How Communism is Taught in School

[Lyev]

So basically, on Wednesday, I went back to school and on Thursday, in History, we were learning about the Cold War. I find the subject very interesting, but I don't like at all the light my teacher portrayed communism.

She basically called Stalin and his satellite states 'communist'. Although, Yugoslavia wasn't part of them she also called them communist. I don't know enough about Yugoslavian history but I can only assume they're not true communism because they're a state; true communism is stateless, right?

She also spoke about communism in the context of capitalism and said stuff about NATO fighting for freedom and democracy. There was no mention about the merits of communism.

I'm not sure if it was taught like this just for the sake of dumbing it down. She seems like a fairly intelligence, liberal-minded person. Maybe she was just following the syllabus, I don't know, can anyone else shed some light on this? Has anyone got any similiar experiences?. By the way, I'm in year 11 in the UK.

Also I think this is the right place for this post; I wasn't sure where else to put it.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Yep it's disgusting how ignorant and stupid the state wants it's people to be so they behave.

[the last donut of the night]

Debate and tell the teacher that she´s wrong.

[Oneironaut]

I know plenty of intelligent, liberal-minded people who openly oppose communism because they simply don't know what it is, but have been told time and time again that the theory is good but it doesn't work in practice (which is no argument, if the theory is good then logically the practice will be good). She is probably simply a product of the very same education that she is giving you. You will continually counter people who for really no reason at all dislike communism. A lot of times it is just a matter of openly engaging someone like that with our perspective. You will likely keep getting cut down with senseless arguments. A good place to learn how to combat a lot of these arguments is by visiting the opposing ideologies forum for some ideas.

[danyboy27]

they didnt learned me what was communism at school.

[Lyev]

Thanks for the replies. I plan to challenge her perception of communism next week. Does anyone know any good quotes from Marx or Engels that say true communism is stateless? I want to convince her that communism has never been implicated properly.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Of course a "communist state" in Marxism is ridiculous and inherently contradictory.

But what most people mean by "communism" is Marxism-Leninism.

[Lyev]

Are you saying Stalin and his satellite states were pure Marxist-Leninists?

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Are you saying Stalin and his satellite states were pure Marxist-Leninists?
No, not necessarily.

They were Marxist-Leninists to some degree however.

[NecroCommie]

My teacher during this week used marxism as an example of "failed theory". The arguments were so absolutely ridiculous that I was too god damn mad to argue rationally. I therefore sat there and boiled inside. :glare: The teacher is such a social coward and a nerd that he would propably shit his pants if I questioned anything about his ah, so precious status quo. Why did I ever come to this forsaken lair of capitalist despotism? Oh yeah, because one needs a fucking university level education for the most ridiculous jobs in this blissful social democratic utopia...

[Axle]

My government and economics classes back in high school didn't even bother teaching the difference between Socialism and Communism, and my history class only told us how horrible Communism is.

[Radical]

Talk about the failures of Capitalism and how thousands of children are starving to death every day. Talk about how she's niave for listening to the propaganda without trying to educate herself individually. Most of all, call her a fucking cow for spreading lies and rumours about something she knows nothing about.

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/435/noapology.th.jpg (http://img269.imageshack.us/i/noapology.jpg/)

I'm taking history this year, so hopefully I will be able to teach my teacher the true meaning of Communism.

[Havet]

My teacher during this week used marxism as an example of "failed theory". The arguments were so absolutely ridiculous that I was too god damn mad to argue rationally. I therefore sat there and boiled inside. :glare: The teacher is such a social coward and a nerd that he would propably shit his pants if I questioned anything about his ah, so precious status quo. Why did I ever come to this forsaken lair of capitalist despotism? Oh yeah, because one needs a fucking university level education for the most ridiculous jobs in this blissful social democratic utopia...

Sorry to hear that. Whenever I find that kind of teachers I usually try to question, and get the Shh! from both the teacher and my classmates, but I think its prudent to take a chance and argue, because like-minded people who otherwise wouldn't speak up might approach you to want to befriends or ask for information regarding movements and institutions.

[Havet]

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/435/noapology.th.jpg (http://img269.imageshack.us/i/noapology.jpg/)



Btw, what's wrong with heroin and cocaine trade?

And plastic surgery?

And cancer??? (I mean, what has it got to do with capitalism?)

[Jazzratt]

Btw, what's wrong with heroin and cocaine trade?

The kind of fucksticks who run it mainly, in theory it's no worse than trade but you'd have to be deliberately thick to imagine that those involved in the trade aren't utter scum. Obviously if drugs were legal it would simply be another exploitative arm of the market but they're not so it isn't.


And plastic surgery?

The argument could be made that capitalism and the obsession with body image lead to shit like "plastic surgery addiction" and people who visit scruple-bereft 'surgeons' that perform inadvisable surgeries on them, I suppose.


And cancer???

I'm stumped on that one too. I always thought that cancer was caused by cells that replicate out of control or something. Capitalism can't really get the blame for it, unfortunately.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

We had one political science class in High School. The teacher was a nice guy and quite educated - in liberalism. The textbook listed anarchism as the furthest right-wing ideology and communism as the furthest left.

Also, the political spectrum we used has radical, liberal, conservative, and fascist. At the time, I was a democratic socialist. Upon receiving an exam question where I was asked my political views, I placed myself between radical and liberal. Apparently, that did not compute with the system.

Communism apparently was a dictatorship according to one of the texts, if I remember correct. I had one absolutely awesome English teacher. I ended up doing COOP (job shadowing + assisting for credit) for her. She had me do a presentation on Marxism for the class. I forget how it related to the course. Fun times.

[Havet]

The kind of fucksticks who run it mainly, in theory it's no worse than trade but you'd have to be deliberately thick to imagine that those involved in the trade aren't utter scum. Obviously if drugs were legal it would simply be another exploitative arm of the market but they're not so it isn't.


If drugs were legal it would be less exploitative than now. Right now, you have massive profits taken from the artificially low supply of drugs, which forces people who wish, or have become addicted, to pay more price for them than what they naturally would.

[Conquer or Die]

A good example of the Patriotic American argument was given to me by my political science teacher.

"There are very few only good or only bad people in history. Hitler was one of the bad ones. If you like him you are mentally sick. I've heard people try to argue that he reduced our carbon footprint or that he loved animals and that's just stupid. He is a horrible person."

"Oliver Cromwell is a favorite character of mine in history. I like him because he was ambivalent, not good or bad, although he killed the Irish and oppressed Catholics he still did good things like increase democracy."

English student in class: "I quite like him, to be honest. When he got his portrait he wanted to be portrayed warts and all."

Me: "If I'm not mistaken he was a dictator. He also generated a genocide against the Irish."

teacher interrupts: "But you see, he's a good example of ambivalence. You can either like him or dislike him because that's how most people in history are."

Lack of materialist understanding is cancerous to reason.

[Manifesto]

You will continually counter people who for really no reason at all dislike communism. A lot of times it is just a matter of openly engaging someone like that with our perspective. You will likely keep getting cut down with senseless arguments. A good place to learn how to combat a lot of these arguments is by visiting the opposing ideologies forum for some ideas.
I don't even consider what they say as an argument. Usually it is crap they do not even know about and sooner or later they start talking in a circle. For example you try to explain how the USSR was not actually Communist you would be lucky if they really pay attention and NOT say something like "Then why were they called Communist?" and I always have to explain everything again with a different question form.

[Jazzratt]

If drugs were legal it would be less exploitative than now. Right now, you have massive profits taken from the artificially low supply of drugs, which forces people who wish, or have become addicted, to pay more price for them than what they naturally would.

This only reinforces what I said...

Regardless it would still be exploitative because capitalist/market labour relations are inherently exploitative.

[Comrade B]

And cancer??? (I mean, what has it got to do with capitalism?)
Because of the negligent behavior of many business owners, worker are often exposed to harmful chemicals resulting in a variety of health problems, if that is what it is talking about.

[Robert]

Because of the negligent behavior of many business owners, worker are often exposed to harmful chemicals resulting in a variety of health problems, if that is what it is talking about.It's hard to generalize about cancer. The (U.S.'s) National Cancer Institute declares that "most cases of cancer are linked to environmental causes," http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/benchmarks-vol4-issue3,
but what they call "environment" covers a lot of ground, from diet, viruses, diesel exhaust, solvents, pesticides, radiation from nuke testing to radon to tobacco.

According to "Cancer Research UK," "Evidence suggests that up to half of all cases of cancer diagnosed in the UK could be avoided if people made changes to their lifestyle." The correlation between exercise and reduced risk of cancer is HUGE per their literature. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/causes/lifestyle/physicalactivity/

[Comrade B]

Still, I know people who would be healthy individuals were it not for a chemical used for cleaning metals that they were exposed to. I am not denying that the majority of causes of cancer are other than negligence from their bosses.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So basically, on Wednesday, I went back to school and on Thursday, in History, we were learning about the Cold War. I find the subject very interesting, but I don't like at all the light my teacher portrayed communism.

She basically called Stalin and his satellite states 'communist'. Although, Yugoslavia wasn't part of them she also called them communist. I don't know enough about Yugoslavian history but I can only assume they're not true communism because they're a state; true communism is stateless, right?

She also spoke about communism in the context of capitalism and said stuff about NATO fighting for freedom and democracy. There was no mention about the merits of communism.

I'm not sure if it was taught like this just for the sake of dumbing it down. She seems like a fairly intelligence, liberal-minded person. Maybe she was just following the syllabus, I don't know, can anyone else shed some light on this? Has anyone got any similiar experiences?. By the way, I'm in year 11 in the UK.

Also I think this is the right place for this post; I wasn't sure where else to put it.
You should not begin by telling the professor "you're wrong." Instead, ask her questions that she cannot answer without revealing the contradictions of her political standpoint.

For example:

Professor: NATO defended freedom and democracy.
You: What is freedom?
Professor: [some stupid definition, probably involving some variation of the idea that freedom is "doing what you want"]
You: But, by that definition, many "communist" countries had more freedom than many NATO countries. For example, women had more rights in the USSR or Czechoslovakia or Hungary than in Portugal or Italy or Greece.

Professor: [something about how NATO countries had democracy]
You: That's not true. Portugal was a fascist dictatorship when it joined NATO and remained so until 1975. Greece was ruled by a military dictatorship for a while in the 1970s, and Turkey abused human rights, while both of them were in NATO. In Italy, the same political party suspiciously kept winning elections for the entire duration of the Cold War.

On the merits of "communism", you could mention the fact that all workers in the Eastern Bloc were guaranteed a job and a house, and the fact that all education was free (this is bound to resonate well with British students looking at universities and their fees). You could also mention how a majority of East Germans today think life was better under "communism". (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122,00.html)


My teacher during this week used marxism as an example of "failed theory". The arguments were so absolutely ridiculous that I was too god damn mad to argue rationally. I therefore sat there and boiled inside. :glare: The teacher is such a social coward and a nerd that he would propably shit his pants if I questioned anything about his ah, so precious status quo.
In that case, letting anger get the best of you is the absolute worst course of action. You should definitely argue against your professor - in a calm, rational manner - if you've got good arguments on your side and the professor is a coward. I mean, it sounds like he's practically begging to have his views refuted. You should not miss the opportunity.

[Robert]

The teacher is such a social coward and a nerd that he would probably shit his pants if I questioned anythingYeah, probably.


Doesn't seem fair to call him a coward if you don't even challenge him.

[Drace]

It becomes really pointless to argue with douchebags. They will bombard you with retarded questions to the point that they wont let you talk.

"Communism is a dictatorship"
"actually Communism is the most express able form of democracy there is."

Before you get to explain what communism is.

"Stalin killed 50 million people"

Lol. Or if you get to say that communism is a form of democracy in which the people are given the control of the means of production and that private property is abolished.

"Oh so i can just go to anyones house cuz its really not theres"
"and what if the town needs a new factor. do you call Bob and go like "hey we need a new factory""...

really lol. I think the only thing that will work is you insult them

[Kwisatz Haderach]

really lol. I think the only thing that will work is you insult them
No. You are thinking about people who are already sold to right-wing ideology. But most people are not like that. Most students are not like that, and most teachers are not like that.

So it's always worth a shot to try to explain things to them.

[Manifesto]

Yeah, probably.


Doesn't seem fair to call him a coward if you don't even challenge him.
If you do you will most likely get bad grades since teachers are the main ones that spread hate towards Communism.

[red cat]

If you do you will most likely get bad grades since teachers are the main ones that spread hate towards Communism.

I agree. The best thing to do is to discuss with your friends and continue with the handful who seem to be interested.

[ZeroNowhere]

Debate and tell the teacher that she´s wrong.Just make sure not to underestimate History teachers. They can come up with more sophistry in a short period of time than Obama on steroids.

[NecroCommie]

In that case, letting anger get the best of you is the absolute worst course of action. You should definitely argue against your professor - in a calm, rational manner - if you've got good arguments on your side and the professor is a coward. I mean, it sounds like he's practically begging to have his views refuted. You should not miss the opportunity.
I know... It's just that If I had started a debate and he had actually persisted on more of those ridiculous "arguments" I might have lost my calm. That is more of a critical mistake than losing grades out of questioning something.

[Skooma Addict]

Who knows, maybe your teacher could have given some good criticisms of Communism. Socialism and Communism are not very difficult to refute. Many Communists and Socialists still believe in the dogmatic LTV for some strange reason.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Even if you were right, Olaf, if you expect the average history teacher to even know what the LTV is, you expect too much.

[nuisance]

Well, statist-Communism has been pretty horrific in practice.

[Skooma Addict]

Even if you were right, Olaf, if you expect the average history teacher to even know what the LTV is, you expect too much.

haha, very true.

[Lyev]

'If you remember that the task of socialism is to create a classless society based upon solidarity and the harmonious satisfaction of all needs, there is not yet, in this fundamental sense, a hint of socialism in the Soviet Union.' Would this quote from Trotsky help my argument against her? I want to try and convince her that after Stalin took over from Lenin he gradually distorted the Soviet Union into a dictatorial piece of shit.

[Robert]

I can't imagine any teacher giving you a bad grade for asking a question like this:

"isn't a fact that Marx actually called for a stateless society, not the state that developed under Stalin?" Or "isn't capitalism responsible for murderous and impoverishing imperialism in Africa"?

Of course, you could say, "Look, ass wipe, you don't shit about communism so just give me my 'A' and go fuck off in your Bourgeois patio home," that may be somewhat less conducive to serious debate.

[Havet]

This only reinforces what I said...

Regardless it would still be exploitative because capitalist/market labour relations are inherently exploitative.

Oh sorry, I misunderstood what you meant.

How would they still be exploitative under a free market? Workers, who would grow the crops, would keep the full value of their labor, either under communes, cooperatives, or other non-exploitative institutions. The equality of opportunity for the worker to get a means of production would make the initial capitalist lose their artificial privilege granted through the State.

[Havet]

Because of the negligent behavior of many business owners, worker are often exposed to harmful chemicals resulting in a variety of health problems, if that is what it is talking about.

aren't most cancers natural and/or genetic though?

[Robert]

What do you mean "natural"? There is a whole complex of causes for several different cancers. See link above. As for genetics, they're working on it. Some families have more of a given kind of cancer than others. Jimmy Carter's family has lots of pancreatic cancer. He was the only one who did not smoke, so ... who knows.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/health/07jimm.html

[Havet]

What do you mean "natural"? There is a whole complex of causes for several different cancers. See link above. As for genetics, they're working on it. Some families have more of a given kind of cancer than others. Jimmy Carter's family has lots of pancreatic cancer. He was the only one who did not smoke, so ... who knows.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/health/07jimm.html

What I meant by natural was a natural genetic predisposition, or an exposure to natural environmental factors (non-capitalist induced).

Thanks for the medical links (in this thread and the other regarding intelligence)

[NecroCommie]

Socialism and Communism are not very difficult to refute.
I find this astounding! Why is it that I have not heard any convincing arguments against communis despite it being easy? This discovery should be shared at once!


Well, statist-Communism has been pretty horrific in practice.
Also this high quantity of source information and irrefutable logic baffles me with it's liberal precision.

[Comrade B]

aren't most cancers natural and/or genetic though? Didn't deny that, just mentioning one way that people are exposed to the dangers.
Also, the environments are often made dangerous by improperly disposed chemicals, and all those lovely things
(with love, from the Puget Sound)

edit: incase you aren't from the US, the Puget Sound is in the pacific northwest, it is an incredibly polluted body of water, when the wind blows in from the ocean, it often stinks from all the garbage in the water.

[George W]

communism is good in small, close-knit communities like small towns; it might work in small, racially homogeneous, stable, wealthy nations, where people don't begrudge other peoples' prosperity too much.

but I don't see how it could be implemented on a large scale without being statist.

[Havet]

communism is good in small, close-knit communities like small towns; it might work in small, racially homogeneous, stable, wealthy nations, where people don't begrudge other peoples' prosperity too much.

but I don't see how it could be implemented on a large scale without being statist.

What does race have to do with communism?

[Comrade B]

communism is good in small, close-knit communities like small towns; it might work in small, racially homogeneous, stable, wealthy nations, where people don't begrudge other peoples' prosperity too much.

but I don't see how it could be implemented on a large scale without being statist.
1. What the fuck does that have to do with this discussion?
2. Thanks for enlightening us Savior, I will now correct my commie ways due to your everlasting, beautiful, and truely unique words.

[Skooma Addict]

I find this astounding! Why is it that I have not heard any convincing arguments against communis despite it being easy? This discovery should be shared at once!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem#Criticisms

[Robert]

in case you aren't from the US, the Puget Sound is in the pacific northwest, it is an incredibly polluted body of water, when the wind blows in from the ocean, it often stinks from all the garbage in the water.

Are there higher incidents of cancer there? Answer: yes. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2009381228_pollution25m0.html

But note that it is tied up with diesel emissions, too. And the study claims that "Diesel is the thing that drives the bulk of this risk .... More than 70 percent of the health risk from air pollution is due to diesel fumes[.]"

It's impossible not to suspect environmental pollution as a cause of cancer in the industrial corridor of south Louisiana, where I have lived. But the stats just do not bear this out.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1740760

It's very strange. No question, however, that the dramatic improvement in water, air, and reductions in emissions in the USA over the last 40 years or so are the result of congressional legal restraints on industrialists imposed by the state (state and federal governments). How can we manage such restraints and such controls in a stateless but fully industrialized society?

Read this: Using a sophisticated array of computer models, EPA found that by 1990 the differences between the scenarios were so great that, under the so-called "no-control" case, an additional 205,000 Americans would have died prematurely and millions more would have suffered illnesses ranging from mild respiratory symptoms to heart disease, chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, and other severe respiratory problems. In addition, the lack of Clean Air Act controls on the use of leaded gasoline would have resulted in major increases in child IQ loss and adult hypertension, heart disease, and stroke. Other benefits which could be quantified and expressed in dollar terms included visibility improvements, improvements in yields of some agricultural crops, improved worker attendance and productivity, and reduced household soiling damage.

http://www.epa.gov/oar/sect812/design.html
That's just the Clean Air Act in its various permutations. And it doesn't even address cancer.

Vive la réformisme. For real.

[Orange Juche]

When I was taught about it, it was pretty much: "Read Orwell's Animal Farm. See? Communism doesn't work!" And I didn't learn a damn thing about anarchism.

[NecroCommie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem#Criticisms
This is ofcourse very clever, but it is nothing I haven't heard before.

- I am not in support of monetary economy
- Neither was Lenin
- I do not support planned economy in the sense that it is commonly understood
- Even if I would, I could say that those are almost exactly the same arguments used against progressive taxation
- All nordic countries use progressive taxation, which is not only succesful, but also very popular.
- Soviet union used central planned economy for years without collapsing. It was only disbanded so the production would rise (productivity does not equal good society, so no use hanging onto this one)

[Skooma Addict]

This is ofcourse very clever, but it is nothing I haven't heard before.

- I am not in support of monetary economy
- Neither was Lenin
- I do not support planned economy in the sense that it is commonly understood
- Even if I would, I could say that those are almost exactly the same arguments used against progressive taxation
- All nordic countries use progressive taxation, which is not only succesful, but also very popular.
- Soviet union used central planned economy for years without collapsing. It was only disbanded so the production would rise (productivity does not equal good society, so no use hanging onto this one)


Well you asked for a criticism of Socialism and Commuism. I don't know what you mean when you say you don't spport the monetary economy. Do you want people to barter for goods instead? I also do not know what progressive taxation has to do with any of this. A central planned economy can last a while, but it is going to be innefficiant and unproductive.

[Misanthrope]

In my "history" class, anarchists oppose all governments, communists and socialists want the government to control everything.

Absurdity.

[George W]

What does race have to do with communism?
haha nothing, still I believe relatively racially/ethnically homogeneous nations tend to be more stable in general (and better candidates for socialistic/communist governments). but I don't know much about communism so I'm here to learn more.

[Idealism]

Well you asked for a criticism of Socialism and Commuism. I don't know what you mean when you say you don't spport the monetary economy. Do you want people to barter for goods instead? I also do not know what progressive taxation has to do with any of this. A central planned economy can last a while, but it is going to be innefficiant and unproductive.
[Bold Mine]
No, we want to abolish property, what's the use of money without property? I also don't understand how it is either "inefficiant and unproductive", as capitalism is in many ways the less productive one. For instance: depression/recessions, stunting of technological growth, creation of jobs that have absolutely no point in productive society, Unemployment, Plundering of the Third World, endless and meaningless bourgeois wars, the list goes on.
Also, a quote from the Communist Manifesto, which you should read sometime:

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour... According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

[Dr Mindbender]

haha nothing, still I believe relatively racially/ethnically homogeneous nations tend to be more stable in general (and better candidates for socialistic/communist governments). but I don't know much about communism so I'm here to learn more.

Oh well, you're banned now anyway so you have to learn elsewhere.

Don't bang your ape-like head on the way out. :rolleyes:

[NecroCommie]

Don't get me wrong, I did ask for those arguments and I did not mean it in a bad way. But you must understand that the same anti-communist "arguments" have been around for over a hundred years. One gets frustrated in that time.

I don't know what you mean when you say you don't spport the monetary economy. Do you want people to barter for goods instead?
It is not that black and white. One does not necessarily need to "measure" the material transactions in the society at all. Well, not that accurately anyway. I am a supporter of participatory economy, in which your work is compensated with a permission to use your own share of society's products. There are more detailed theories on the exchange and distribution of material on such society, but surely that needs it's own thread. (if such does not exist already)


I also do not know what progressive taxation has to do with any of this. A central planned economy can last a while, but it is going to be innefficiant and unproductive.
You kind of answered your own question there.

Progressive taxation was strongly opposed in it's time because it was considered utopian dream that had no future in the practical world. Surely it must be impossible to collect accurate income data from the entire population, let alone count individual percentages for every individual and actually monitor the payment too!

To put it simply, the arguments were more or less the same against progressive taxation, yet we made it work. Monetary socialists could easily turn the progressive taxation methods into progressive government salary methods, and add the production bureau into that. I would not be satisfied with that, but I acknowledge it's possibility.

[Skooma Addict]

No, we want to abolish property, what's the use of money without property? I also don't understand how it is either "inefficiant and unproductive", as capitalism is in many ways the less productive one. For instance: depression/recessions, stunting of technological growth, creation of jobs that have absolutely no point in productive society, Unemployment, Plundering of the Third World, endless and meaningless bourgeois wars, the list goes on.


Depressions/recessions are the result of artificial credit expansion. The government creates boom-bust cycles when it lowers the interest rate below what it otherwise would be. Technological growth can be good, but there are other sectors of the economy that need to grow as well. Technological growth alone would be practically uselss. The only jobs that have no point in society are the jobs whos sole existance is due to governemnt intervention in the economy. Involuntary unemployment is the result of unethical minimum wage laws. Plundering the third world and wars occur due to imperialism, not capitalism.


Progressive taxation was strongly opposed in it's time because it was considered utopian dream that had no future in the practical world. Surely it must be impossible to collect accurate income data from the entire population, let alone count individual percentages for every individual and actually monitor the payment too!

To put it simply, the arguments were more or less the same against progressive taxation, yet we made it work. Monetary socialists could easily turn the progressive taxation methods into progressive government salary methods, and add the production bureau into that. I would not be satisfied with that, but I acknowledge it's possibility.

But the argument you claim was used against progressive taxation is not the same argument that is used against Socialism. Collecting income data from the entire population may be difficult. But it is nothing like performing rational economic calculation without the markets price system.

[Idealism]

Depressions/recessions are the result of artificial credit expansion.

The free market can do no wrong, so it must be the government.


Technological growth can be good, but there are other sectors of the economy that need to grow as well. Technological growth alone would be practically uselss.
I think technological growth is good regardless of other sectors, though otherwise I agree.


The only jobs that have no point in society are the jobs whos sole existance is due to governemnt intervention in the economy.
Owners are of no purpose to society.


Involuntary unemployment is the result of unethical minimum wage laws.
Though I think this might be in some ways true, it also shows how shitty the jobs that are offered under capitalism are, even if they are in abundance. While there is the theory that "competition between employers will lead to high wages", it is not all that true. This would work, if not for the fact that employees are dependent on the employers.


Plundering the third world and wars occur due to imperialism, not capitalism.
Im going to say imperialism was done by all capitalist countries, you're going to say those countries "weren't fully capitalist". Yet the hypocrisy of this is that Laissez-Faire Economists have no problem pointing out the problems in the Soviet Union. So I am just going to skip those parts and say the Neoliberalism is economic imperialism in the Third-World.

[cb9's_unity]

Explain to her that Marx believed communism would be a worker controlled society. Then ask your teacher if the soviet union or china were worker controlled societies.

Confusion over the word communism is the result of the two major propaganda groups of the 20th century, the USA and USSR. Both claimed the soviet union was communist for completely different reasons. The USA wanted to dirty the word communism by associating it with the clearly degenerated and authoritarian Soviet Union. The Soviet Union wanted to hide its degeneration and authoritarianism by proclaiming itself a progressive socialist society working towards communism. Both sides completely ignored the words of Marx and other early communists in favor of words that served their political purposes.

Unfortunately teachers are now expected to teach American propaganda instead of real Marxist theory. Apparently for them the truth is to inconvenient for the lesson plan.

[Skooma Addict]

The free market can do no wrong, so it must be the government.

I believe in Austrian Business Cycle Theory. You need some kind of theory to explain the sudden cluster of malinvestments that occur in higher order goods. I simply find the ABCT very convincing.


Owners are of no purpose to society.

What makes you say this?


Though I think this might be in some ways true, it also shows how shitty the jobs that are offered under capitalism are, even if they are in abundance. While there is the theory that "competition between employers will lead to high wages", it is not all that true. This would work, if not for the fact that employees are dependent on the employers.

Competition between employers will lead to higher wages. The fact that employees are "dependent" on their employers seems irrelevant to me.



Im going to say imperialism was done by all capitalist countries, you're going to say those countries "weren't fully capitalist". Yet the hypocrisy of this is that Laissez-Faire Economists have no problem pointing out the problems in the Soviet Union. So I am just going to skip those parts and say the Neoliberalism is economic imperialism in the Third-World.

I agree to an extent. Neoliberalism is a flawed doctrine. But you can advocate capitalism without supporting a state.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Involuntary unemployment is the result of unethical minimum wage laws.
Minimum wage laws were introduced for the first time in the 1930s. Do you imagine there was no involuntary unemployment before 1930?

[Skooma Addict]

Minimum wage laws were introduced for the first time in the 1930s. Do you imagine there was no involuntary unemployment before 1930?

Well, the minimum wage is the biggest factor, but I guess there are others. I am sure labour unions were able to limit employment possibilities. We also had a central bank that was responsible for malinvestments and consequently unemployment.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, the minimum wage is the biggest factor, but I guess there are others. I am sure labour unions were able to limit employment possibilities. We also had a central bank that was responsible for malinvestments and consequently unemployment.
The central bank (assuming you're American and talking about the Federal Reserve) was set up in 1913. Again, do you imagine there was no unemployment before that?

Oh, and labour unions has absolutely no deals with the state until the 1890s or 1900s (I don't know enough about American labour history to give you an exact date). If anything, the state tried as hard as it could to destroy them.

[Skooma Addict]

The central bank (assuming you're American and talking about the Federal Reserve) was set up in 1913. Again, do you imagine there was no unemployment before that?

There were central banks that existed before the Federal Reserve. But there are other govenremnt interventions that can cause unemployment. I just thnk the minimum wage causes the most by far.


Oh, and labour unions has absolutely no deals with the state until the 1890s or 1900s (I don't know enough about American labour history to give you an exact date). If anything, the state tried as hard as it could to destroy them.

Why would the state make deals with labour unions if it was trying to destroy them?

[NecroCommie]

But the argument you claim was used against progressive taxation is not the same argument that is used against Socialism. Collecting income data from the entire population may be difficult. But it is nothing like performing rational economic calculation without the markets price system.
Price measurement is only required when there is private possession of means of production. Only measurements required to effectively plan economy are demand and production capacity. Both of which can be measured in units, money being not necessary.

EDIT: Distribution ratios must be calculated locally, but that's even easier.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

There were central banks that existed before the Federal Reserve. But there are other govenremnt interventions that can cause unemployment. I just thnk the minimum wage causes the most by far.
And do you have any evidence to support this? What about the many different job markets which are not affected by the minimum wage because the market equilibrium wage is above the minimum anyway? They still have unemployment.

And are you familiar with the work of D. E. Card and Alan Krueger? They have done empirical studies to see if increases in the minimum wage really are correlated with decreases in employment in the real world - and found that they are not. You should check out their book, Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (http://books.google.com/books?id=VDNI0Uy86J8C&dq=Myth+and+Measurement:+The+New+Economics+of+the+ Minimum+Wage.&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=rWalSqPfId-K8QaL3Z3hDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false).


Why would the state make deals with labour unions if it was trying to destroy them?
It didn't make deals with them - at first. Then, after its attempts to destroy them failed, it came to the negotiating table.

[Nwoye]

There were central banks that existed before the Federal Reserve. But there are other govenremnt interventions that can cause unemployment. I just thnk the minimum wage causes the most by far.
we had free banking from 1837 to 1862, and a system lacking a central bank (but with some gov. regulation) from 1863 to the early 20th century, and there was still a shitload of unemployment (and long recessions/depressions).

[Skooma Addict]

Price measurement is only required when there is private possession of means of production. Only measurements required to effectively plan economy are demand and production capacity. Both of which can be measured in units, money being not necessary.

EDIT: Distribution ratios must be calculated locally, but that's even easier.

You need to be able to calculate costs. Without costs, you cannot know if you are wasting societies scarce resources. Profits and losses tell entrepreneurs if they are effectively managing scarce resources. I also am not sure how effectively one could measure consumer demand in the absence of the price system.


And do you have any evidence to support this? What about the many different job markets which are not affected by the minimum wage because the market equilibrium wage is above the minimum anyway? They still have unemployment.

Of coarse not everyone can be a lawyer. But the fact that there are not an unlimited amount of jobs available in every sector of the economy does not change the fact that there will always be job opportunities available in a free market.


And are you familiar with the work of D. E. Card and Alan Krueger? They have done empirical studies to see if increases in the minimum wage really are correlated with decreases in employment in the real world - and found that they are not. You should check out their book, Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (http://books.google.com/books?id=VDNI0Uy86J8C&dq=Myth+and+Measurement:+The+New+Economics+of+the+ Minimum+Wage.&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=rWalSqPfId-K8QaL3Z3hDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false).

I have seen statistics saying the same, and I have seen statistics saying the opposite. But one needs a theory to explain unemployment. Empirical studies are not very reliable, because many factors simply cannot be eliminated. Also, employment can increase while the minimum wage increases. But unemployment is still going to be greater than it would have been otherwise.


It didn't make deals with them - at first. Then, after its attempts to destroy them failed, it came to the negotiating table.

Were the labour unions doing anything illegal? For example, were they trespassing on private property? I just don't know why the state would try to destroy labour unions if they were not breaking any laws. But anyways, modern labour unions are coercive, and they artificially decrease entry possibilities in certain job markets.


we had free banking from 1837 to 1862, and a system lacking a central bank (but with some gov. regulation) from 1863 to the early 20th century, and there was still a shitload of unemployment (and long recessions/depressions).

The recessions that occurred between 1837 and 1862 were nowhere near as bad as the depressions that occurred after the Federal Reserve was established. The important point is that the government allowed banks to engage in fractional reserve banking. When there is FRB, there will be the boom/bust cycle.

[Nwoye]

The recessions that occurred between 1837 and 1862 were nowhere near as bad as the depressions that occurred after the Federal Reserve was established.
wat. we had regular and severe recessions/depressions during the 20th century. Depression of 1839, the panic of 1857, the panic of 1873 and the Long Depression. Plus we understand that the issue with the great depression was the fed contracting the money supply and thereby causing a deflationary spiral - they're not going to do that again.


The important point is that the government allowed banks to engage in fractional reserve banking. When there is FRB, there will be the boom/bust cycle.how can you have banking (lending) without the fractional reserve system? If you have to keep in your vaults all the deposited money, and aren't allowed to loan out money you don't currently have (meaning no IOU's), then how the fuck do banks operate?

[Skooma Addict]

wat. we had regular and severe recessions/depressions during the 20th century. Depression of 1839, the panic of 1857, the panic of 1873 and the Long Depression. Plus we understand that the issue with the great depression was the fed contracting the money supply and thereby causing a deflationary spiral - they're not going to do that again.

All the depressions you listed were small compared to modern depressions. I also do not know how contracting the money supply would lead to a depression. Your telling me a simple contraction in the money supply is what caused massive and sudden malinvestments in higher order goods?




how can you have banking (lending) without the fractional reserve system? If you have to keep in your vaults all the deposited money, and aren't allowed to loan out money you don't currently have (meaning no IOU's), then how the fuck do banks operate?

You can loan out money. You simply need to maintain 100% reserves at all times. In other words, you cannot loan out money you do not have. It is up to the depositor to decide if he wants his money to be loaned out.

[Nwoye]

All the depressions you listed were small compared to modern depressions. I also do not know how contracting themoney supply would lead to a depression. Your telling me a simply contraction in the money supply is what casued massive and sudden malinvestments in higher order goods?
no but contraction in money supply is what made the great depression, the great depression.


You can loan out money. You simply need to maintain 100% reserves at all times. In other words, you cannot loan out money you do not have. It is up to the depositor to decide if he wants his money to be loaned out.
and if no one wanted their money loaned out (which no one would)...

[Skooma Addict]

I somehow completely failed at editing my last post. But it is good now.


no but contraction in money supply is what made the great depression, the great depression.

I don't think a contraction in the money supply would have a very big effect. Sometimes it could have a positive effect on the economy. You have heard of the roaring 20's, right? That is what made the great depression the great depression.


and if no one wanted their money loaned out (which no one would)...

Plenty of people would. You give your money to the bank, the bank loans it out, and you get a return. If your money is just sitting in the banks vaults, you are not getting any interest. It just depends on what the customer wants.

[Lyev]

I had history again today, apparently communism is a one party dictatorship where the government controls every aspect of life and there's no freedom of speech- precisely what Marx and Engels prescribed.

Although I do have a question, did east Germany economically fall behind west Germany after WWII? My teacher spoke of west Germany having loads of housing and factories and apparently east Germany grew jealous of this higher standard of living. Can anyone shed some light on this?

[Manifesto]

I've had school for a week and the only thing my American History teacher will talk about is the "evils of Socialism".

[Bud Struggle]

I've had school for a week and the only thing my American History teacher will talk about is the "evils of Socialism".

And so the victors always write the history. What's new about that? The thing is not to stop and not to get hung up on the past. It's not STALIN or LENIN or MARX or MAO or TROTSKY. It's the people. And as long as you stay focused on the PEOPLE, the WORKERS, a Communist world is possible. Bring up the specters of the past and Communism will stay in the past.

True Socialism has no past--only the future.

[Kronos]

That was the most beautiful thing I've ever heard you say, Tom.

[ a tear comes to eye ]

[Bud Struggle]

That was the most beautiful thing I've ever heard you say, Tom.

[ a tear comes to eye ]

Kroney, you know as well as I do all this cult of "this and that and the other thing" ain't doing our homies no good.

And we all know that the Anarchists killed Warren Harding. No mojo comming from there, either. The problem with Communism isn't the masses--it's the message.

[Kronos]

(edited reply to reply Bud recently edited)

(say that five times fast, if you can)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I had history again today, apparently communism is a one party dictatorship where the government controls every aspect of life and there's no freedom of speech- precisely what Marx and Engels prescribed.
Will you have a chance to talk about this again, if not with your teacher, then at least with your classmates? We could prepare some quotes from the works of Marx, Engels or Lenin to refute that ridiculous claim.


Although I do have a question, did east Germany economically fall behind west Germany after WWII? My teacher spoke of west Germany having loads of housing and factories and apparently east Germany grew jealous of this higher standard of living. Can anyone shed some light on this?
East Germany fell behind the West, yes, but only starting in the late 60s and early 70s. Prior to that, they were about equally successful. And that's a point strongly in favour of East Germany, because the West got loads of free money (through the Marshall Plan) while the East had to pay war reparations to the USSR.

Many individual East Germans wanted to go to the West, because the West had a policy of guaranteeing a good income for life to anyone who emigrated from the East. This policy did not extend to West Germany's own citizens, naturally.


I've had school for a week and the only thing my American History teacher will talk about is the "evils of Socialism".
Can you give more detail? In what context is this teacher talking about the "evils of socialism"? What is she saying, exactly?

If you can outline her arguments for me, I promise you I will write a point-by-point refutation that you can use in class.

[Manifesto]

Can you give more detail? In what context is this teacher talking about the "evils of socialism"? What is she saying, exactly?

If you can outline her arguments for me, I promise you I will write a point-by-point refutation that you can use in class.
Basically its just that people with large businesses are the ones that took the risk to start it up so they should get the most money. And thanks ahead of time.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Basically its just that people with large businesses are the ones that took the risk to start it up so they should get the most money. And thanks ahead of time.
That's an easy one to refute. There are three arguments you can use:

1. Risk is not productive. Rock climbing is taking a risk. Bungee jumping is taking a risk. Gambling is taking a risk. Breaking into someone's house to steal his stuff is taking a risk. Should we reward all risk-takers? Ridiculous. Taking unnecessary risks is usually considered reckless and stupid, unless you're a capitalist.

2. The current economic recession was caused by rewarding risk too highly. Capitalists took too many risks, and look where that got us.

3. In order to risk money, you must first have that money. Perhaps workers would like to risk as well, but they don't have any money to risk. By rewarding people who risk their money, we are basically rewarding people for having the money to risk in the first place. We are giving them money for the virtue of having money.

[Bud Struggle]

Well here's how Communism is portrayed on TV:

http://allthingslawandorder.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-order-ci-revolution-recap-review.html

Law and Order. An old time (German) Anarchist from the Vietnam Era gets riled up and feels that "Revolution" is near because of the Banking/AGI problem. He goes on a killing spree--the story devolves in a father/daughter thing. But they portray the "Revolution" as being "old school."

Interesting show none the less. I can't find it on Hulu, If you can find it sometime--it's very well worth a watch.

[Robert]

By rewarding people who risk their money, we are basically rewarding people for having the money to risk in the first place.

You almost make it sound like:

a) those who have money were born with it;

b) only those who are born with money ever manage to get any; and

c) that those who have it are necessarily rewarded when they risk it.

All three propositions are false.