Log in

View Full Version : Debate from necro'ed thread



freedom_fighter
21st December 2009, 10:58
I see the communists try to differentiate their iron fisted leaders as different from iron fisted fascist leaders. What is the difference here? It seems that history has proven that communism in practice has the same traits as a fascist government.

Similarities:

1. The individual has no rights to pursue his own life or desires. The collective is explicitly stated as more important than the individual, therefore he must sacrifice his own happiness for the "greater good." This is a stated purpose of communism.

2. The fascist government uses symbols and propaganda in an attempt to create the perfect man. The man who is so selfless he works as hard as he can for the nation state. Communist countries share this same attribute.

3. Fascist and communist governments disregard the rights of an individual to speak freely. Anything said that goes against the government, revolution or ideology is severely prohibited and often punishable by death.

the list can go on and on..

Communism and Fascism are all about the individual ceasing to be an individual and all about belonging to a collective. The collective must think as one, work as one, consume as one. The individual no longer has any incentives nor does he have the ability to make his life better unless he climbs the political ladder to become part of the political class.

The true roots of communist and socialist thoughts arise from envy. In feudal and monarchistic times an individual who was not succeeding in life could always lay blame on those in power for his troubles.

Once there were societies where the individual was given the freedoms to pursue his life, the excuse was removed when he asks himself why he is not as successful as the other man. The only answer is that the other man contributes to society in a more useful way than he does. This creates envy and class hatred. This is the root of leftist thought.

I would personally be embarrassed if my entire philosophy was rooted in envying an other person's success and wanting to use force to take it from him. It's on the same level as thievery. We don't teach our children to hate other children for the toys they have. We surely don't teach children to hurt other children for the toys they have.

When analyzing these political systems, you must have an ideology with a well rooted philosophy. A philosophy that respects an individuals right to pursue his life so long as he doesn't use coercion, force or fraud against an other is the only philosophy that can truly be defended.

Everyone on this forum likes to talk a good game about reading obscure Marxist literature and being so intellectual and smart, but this glaring detail of individual liberty is never analyzed or answered. All we hear from you is that there is a class of capitalists that control the capital and force workers to work for them, for if they did not, they would be forced to starve.

All of you should be aware of the differences between positive and negative liberties. Negative liberties are liberties an individual has regardless of where he is from, where he is or who is around him. Negative liberties exist if you were born in a cave. Negative liberty is that an individual is free from coercion, force and fraud by another human being. I should be free from a government using force to take my property, I should be free from an individual using a gun to tell me what to do, etc.

The idea of positive liberty came from the left. Things such as the right to a job, the right to free education, healthcare, shelter, etc. These all sound like amazing rights, but firstly your rights are not given to you by a government, they exist in a vacuum. Secondly, positive liberties require a government using force to take from one person and give to another, thus violating the core tenants of negative liberty.

I think protesting the fact an individual must work is the same thing as protesting the fact that human beings require food and shelter to survive. Would you be upset if you had to grow and hunt your own food for your survival? Would you try to overthrow nature for oppressing you with this requirement for living? It's the same thing when you get down to it.

Simply put, socialism and especially communism can only exist with the explicit refusal to recognize the rights of an individual to pursue his own happiness. I don't see how you all can think this is an okay thing.

Capitalism isn't a perfect system and there are legitimate criticisms for abuses performed by governments in service to corporations and corporations using force and fraud to take what they want. The difference however is that they are also violating the tenants of negative liberty. However, not all people or companies in a capitalist system abuse other people's rights. Those that do are breaking the laws of free market capitalism anyway, who's foundation is voluntary association between individuals.

If you were to replace capitalism with communism, you are saying that your system is the only one that is right and that everyone must agree with you. History has shown what happens to those who do not agree with the communist state. The path of communism is a path of death. It is a system that lacks innovation, motivation and all of the good things in life. Individuals no longer are able to freely express themselves through artwork or literature, unless it is to glorify the revolution.

I just find it very saddening that after communism's crimes perpetrated in the the 20th century, there are still individuals that sugarcoat it, blaming the "capitalist education system" for spreading lies, etc. You guys that talk like this sound just like the Soviets did when they'd try to rewrite history and reeducate their people.

I know you'd probably never touch these books with a 10 foot pole because the ideas are so subversive to people like you. You label them as reactionary when in reality, they are the most radical ideas that have ever been conceived. The idea that individuals are free to choose their own path in life, that they are allowed to pick their career of choice, start their own companies, make money and keep their money. They are free to compete with other companies and they are free to cooperate with other companies.

It's unfortunate that the United States has gotten off the path of respecting the rights of individuals as well. We have two parties that both believe in the power of government to fix people and problems. Neither of these parties are the answer. Neither is radical communism or socialism.

The only system that is philosophically sound is free market capitalism because it is a naturally occurring phenomenon when two individuals decide to trade goods or services voluntarily because it both benefits them. It is a system of bottom up organization rather than top down central planning. There is too much information to process in an economy and this is why centrally planned economies never have enough of anything. Say what you want about consumerism and people buying things they don't need, but I'll ask you this: Why do you think you know what's best for everyone?

Why not let individuals decide what is best for themselves, even if you disagree with it?

Thus at the end of the day, if you want to control people's lives, you are nothing more than fascists, looking to quash any individual's rights in order to create a perfect society of collectivists.

Books to read:

The Road to Serfdom by Hayek
Free to Choose by Friedman

I guarantee it will blow your mind and I know you'll be red in the face with anger because there is nothing you can do to refute these ideas, unless you truly believe in forcing other people to live under your system of colorless expression and death for those that speak out against it. If you believe this, then you are truly evil people.

Thankfully I know you are all (mostly) just confused. It's fun to believe in something subversive. I went through a strong socialist phase in my high school years until I was about 23. And then I grew up, experienced the world, read some real books and understand human nature more than a communist will ever. See, free market capitalism doesn't try to create the perfect man who gives up his own happiness for the collective. Free market capitalism realizes that human beings when able to live freely not only are the most productive, but also the most happy. Those people that envy the success of others are the ones who are so easily converted and taken by leftist thought.

Hope you all enjoy my post. I hope I don't get deleted for such thoughts.

Thank you.

Pirate turtle the 11th
21st December 2009, 11:57
Sup g and welcome to the fourm.


I see the communists try to differentiate their iron fisted leaders as different from iron fisted fascist leaders. What is the difference here?


Well nothing really, but having icona that are irationably followed seems to be unfotantly a trait of most if not all countries. For instance you could easily site personality cults etc but what is a person in these circimstances for all intents and purposes but a symbol. Now i'm going to guess your americain and raise to your stalin tash the amercain flag as a likewise icon and to a lesser degree the fetishization of the foudning fathers.


It seems that history has proven that communism in practice has the same traits as a fascist government.


Meh Communism is practise is more akin to the paris commune and the spanish libertarain communists territory during the civil war. Short lived examples since the world likes to jump upon them but I honestly think the survival rate is going to be higher these days due to nucular deterants.


:



1. The individual has no rights to pursue his own life or desires. The collective is explicitly stated as more important than the individual, therefore he must sacrifice his own happiness for the "greater good." This is a stated purpose of communism.


For all the rehatoric of freedom and choices in america and there are alot more then most places in the world I can personally vouch for that having being there. It is quite naive to think that there is no medelling in people's lives due to their own personal choices. (Communists tend to oppose state medling, the people who talk about "comrade stalin" are confused young men using politics as a way to express their own violent fantasies, ignore them). For instance when in tampa I saw alot of stickers on the back of trucks that looked a little bit like this.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b57/ratondelosangeles/Love%20it%20or%20leave%20it/More%20Love/LoveItOrLeaveIt.jpg

Now thats not exactly indvidual freedom is it, live how we want you to live or fuck off. (Which is law as anyone who has ever looked at US immigration forms would know which questions asking about membership of communist parties , sexual promiscuarity etc)












2. The fascist government uses symbols and propaganda in an attempt to create the perfect man. The man who is so selfless he works as hard as he can for the nation state. Communist countries share this same attribute.


And although not as crass as a poster of a ripped worker smashing the shit out of some piece of metal with a hammer or of some blond guy punching a jew in the face or whatever America does use though the media the ideal set of people. (Best seen in films and television)

We're going to keep trying to strengthen the American family, to make them more like the Waltons and less like the Simpsons - bush 1






3. Fascist and communist governments disregard the rights of an individual to speak freely. Anything said that goes against the government, revolution or ideology is severely prohibited and often punishable by death.

In america unless your forgein you can say pretty much anything. However without a wad of cash in your pockets its very limited who can hear you. (take for instance some random guy v murdoch)




the list can go on and on..


Indeed it can.



Communism and Fascism are all about the individual ceasing to be an individual and all about belonging to a collective. The collective must think as one, work as one, consume as one. The individual no longer has any incentives nor does he have the ability to make his life better unless he climbs the political ladder to become part of the political class.

Well thats not really true, if you see your only incentive in life to acumilate things like a magpie well thats abit sad considering your human and all.






The true roots of communist and socialist thoughts arise from envy. In feudal and monarchistic times an individual who was not succeeding in life could always lay blame on those in power for his troubles.

Thats not really true considering how fuedalistic rulers treated disent.


Hey I need to go now but il get back to the rest of your post later.

Pirate turtle the 11th
21st December 2009, 13:02
Once there were societies where the individual was given the freedoms to pursue his life, the excuse was removed when he asks himself why he is not as successful as the other man. The only answer is that the other man contributes to society in a more useful way than he does. This creates envy and class hatred. This is the root of leftist thought. .

I don't think this is true , I think certain people are seriously undervalued by soctiey, who can say with a straight face that a nurse is less valuable then one of the little shits from my super sweet sixteen. In regards to envy I don't really envy the rich but I dislike the way large amounts of my friends and family are mistreated by soctiey and how what you own is more important then who you are.




I would personally be embarrassed if my entire philosophy was rooted in envying an other person's success and wanting to use force to take it from him. It's on the same level as thievery. We don't teach our children to hate other children for the toys they have. We surely don't teach children to hurt other children for the toys they have..

No but we are adults and tragicly life is not a playground. Communists agre with the idea that people whom employ others are exploting them. This is simply because no employer will employ someone unless they belive they can pay the employee less money then the employee makes for the business. That is theft.




When analyzing these political systems, you must have an ideology with a well rooted philosophy. A philosophy that respects an individuals right to pursue his life so long as he doesn't use coercion, force or fraud against an other is the only philosophy that can truly be defended.

Agreed. However Capitlism does not go that way and it is pure idealism to think otherwise.




Everyone on this forum likes to talk a good game about reading obscure Marxist literature and being so intellectual and smart, but this glaring detail of individual liberty is never analyzed or answered.

Yes it is. Read the rest of the threads in OI




All of you should be aware of the differences between positive and negative liberties. Negative liberties are liberties an individual has regardless of where he is from, where he is or who is around him. Negative liberties exist if you were born in a cave. Negative liberty is that an individual is free from coercion, force and fraud by another human being. I should be free from a government using force to take my property, I should be free from an individual using a gun to tell me what to do, etc.


No because these are ideas you think someone should have, rights are nothing more then concepts many good concepts but concepts at least, if I lock you in a room with no water , you no longer have a right to water.



The idea of positive liberty came from the left. Things such as the right to a job, the right to free education, healthcare, shelter, etc. These all sound like amazing rights, but firstly your rights are not given to you by a government, they exist in a vacuum. Secondly, positive liberties require a government using force to take from one person and give to another, thus violating the core tenants of negative liberty.


Sorry but this is all nonsense not grounded in reality.




I think protesting the fact an individual must work is the same thing as protesting the fact that human beings require food and shelter to survive. Would you be upset if you had to grow and hunt your own food for your survival? Would you try to overthrow nature for oppressing you with this requirement for living? It's the same thing when you get down to it.



Hardly , because nature dosen't take a large percentage of the things you have hunted and buy a jag with it.




History has shown what happens to those who do not agree with the communist state. The path of communism is a path of death. It is a system that lacks innovation, motivation and all of the good things in life. Individuals no longer are able to freely express themselves through
artwork or literature, unless it is to glorify the revolution.

Social repression is hardly the definition of communism.




I just find it very saddening that after communism's crimes perpetrated in the the 20th century, there are still individuals that sugarcoat it, blaming the "capitalist education system" for spreading lies, etc. You guys that talk like this sound just like the Soviets did when they'd try to rewrite history and reeducate their people.

Well no because you seem to presume that everyone here is a USSR fanboy , completly ignoring the wide diversity of communist thought. Its quite amusing.




I know you'd probably never touch these books with a 10 foot pole because the ideas are so subversive to people like you. You label them as reactionary when in reality, they are the most radical ideas that have ever been conceived. The idea that individuals are free to choose their own path in life, that they are allowed to pick their career of choice, start their own companies, make money and keep their money. They are free to compete with other companies and they are free to cooperate with other companies. .

They are also alllowed to bugger people over sideways. Not what I think life should be about.




It's unfortunate that the United States has gotten off the path of respecting the rights of individuals as well. We have two parties that both believe in the power of government to fix people and problems. Neither of these parties are the answer. Neither is radical communism or socialism.

The only system that is philosophically sound is free market capitalism because it is a naturally occurring phenomenon when two individuals decide to trade goods or services voluntarily because it both benefits them.

Trust me. life when lazzie faire economics was prime was appalling. The slums of east london should never be repeated. Your idealogly is grounded in philosphy land and lets face it , dosen't bare anything useful in it.




It is a system of bottom up organization rather than top down central planning. There is too much information to process in an economy and this is why centrally planned economies never have enough of anything. Say what you want about consumerism and people buying things they don't need, but I'll ask you this: Why do you think you know what's best for everyone?[


Why not let individuals decide what is best for themselves, even if you disagree with it?


Communists belive in workers councils making democratic decisions but thanks anyway.






Thus at the end of the day, if you want to control people's lives, you are nothing more than fascists, looking to quash any individual's rights in order to create a perfect society of collectivists.

:lol:





Thankfully I know you are all (mostly) just confused. It's fun to believe in something subversive. I went through a strong socialist phase in my high school years until I was about 23. And then I grew up, experienced the world, read some real books and understand human nature more than a communist will ever. See, free market capitalism doesn't try to create the perfect man who gives up his own happiness for the collective. Free market capitalism realizes that human beings when able to live freely not only are the most productive, but also the most happy. Those people that envy the success of others are the ones who are so easily converted and taken by leftist thought.


To be honest I think your abit of an idealist, your so called lefitsm appeared to be an urge to be a rebel isntead of a sound political conviction and your free market ideas don't really match up with what has happend historcially in such economies.

freedom_fighter
21st December 2009, 21:03
I appreciate the response.

You say that it is theft for an employer to not pay a worker the amount of value he adds. This is an untrue however because a worker is only going to be hired at the price that he adds value to the company. A company that is successful is worth more than the sum of its parts. I know for a fact I add at least my salary in value to the company. Any profits that the company makes gets reinvested in the company in order to grow and I personally benefit by having more job security, getting raises and having my share of the company increase in value.

Minimum wage laws state that if you cannot add at least 9.75$ (I live in San Francisco) in value to a company, then you are useless and are not allowed to work at all.

There's a part of the equation that you are missing.

Employment is on a voluntary basis. I offer my services to a company in exchange for a salary that I feel is fair. If they give me a low offer, I am not going to work there.

There is no exploitation if nobody is being forced.

All I hear from leftists is how the "system" and "society" exploits workers. You do realize that a capitalist economic system is a bottom up organization that has nobody at the helm making decisions in backrooms. The opposite is true, this is what happens in centrally planned socialist and communist economies.

Why be so down on creating wealth? Communism and socialism creates no wealth, it only distributes it. If you remove the wealth generators from society, there is nothing to go around. Everyone will surely be equal, but they will all be poor and have no rights as individuals to pursue their own self interest, because the collective is greater than the individual.

Pirate turtle the 11th
21st December 2009, 23:47
I appreciate the response.

You say that it is theft for an employer to not pay a worker the amount of value he adds. This is an untrue however because a worker is only going to be hired at the price that he adds value to the company..

Not really, if the employees value and wages were always equal so that they broke even would mean no one would employ anyone because simply people are awkward batards.



A company that is successful is worth more than the sum of its parts.

Your right , the main thing that will be looked at when a take over bid is being made is the profit it generates.



I know for a fact I add at least my salary in value to the company. Any profits that the company makes gets reinvested in the company in order to grow and I personally benefit by having more job security, getting raises and having my share of the company increase in value.
.

Well yes but a large amount of that money goes towards paying your employers wages. For instance say you worked for a timber company and cut down four trees that sold for £25 each. You get paid £20 £60 goes into paying other employees such as drivers, safety people etc and your employer pays himself twenty pounds dispute not doing any of the work.

Hardly fair it would make far much more sense for the business to be run as a collective. (Which also tend to have more output)





Minimum wage laws state that if you cannot add at least 9.75$ (I live in San Francisco) in value to a company, then you are useless and are not allowed to work at all. .

Well not really since your presuming that the value you add is what you get paid which is simply not true.




There's a part of the equation that you are missing.

Employment is on a voluntary basis. I offer my services to a company in exchange for a salary that I feel is fair. If they give me a low offer, I am not going to work there.

There is no exploitation if nobody is being forced.


Well there is since for the large majority of people who don't wish to live in unhuman conditions on welfare do need a job and most people do not feel as if the job they agreed to pays fair wages but they probably chose it because the wages were better or for other reasons (Envrioment, location to home etc)


All I hear from leftists is how the "system" and "society" exploits workers. You do realize that a capitalist economic system is a bottom up organization that has nobody at the helm making decisions in backrooms. The opposite is true, this is what happens in centrally planned socialist and communist economies.

Although theres alot of hype about consumers democracy which is sadly untrue the power clear does rest with the large corporations , while the tastes of the masses may alter the colour of the latest nikes the tastes of the corprate elite alter decisions such as wars and education.




Why be so down on creating wealth? Communism and socialism creates no wealth, it only distributes it. If you remove the wealth generators from society, there is nothing to go around. Everyone will surely be equal, but they will all be poor and have no rights as individuals to pursue their own self interest, because the collective is greater than the individual.

Well not really if you see the sole purpose of life to amass as much as possible well then thats abit sad and if that the only reason you would do a good days work (as opposed to a good work ethic , determination to master your trade etc) well thats not that good on your behalf then to be honest.