Strawmen!!!

[renzo_novatore]

Am I the only one who noticed that this seems to be the only logical fallacy known to capitalist apologists?!?! All the time, it's like you bring up a point with one of them: "That's a straw man." You disagree with them: "That's a straw man." You point out what's wrong with their thinking: "That's a straw man."

Seems to me that if I disagree with a capitalist, that's a straw man!!!! Am I the only one who noticed this????

Why don't they use proof by verbosity? Begging the question? Irrelevant conclusion? WHY STRAW MEN!!!!

Balarijgt orij aoij

Fuck capitalists. Done with arguing. No more reasoning with them, we've got to force our opinion on them and become authoritarian stalinists! Hooray! (just kidding - capitalists could use that against me - they'd be like: "Aha! I knew you were all wanting to rob me of my individual liberty!")

Or we could be fourierists. You know fourier wanted to make all the jews work on farming as slave labor. Let's not use jews, let's use capitalists instead! Hooray! Send the entire von mises institute to the gulags! Pricks. I mean there's like 2 million ron paul supporters and glenn beck's entire audience and then republicans! We could be living like kings and not working at all! Just use them!

I'm sorry. Venting. Been arguing with a capitalist. All the time: "Straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man, etc" The asshole thinks he won because he thinks I used a straw man. Just wanted to know if I'm the only one out there who's experienced this.

God, I just plain hate them!

[Robert]

Fuck capitalists.
we've got to force our opinion on them and become authoritarian stalinists!
Send the entire von mises institute to the gulags! Pricks.
God, I just plain hate them! I can't imagine why you are having trouble conversing with us.

[Skooma Addict]

For all we know the capitalists are right and your arguments are straw men.

[PhoenixAsh]

http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/841345-how-debate-common-fallacies.html

Next time you can expain to him what a straw man is and if he uses the word incorrectly again tell him that he is making an argumentum ad ignorantiam

:laugh:

[Frosty Weasel]

Or we could be fourierists. You know fourier wanted to make all the jews work on farming as slave labor. Let's not use jews, let's use capitalists instead! Hooray! Send the entire von mises institute to the gulags! Pricks. I mean there's like 2 million ron paul supporters and glenn beck's entire audience and then republicans! We could be living like kings and not working at all! Just use them!

You just made my fucking year sir.

[American Assasin]

Talk about political strawman:laugh:

[Dean]

Am I the only one who noticed that this seems to be the only logical fallacy known to capitalist apologists?!?! All the time, it's like you bring up a point with one of them: "That's a straw man." You disagree with them: "That's a straw man." You point out what's wrong with their thinking: "That's a straw man."

Seems to me that if I disagree with a capitalist, that's a straw man!!!! Am I the only one who noticed this????

Capitalism can be critiqued only for its progressive characteristics. Anything bad comes from state intervention. If you criticize these bad traits of capitalism, it is a "strawman" because it doesn't fit their narrow ideal.

But they'll completely embrace the system and all of its factors that caused the negative traits.

[American Assasin]

this is a better meaning to political straw men
tvtropes(dot)org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawmanPolitical

[American Assasin]

this

Imagine a boxer steps into the ring and declares that today the crowd will watch as he pulverizes the reigning world champion; to their bemusement, he then produces a straw dummy that looks a little like his supposed opponent, beats the hell out of it, and declares himself the victor. This is the essence of the Strawman Fallacy; a debater constructs a weakened or just plain unrecognizable form of an opponent's argument, and in defeating it acts like they have defeated the real argument.
A strawman, therefore, is a caricatured and deliberately crippled version of an opposing viewpoint that the author uses to try and support their own position. A strawman differs from a parody in that in the latter case the viewer is intended to regard the exaggeration and distortion as humorous and thus recognise it is not a valid portrayal of a real point of view; the strawman is exaggerated purely for the purpose of making it easier to defeat or mock.
A strawman can be made of pretty much any political or religious stance; why bother addressing the real issues of, for example, firearms advocates, when you can instead portray them all as bearded, racist lunatics ranting about black helicopters and wanting to own their own nuclear warheads? And so it goes with all examples; capitalists literally worship the bottom line, liberals are all secret communists aiming to destroy morality, scientists shake their fist at God while plotting to surpass him, the religious are wide-eyed, superstitious madmen, feminists want to kill all men, and so on. This is not to say that such extremists don't actually exist, but the Strawman Political presents extreme or minority views as the typical beliefs of a group rather than those of a tiny subset of it.

[#FF0000]

sounds like you're just bad at presenting arguments, bro.

Dean's right, though.

[Revolution starts with U]

Actually pointing out someone's fallacy, tho it may be necessary, and thinking it destroys their argument is a fallacy in itself. Just because one or all of your premises are false, does not per se mean you're conclusion is.
The reason they use the straw man is because it makes them seem smart, becuase most people don't know what a logical or an argumentative fallacy is... they're also stuck in the dark ages where they think logic is the greatest thing ever.... but anyway... It is also easy to call anything a straw man.
We can use it too, comparing USSR to socialism is a straw man. Asserting that socialism entails government is a straw man.

It's called a style over substance fallacy. For example;
Human faces are rounded. The moon has a human face. Therefore the moon is round.

[renzo_novatore]

sounds like you're just bad at presenting arguments, bro.

No it has nothing to do with the arguments that I present. I've noticed this for quite some time. Arguing with capitalists all you hear is straw man straw man straw man. And looking at youtube with people like brainpolice and xomniverse and so on it's all you hear straw man straw man straw man. Von mises forums why hey! Straw man straw man straw man! Perhaps it's something that I just notice. But, at the same time, it only seems to be capitalists who use that argument. Only very rarely have I heard it from the left.


Capitalism can be critiqued only for its progressive characteristics. Anything bad comes from state intervention. If you criticize these bad traits of capitalism, it is a "strawman" because it doesn't fit their narrow ideal.

But they'll completely embrace the system and all of its factors that caused the negative traits.


Nailed it on the head right there! I think it has to do with that and also with the fact that these aren't the smartest people we're dealing with here. Saying straw man might just make themselves feel smarter. I mean seriously - these are people who take objectivism seriously. They think Ayn Rand is smart just because she pulled a thousand pages of horrifying prose from her ass. Ask them what socialism is and they'll always tell you: "It's government controlling everything!" Again I'll reiterate:



Fuck capitalists.
Quote:
we've got to force our opinion on them and become authoritarian stalinists!
Quote:
Send the entire von mises institute to the gulags! Pricks.
Quote:
God, I just plain hate them!

Btw - robert. I see you've got a jonah goldberg quote in your signature. Just wanted to let you know before you embarrass yourself! Biggest favor I've ever done for anyone.

[Skooma Addict]

No it has nothing to do with the arguments that I present. I've noticed this for quite some time. Arguing with capitalists all you hear is straw man straw man straw man. And looking at youtube with people like brainpolice and xomniverse and so on it's all you hear straw man straw man straw man. Von mises forums why hey! Straw man straw man straw man! Perhaps it's something that I just notice. But, at the same time, it only seems to be capitalists who use that argument. Only very rarely have I heard it from the left.We still don't know what arguments you are presenting, and who exactly it is you are debating with. So still, you might actually be presenting straw men.


Nailed it on the head right there! I think it has to do with that and also with the fact that these aren't the smartest people we're dealing with here. Saying straw man might just make themselves feel smarter. I mean seriously - these are people who take objectivism seriously. They think Ayn Rand is smart just because she pulled a thousand pages of horrifying prose from her ass. Ask them what socialism is and they'll always tell you: "It's government controlling everything!" So the capitalists you have been debating with were objectivists then? I assume you know that not all capitalists are objectivists. This might be one of the reasons why people are claiming straw man a lot.

[#FF0000]

Btw - robert. I see you've got a jonah goldberg quote in your signature. Just wanted to let you know before you embarrass yourself! Biggest favor I've ever done for anyone.

lol I like your style, kid.

[renzo_novatore]

Actually pointing out someone's fallacy, tho it may be necessary, and thinking it destroys their argument is a fallacy in itself. Just because one or all of your premises are false, does not per se mean you're conclusion is.
The reason they use the straw man is because it makes them seem smart, becuase most people don't know what a logical or an argumentative fallacy is... they're also stuck in the dark ages where they think logic is the greatest thing ever.... but anyway... It is also easy to call anything a straw man.
We can use it too, comparing USSR to socialism is a straw man. Asserting that socialism entails government is a straw man.

It's called a style over substance fallacy. For example;
Human faces are rounded. The moon has a human face. Therefore the moon is round.


oh didn't see you posted that right before i did but yeah - what you said.


No it has nothing to do with the arguments that I present. I've noticed this for quite some time. Arguing with capitalists all you hear is straw man straw man straw man. And looking at youtube with people like brainpolice and xomniverse and so on it's all you hear straw man straw man straw man. Von mises forums why hey! Straw man straw man straw man! Perhaps it's something that I just notice. But, at the same time, it only seems to be capitalists who use that argument. Only very rarely have I heard it from the left.
We still don't know what arguments you are presenting, and who exactly it is you are debating with. So still, you might actually be presenting straw men.

Quote:
Nailed it on the head right there! I think it has to do with that and also with the fact that these aren't the smartest people we're dealing with here. Saying straw man might just make themselves feel smarter. I mean seriously - these are people who take objectivism seriously. They think Ayn Rand is smart just because she pulled a thousand pages of horrifying prose from her ass. Ask them what socialism is and they'll always tell you: "It's government controlling everything!"
So the capitalists you have been debating with were objectivists then? I assume you know that not all capitalists are objectivists. This might be one of the reasons why people are claiming straw man a lot.


Holy crap I can totally tell you're one of them! :scared:

You sir skooma addict - i can tell you wear a bow tie. Admit it! You all do!

And of course I am not making a strawman argument. All capitalists are objectivists. All capitalists wear bowties. All capitalists like to pull the strawman card. And I say this with such certainty, because every capitalist I've talked to IS EXACTLY THE SAME. INCLUDING YOU! You are not people. You are not humans. You most likely are demons sent here by the devil in order to tempt mankind - and whisper lewd discourses into our ears late at night about how we should revert back to the gold standard.

"The constitution says we can only use gold and silver!"

[#FF0000]

are you joking or something

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

are you joking or something

I sure hope so. This is getting ridiculous.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Am I the only one who noticed this????

Pretty much.

[psgchisolm]

Pretty much.
it's not just him. I've been debating a cappie on steam(game program) and damn near destroying all his references as to how this wasn't capitalism and such bullshit not wanting to man up to his idealogy. EVERY single topic he has starts with HOW MANY DIED UNDER COMMUNISM. HOW BAD GULAGS ARE. Such and such bs, then when I can't get to the computer because I HAVE A LIFE and I come back on he claims victory and saying how he is right and such bs. Yet when I bring up a reference to how many died/die under capitalism his response. Wasn't capitalism, Kaiser Whilhelm was a communist. O REALLY NOW show me your sources that say Kaiser Whilhelm was a Communist. None to date. Yet he always comes back with how many died under mao and so on and so forth. I call him up on his perfect capitalism and he still finds a way to blame it on communism or he trys and weasels his way out of the agrument. Then he goes back to what he does best. STALIN KILL 20 MILLION. MAO 200 MILLION. MARX 200 GAZILLION. yet when I ask for sources. NONE. The cycle repeats, he really has no agenda against communism except for how many so and so died under who and who, but whenever I bring up something. Mercantilism did it. It wasn't capitalism it was the government. It wasn't capitalism because kaiser Whilhelm II had socialist policys so he was übercommie. >_> me: mhm sources? him: STALIN KILLED. and on it goes. Tbh I don't think hes over 12 because he couldn't tell the difference between a statement and an opinion:laugh:. Yet i'm the uneducated one;), oh the irony.

[ComradeMan]

Why do you expect more from a dog than its bark or more from a pig than its grunt?

[Ele'ill]

Why do you expect more from a dog than its bark or more from a pig than its grunt?

What?

[ComradeMan]

What?

Look, a hardened capitalist is never going to admit that there are any flaws with his or her "theory" just like Trots won't admit Trotsky was in the wrong and Stalinists won't admit Stalin was ever in the wrong etc... if you see what I mean? It's part of human nature, unfortunately, to be stubborn about ideas. The first step in revolutionary thinking is to open the mind and think out of the box.

Getting back to the argument the OP-er is having with the cappie, well-

The wise man does not fish in the lake with no fish.

[PhoenixAsh]

it's not just him. I've been debating a cappie on steam(game program) and damn near destroying all his references as to how this wasn't capitalism and such bullshit not wanting to man up to his idealogy. EVERY single topic he has starts with HOW MANY DIED UNDER COMMUNISM. HOW BAD GULAGS ARE. Such and such bs, then when I can't get to the computer because I HAVE A LIFE and I come back on he claims victory and saying how he is right and such bs. Yet when I bring up a reference to how many died/die under capitalism his response. Wasn't capitalism, Kaiser Whilhelm was a communist. O REALLY NOW show me your sources that say Kaiser Whilhelm was a Communist. None to date. Yet he always comes back with how many died under mao and so on and so forth. I call him up on his perfect capitalism and he still finds a way to blame it on communism or he trys and weasels his way out of the agrument. Then he goes back to what he does best. STALIN KILL 20 MILLION. MAO 200 MILLION. MARX 200 GAZILLION. yet when I ask for sources. NONE. The cycle repeats, he really has no agenda against communism except for how many so and so died under who and who, but whenever I bring up something. Mercantilism did it. It wasn't capitalism it was the government. It wasn't capitalism because kaiser Whilhelm II had socialist policys so he was übercommie. >_> me: mhm sources? him: STALIN KILLED. and on it goes. Tbh I don't think hes over 12 because he couldn't tell the difference between a statement and an opinion:laugh:. Yet i'm the uneducated one;), oh the irony.


And now do you see how completely harmfull and destructive it is what Stalin and people like him did?

No matter how much he may or may not have contributed...his name is and will always be inherrently linked to Communism, Marxism and Socialism in the minds of people...and as such any arguments we (well...not me...I am an anarchist and as such am always equated with terrorism & chaos :crying:) make to them are void from the get-go.

It is NOT easy to win against decades and decades of propaganda when all you have is to point towards a system that supposedly killed millions and millions of people....not matter that most of them were socialist, communists and anarchists...

In their minds we lost...the propaganda was right.

You do NOT use our kind of logic...you aoproach them from their point of view, relate to their personal experiences and then slowely, very slowely explain to them in small baby steps what it actually is that causes problems and what possible solutions are. And then...and only then...will most of them understand there are alternatives and only then do you introduce terminology we use.

Bring up any term like "communism", "Marx", "revolution" "bourgeois", "proletarian" etc too soon and that will automatically have lost you the argument.

[American Assasin]

A straw man is when you debate someone, and you debate only the idea of what ever he is in your mind, and not what he is saying.

[PhoenixAsh]

Why do you expect more from a dog than its bark or more from a pig than its grunt?

I am going to steal this and use it! well phrased.

:thumbup:

[ComradeMan]

And now do you see how completely harmfull and destructive it is what Stalin and people like him did?....

Amen!!!

I'd add Pol Pot to the list. The first thing people say when you bring up the subject of communism is a list of Eastern European/Sovoiet negatives and then as the final strike- Pol Pot. This is why I get so frustrated with people on the left who want to blindly carry on supporting people such as Stalin or Pol Pot.

On the other note, I was talking to someone the other day who basically came up with the idea (on his own) of "to each according to his needs"- I jokingly said, "Well done! Now you're a communist!"- to which he began to say "Oh no, I'm not a communist"- like as if I had said he were a Nazi war criminal or something..... see the problem?
;)

Until the left, or at least large sections of the left, grows up and stops behaving like a historical reenactment society that exists only to attack and be in opposition then it will never get anywhere... and time is running out too!

[Ele'ill]

Look, a hardened capitalist is never going to admit that there are any flaws with his or her "theory" just like Trots won't admit Trotsky was in the wrong and Stalinists won't admit Stalin was ever in the wrong etc... if you see what I mean? It's part of human nature, unfortunately, to be stubborn about ideas. The first step in revolutionary thinking is to open the mind and think out of the box.

Getting back to the argument the OP-er is having with the cappie, well-

The wise man does not fish in the lake with no fish.

I think conversations with those types are still important if for nothing else than for those watching to see the truth. I don't care if they won't admit it so long as they're left with no more conversational ground to stand on. Running dialogue on these issues is more important than you might think.

[RGacky3]

Look, a hardened capitalist is never going to admit that there are any flaws with his or her "theory" just like Trots won't admit Trotsky was in the wrong and Stalinists won't admit Stalin was ever in the wrong etc... if you see what I mean? It's part of human nature, unfortunately, to be stubborn about ideas. The first step in revolutionary thinking is to open the mind and think out of the box.


There are reasonable and open minded people out there with very firm principles, I like to think of myself as one, I've changed my opinion on things various times when facts and logical arguments have been presented to me, but I do have pretty firm principles.

[PhoenixAsh]

He problem is we are fractured. We keep on debating Stalin vs Trotsky/ Stalin vs humanity/ Anarchism vs Communism etc. etc. (and...yes...I am guilty of this too). We keep on playing blame cards and denouncing everybody who doesn't think like us as reactionary or worse.

What we do too little because we are too bussy doing that is discussing how we could overcome these differences with the notion that whatever we may feel, think or believe is infinitely less importanty than the immmediate threat of capitalism.

We should be spending our time constructively debating how we can form a united front and battle, instead of each other, the enemy.

That means we should formulate answers to how the enemy percieves us. Develop a lingo that is in their minds neutral and doesn't hold all the negative connotations associated with the left ideologies, so that next time we encounter such a debate we are not immediately put on the defensive and need to defend against attrocities people believe have been committed in our name.

We should formulate new ideas and reformulate old ones instead of reciting over and over again the same phrases some people a 100 years ago wrote in a society that differed greatly from ours.

[PhoenixAsh]

There are reasonable and open minded people out there with very firm principles, I like to think of myself as one, I've changed my opinion on things various times when facts and logical arguments have been presented to me, but I do have pretty firm principles.

Yes...but the first thing you should always remember that peole are not the same and people are not persuaded by fact and logic.

Fact and logic form ideas and opinions...emotion leads to action.

That is why capitalism is winning...because its the number one rule in marketing.

People do not revolt because Marx wrote a book that sounded logical....they revolted because they were angry, fed up, wanted something else and someone motivated them. In fact...I would argue that they would have had a revolution even if the ideas were completely different.

[RGacky3]

That is why capitalism is winning...because its the number one rule in marketing.


capitalism is winning because they have all the money ...

[ComradeMan]

capitalism is winning because they have all the money ...

And why do "they" have all the money?

[PhoenixAsh]

I think conversations with those types are still important if for nothing else than for those watching to see the truth. I don't care if they won't admit it so long as they're left with no more conversational ground to stand on. Running dialogue on these issues is more important than you might think.


Yes...at least so you know wat arguments they give. It serves self educating purposes. But do not expect them to agree and do not complain when the do what they do.

[RGacky3]

And why do "they" have all the money?

Because they are the Capitalists ....

[PhoenixAsh]

capitalism is winning because they have all the money ...

because they know how to sell...not only porducts but also ideas.

Look...I wokred in a CallCenter...that work opened my eyes. Its amoral but hey...I have to pay the bills to. And it learned me a whole lot of useful things about human motivation.

When you want to sell something an you uise logic and facts yo actually do sell but you sell about 100 times less than when you sell it with both logic and emotion.

You do not say that the more expensive television set is actually technological superior and better value for money.

You sell that set because it is a dream come true, because it is the best money you ever spend and it is going to blow your mind. It will be the thing that makes you happy, it is what you always needed, what you always wanted and it is what will keep you happy and relaxed when you come home from a long days of work. Just immagine...you are tired, you have worked your ass off and all youn want to do is relax. Just think about how you take of your shoes...doesn't that just feel like the bees knees?... sit down on your comfy chair, grab a beer and just pick upn that remote and watch your favorite TV show in 3d surround sound, better than real colour and awesome features that allow you to go to the toilet without losing one valuable second of your show. It will absolutely positively be such an improvement of your life!
...you do have a comfy chair don't you?? No? Well then I have just the thing for you...

See my point?

[Ele'ill]

Yes...at least so you know wat arguments they give. It serves self educating purposes. But do not expect them to agree

I expect them to agree or be proven foolish.




and do not complain when the do what they do.

I don't complain I fight to win and I will most definitely call them on it.

[PhoenixAsh]

I expect them to agree or be proven foolish.


I don't complain I fight to win.

That is a very good attitude! However OP did complain. That is what CommradMans post was about...complaining about...well...that a capitalist is a capitalist and will not easilly see beyond that.

As for agreeing...yes some individuals might. Others might not...but being proven foolish is somewhat harder to accomplish when they do not feel foolish at all.

[Ele'ill]

That is a very good attitude! However OP did complain. That is what CommradMans post was about...complaining about...well...that a capitalist is a capitalist and will not easilly see beyond that.

At times it's therapeutic to vent in such a manner. There isn't anybody who doesn't.




when they do not feel foolish at all.

If they're knowledgeable enough to be competent capitalists they will feel and appear foolish. At this point if they want to duck out of the conversation or lie outright, fine.

[Dimentio]

Look, a hardened capitalist is never going to admit that there are any flaws with his or her "theory" just like Trots won't admit Trotsky was in the wrong and Stalinists won't admit Stalin was ever in the wrong etc... if you see what I mean? It's part of human nature, unfortunately, to be stubborn about ideas. The first step in revolutionary thinking is to open the mind and think out of the box.

Getting back to the argument the OP-er is having with the cappie, well-

The wise man does not fish in the lake with no fish.

Uh, you are probably even more pessimistic than Bud.

[ComradeMan]

At times it's therapeutic to vent in such a manner. There isn't anybody who doesn't.

If they're knowledgeable enough to be competent capitalists they will feel and appear foolish. At this point if they want to duck out of the conversation or lie outright, fine.

Unfortunately we enter into the "marxist paradox"- the capitalists will argue that their system works based on empirical evidence, albeit that we disagree, and furthermore will argue that the failure of communism is based on empirical evidence (USSR, China moving to capitalism etc).

The marxist/communist will counter that marxism/communism is scientific but will not be able to provide substantial real word evidence of the proof of success of such theories from an empirical basis.

Therefore arguing that marxism/communism is scientific, sound and to be achieved the capitalist will usually respond a) by citing evidence of failure or b) cunningly suggesting that when the sincere marxist/communist points to the fact that the USSR etc were not really communism then communism cannot be scientific in the sense of guaranteed results because it's a theory that has never been tested in practice- therefore rendering the claims of the marxist/communist unscientific.:crying:

This is how it usually goes unless you bring in arguments of morality and ethics which are not really scientific arguments...

[Robert]

Attention Leftists: do not argue with this guy. You are not in his league.


People do not revolt because Marx wrote a book that sounded logical....they revolted because they were angry, fed up, wanted something else and someone motivated them. In fact...I would argue that they would have had a revolution even if the ideas were completely different.



Seriously man, you cut to the heart of matters like no anarchist I ever saw around here. Take a frigging bow.

[ComradeMan]

Attention Leftists: do not argue with this guy. You are not in his league.



Seriously man, you cut to the heart of matters like no anarchist I ever saw around here. Take a frigging bow.


Men decide far more problems by hate, love, lust, rage, sorrow, joy, hope, fear, illusion, or some other inward emotion, than by reality, authority, any legal standard, judicial precedent, or statute. Marcus Tullius Cicero

Osculare pultem meam!

[RGacky3]

People do not revolt because Marx wrote a book that sounded logical....they revolted because they were angry, fed up, wanted something else and someone motivated them. In fact...I would argue that they would have had a revolution even if the ideas were completely different.


Overyly simplistic view, most revolutions need both, ideas and motivation.

[PhoenixAsh]

Overyly simplistic view, most revolutions need both, ideas and motivation.

That was my point.

[Bud Struggle]

People do not revolt because Marx wrote a book that sounded logical....they revolted because they were angry, fed up, wanted something else and someone motivated them. In fact...I would argue that they would have had a revolution even if the ideas were completely different.

Enter: Fascism.

[American Assasin]

Fascism does not have to be via revolution it could easily be via the electoral process.

[Bud Struggle]

Fascism does not have to be via revolution it could easily be via the electoral process.

Granted...while Communism cannot.

[renzo_novatore]

it's not just him. I've been debating a cappie on steam(game program) and damn near destroying all his references as to how this wasn't capitalism and such bullshit not wanting to man up to his idealogy. EVERY single topic he has starts with HOW MANY DIED UNDER COMMUNISM. HOW BAD GULAGS ARE. Such and such bs, then when I can't get to the computer because I HAVE A LIFE and I come back on he claims victory and saying how he is right and such bs. Yet when I bring up a reference to how many died/die under capitalism his response. Wasn't capitalism, Kaiser Whilhelm was a communist. O REALLY NOW show me your sources that say Kaiser Whilhelm was a Communist. None to date. Yet he always comes back with how many died under mao and so on and so forth. I call him up on his perfect capitalism and he still finds a way to blame it on communism or he trys and weasels his way out of the agrument. Then he goes back to what he does best. STALIN KILL 20 MILLION. MAO 200 MILLION. MARX 200 GAZILLION. yet when I ask for sources. NONE. The cycle repeats, he really has no agenda against communism except for how many so and so died under who and who, but whenever I bring up something. Mercantilism did it. It wasn't capitalism it was the government. It wasn't capitalism because kaiser Whilhelm II had socialist policys so he was übercommie. >_> me: mhm sources? him: STALIN KILLED. and on it goes. Tbh I don't think hes over 12 because he couldn't tell the difference between a statement and an opinion. Yet i'm the uneducated one, oh the irony.


Thank you! I'm not the only one!


I sure hope so. This is getting ridiculous.

And now for something completely different...


Look, a hardened capitalist is never going to admit that there are any flaws with his or her "theory" just like Trots won't admit Trotsky was in the wrong and Stalinists won't admit Stalin was ever in the wrong etc... if you see what I mean? It's part of human nature, unfortunately, to be stubborn about ideas. The first step in revolutionary thinking is to open the mind and think out of the box.


I totally agree with this! That is why a mass dropping of acid shall precede the revolution. Yipee! :drool:


People do not revolt because Marx wrote a book that sounded logical....they revolted because they were angry, fed up, wanted something else and someone motivated them. In fact...I would argue that they would have had a revolution even if the ideas were completely different.


Wait - wasn't that Bertrand Russell who said that? I know he said something like that.

[Revolution starts with U]

You mean no one on this site ever said "people revolt for material reasons?"
Give me a break... are you even paying attention? :confused:

[RGacky3]

Granted...while Communism cannot.

Difference Communism or Socialism changes the economic structure, fascism just reinforces it, so its much easier for fascism, since its essencially a super nationalistic capitalism.

[PhoenixAsh]

Fascism does not have to be via revolution it could easily be via the electoral process.

Some...communists argue or actively work in organisations that in lieu of mass support say we could try to gain electoral power and from there lead a revolution dismanteling the system.

*shudder*

[Bud Struggle]

Difference Communism or Socialism changes the economic structure, fascism just reinforces it, so its much easier for fascism, since its essencially a super nationalistic capitalism.

Maybe but Fascism is a spent political force in the world for the most part. And as for Communism--that is still an open question.

[RGacky3]

And as for Communism--that is still an open question.

I never know what you mean when you say Communism, if you mean Leninism, then yeah probably its spent, and good riddence.

If you mean actual .... Socialism, i.e. public control, people power, then far from it.

[ComradeMan]

Granted...while Communism cannot.

Allende?

[Ele'ill]

Unfortunately we enter into the "marxist paradox"- the capitalists will argue that their system works based on empirical evidence, albeit that we disagree, and furthermore will argue that the failure of communism is based on empirical evidence (USSR, China moving to capitalism etc).

The marxist/communist will counter that marxism/communism is scientific but will not be able to provide substantial real word evidence of the proof of success of such theories from an empirical basis.

Therefore arguing that marxism/communism is scientific, sound and to be achieved the capitalist will usually respond a) by citing evidence of failure or b) cunningly suggesting that when the sincere marxist/communist points to the fact that the USSR etc were not really communism then communism cannot be scientific in the sense of guaranteed results because it's a theory that has never been tested in practice- therefore rendering the claims of the marxist/communist unscientific.:crying:

This is how it usually goes unless you bring in arguments of morality and ethics which are not really scientific arguments...


Perhaps you should engage on specific issues rather than 'as a whole'. The first steps are to get your 'audience' to understand why the current systems or actions by those taking advantage of it are oppressive or 'unjust'. I wouldn't start the conversation as Capitalism vs Communism- I would break it down into easier to manage portions of conversation.

[Bud Struggle]

Allende?

Yea he was a bit Socialistic--but did he bring about a classless, stateless society? Did he do anything to highten class consciousness? He doesn't appear to me at least to be an "authentic" Communist.

But obviously the CIA thought differently.

[ComradeMan]

Perhaps you should engage on specific issues rather than 'as a whole'. The first steps are to get your 'audience' to understand why the current systems or actions by those taking advantage of it are oppressive or 'unjust'. I wouldn't start the conversation as Capitalism vs Communism- I would break it down into easier to manage portions of conversation.

unjust = moral/ethical argument. Moral and ethical arguments are difficultly married to scientific arguments.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Granted...while Communism cannot.

Now wait a second there. Yes, there is potential for violence. But, if we could reach REAL Communism through peaceful means, then I don't know a single Marxist who wouldn't embrace that.

However, we recognize that we're fighting an opponent with massive resources and little regard for peaceful proceedings. Thus, we realize that violence on some level will probably be necessary. Most agree that we should use the least violence possible without corrupting our goal.

And, to ameliorate the suffering of mankind and move beyond the rut that we're in, to establish equality and end exploitation, to destroy slavery by capital SO THAT WE CAN BECOME TRULY HUMAN AND REACH OUR FULLEST POTENTIAL, a little violence is damned well justified. But, as I said, only because our opponents will have no reservations using it to destroy our cause.

[ComradeMan]

Yea he was a bit Socialistic--but did he bring about a classless, stateless society? Did he do anything to highten class consciousness? He doesn't appear to me at least to be an "authentic" Communist.

But obviously the CIA thought differently.

No Bud... I disagree, he was an authentic communist... that's why the poor guy didn't last...

Now I'm depressed.:crying:

[Robert]

Is Fidel Castro an authentic communist?

[Ele'ill]

unjust = moral/ethical argument. Moral and ethical arguments are difficultly married to scientific arguments.

Right, I put it in quotes to sort of reference 'social justice' and the usage that you and I would be able to identify and understand. I likely wouldn't use that word outside of this setting here.

[American Assasin]

As long as they are part of the government and have a massive bureaucracy to control the people, they are not communistic, and could be considered Fascistic.

[American Assasin]

True communism needs to be done when humans are able to become truly communistic as a whole, and not a minority or as a "party.

[PhoenixAsh]

Is Fidel Castro an authentic communist?

Castro: How I Became a Communist

From a question-and-answer period with students
at the University of Concepción, Chile, November 18 1971

I was the son of a landowner—that was one reason for me to be a reactionary. I was educated in religious schools that were attended by the sons of the rich—another reason for being a reactionary.



I lived in Cuba, where all the films, publications, and mass media were “Made in USA”—a third reason for being a reactionary. I studied in a university where out of fifteen thousand students, only thirty were anti-imperialists, and I was one of those thirty at the end. When I entered the university, it was as the son of a landowner—and to make matters worse, as a political illiterate!


…And mind you, no party member, no Communist, no socialist or extremist got hold of me and indoctrinated me. No. I was given a big, heavy, infernal, unreadable, unbearable textbook that tried to explain political economy from a bourgeois viewpoint—they called that political economy!


And that unbearable book presented the crises of overproduction and other such problems as the most natural things in the world. It explained how in Britain, when there was an abundance of coal, there were workers who didn’t have any, because by the inexorable natural and unchangeable laws of history, of society and nature, crises of overproduction inevitably occur, and when they do, they bring unemployment and starvation. When there’s too much coal, workers will freeze and starve!


So that landowner’s son, who had been educated by bourgeois schools and Yankee propaganda, began to think that something was wrong with that system, that it didn’t make sense…


As the son of a poor man who later became a big landowner, I had the advantage of at least living in the countryside, with the peasants, with the poor, who were all my friends. Had I been the grandson of a landowner, it’s quite possible that my father would have taken me to live in the capital, in a superaristocratic neighborhood and those positive factors at work on me wouldn’t have been able to survive the influence of the milieu. Egoism and other negative traits we humans beings have would have prevailed.


Luckily, the schools I studied in developed some of the positive factors. A certain idealistic rationality; a certain concept of good and evil, just and unjust; and a certain spirit of rebelliousness against impositions and oppression led me to an analysis of human society, and turned me into what I later realized was a utopian Communist. At the time, I still hadn’t been fortunate enough to meet a Communist or read a Communist document.


Then one day a copy of the Communist Manifesto—the famous Communist Manifesto!—fell into my hands and I read some things I’ll never forget… What phrases what truths! And we saw those truths every day!
I felt like some little animal that had been born in a forest which he didn’t understand. Then, all of a sudden, he finds a map of that forest—a description, a geography of that forest and everything in it. It was then that I got my bearings. Take a look now and see if Marx’s ideas weren’t just, correct, and inspiring. If we hadn’t based our struggle on them, we wouldn’t be here now! We wouldn’t be here!


Now then, was I a Communist? No. I was a man who was lucky enough to have discovered a political theory, a man who was caught up in the whirlpool of Cuba’s political crisis long before becoming a full-fledged Communist…


I went on developing. Afterwards, I had the opportunity to know imperialism more concretely than I had through Lenin’s book. I got to know imperialism—the worst and most aggressive of all… And I believe life has given me a better understanding of reality. It has made me more revolutionary, more socialist, more Communist…


/article


....in other words: no.

[Robert]

Sorry, my friend, but Castro is the genuine article.

He talks a lot, doesn't he? He likes being President too, doesn't he?

[PhoenixAsh]

Sorry, my friend, but Castro is the genuine article.

He talks a lot, doesn't he? He likes being President too, doesn't he?


So what is your evidence then?

Since the 26th of july movement EXcluded communists and was supported and interlaced with Orthodoxo's who were completely anti-communist....and sinxce the tactics used by Castro ran counter opposed to Marxist-Leninist theories the communist party refused to support him. The ONLY member of the 26th of july movement who was a member of the communist party was Raoul Castro. Castro also accused Batisda of being a communist....seeing as he was once backed by the communist during presidential elections.

Now Che said it best when he described the 26th of july movement: There was not enough done to involve the workers into the movement and formulate a proletarian resistance.

As such...the movement and the leadership was definitaley not communist...seeing as this is the core tennant of communism.

Only in 1958 did the communists officially back up Castro...and only then did he state:

"As for being a Communist, there is no objection if one is a Communist 'pure and simple,' since it is one of the many ways of understanding reality; but to be a Communist in a Party that belongs to the Comintern is something else again, for it undoubtedly means adopting a type of Marxism compromised by the interest and needs of a metropolis that one blindly believes will bring about the establishment of socialism over the entire globe."

He then proceded to take over the party by destroying or subjegating its leadership and repcing it with his own.


Now this is a very short analysis and far from complete...


What is clear is that Castor did not form a popular proletarian front and used gureilla tactics. They worked, they were revolutionary, he was a socalist and perhaps later a Marxits-Leninist in some or most aspects... but he was never a communist.

[American Assasin]

If they have a bureaucracy, they are not a peoples democracy.

[Robert]

You have an idealized conception of the word "communist" which corresponds to a make-believe world in which good-hearted men, steeped in Marxism, rise as one with their working class comrades against propertied elites to establish a classless society. I do not.

We have had more than enough time to see this happen somewhere, anywhere, in the world. Since it never works out that way, I think it's time to accept that communist initiatives always and everywhere degrade into totalitarian states. Like Cuba.

You want to keep believing in the other version? Well, that's okay by me.

[RGacky3]

If they have a bureaucracy, they are not a peoples democracy.


EVERYTHING has a bureaucracy, people have basterdized that word so much, a freaking secretary at an office taking calls is a bureaucracy.

[Bud Struggle]

What is clear is that Castor did not form a popular proletarian front and used gureilla tactics. They worked, they were revolutionary, he was a socalist and perhaps later a Marxits-Leninist in some or most aspects... but he was never a communist.


Castro is what Communism looks like in real life. So was Stalin and Mao and all of those puppet guys in the Iron Curtain countries. Sure you can have grand theories about what this ought to look like and that out to look like, but after Communist Revolution after Communist Revolution--what the results are in the end is all that matters.

[American Assasin]

If they have a bureaucracy, the bureaucracy serves themselves not the people. If there is a self serving bureaucracy, then the "state" will never wither away i.e. the soviet union, cuba... their government, their states will not wither away.

[RGacky3]

If they have a bureaucracy, the bureaucracy serves themselves not the people. If there is a self serving bureaucracy, then the "state" will never wither away i.e. the soviet union, cuba... their government, their states will not wither away.


Do you know what the word bureaucracy means?


Castro is what Communism looks like in real life. So was Stalin and Mao and all of those puppet guys in the Iron Curtain countries. Sure you can have grand theories about what this ought to look like and that out to look like, but after Communist Revolution after Communist Revolution--what the results are in the end is all that matters.

Bud, make a proper argument about how Cuba and all that is actually what happens when the public controlls the economy and workers control the industry, or just shut the fuck up, because weæve gone over this a million times and you've NEVER defended that position even though its been shot down time after time after time.

[Bud Struggle]

Bud, make a proper argument about how Cuba and all that is actually what happens when the public controlls the economy and workers control the industry, or just shut the fuck up, because weæve gone over this a million times and you've NEVER defended that position even though its been shot down time after time after time.

Castro, Inc. controls Cuba. The Castros decide what's important and what isn't. If they are interested in Cuba having good healthcare--than they have it. If the Castros decide they don't like something, they don't have it. Castro wants to build an Orthodox Cathedral in the middle of
Havana--they build it. He wants to turn over land to farmers--they do it.

Where does the "public" or the "workers" come into the equasion?

[RGacky3]

Where does the "public" or the "workers" come into the equasion?

Thats the definition of Socialism moron, so you just proved that no, thats NOT what Socialism looks like in real lïfe

[PhoenixAsh]

You have an idealized conception of the word "communist" which corresponds to a make-believe world in which good-hearted men, steeped in Marxism, rise as one with their working class comrades against propertied elites to establish a classless society. I do not.

We have had more than enough time to see this happen somewhere, anywhere, in the world. Since it never works out that way, I think it's time to accept that communist initiatives always and everywhere degrade into totalitarian states. Like Cuba.

You want to keep believing in the other version? Well, that's okay by me.


This is not a concept. The simple truth is that communism dependes amongst other things on a proletarian revolution if there is no proletarian revolution there is no communism.

THere is no such thing as a notion of good hearted men and women rising up with the working class. It is a notion of helping the workingclass organise and rise up. There is an essential difference here.

No band of revolutionary militant guerillas can bring about a communist society. All they can do is take power and implement socialist ideas.

And not all proletarian (or peasant) revolutions lead to communism. That is the logic conclusion you can take out of history.

I'll give you this paraphrase: In inventing the lightbulb I first learned a 101 ways not to make one.

So if there are some failed examples, many of which didn't even follow a communist ideology, does it logically follow that communism doesn';t work everywhere and anywhere? No it doesn't...if that is the agument we would not have anything invented ever.

You are not offering any valid arguments but are making conclusions on the basis on burden of proof and overconclusions based on what you have heard in the media making blanket statement for which there is no evidence... without offering arguments that adress the theories and the implementation of these theories on reality.

Now...start doing that and we can have a constructive debate instead of arguing in a yes-no blanket positions which brings us nowhere.

[PhoenixAsh]

Castro is what Communism looks like in real life. So was Stalin and Mao and all of those puppet guys in the Iron Curtain countries. Sure you can have grand theories about what this ought to look like and that out to look like, but after Communist Revolution after Communist Revolution--what the results are in the end is all that matters.


you do realize that your avatar did not agree with any of these countries being communist do you?

[trivas7]

You are not offering any valid arguments but are making conclusions on the basis on burden of proof and overconclusions based on what you have heard in the media making blanket statement for which there is no evidence... without offering arguments that adress the theories and the implementation of these theories on reality.

What is the point of arguing the meaning of communism in the ideal? We know after 80 years of history the results of Communist regimes and Communist ideology.

[Bud Struggle]

What is the point of arguing the meaning of communism in the ideal? We know after 80 years of history the results of Communist regimes and Communist ideology.

^^^What he said.

So let's move on from there. Forget the "textbook" Communism and try to think how to make real life Communism less authoritarian and dependant of cults of personalities.

And for the most part--that's what the Technocrats are doing. They try out models andsee if they work. We already tried the Marxist-Leninist and Maoist models and they didn't go so well.

[American Assasin]

The bigger the Bureaucracy, the farther away it is from becoming stateless.

[#FF0000]

^^^What he said.

So let's move on from there. Forget the "textbook" Communism and try to think how to make real life Communism less authoritarian and dependant of cults of personalities.

And for the most part--that's what the Technocrats are doing. They try out models andsee if they work. We already tried the Marxist-Leninist and Maoist models and they didn't go so well.

Oh so you're saying the problems are in marxism-leninism and maoism and not communism now?

Because that annoys me a lot less.

[PhoenixAsh]

What is the point of arguing the meaning of communism in the ideal? We know after 80 years of history the results of Communist regimes and Communist ideology.

And we know after just a couple of centuries what it means to be capitalist, feudal etc. So what is your point?

Because you are not making one...you conclude on the basic assumption that something that wasn't there, never has been there and was only labeled as such by the opposition that it can never ever work.

You are not making any content related arguments. You in fact have taken a fixed entrenched position based on the propaganda without taking knowledge of the facts and are currently refusing to do so and offer valid arguments to either pove your point or disprove mine.

Convince me of your position by giving evidence of it. THAT is what I am asking. And as I said...evidence of it never having existed is not evidence.

We are not talking about communism in the ideal. We are talking about the basic definitions of communism. Those weren't there...and as such the definition is not met...as such the term is then not applicable.

As I argued. When a car does not meet all its composite requirements it is not a car. If you take out the enigine it does not perform its function....and therefore stops being a car....and instead becomes a chasis.

If you define a bird as having wings, hollow bones, and feathers and quacks...and the subject you name a bird does not have wings, has no feathers and does not have hollow bones but it does quack it isn't a bird.

The same applies here. Some features may be there. Others are not. Ergo...no communism.

Now...your position about communism also negates the whole range of the political spectrum that is anti-capitalist, revolutionary and definately NOT communist according to ML or Stalinist views. You are thus also overgeneralizing in your terminology.

[Bud Struggle]

Oh so you're saying the problems are in marxism-leninism and maoism and not communism now?

Because that annoys me a lot less.

Oh, I think Communism could work. I'm not sure how--but if a number of "plans" were tried out I'm sure we could find a template for a pretty good workable society.

I do think without a decent scientific trial everything being proposed for a post Revolutionary society is just a crap shoot. And a dangerous one at that. But Marxism-Lenninisn and Maoism have definitely been tried--over and over--and they don't seem to be the way to go.

There is an answer, we just have to find out what it is, but that is done by science--NOT FAITH.

[PhoenixAsh]

^^^What he said.

So let's move on from there. Forget the "textbook" Communism and try to think how to make real life Communism less authoritarian and dependant of cults of personalities.

And for the most part--that's what the Technocrats are doing. They try out models andsee if they work. We already tried the Marxist-Leninist and Maoist models and they didn't go so well.

So...what you are saying here is that you in fact acknowledge their are conflicting definitions of communism and that what doesn't work is not communism but some ideas of what communism are.

Now do you get the point I made earlier of it being very, very important about contentual arguments and not just dismissing ideas out of hand because of blanket notions?

[American Assasin]

Communism is supposed to be stateless, right????

[La Comédie Noire]

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. "
-Samuel Beckett

[PhoenixAsh]

Communism is supposed to be stateless, right????

That entirely depends on what kind of communist you talk to...

I believe it is. Some believe it is state controlled.

[trivas7]

And we know after just a couple of centuries what it means to be capitalist, feudal etc. So what is your point?

Because you are not making one...you conclude on the basic assumption that something that wasn't there, never has been there and was only labeled as such by the opposition that it can never ever work.

My point is that the burden of proof is on those who make the claim that communism can work and how, because as far as the record of history is concerned it doesn't work despite repeated tries.

[Ele'ill]

Oh, I think Communism could work. I'm not sure how--but if a number of "plans" were tried out I'm sure we could find a template for a pretty good workable society.

Sort of like the history you've been badgering since 2008?




There is an answer, we just have to find out what it is, but that is done by science--NOT FAITH.

We're still at the point as activists and communist advocates where in this wonderfully free society and highly successful system called capitalism (and under the governments that support and protect it) we're trying to not get killed by law enforcement or potato sacked and jailed for extended periods.

It's going to take a leftist/socialist atmosphere to get those plans rolling.

[RGacky3]

because as far as the record of history is concerned it doesn't work despite repeated tries.

Where has it been tried and failed?

[trivas7]

Where has it been tried and failed?
Are you arguing that socialist regimes the world over have not tried to create socialist societies? You're quibbling with words, RGacky.

[RGacky3]

Are you arguing that socialist regimes the world over have not tried to create socialist societies? You're quibbling with words, RGacky.

Yes, thats what I am arguing.

Any more than the US has tried to make a "democratic" society.

SOcialist, in the broadest term is, public control of the economy and worker control of industry, the Leninist states had very little of that, infact less than many social democratic countries.

So not, I'm not quibbling with words.

[American Assasin]

If communist is supposed to be stateless... Therefore any "communist" government, cannot be communist, and therefore can't be considered communisms.

[RGacky3]

THe word "communism" is such a basterdized word, by both the right and frakly the radical left that its become meaningless, I don't use it anymore. Either it means Stalinism, or it means total Utopia.

[Ele'ill]

If communist is supposed to be stateless... Therefore any "communist" government, cannot be communist, and therefore can't be considered communisms.

So out of idle curiosity- how much research or just general reading have you done on the topic?

[#FF0000]

If communist is supposed to be stateless... Therefore any "communist" government, cannot be communist, and therefore can't be considered communisms.

Yeah, no "Communist" government ever called itself Communist. They usually said "Socialist" or "In the process of building Socialism" or something like that.

Leninists usually use the word "Socialism" to describe the "transitional period" between Capitalism and Communism, where there is still a state, and still vestiges of class society.

[PhoenixAsh]

My point is that the burden of proof is on those who make the claim that communism can work and how, because as far as the record of history is concerned it doesn't work despite repeated tries.

Perfectly acceptabel. Only not within this debate. Within this debate the role is reversed as it evolved from an attack on why communism can not work. As such you should provide evidence for the assertion so that we ca porvide counter arguments stating why it would work.

Also my point is that what history has shown is some people attempting to create communism and that some ways to do so do not work. Not that it doesn't work.

Its not a logical argument to say something that has not existed doesn't work. Agreed?

[PhoenixAsh]

Are you arguing that socialist regimes the world over have not tried to create socialist societies? You're quibbling with words, RGacky.

I take a quit bit of offence at using the combination of "socialist" with "regime" Seeing as this last one implies a egative connotation on the first.

so provide some arguments fom socialist ideologie to show that this is warranted.

[ComradeMan]

My point is that the burden of proof is on those who make the claim that communism can work and how, because as far as the record of history is concerned it doesn't work despite repeated tries.

I thanked your original post because it basically highlights what I mentioned in another thread- Strawmen.


The argumentum ad antiquitam- tends to be a fallacious argument proposed by non-leftists in the sense of this is the way things are, the way things have been and will continue to be. It is a fallacious argument if it used to reject something new.

However the argumentum ad novitam is also fallacious, just because something is old does not mean something new is better.

:crying:

However sometimes both are guilty of the fallacious arguments of bifurcation in it's either this or it's that with nothing in between.

Of course if both sides actually stopped to think and perhaps used sustainability (leaving aside all arguments of morality, ethics etc for the moment) then I am sure a leftist position would prevail.

[trivas7]

Perfectly acceptabel. Only not within this debate. Within this debate the role is reversed as it evolved from an attack on why communism can not work. As such you should provide evidence for the assertion so that we ca porvide counter arguments stating why it would work.

I stand corrected if what you say is true re this thread. I should never have intruded into this debate because the premise that communism can work is asinine IMO.


Also my point is that what history has shown is some people attempting to create communism and that some ways to do so do not work. Not that it doesn't work.

My point is that AFAIK no one has satisfactorily show how it can work.



Of course if both sides actually stopped to think and perhaps used sustainability (leaving aside all arguments of morality, ethics etc for the moment) then I am sure a leftist position would prevail.
I don't know what you're saying here. What is a "leftist position" and how does it "prevail"? What does sustainability have to do with it?

[trivas7]

I take a quit bit of offence at using the combination of "socialist" with "regime" Seeing as this last one implies a egative connotation on the first.

so provide some arguments fom socialist ideologie to show that this is warranted.
You want me to argue that the existence of socialist regimes is consonant with socialist ideology? :blushing: That's precious.

[ComradeMan]

I don't know what you're saying here. What is a "leftist position" and how does it "prevail"? What does sustainability have to do with it?

What is a leftist position is too long and debatable to go into here- but let's say a position and/or position(s) held by the left.

Seeing as socialists believe in society and society is made of humans then what's good for society is good for humans and vice-versa. Therefore the ecological and social ruin of the planet (the only one we have), largely due in turn to globalisation, industrialisation and irresponsible consumption of finite resources in the name of creating surplus and therefore profit is an untenable position to hold in the face of the scientific evidence against it.

[trivas7]

Yes, thats what I am arguing.

If that's your argument you don't know history.

[trivas7]

Seeing as socialists believe in society and society is made of humans then what's good for society is good for humans and vice-versa. Therefore the ecological and social ruin of the planet (the only one we have), largely due in turn to globalisation, industrialisation and irresponsible consumption of finite resources in the name of creating surplus and therefore profit is an untenable position to hold in the face of the scientific evidence against it.
But there is no scientific evidence for surplus value or for the fact that socialism can stop the vicissitudes of globalization and ecological degradation.

[American Assasin]

Quite some reading, although I never read the communist manifesto or something like that.. I know something about communism from a different forum that I am on. arthurshall.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=331&p=6708&hilit=communism#p6708
arthurshall.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=917&p=21753&hilit=communism#p21753
arthurshall.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=13402&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=communism+ideas
importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_Communism.html
And a few other sources on the web... Also Marxist, and a few books/Audio books.

[ComradeMan]

But there is no scientific evidence for surplus value or for the fact that socialism can stop the vicissitudes of globalization and ecological degradation.

Live life on the edge and take a chance then. :lol:

I take it we're going to get into an argument about the Austrian School and Von Mises.

Nevertheless....

There is scientific evidence that the current system is bringing us to ruination though- and you would uphold that?

You see- it's not just about economics- that economism and something I personally find irritating in political debate- all work and no play makes life quite dull doesn't it?

[American Assasin]

Our current system is not a completely free market, it is a controlled regulated economy which is to say close to fascism.

[trivas7]

Live life on the edge and take a chance then. :lol:

Then I suggest you take up base jumping -- you only jeopardize yourself in the process, not whole societies.

[PhoenixAsh]

You want me to argue that the existence of socialist regimes is consonant with socialist ideology? :blushing: That's precious.


No I want you to lay a sound foundation in evidence that socialism is negative for society and therefore warrants the word "regime" using the ideas of socialism in that prove.

in other words...what in socialism is warranting the negative word regime?

[PhoenixAsh]

If that's your argument you don't know history.

You seem to think debate is offering blanket statements. You claim it was communism...we say it was not. We explained why and you rejected that explanation claiming we do not know history.

Thats a cricle way of reasoning. Now step out of that circle and explain to us why you think it is socialism/communism/marxism.

[PhoenixAsh]

But there is no scientific evidence for surplus value or for the fact that socialism can stop the vicissitudes of globalization and ecological degradation.

There isn't? Well...then I can throw away my bussiness school diploma's....pretty much they are useless.

Or you must mean that there is no scientific reason for price-demand...scarcity of manufactured goods...etc.

where do you think profit comes from?

[Robert]

No I want you to lay a sound foundation in evidence that socialism is negativeNot to get into Trivas's way, but if you had asked me, I would have had to admit that I cannot prove that "socialism is negative". After all, since you claim we've never had socialism -- and we understand why you make the claim -- all we can do is try and evaluate your dream world in terms of both merit and feasibility.

What is separating us is values. You and Marx value equality of result, for the blacksmith and the surgeon, for example. We don't. What we value is equality of opportunity: opportunity for the blacksmith to recognize that people don't ride horses anymore and to retrain himself, yes with societal assistance if necessary, into an auto mechanic if he wants, into a surgeon if he wants (and has the brains and dexterity).

We also value the freedom to make our own decisions as to how we value and compensate the two skill sets.

[PhoenixAsh]

Not to get into Trivas's way, but if you had asked me, I would have had to admit that I cannot prove that "socialism is negative". After all, since you claim we've never had socialism -- and we understand why you make the claim -- all we can do is try and evaluate your dream world in terms of both merit and feasibility.

What is separating us is values. You and Marx value equality of result, for the blacksmith and the surgeon, for example. We don't. What we value is equality of opportunity: opportunity for the blacksmith to recognize that people don't ride horses anymore and to retrain himself, yes with societal assistance if necessary, into an auto mechanic if he wants, into a surgeon if he wants (and has the brains and dexterity).

We also value the freedom to make our own decisions as to how we value and compensate the two skill sets.

We do not get to choose how we value our work...we get it dictated to us....by our bosses. Neither does his customer get to choose how he values my work. Het gets to either buy the product or leave it on the shelf. If enough people leave it on the shelf....I get fired, my boss buys another company or retires from the profit. And if he makes anough moeny he pays his shareholders a couple of extra million and ditches a few of his employees to cut costs.

If we could value our own work we would all be a lot richer and he would make a lot less profit.

Now tell me...if a make a chair. And my boss sells that chair. And I get the worth of 1/15th of that chair. How is that fair?

O...you can argue offcourse that he has cost. He owns land, the factory...must innovate equipment. Pay all the other workers. Pay his shareholders. And somehow...at the end of the day he gets to ride home in his nice BMW to sip margeurita's brought to him by his personal servant....hmmm...I really fail to see the logic in that.

But the bottom line is...I need to produce 15 chairs before I can purchase the prodcut I am making myself.

How does that offer opportunity?

Perhaps now you are going to argue that I can set up a chair company of my own? Perhaps that is true. However...where do I get the loan since I have no job and no loan-security? And if I do get a loan...the risk is calculated in the rent.

Perhaps I can reeducate myself and get another diploma or degree...unfortunately I have no money. So no...I cannot reeducate myself into something because education costs money.

The whole point is that you are NOT free. You are dependend. You do not have opportunities... in fact you have limits.

And do not throw me and Marx in the same category. I am an Anarchist. We value Marx for somethings...but we do not equate to all of it.

[American Assasin]

Supply and Demand, except for Diamonds which is controlled by a state monopoly. Price is based on how much work they put into it, or to say how much is cost to buy all the materials, pay the workers, and produce it, and send it to you.

[American Assasin]

<Random>Wearing a Che Guevara logo on a shirt made by Fruit of the Loom peasants in Guatemala, sold by an American entrepreneur and delivered by UPS is a complete communism FAIL. Just so you know. Moron.</Random>

[#FF0000]

Speaking of strawmen.

[Robert]

The whole point is that you are NOT free. You are dependend. You do not have opportunities... in fact you have limits.

Well, don't worry too much about me. I'll be okay. :)


I am an Anarchist.

Another pipe dream, worse than the first.

People like me will never cooperate in the establishment of your dream world. You will need cops. Millions of them. How you gonna do that without a state to pay and equip and indoctrinate all those cops?

[Ele'ill]

Another pipe dream, worse than the first.

Hey, easy there. You just hurt my feelings.


People like me will never cooperate in the establishment of your dream world.

Your loss V:mellow:V


You will need cops. Millions of them. How you gonna do that without a state to pay and equip and indoctrinate all those cops?

No no, those will be my neighbors.

[renzo_novatore]

Another pipe dream, worse than the first.

People like me will never cooperate in the establishment of your dream world. You will need cops. Millions of them. How you gonna do that without a state to pay and equip and indoctrinate all those cops?


You need the police and the army in order to protect private property, not to bring about its abolition.

[RGacky3]

Supply and Demand, except for Diamonds which is controlled by a state monopoly. Price is based on how much work they put into it, or to say how much is cost to buy all the materials, pay the workers, and produce it, and send it to you.


Diamonds are not a State monopoly, its a private company that controls it.

Price is not supply and demand, the workers supply and the boss demands, the bosses control the compensation, and btw its about 18% unemployment, so the supply side of it is pretty bad, labor has no say in compensation, bosses do.

As far as other prices, I don't think you know how markets work.


If that's your argument you don't know history.

Then make a counter argument, where am I wrong?


But there is no scientific evidence for surplus value

Actually there is, its called profit moron, i.e. the whole basis of capitalism.


After all, since you claim we've never had socialism -- and we understand why you make the claim -- all we can do is try and evaluate your dream world in terms of both merit and feasibility.



Theres been socialism in history do different degrees, and everytime, it did what socialists said it would.


What is separating us is values. You and Marx value equality of result, for the blacksmith and the surgeon, for example. We don't. What we value is equality of opportunity: opportunity for the blacksmith to recognize that people don't ride horses anymore and to retrain himself, yes with societal assistance if necessary, into an auto mechanic if he wants, into a surgeon if he wants (and has the brains and dexterity).

We also value the freedom to make our own decisions as to how we value and compensate the two skill sets.

Thats not the difference, we don't value equality of result, its opportunity, we also believe in freedom.

THe difference is we believe in democracy in the economy, and you believe in autocracy.

Also we understand how the market works, you are a market fundementalist.


People like me will never cooperate in the establishment of your dream world. You will need cops. Millions of them. How you gonna do that without a state to pay and equip and indoctrinate all those cops?

Yeah you will, plus, what could you possibally do? Also what Mariel said, if your an asshole, then ....

[Revolution starts with U]

Not to get into Trivas's way, but if you had asked me, I would have had to admit that I cannot prove that "socialism is negative". After all, since you claim we've never had socialism -- and we understand why you make the claim -- all we can do is try and evaluate your dream world in terms of both merit and feasibility.

Do you think the general populace would have the protections it does (min wage, unemployment insurance, civil rights, etc) w/o the tireless work of socialists?! Were it not for us you would take what you get and like it, or get beat down by the local police.

What is separating us is values. You and Marx value equality of result, for the blacksmith and the surgeon, for example. We don't. What we value is equality of opportunity:
You don't believe in equality of oppurtunity AT ALL! You believe in purchasing power of oppurtunity. Are you saying poor kids have the same oppurtunities as rich kids? Does the felon have the same oppurtunities as everyone else?
This is by far the biggest right wing straw man of all. It is us who values equality of oppurtunity. And many of us do not value equality of outcome, really, at all. I, personally recognize that some will be rewarded better than others, just by the nature of human social relations. But as long as that doesn't stifle somoene else's oppurtunity, I'm ok with it.


opportunity for the blacksmith to recognize that people don't ride horses anymore and to retrain himself, yes with societal assistance if necessary, into an auto mechanic if he wants, into a surgeon if he wants (and has the brains and dexterity).

And you think that "social assistance if necessary" would be available in any way w/o the the agitation of socialists? :lol:
l2history


We also value the freedom to make our own decisions as to how we value and compensate the two skill sets

You value the freedom to make your own decisions... do you value mine?

[PhoenixAsh]

Supply and Demand, except for Diamonds which is controlled by a state monopoly. Price is based on how much work they put into it, or to say how much is cost to buy all the materials, pay the workers, and produce it, and send it to you.

So..how do they make a profit?

[PhoenixAsh]

Well, don't worry too much about me. I'll be okay. :)

O...don't get me wrong. I am not worrying about you at all. Nothing personal. I was using "you" in the general way. Now...perhaps you would also offer some form of argument to what I said...either agree with it or perhaps post an argument against it. Right now you are a tad bit evading the issue. Which I do not mind...but seeing as we are here to discuss and debate its pretty self defeating of you to beat around the bush. ;-) So either convince me...or acknowledge that you are perhaps here to troll? Either one would be spiffy...but I prefer the first seeing as I am ctually interested in what you think and what your arguments and reasoning are for your believes.



Another pipe dream, worse than the first.

People like me will never cooperate in the establishment of your dream world. You will need cops. Millions of them. How you gonna do that without a state to pay and equip and indoctrinate all those cops?So why exactly do you need millions of cops? Why do you think it is?

And what exactly do you mean with indoctrinate? As I understand the connotation of that word is alwasy used in the US in respect to communist ideology and means they impose and force a set of believes. So I was wondering why you do not use the more neutral terms of educate or train or instruct in your phrasing.

Is that perhaps because you agree that the police are in fact not there for society and your protection but to protect the establisment and enforcement of authority of the state and to enforce poperty laws? You know...the historical reason why we have police?

[Robert]

I am not worrying about you at all. Nothing personal. I was using "you" in the general way.Yeah, I figured.


So either convince me...or acknowledge that you are perhaps here to troll?
I already told you: 1) it's a question of values -- I can't convince you to change what you value or vice versa; 2) it's your dreamworld, not mine. So it's for you to convince me. So far, you're failing. You will have to shoot me sooner or later.


So why exactly do you need millions of cops? Why do you think it is?I already explained this: I don't like your worldview and will not change unless forced to by majority vote or a totalitarian supported by a police force. You may not see the need for cops. But your comrades do. I think it was at the very beginning of the thread that the OP called for gulags and firing squads, to which NO one objected! He even got a few "right on, comrade!"s. I know he was half joking, but why did these thought even enter his commie mind? Answer: because he's a genuine commie who deep down knows he will have to FORCE a violent revolution to see change. At least he's honest.:lol:


And what exactly do you mean with indoctrinate?Okay, fine: "educate and train", is that more palatable? These security police of yours, and yes you will need them, will have to be trained to micro manage small economies in neighborhoods and regions, this to prevent profiteering. You think you are going to be all nice and finished establishing socialism after you execute the bankers and CEO's of the top corporations? Guess again.


Is that perhaps because you agree that the police are in fact not there for society and your protection but to protect the establisment and enforcement of authority of the state and to enforce property laws?

Look, I am an average guy and have never had a problem with cops in any country or city I have lived in, meaning a LOT. Liberal democracy works fine for me and for every one I know on a personal basis. And no, they aren't rich, not as I define the term anyway

I'm genuinely sorry that I cannot empathize. Maybe I need to break a few police car windows to get a taste of police brutality. But I hate broken glass.

[ComradeMan]

Then I suggest you take up base jumping -- you only jeopardize yourself in the process, not whole societies.

I thought the patron Saintess of capitalism, Thatcher, said that "society does not exist"-

Well, at least you admit to society! ;)

Now, what about the other points you conveniently skipped over.....?

[PhoenixAsh]

Yeah, I figured.

I already told you: 1) it's a question of values -- I can't convince you to change what you value or vice versa; 2) it's your dreamworld, not mine. So it's for you to convince me. So far, you're failing. You will have to shoot me sooner or later.

Yes. You stated those values. This statement however was blanket. As was argued "we" do not value equality as opposed to opportunity but instead value equality in opportunity.

I also argued that the opportunity ypu value is not opportunity at al given the fact that society enforces its inequality by law and position. Both hierarchical and economic.

Debate is arguing against it with arguments. Do not just say I am wrong but offer some contents related arguments.



I already explained this: I don't like your worldview and will not change unless forced to by majority vote or a totalitarian supported by a police force.

Now if that is the case...what are you even doing here? And if you are so established in your opinions that force is required to change them and do not feel the need to argument infavor of them when repeatedly requested out of genuine interest then why should I waste my time?



You may not see the need for cops. But your comrades do. I think it was at the very beginning of the thread that the OP called for gulags and firing squads, to which NO one objected!

See my sig? See what it says under my name? That indicates that dissent with OP is pretty much a given.



He even got a few "right on, comrade!"s. I know he was half joking, but why did these thought even enter his commie mind? Answer: because he's a genuine commie who deep down knows he will have to FORCE a violent revolution to see change. At least he's honest.:lol:

O..we all know we have to eventually. Not because we want to but because violence is monopolized by a system that will fight everybody who is in favor of democratic economics and equality. See US history for that fact.



Okay, fine: "educate and train", is that more palatable? These security police of yours, and yes you will need them, will have to be trained to micro manage small economies in neighborhoods and regions, this to prevent profiteering. You think you are going to be all nice and finished establishing socialism after you execute the bankers and CEO's of the top corporations? Guess again.

Who said anything about execute?

I never argued we do not need people who guard autonomy of others. But since most crimes ate property related and economically driven we pobably need a lot less when economic exploitation and social inequality and hierarchy are not there.

The fact is that the role of police will change dramatically in society. Onsyead of guarding the division of property it will guard civil liberties. Now even you can see police is not doing that now.




Look, I am an average guy and have never had a problem with cops in any country or city I have lived in, meaning a LOT. Liberal democracy works fine for me and for every one I know on a personal basis. And no, they aren't rich, not as I define the term anyway

I'm genuinely sorry that I cannot empathize. Maybe I need to break a few police car windows to get a taste of police brutality. But I hate broken glass.

It is not if you have experienced it or not. Its why and how police function.
But good to hear that you have managed to stay clear of the police...hipe you never get to either.

[trivas7]

You need the police and the army in order to protect private property, not to bring about its abolition.
Property is a type of sanction and therefore can't be "abolished"; that's just a slogan. When you've "abolished" the notion of property you'll need the police and an army to keep it that way.

[Revolution starts with U]

And you don't need the police and army to protect property?

[trivas7]

[...] You claim it was communism...we say it was not. We explained why and you rejected that explanation claiming we do not know history.

No, I never claimed that the socialist experiments of the 20th century were communism. I merely claimed that historically there were socialist experiments in the 20th century and that regimes tried to implement the principles of socialism in the hope of creating communism.

And if you think that profits are scientific evidence of anything, you're just wrong.

[Robert]

Now if that is the case...what are you even doing here?Having a good debate. If we both keep an open mind, we may learn something.

And we are making progress: at least I got you to admit you will need force to effectuate revolution, another way of saying you cannot do it democratically. As I always suspected.


Answer: because he's a genuine commie who deep down knows he will have to FORCE a violent revolution to see change. At least he's honest.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

[You]: O..we all know we have to eventually.

[Rafiq]

Oh, I think Communism could work. I'm not sure how--but if a number of "plans" were tried out I'm sure we could find a template for a pretty good workable society.

I do think without a decent scientific trial everything being proposed for a post Revolutionary society is just a crap shoot. And a dangerous one at that. But Marxism-Lenninisn and Maoism have definitely been tried--over and over--and they don't seem to be the way to go.

There is an answer, we just have to find out what it is, but that is done by science--NOT FAITH.

MLism and Maoism are tactics to achieve Communism. They aren't 'forms' of Communism, but simply tactics to achieving it.

I think your right, though.

It wasn't Socialism, or Communism that failed, it was the tactics of Maoists and MarxistLeninists, and even.. dare I say... Revisionists who slipped in and went back to Capitalism.

Mao brought up living standards greatly, so did Stalin. They put too much power into the hands of a few, which opened doors for an asshole to sieze power and go back to private capitalism.

Postrevolutionary vangaurd is an utter failure and cannot work.

[Rafiq]

Are you arguing that socialist regimes the world over have not tried to create socialist societies? You're quibbling with words, RGacky.

No they haven't tried to make Socialist societies. They were power hungry state capitalists.

Maybe they did in October 1917, but with the failure of the german revolution came the degeneration of the Russian state.

And even under State Capitalism, the economy's of those nations were much better than they were before and how htey are now.

Ask some Eastern Europeans... Romanians ect, if they liked how things used to be.

They loved the economic system, they just wanted... MORE DEMOCRACY and MORE WORKER'S CONTROL, they wanted more SOCIALISM.

If you have that system, and include worker's direct control and democracy, it is socialism, without that, it's state capitalism. Simple.

[Rafiq]

If communist is supposed to be stateless... Therefore any "communist" government, cannot be communist, and therefore can't be considered communisms.

One could say that the people in government were communists, and the government was Communist, (Which I don't think they were) but the country itself was not Communist... At all.

[renzo_novatore]

Property is a type of sanction and therefore can't be "abolished"; that's just a slogan. When you've "abolished" the notion of property you'll need the police and an army to keep it that way.


Need the police and the army to maintain a socialistic society? You never explain why first off. Is it because the 10% of the population (here in America) who owns 80% of the wealth will revolt and want their property back so that they can live at the expense of workers???
No - I think that you think that a police force will be needed because you either buy into the bs notion of original sin - that people aren't naturally giving, which as kropotkin pointed out in mutual aid is crap - or the idea that people will want to retain the full product of their labor and not want to have other people live at their expense. But that would actually make you a socialist. I am an anarcho-communist, though, not necessarily a socialist - because of the fact that I think that it would be more liberating to have full access to all goods and services produced, rather than have access to only how much I worked for. A slave is not characterized by the fact that they don't get compensated - they're slaves because they're denied access to goods, they only have what their slave master gives them, and then also because they have to work under the authority of their slave masters doing something that they don't like. And I like Charles Fourier and William Morris believe that non-alienated labor will be justification in and of itself and won't need compensation. For instance, sociologists used to wonder why people, after working 12 hours a day, would go home and labor intensively on their gardens. Gardening for them was a joy in itself - they didn't have bosses, didn't have surveillance, someone breathing down their neck and forcing them to do something they didn't want to do. So I mean in a situation like this, I don't understand why police would be needed. The majority of crimes currently are caused by the war on drugs and beyond that, they're caused by poverty and economics. Hell even serial killers are usually the product of the economic environment they lived in.

On the other hand, police are needed to kick out people from the homes they live in because some guy living miles away tells them to, you need police to throw starving people into jail when they steal food, you need police to make sure workers won't take over their workplaces, and you also need an army to take over countries so that the capitalists they represent can control the resources of that country and dominate their markets. And besides property is not even a real thing, contrary to what you said. It exists only because of the law - in other words, it is backed by a gun and nothing else. Possession, on the other hand, is what's actually real. Workers use their factors. Tenants occupy their homes. Capitalists and landlords rob those workers and those tenants and they do this by the grace of the law of property, backed up by a police force.

I mean did our ancestors need a police force when they lived communistically? No. On the other hand, even ancaps think a police force and a military would be necessary in order to protect private property - and that's somehow supposed to be anarchism!

[Bud Struggle]

Ask some Eastern Europeans... Romanians ect, if they liked how things used to be.


Ask anyone over 50 anywhere in the world--they all like thing "how they used to be.":rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Need the police and the army to maintain a socialistic society? You never explain why first off. Is it because the 10% of the population (here in America) who owns 80% of the wealth will revolt and want their property back so that they can live at the expense of workers???
No - I think that you think that a police force will be needed because you either buy into the bs notion of original sin - that people aren't naturally giving, which as kropotkin pointed out in mutual aid is crap - or the idea that people will want to retain the full product of their labor and not want to have other people live at their expense. But that would actually make you a socialist. I am an anarcho-communist, though, not necessarily a socialist - because of the fact that I think that it would be more liberating to have full access to all goods and services produced, rather than have access to only how much I worked for. A slave is not characterized by the fact that they don't get compensated - they're slaves because they're denied access to goods, they only have what their slave master gives them, and then also because they have to work under the authority of their slave masters doing something that they don't like. And I like Charles Fourier and William Morris believe that non-alienated labor will be justification in and of itself and won't need compensation. For instance, sociologists used to wonder why people, after working 12 hours a day, would go home and labor intensively on their gardens. Gardening for them was a joy in itself - they didn't have bosses, didn't have surveillance, someone breathing down their neck and forcing them to do something they didn't want to do. So I mean in a situation like this, I don't understand why police would be needed. The majority of crimes currently are caused by the war on drugs and beyond that, they're caused by poverty and economics. Hell even serial killers are usually the product of the economic environment they lived in.

On the other hand, police are needed to kick out people from the homes they live in because some guy living miles away tells them to, you need police to throw starving people into jail when they steal food, you need police to make sure workers won't take over their workplaces, and you also need an army to take over countries so that the capitalists they represent can control the resources of that country and dominate their markets. And besides property is not even a real thing, contrary to what you said. It exists only because of the law - in other words, it is backed by a gun and nothing else. Possession, on the other hand, is what's actually real. Workers use their factors. Tenants occupy their homes. Capitalists and landlords rob those workers and those tenants and they do this by the grace of the law of property, backed up by a police force.

I mean did our ancestors need a police force when they lived communistically? No. On the other hand, even ancaps think a police force and a military would be necessary in order to protect private property - and that's somehow supposed to be anarchism!

Though up to now the real state of the art police states have always been Socialist. (The Stazi being--the gold standard.) Want internet in China? Want to sell a bra in Cuba? Want to listen to the radio in DPNK?

Meet the police.

[Rafiq]

Ask anyone over 50 anywhere in the world--they all like thing "how they used to be.":rolleyes:

:cool: you know what I mean.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Having a good debate. If we both keep an open mind, we may learn something.

And we are making progress: at least I got you to admit you will need force to effectuate revolution, another way of saying you cannot do it democratically. As I always suspected.

We are not in favor of violence. We will move forward using democratic means for as long as possible. If we can achieve it without violence, FANTASTIC. However, we recognize that when Mr. Rich sees that we won't allow him to exploit other people for his own personal gain, he isn't going to be happy. We will move forward with our social and economic change. If he attacks us, well, he'd better bring some heavy artillery. Historically, people like Mr. Rich ALWAYS attack. Did feudalism go down without a fight? Slavery? The American Revolution was a sort of socio-economic change... I'm sure you agree that the AR was a good thing. Was it peaceful? No way! Why? The wealthy British just didn't want to let go.

[Bud Struggle]

:cool: you know what I mean.

I do. And in the end it wasn't Communism that sucked (then) or Capitalism that sucks (now)--it is in the end that THEY--the people--suck.

It comes down to Personal Responsibility. Society, the economic system--is just a platform for each of us to build on. Nothing more, and if you expect more you will be disapointed.

[Robert]

Society, the economic system--is just a platform for each of us to build on. Nothing more, and if you expect more you will be disappointed. One of the few original thoughts I've encountered on Revleft.

[RGacky3]

it is in the end that THEY--the people--suck.

It comes down to Personal Responsibility. Society, the economic system--is just a platform for each of us to build on. Nothing more, and if you expect more you will be disapointed.

No, not really, what caused the economic crash, the collapse of hte USSR and so on, was not "the people."

[RGacky3]

Quote:
Society, the economic system--is just a platform for each of us to build on. Nothing more, and if you expect more you will be disappointed.
One of the few original thoughts I've encountered on Revleft.
__________________


ITs not really an origional thought, I think everyone believes that, but remember, your on revleft, we are discussing economic systems ....

[RGacky3]

Though up to now the real state of the art police states have always been Socialist.

Strawman, no they are not socialistic, let me ask you ... do the public control the economy? DO the workers control industry?

Now cut the shit out and make real arguments for once.

[ComradeMan]

Though up to now the real state of the art police states have always been Socialist. (The Stazi being--the gold standard.) Want internet in China? Want to sell a bra in Cuba? Want to listen to the radio in DPNK?

Meet the police.

Err what about the Gestapo? National-socialist.....

;)

Any authoritarian state will inevitably become a police state- it's not down to socialism- it's down to authoritarianism.

[Rafiq]

I do. And in the end it wasn't Communism that sucked (then) or Capitalism that sucks (now)--it is in the end that THEY--the people--suck.

It comes down to Personal Responsibility. Society, the economic system--is just a platform for each of us to build on. Nothing more, and if you expect more you will be disapointed.

But it was the old economic system they preferred.

They're children, and grandchildren notice it too.

Of course they like the days where they were younger, but this is entirely different.

They liked the economic system, they just wanted more democracy, so the regime threw capitalism at them, and now they're pissed.

[Bud Struggle]

But it was the old economic system they preferred.

They're children, and grandchildren notice it too.

Of course they like the days where they were younger, but this is entirely different.

They liked the economic system, they just wanted more democracy, so the regime threw capitalism at them, and now they're pissed.

Well the problem is that the Russians weren't really very good at being Communists and now they aren't very good at being Capitalists. It's not the system's fault--it's the fault of the individual people living in the country that they didn't build a more productive society.

In the end a society is nothing more the the sum of the people that live in that society. The Russian society now and then isn't all that different. The economic system changed but the people didn't.

And even back in the day--the difference between the USSR and a country like Poland was remarkable. Believe it or not Poland under communism wasn't too bad of a country. Nice restaurants, food in supermarkets, not too much looking over one's should bcause of the police. The USSR was quite different--quite poorer.

It's the people.

[Rafiq]

But they were never under communism... And Russia wasn't that bad under the ussr state capitalism. It was better than now.

The Russian people liked the ussr for the most part, but they wanted more workers democracy.

[Revolution starts with U]

Bud, that's essentially saying slaves wanted to be slaves.

[Bud Struggle]

But they were never under communism... And Russia wasn't that bad under the ussr state capitalism. It was better than now.

The Russian people liked the ussr for the most part, but they wanted more workers democracy.

It was POOR over there. Always long lines to buy food (except for Party officials) poorly maintained crampt housing, etc. Not much freedom but the main thing was--there was always fear. There were things you just DID NOT talk about. And you never know who you could really trust so you trusted no one. No one cared when the SU fell.

Now I mut admit--I don't know what it's like now, though.

[Rafiq]

It was POOR over there. Always long lines to buy food (except for Party officials) poorly maintained crampt housing, etc. Not much freedom but the main thing was--there was always fear. There were things you just DID NOT talk about. And you never know who you could really trust so you trusted no one. No one cared when the SU fell.

Now I mut admit--I don't know what it's like now, though.

It wasn't really poor.

And, most of the people who lived their said life was good, and easy.

It wasn't like 1984.

The DDR was kind of like what you're talking about though. Except it wasn't poor, and people were not poor. But in the DDR, you could not trust anyone, the police were everywhere, like 1984.

But the USSR was never like that, not even under Stalin's regime.

Freedom was okay, better than now, housing > housing now

When the SU fell, people cared.

I'm sure the starving children on the streets of moscow care now.

You cannot deny that the Russian economy was much better during SOviet Time.s

[Bud Struggle]

It wasn't really poor.

[quote]And, most of the people who lived their said life was good, and easy. I saw the "poor". I was in the supermarkets. I was in the apartments. It wasn't great.


It wasn't like 1984. No not that bad by a long way--but people were wary and cynical.


The DDR was kind of like what you're talking about though. Except it wasn't poor, and people were not poor. But in the DDR, you could not trust anyone, the police were everywhere, like 1984. Yes, that was nasty.


But the USSR was never like that, not even under Stalin's regime. Wll I agree--but still nothing like the freedom one has in Western Democracies.


Freedom was okay, better than now, housing > housing now Probably true. It's the same housing only 20 years older.


When the SU fell, people cared. I didn't see that. There were no revolts in the streets no up rising no (White style) "Reds". The people could have stopped the Revolution if they wanted. No one cared.


I'm sure the starving children on the streets of moscow care now. I'm sure that is an issue.


You cannot deny that the Russian economy was much better during SOviet Time.s Again I really need to go back to assess how things are now compared to before to give you a good answer--but I honestly think it's about the same.

[Revolution starts with U]

Wll I agree--but still nothing like the freedom one has in Western Democracies.



I hope you're talking here of "freedom" post 1964...
Ask an 18th century black or native american if the freedom of western democracies is worth a shit.
It sure is easy to call american democracy great... after the socialists have gotten to it.

[RGacky3]

It was POOR over there. Always long lines to buy food (except for Party officials) poorly maintained crampt housing, etc. Not much freedom but the main thing was--there was always fear. There were things you just DID NOT talk about. And you never know who you could really trust so you trusted no one. No one cared when the SU fell.



It was more poor before, and more poor after, I'm not defending the system, but your attacking it without context.

[Bud Struggle]

It was more poor before, and more poor after, I'm not defending the system, but your attacking it without context.

I specificly SAID I haven't seen it after so I can't make a valid comparison as to how the people are economically. But there definitely is more freedom now.

[Rafiq]

[QUOTE=Chapayev;1997386]It wasn't really poor.

I saw the "poor". I was in the supermarkets. I was in the apartments. It wasn't great.

No not that bad by a long way--but people were wary and cynical.

Yes, that was nasty.

Wll I agree--but still nothing like the freedom one has in Western Democracies.

Probably true. It's the same housing only 20 years older.

I didn't see that. There were no revolts in the streets no up rising no (White style) "Reds". The people could have stopped the Revolution if they wanted. No one cared.

I'm sure that is an issue.

Again I really need to go back to assess how things are now compared to before to give you a good answer--but I honestly think it's about the same.


Well, that's a whole other subject, but when you are a threat, yes, you do not have any freedom in the "Democracies" (More like polyarchy's).

You don't need anti-freedom laws when you have the largest and most powerful propaganda system in the world.



2. Are you kidding? Did you ever hear about the counterrevolution of 1993? It was the biggest massacre since the bolshevik revolution!

They even made a song regarding it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ADljMTpnHY

[Rafiq]

I specificly SAID I haven't seen it after so I can't make a valid comparison as to how the people are economically. But there definitely is more freedom now.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o way.

Same amount of "Freedom".

[Bud Struggle]

2. Are you kidding? Did you ever hear about the counterrevolution of 1993? It was the biggest massacre since the bolshevik revolution!



Yes I did--as I said I was in Moscow a couple of months after the bombing of the White House (the Russian one.) It was January of 1994. And from what I remember being told by the people in Moscow was that it wasn't so much of a pro-Communist rebellion but an anti-Yeltsin one.

Yeltsin had abolished price contols and prices of some things went through the roof and some people were pretty upset. Also Yeltsin was having a battle with the Russwian Parlement--so that figured into it.

All in all though, I don't believe Communists had a big hand in the fight. And this was a one shot in one place fight. The rest of the country followed the change to Capitalism pretty easily.

[Bud Struggle]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o way.

Same amount of "Freedom".

Again, I haven't been there lately. But here's what I know: there was nothing like the RU network on TV. (Soviet television was almost ENDLESS wreath laying ceremonies.) So I have to say there is more freedom of the press. Also, I KNOW Poland (where I have relatives) has a lot more freedom. People who weren't allowed to visit the US come and go here all of the time. I assume that's true of Russia too.

[Rafiq]

Yes I did--as I said I was in Moscow a couple of months after the bombing of the White House (the Russian one.) It was January of 1994. And from what I remember being told by the people in Moscow was that it wasn't so much of a pro-Communist rebellion but an anti-Yeltsin one.

Yeltsin had abolished price contols and prices of some things went through the roof and some people were pretty upset. Also Yeltsin was having a battle with the Russwian Parlement--so that figured into it.

All in all though, I don't believe Communists had a big hand in the fight. And this was a one shot in one place fight. The rest of the country followed the change to Capitalism pretty easily.

Fair enough.

Then they were wrong in doing so, seeing that today, AFTER the change back to capitalism, they regret it.

[Rafiq]

Again, I haven't been there lately. But here's what I know: there was nothing like the RU network on TV. (Soviet television was almost ENDLESS wreath laying ceremonies.) So I have to say there is more freedom of the press. Also, I KNOW Poland (where I have relatives) has a lot more freedom. People who weren't allowed to visit the US come and go here all of the time. I assume that's true of Russia too.

Russia today hasn't really changed it's policy on freedom.

Anyhow, even if more freedom to visit other nations exist, the economies were much better before, (Depending on who you are).

A combination of both Direct Workers democracy and public ownership over the means of production is Socialism.

Socialism needs workers direct control over the means of production, like the living things on the Earths surface need the sun to prosper and survive.

[Bud Struggle]

^^ Well I'll agree with you there. :)