from a non-Leninist school?

[Demogorgon]

I needn't address most of this, it has already been dealt with, but a few statements leap out.

I would prefer being a living peasant under the Tsar then a dead peasant under Stalin; during the Tsarist regime Russia was Europe's breadbasket, after the reign of socialism, its food production was wretched.

Tsarist Russia was an economic joke compared to the rest of Europe. Its agricultural production was comparatively high compared to, say, this country because most people worked on the land whereas here, the country was heavily industrialised. However if you were to compare agricultural output per agricultural worker, you would find Russia lagging behind. Fast forward to the Soviet era and you will find the same thing happening as happened here in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Namely people leaving the land and going to the cities to work in industry. That is what happens when a country becomes industrialised.

The Soviet Union stopped producing so much in the way of agriculture because the nature of its economy had changed to one largely based on manufacturing. It is absurd to claim that that shows economic decline. You might as well say America's economy has collapsed since the Nineteenth century as it is no longer the lead producer of cotton.



There has not been a famine in any capitalist nation in history; it is capitalism, and the mass production that it brings that are the death-knell of famine.

Bengalese famine anyone? Enough food was produced to feed the population easily but because the population was too poor to buy much of it, it was exported to higher paying buyers. The British authorities could easily have sorted this, but they strongly believed in letting the market sort it out. Three million starved.

In addition, the government of Kerensky was far better for the Russians than that of Lenin.
What!? The only think the Kerensky Government did other than watch more and more of the country slip out of its control was to keep Russia in the absolutely disastrous war with Germany (the First World War being one of the glories of capitalism might I add).