Are leftists as dogmatic as religious folks?

[Elysian]

People on the right often come up with the following:

Leftists quote Marx as though it's the bible, never moving away from it and intensely disliking, even harming, those who disagree with them. Religious ppl had their inquisitions, leftists have their purges. Religious people have their Gods, leftists have their Stalin and juche. Religon and theocracy, leftists and dictatorship. Both of them intolerant of anything that goes against their view.

How do you counter all this?

Elysian

[roy]

Leftist = Marxist?

Anyway, I wouldn't dislike someone just for disagreeing with Marx, let alone harm them. I don't know how many Marxists wholly agree with everything Karl Marx wrote. I'd be wary of anyone so ardently dogmatic.

Communism isn't a religion. Communists are able to 'eat the meat and spit out the bones', so to speak, meaning they can take what they believe to be correct and disregard the rest.

Not every leftist supports the purges. It's a highly contentious topic of debate. And what is meant by 'dictatorship'? DotP? I assume these 'people on the right' are referring to the dictatorships of the Castros, the Kims, Stalin and so on. Once again, a contentious topic. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Marxist who supports one person exercising his/her will over the masses, which is undoubtedly the dictatorship in question.

All leftists are intolerant of things that go against their view? That's news to me.

It sounds like these 'people on the right' are lumping all leftists together bloodthirsty, intolerant authoritarians.

[Blake's Baby]

I agree. The expression 'don't judge everyone by your own standards' springs to mind. If Christians (or other religious fundamentalists) think that everyone who disagrees with them is an authoritarian fanatic, it may have more do with their own character traits than ours.

Of course, there are dogmatic people and also generally sick puppies who claim to be Marxists, just as there are intelligent, reasonable people who are religious, so it doesn't do much good to tar everyone with the same brush.

On the other hand, we're right and they're wrong.

[farleft]

Are leftists as dogmatic as religious folks?

Generally speaking I'd say no but of course there are always some who are.

Purely based on personal experience of the leftists I have met.

Not all leftists like or agree with Marx, being 'left' is very broad.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't know, I question my own beliefs often.

[MarxSchmarx]

Might I add that this isn't entirely a bad thing?

Sure, the deification of Stalin is silly as is unthinking adherence to "orthodoxy" and equating "revisionism" basically with heresy(It's worth noting that some, if not all, of the worse excesses come from Stalinists). And the rampant vicious sectarianism is impressive in its parallel.

But religion is a powerful force, in part because it provides people a sense of hope through its shared institutions, customs, etc... Getting people who share a common vision to partake in certain rituals helps build fellowship. There are some elements of the leftist movement that have parallels in religion - take, for instance, our use of symbols (e.g. hammer and sickle) - which can be powerful in terms of sending messages, quite akin to the cross or crescent.

Leftism, like religion, is ultimately just an idea. Religion makes ideas vivid to a lot of people. We need to learn from religion and see where it does and doesn't work. There are several facets that allow religion to persist and in some cases prosper.

[NGNM85]

First of all; Leftism, and Marxism are two distinct things, capable of existing independently. Some Leftists are, clearly, just as dogmatic in their thinking as any evangelical. There are plenty of examples roaming the forum. This phenomenon is also, primarily, and unsurprisingly, concentrated among the Marxist varients, because of the fundamental differences between Anarchism, and Marxism.

[Belleraphone]

In general, no. Perhaps you're thinking of liberals?

I don't see a lot of dogmatism on revleft, at least not in the Theory board.

[RedAtheist]

I'll address this issue in several parts

Quoting Marx: When I quote Marx (or any other author) it is because he presented an idea I already agreed with in a sophisticated way or because he presented an idea, then convinced me of it with his argument (e.g. I do not like the idea of having to set up a state after the revolution, but the argument that we need to organise a force that can prevent the bourgeoisie, or anyone else who wants to restablish capitalism, from crushing our economic democracy makes sense to me.) When Christians quote the Bible they do so with the belief that it proves what they're saying (this is circular reasoning when used in a debate with a non-believer) that is not how I view Marx. I try to back up what I say with proper arguments and do not use 'Marx said so' as a reason to believe something. Just because I some of my ideas (ultimately) come from Marx does not mean I did not think about them before the accepting them and that I cannot dismiss ideas that did not turn out to be right.

Attitude towards disagreeing views: It depends what those views are. Don't accept my view that Cuba is not a socialist country? I can live with that. I disagree with that idea and I might even engage in passionate debates with people on such issues, but I do not dislike or think of you as an inferior person for having such ideas. Don't believe that people should stand up to oppression and that it is somehow more virtuous to be 'obedient' and 'submissive' or that being 'stubborn' is somehow a bad thing? I take issue with that. I find such viewpoints to be morally repugnant and probably will not associate with people who hold them (especially if they are the ones profiting from such ideas.) Those people are not just disagreeing with me, they are attacking my core values, by being brainless followers (or telling others that they should be.) So I feel I have a good reason to dislike them. Even so I would not attack them (physically), unless they attacked me or my comrades.

The Purges: I do not support the killing of those who disagree with socialism and don't think I should be lumped in with those who do. If we discover that a group of people is actually plotting to take down a democratic, socialist government by force (without the support of the masses) and we have strong evidence to suggest that this is the case, those people ought be locked up (the same way anyone trying to assissinate a president would be locked up.) I would never persecute somebody simply for voicing disagreement with the government.

Viewing People as Gods: I oppose the cult of personality, as did Marx (and no I do not dislike personality cults because Marx did, its the other way around, I admire Marx because he opposed personality cults, as well as other things I dislike.) I believe it is unhealthy to view another person as a god, because such an actions rids you of the need (and potentially the ability) to think critically.

'Intolerance': People seem to think that loudly proclaiming your viewpoint is intolerant. If that is what you mean by 'intolerance' than I plead guilty. Civil rights activists are also intolerant by that definition. To me an 'intolerant' person, is someone who does not allow other viewpoints to exist and hence wants to use force to prevent people from holding such views. I will 'tolerate' alternative viewpoints by allowing them to exist, but I will argue against them. Welcome to democracy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

People on the right often come up with the following:

Leftists quote Marx as though it's the bible, never moving away from it and intensely disliking, even harming, those who disagree with them. Religious ppl had their inquisitions, leftists have their purges. Religious people have their Gods, leftists have their Stalin and juche. Religon and theocracy, leftists and dictatorship. Both of them intolerant of anything that goes against their view.

How do you counter all this?

Elysian

Short answer: no.

Marxism is just some theories to help people understand modern society and how workers can potentially change it for the better. As such Marxism stresses the need for flexibility in tactics and considering material conditions in trying to understand things (and since conditions are constantly changing, so to are political questions and the tactics needed at a given time). It is explicitly against ideas such as the "great man theory" of history and truisms about our supposed inherent human nature. It's meant to be a scientific way of understanding social change - not a hard science since there's no "lab" that can recreate all the variables in human societies.

But then again other scientific theories have been used poorly and dogmatically ("social-darwinism" comes to mind), but the flaw isn't in the scientific theories necessarily but in the goals that people are misusing science to try prove. So religious, no but Marxism has certainty been perverted and used as a dogma in the past two related ways. First it was used by regimes as dogma to reinforce the propaganda of the regime and give it legitimacy as a revolutionary regime. Second it has been used dogmatically by political parties attempting to stifle rank and file debate and discussion - so a top-down party might insist on some dogma to build a culture of obedience. But again, this is a method being misused - the USSR also had historians and scientists repeating dogma in their respective fields that helped justify the regime of the USSR, it doesn't mean that history or science are dogmatic, just that they can be used that way when alterier motives are in play. Soviet art is another example - there's nothing wrong with realism or even romantically portraying historic event - the problem is when it's done inorganically because a regime decided these styles would help its rule.

[Zealot]

People on the right often come up with the following:

Leftists quote Marx as though it's the bible,

The difference is, we have good reason to believe Marx since we can analyze everything he said. We don't quote things just because it happens to be written by Marx but because there is a material basis for the truth of the claim, whereas religious people actually do quote their bible as truth just because it said so.


never moving away from it and intensely disliking, even harming, those who disagree with them.

I haven't harmed anyone of a different tendency and I don't think anyone on Revleft has either.


Religious ppl had their inquisitions, leftists have their purges.

Not comparable.


Religious people have their Gods, leftists have their Stalin and juche.

God is cool and all but comparing him with Stalin is going a bit over the top. Stalin actually did help the working class, can't say that god can boast the same.


Religon and theocracy, leftists and dictatorship. Both of them intolerant of anything that goes against their view.

How do you counter all this?

Elysian

Yes, we're intolerant of the bourgeoisie, exploitation, colonialism, imperialism, capitalism and we've been known to follow this to the grave. Problem?

[Tim Finnegan]

Insofar as some of them come to their conclusions independently and then scour the canon to find passages which support them, yes, they're exactly as dogmatic as the religious.

Although the fact that both had their purges, massacres and whatnot is more a comment on the fact that both constituted themselves as states, rather than any ideological similarity. You could make much the same case about progressive liberalism, even if it does mean looking beyond the official Rogues Gallery.

[Aspiring Humanist]

No. There are many different types of leftists who believe very different things, and we all usually get along well. In every debate or discussion I've had with a leftist none have quoted any leftist figure like a Christian quotes their Bible or a Muslim quotes their Qur'an. I tend to see the right wing being more dogmatic, with their generally uniform stances and unbelievable ability to have a different Friedman, Smith or Hayek book under their arm each time I see them

[Revolution starts with U]

If someone could show me adequate data proving leftism as an incorrect stance to take, I would be more than happy to stop being a leftist.
I've looked, all over the place. I'm very scientific. So far, nothing has even suggested that right wing politics are anything but wingnuttery and/or tyrannical.

So the answer, at least for me, is a big, resounding.... NO

[Misanthrope]

The Christian right has a distorted view of reality. They are not a legitimate group to address on an intellectual level.

[Franz Fanonipants]

liberals just mad that utilitarianism is not as baller as dialectical thinking

[capitalism is good]

Yes, I would say that Marxism is a quasi religion. It may not have supernatural beliefs but it is also based on faith in a system that has failed everywhere it has tried. You can say that Marxists are religious folks.

[bcbm]

Yes, I would say that Marxism is a quasi religion. It may not have supernatural beliefs but it is also based on faith in a system that has failed everywhere it has tried. You can say that Marxists are religious folks.

the lack of supernatural belief means it isn't a religion

[Ocean Seal]

I'm going to be honest, before coming to revleft I would have said no, don't be silly. But once I became exposed to the left I would argue that yes there are a few people who are extremely dogmatic and not willing to question their own beliefs. I like to think that I am not like this because it continues to take me a while to decide what my own beliefs are. When I first came to this forum I got in touch with the Maoist guys and I thought that they really had a lot of important things to say, and I almost became a Maoist. To this day I recognize that they have good politics. But posters like Broletariat and RED DAVE made good arguments against it. I then turned to Council Communism which sounded really great, but then I spoke to my father about it. And he made a particularly good objection to CC tactics and applications. Luxemburgism? Too liberal. Read some Lenin eh? And some Trotsky... Ok so Trotsky and Lenin make some good points. Lets check out Stalin. Ok good stuff, I like the anti-revisionists. Then RED DAVE made the post that Stalin was responsible for Khrushchev's rise to power. But he couldn't acknowledge that Lenin ultimately created the system that Stalin led. So where are we now. Bordiga be aight, but I don't really know how I feel about the democratic principle. It really just seems like apologetics for taking away power from the proletariat. Yep pretty much everyone on the left is wrong at least someplace. But hey maybe together they can make something that's right. And until today I'm not sure how to combine them, so I can't really be dogmatic.

[Agent Ducky]

It all really depends on the people. There are leftists who aren't that dogmatic, and there are religious people who aren't either. Then there's the opposite side of the spectrum, like this guy who used to be my friend but decided we couldn't be friends anymore because I wasn't a Marxist-Leninist just like him. That guy was a douche. Those people are just as bad as religious nutcases. But for every person like those guys, there are lots of chill radicals/religious people.

[black magick hustla]

revolutionary zealotry and blind communist fanatism motherfuckers

[Franz Fanonipants]

revolutionary zealotry and blind communist fanatism motherfuckers

i prefer communist fatalism

[capitalism is good]

the lack of supernatural belief means it isn't a religion

Yes, if you define religion as having supernatural beliefs then Socialism is not a religion. But if you define it as a faith then it is.

What do some Socialists believe in? They are seeking an utopian world where everybody shares everything. Private property is abolished and everyone works for the common good.

That sounds fine but has never worked. All attempts to reach this "heaven on earth" failed.

But Socialists/Communists still believe that it will happen someday just as Christians believe that Christ will come back some day. Thus it has a religious quality. Perhaps, I will let the words of Moses Hess speak to you:

"The Christian... imagines the better future of the human species... in the image of heavenly joy... We, on the other hand, will have this heaven on earth."

Besides this, Socialism mimicks Judaism/Christianity in that it has a Fall from Grace, a Prophet/Messiah and the Devil.

According to some Socialists, the world was once perfect because there was no class divisions between capitalists and workers. Then class divisions came and that was their equivalent of the Fall from Grace which for Jews/Christians was the original sin of Adam and Eve.

The evil capitalist has taken the place of the Devil and of course Marx is the Messiah or Prophet.

None of their theories are proven. All attempts to reach their heaven on earth failed with serious bloodletting. Yet they believe. So they have strong faith. Their ideology is based on faith, not empirical evidence.

[RGacky3]

What do some Socialists believe in? They are seeking an utopian world where everybody shares everything. Private property is abolished and everyone works for the common good.


No, just a democratic economy, nothing utopian about that.

Knowing all the internal contradictions of capitalism and all the systemic failings of it, it takes a shitload of faith to believe capitalism can work.

[Omsk]

That sounds fine but has never worked. All attempts to reach this "heaven on earth" failed.


We reached socialism and moved toward communism (although this progress was stopped at a certain point),countries were reeborn,undocumented advances happened,life improved,lives changed,enough for me.
Capitalism sent us back at our baby steps,everything was forced back and many of the countries that now "enjoy" capitalism are braking down. [look out of your window]


But Socialists/Communists still believe that it will happen someday just as Christians believe that Christ will come back some day. Thus it has a religious quality. Perhaps, I will let the words of Moses Hess speak to you:


What??We dont "believe" in anything,nothing will happen out of nowhere,a revolution wont just pop-up.We work for that cause,strive toward it,and try to make it possible in any way we can.It depends on us.



None of their theories are proven. All attempts to reach their heaven on earth failed with serious bloodletting. Yet they believe. So they have strong faith. Their ideology is based on faith, not empirical evidence.


They are,many of them.
You forgot to mention that it was the capitalists,the ruling classes,the land-lords,the imperialists,and other that were responsible for the fall of many of worker states.

[capitalism is good]

No, just a democratic economy, nothing utopian about that.

Knowing all the internal contradictions of capitalism and all the systemic failings of it, it takes a shitload of faith to believe capitalism can work.

What is your idea of a democratic economy? If its something like the USSR or Red China or Cuba or N Korea, then there is nothing democratic about it. Show me an example of a democratic economy.

Capitalism does work. It has brought a tremendous uplifting of wealth for millions of people. Eventually, it leads to freedom and democracy.

[capitalism is good]

We reached socialism and moved toward communism (although this progress was stopped at a certain point),countries were reeborn,undocumented advances happened,life improved,lives changed,enough for me.

Example, please.



Capitalism sent us back at our baby steps,everything was forced back and many of the countries that now "enjoy" capitalism are braking down. [look out of your window]


China was communist. Today it is becoming more and more capitalist. As a result, it is growing richer.




What??We dont "believe" in anything,nothing will happen out of nowhere,a revolution wont just pop-up.We work for that cause,strive toward it,and try to make it possible in any way we can.It depends on us.


You believe that a Socialist utopia can happen. It won't and never had. It takes a strong faith to believe in this despite all its failures.




They are,many of them.
You forgot to mention that it was the capitalists,the ruling classes,the land-lords,the imperialists,and other that were responsible for the fall of many of worker states.


Are u talking about the fall of the USSR and East European communist states?

[Per Levy]

China was communist. Today it is becoming more and more capitalist. As a result, it is growing richer.

bs, china was never communist, you know what communism is/means right? also the question would be who is getting richer in china? it isnt the workers who are extremly exploited and have to suffer under horrendous working conditions. the party officials and the bourgeois on the other hand do indeed get richer.


You believe that a Socialist utopia can happen.

its not a utopia, socialism/communism can not only happen it can work.


It won't and never had.

wait a moment, you said that east europe and china was socialist/communist and now you say that socalism never had happen. so what is it then?


Are u talking about the fall of the USSR and East European communist states?

if socialism/communist can never happen how were the ussr and east european states communist.


According to some Socialists, the world was once perfect because there was no class divisions between capitalists and workers. Then class divisions came and that was their equivalent of the Fall from Grace which for Jews/Christians was the original sin of Adam and Eve.

do you mean with the "perfect world" the part when humans were organised as nomadic tribes that had to share everything in order to survive? or since you mention "class devisions between capitalists and workers" as some kind of fall from grace that feudalism was this "perfect world", i mean capitalism doesnt exist that long. also i have never in my live ever heard from any communist/socialist/anarchist that the nomadic tribal communism was in any way perfect or is desireable for today. primis doesnt count.

[GallowsBird]

Capitalism does work. It has brought a tremendous uplifting of wealth for millions of people.

Yes, and has kept even more people in poverty! Capitalism does work , but only at making the capitalist classes richer!

[Omsk]

Example, please.

USSR,post-war Yugoslavia,Eastern Europe states,etc etc.


China was communist. Today it is becoming more and more capitalist. As a result, it is growing richer.


The question reagrding China, i leave to other comrades,as China is not in my area of general knowledge. (ie i dont know nearly enough about China under Mao.)

But i can tell you that only one class in China got really rich,and it was not the working class.




You believe that a Socialist utopia can happen. It won't and never had. It takes a strong faith to believe in this despite all its failures.



Socialist utopia?Socialism is not an utopia,you,as an anti-communist could say that communism is idealistic,but socialism is definitely not an utopia.It existed.And it will exist again,no doubt in that.



Are u talking about the fall of the USSR and East European communist states?



Yes,but my prime focus was on the many revolutions the capitalists drowned in the blood of the revolutionaries.(and many people who supported them in any way)

For more information about that,google "White terror".

(I added the White terror segment to this post,you should read it.)

The White Terror was basically what destroyed many revolutions (not just revolutions,but in general it was aimed at revolutionaries) and killed a huge number of revolutionaries,not only in Russia,but in many states,for example:

Bulgaria: 5000 (Boris III)
Greece: 1200-1500. [1944-1945]
Yugoslavia: (Many communist eliminated or arrested.In occupied Yugoslavia,the royalists killed countless thousands.)
China: (who knows how many) [i read many reports,and all numbers are different,so i cant say the precise number,definitely more than a million people)
Germany: 15.000 workers killed in the anti-revolutionary actions.Im not even mentioning Hitler.
Russia: (i wrote about the White Terror in Russia a while ago,i will find the post)
Finland: (Mannerheim sent 80.000 to concentration camps.)
Spain: (Nationalists killed a huge number of people,the highest number is 450.000

The list could go on untill tomorrow.

[roy]

Example, please.



China was communist. Today it is becoming more and more capitalist. As a result, it is growing richer.




You believe that a Socialist utopia can happen. It won't and never had. It takes a strong faith to believe in this despite all its failures.




Are u talking about the fall of the USSR and East European communist states?

It is clear that you do not even have the most basic understanding of communism. There is no such thing as a 'communist state'. That shouldn't even have to be said, let alone to someone who has ventured onto a leftist board in order to denounce the failings of said ideology.

Anyway, the USSR, China, DPRK, Cuba et al are highly disputed amongst the Left. Barely anyone supports the CPC or the Kim dynasty. The USSR is hugely contentious and is almost universally recognised to have degenerated into 'state capitalism' (a tad redundant, seeing as though all capitalism involves state intervention in one way or another e.g. gov't bail-outs when the system shits itself time after time).

You know, societies based upon networks of voluntary association have been successful for a time, believe it or not. Hell, read up on the Free Territory in Ukraine for one. Furthermore, it is generally understood by the Left that if revolution does not spread, socialism will not prosper, which has been demonstrated time again.

I'm not sure what you mean by good, but capitalism basically means the exploitation of the many for the gain of a miniscule minority. We live in a capitalist world, most of it is impoverished. Food for thought, maybe? Probably not.

[capitalism is good]

No, just a democratic economy, nothing utopian about that.

Knowing all the internal contradictions of capitalism and all the systemic failings of it, it takes a shitload of faith to believe capitalism can work.

What do you mean by a democratic economy? We already have a democratic economy by my defination. It is called the free market.

The market consists of you, me and everyone else. The market is the people and the people is the market. The people will decide who gets paid how much and who gets rich and who gets poor.

Each of us must produce a service or good that the people want to buy. If you are a carpenter, you make furniture for the market/people. If you make good furniture, you will sell more and get rich. In the end, its the people who decides who gets rich or poor. What could be more democratic than that?

[capitalism is good]

USSR,post-war Yugoslavia,Eastern Europe states,etc etc.


All these attempts at Socialism failed. They all collapsed. Majority of people living there now say that capitalism is better. See link:

pewglobal.org/2009/11/02/end-of-communism-cheered-but-now-with-more-reservations/

Another way is to look at the flow of refugees. During the Cold War people were fleeing from these Socialist states you mentioned for capitalist states and not the other way around.


The question reagrding China, i leave to other comrades,as China is not in my area of general knowledge. (ie i dont know nearly enough about China under Mao.)

But i can tell you that only one class in China got really rich,and it was not the working class.

On the average the Chinese are better off now. The whole concept of the working class is now out of date. I will start a thread soon to explain why this and other Marxist ideas are out of date.





Socialist utopia?Socialism is not an utopia,you,as an anti-communist could say that communism is idealistic,but socialism is definitely not an utopia.It existed.And it will exist again,no doubt in that.


Yes, I forgot the terminology. Coummunism is the utopia and Socialism is one step before that. Socialism does exist today partially in Western European welfare states as sort of hybrid with capitalism. Seeing as how it is causing bankruptcy in some of these countries, i would say it is failing too.



Yes,but my prime focus was on the many revolutions the capitalists drowned in the blood of the revolutionaries.(and many people who supported them in any way)

For more information about that,google "White terror".

(I added the White terror segment to this post,you should read it.)

The White Terror was basically what destroyed many revolutions (not just revolutions,but in general it was aimed at revolutionaries) and killed a huge number of revolutionaries,not only in Russia,but in many states,for example:

Bulgaria: 5000 (Boris III)
Greece: 1200-1500. [1944-1945]
Yugoslavia: (Many communist eliminated or arrested.In occupied Yugoslavia,the royalists killed countless thousands.)
China: (who knows how many) [i read many reports,and all numbers are different,so i cant say the precise number,definitely more than a million people)
Germany: 15.000 workers killed in the anti-revolutionary actions.Im not even mentioning Hitler.
Russia: (i wrote about the White Terror in Russia a while ago,i will find the post)
Finland: (Mannerheim sent 80.000 to concentration camps.)
Spain: (Nationalists killed a huge number of people,the highest number is 450.000

The list could go on untill tomorrow.


The numbers you cited pale in comparison to the numbers your revolutionary leftists killed after they won power. See the book, "The Black Book of Communism".

w.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087

About 100 million.

[Omsk]

All these attempts at Socialism failed. They all collapsed. Majority of people living there now say that capitalism is better. See link:




These countries were not following a direct line during the time,and many of them actually abandoned socialism.

And,no,people generally dont think life is better now.



Socialism does exist today partially in Western European welfare states as sort of hybrid with capitalism. Seeing as how it is causing bankruptcy in some of these countries, i would say it is failing too.




Ghh..There is no socialism today in Europe.That is a common right-wing ilusion,to justify their own system failing.


The numbers you cited pale in comparison to the numbers your revolutionary leftists killed after they won power. See the book, "The Black Book of Communism".

w.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087

About 100 million.

No one will take you seriously if you mention that book.
And the White Terror is a specific term you dont understand,it was counter-revolutionary measures.And it was way more brutal than the revolutionary measures by the communists.

[Strannik]

1. If communist states failed by themselves, what exactly did the entire western world do the entire Cold War? The truth is, corrupting socialism took massive effort from capitalists. In effect, containing and starving socialism all over the world was the primary political goal of the capitalist states in the 20st century. This is where most of the taxpayer's money went.

Soviet economy did not took off because Soviet Union existed under massive economic and military blocade. For a short while it was a higher form of society under siege by global status quo. Then it degenerated into what I call military socialism (much like Keynes is a form of military capitalism). Soviet Union could not allocate its resources democratically, because the threat of western states forced it to think about defence first and the little that was left over brought about the rise of the bureaucratic caste of "sharers and dividers". Then the two formed an alliance and developed their own interests, separate of working class. This story repeated itself all over the world, basically every revolution was besieged and starved to death.

But none of this had happened without the massive, organized, concentrated effort by the capitalists.

2. What is now called socialism - the western european "welfare" states was ironically one of the main weapons in the capitalist arsenal. These states reflected the attempt by the bourgeoise to buy off the working class. Please, gentlemen, no revolutions! Here, have some cash. When SU fell, many people in SU were saying - look, capitalism isn't so bad, they have in Western Europe all the social securities we have AND can get as rich as they want. Of course, these concessions existed only BECAUSE of the socialism and threat of revolution. As soon as SU was gone, capitalists discovered that they don't have any more money for the workers. I find it extremely ironical that social democratic states that played so essential role in bringing down the socialism are now decried as "socialists" by their masters. :lol:

3. If your market is so free, how about you let me see the books of your company? You know, so I can also decide whether the price I pay is fair? How about you show me how exactly is it possible that you produce cheaper than others without polluting environment and using forced labor even indirectly? If you truly, objectively produce more social value than your competitor what is there to fear?

The greatest problem of capitalist market is the same as its greatest strength. It treats everything as exchangeable. It exchanges socially responsible behaviour and innovation for money and it exchanges pollution and blackmail for money. Therefore it also exchanges socially positive behaviour for socially negative. And this is why it periodically ends up in crises and wars - there's always motivation for cutting corners sometimes and all these individual decisions add up.

By contrast, real socialists want to bring about the equal opportunity of all to work, i.e. create value. In real socialism people are free to allocate most of their individual labor time as they see fit or exchange it for the labor time of others. But there is no possibility to use your inheritance to buy off politicians to make laws that favor your company; or buy off critical natural resources, thoughts and ideas and claim them for yourself for all eternity. Therefore true socialism includes what is good at a free market, but removes the negative. It is the true "equality of opportunity" for everyone, for all time.

As of yet, socialists have not succeeded. But look at the history of your own class. The feudals also cried once that republic is impossible, that power of kings is divine and that there can never be a state without nobility. And they just loved to point out how people welcomed Charles II back after Cromwell's republic or the terror of the French Revolution or the horrifying conditions in early industrial factories. But the idea of bourgeois republic did not disappear because it was constantly generated by feudal system itself. And in the end it triumphed over feudalism. Socialism will also never disappear, because it is created by capitalism's natural form itself. Whenever capitalism takes its inherently logical form, removes its welfare apparatus and mask of democracy, it starts to produce socialists. And thats why its very probable that socialists will also triumph in the end.

[#FF0000]

Yes, if you define religion as having supernatural beliefs then Socialism is not a religion. But if you define it as a faith then it is.

Nah because my ideas aren't based on faith.


But Socialists/Communists still believe that it will happen someday just as Christians believe that Christ will come back some day. Thus it has a religious quality. Perhaps, I will let the words of Moses Hess speak to you:

Nah, they don't. Maybe those who still believe in the inevitability of the revolution but I don't think that's too many people anymore.


Besides this, Socialism mimicks Judaism/Christianity in that it has a Fall from Grace, a Prophet/Messiah and the Devil.


You can do this with pretty much any ideology with little effort but ooooookay.


According to some Socialists, the world was once perfect because there was no class divisions between capitalists and workers. Then class divisions came and that was their equivalent of the Fall from Grace which for Jews/Christians was the original sin of Adam and Eve.


Those socialists you're talking about would be guilty of a fallacy then, with the whole yearning for good old days that never existed. "Primitive communism" meant foraging and hunting with awful tools, which is hardly much fun.


The evil capitalist has taken the place of the Devil and of course Marx is the Messiah or Prophet.

You can do this very same thing for any ideology that has something they oppose and someone who could be considered the "father" of that particular ideology, or whatever. Not to mention the fact that capitalists aren't considered the source of the problem anyway.


None of their theories are proven. All attempts to reach their heaven on earth failed with serious bloodletting. Yet they believe. So they have strong faith. Their ideology is based on faith, not empirical evidence.

Nah I think there's good evidence for the class struggle perspective, the exploitative nature of capitalism and all that. The only people who might hold their ideas based on faith are the kids who just like to roleplay the USSR or something -- but who cares about them anyway.

[Revolution starts with U]

Nah, they don't. Maybe those who still believe in the inevitability of the revolution but I don't think that's too many people anymore.


You don't actually read the posts on this site often, do you? That's all I see is people acting as if the Revolution is inevitable, and a few "anarchists" (which are really non-demoninational leftist libertarians, not often classical anarchists) calling those people dumb.

[capitalism is good]

These countries were not following a direct line during the time,and many of them actually abandoned socialism.

And,no,people generally dont think life is better now.



Ghh..There is no socialism today in Europe.That is a common right-wing ilusion,to justify their own system failing.



No one will take you seriously if you mention that book.
And the White Terror is a specific term you dont understand,it was counter-revolutionary measures.And it was way more brutal than the revolutionary measures by the communists.

I gather from this, you have a reluctance to acknowledge that Socialism in all its forms have failed. The cop-out is "this is not true Socialism". So to you the former Socialist states from the Soviet bloc were not true Socialist. The Social Democrat parties that created the now bankrupt European welfare states are not true Socialist.

I would say that all these are serious attempts by the different strains of Socialism to create Socialist states. They all failed.

Secondly, you are impervious to any facts that undermine your beliefs. So you cannot accept the attempts to create Socialism by revolutionaries led to mass murders in the order of tens of millions as detailed in the book, "The Black Book of Communism".

You also cannot accept the survey results by PEW which shows that the majority of people from former Warsaw pact countries that say capitalism and democracy are better. This is a sign of faith. That is why I have said elsewhere that Marxism is a quasi-religion.

[capitalism is good]

Nah because my ideas aren't based on faith.


Nah, they don't. Maybe those who still believe in the inevitability of the revolution but I don't think that's too many people anymore.



You can do this with pretty much any ideology with little effort but ooooookay.



Those socialists you're talking about would be guilty of a fallacy then, with the whole yearning for good old days that never existed. "Primitive communism" meant foraging and hunting with awful tools, which is hardly much fun.



You can do this very same thing for any ideology that has something they oppose and someone who could be considered the "father" of that particular ideology, or whatever. Not to mention the fact that capitalists aren't considered the source of the problem anyway.



Nah I think there's good evidence for the class struggle perspective, the exploitative nature of capitalism and all that. The only people who might hold their ideas based on faith are the kids who just like to roleplay the USSR or something -- but who cares about them anyway.

I see you are not so "religious" as some people here. You have common sense and are more realistic.

[capitalism is good]

Hi Strannik,

Thanks for you stimulating post. I enjoyed reading it.



1. If communist states failed by themselves, what exactly did the entire western world do the entire Cold War? The truth is, corrupting socialism took massive effort from capitalists. In effect, containing and starving socialism all over the world was the primary political goal of the capitalist states in the 20st century. This is where most of the taxpayer's money went.



I agree that the Western Alliance led by America had tried its best to undermine the Socialist states led by the former Soviet Union. But the Soviet bloc were doing the same thing against America.

Both sides supported dissident groups to undermine the other from within. Thus America supported groups like the trade union Solidary with the help of the Pope who was a Pole himself.

In this, the Soviets had an advantage because the West had free societies that they could easily penetrate. Unions, politial parties, universities and even churches were penetrated by Marxists. The process is still ongoing today. Bill Ayers, a revolutionary leftists, is now teaching at a top university in Chicago. The US could not have penetrated the Soviet bloc as well as the Soviets could penetrate the US and its allies.

People like Ayers would have been sent to Siberia.

The main reason why the Socialism collapsed was that the idea was basically flawed. It could not compete against capitalism in the generation of wealth. That is why millions of people risk their lives to flee to the west. Nobody fled the west for the Socialist states.

With a stronger economy, America could out build the Soviets in military. It was a contest that Socialism was destined to lose. In an effort to improve the Soviet economy, Gorbachev tried reforms which led to the implosion of the Soviet Union. The bottom line is that Socialism failed.

[capitalism is good]

2. What is now called socialism - the western european "welfare" states was ironically one of the main weapons in the capitalist arsenal. These states reflected the attempt by the bourgeoise to buy off the working class. Please, gentlemen, no revolutions! Here, have some cash. When SU fell, many people in SU were saying - look, capitalism isn't so bad, they have in Western Europe all the social securities we have AND can get as rich as they want. Of course, these concessions existed only BECAUSE of the socialism and threat of revolution. As soon as SU was gone, capitalists discovered that they don't have any more money for the workers. I find it extremely ironical that social democratic states that played so essential role in bringing down the socialism are now decried as "socialists" by their masters. :lol:



I don't agree with this. There was no threat of revolution because in a democracy, the majority could get what they wanted by elections. Since the majority wanted welfare states, they got it. It's not the case of capitalists bribing the people with welfare state.

If anything, the wealthier people fought and are fighting tooth and nail to stop the transfer of their wealth to the lower income people. A good example is the "Tea Party" movement in America who comprise those with above average income. These voters demand a cut in income taxes and spending.

I think they will ultimately lose for one simple reason. The number of people that have below average income outnumbers the number of people with above average income. In America, the split is 60/40 ie 60% of the people have below average income. So politicians find it easy to get elected by promising to transfer wealth.

As Marx said, "Demoracy is the Road to Socialism". He was right on this though he was wrong on most things.

But as a result, most democracies are heavily in debt and some are going broke. They can no longer afford the exorbitant welfare states. So once again, Socialism is failing.

[NewLeft]

I don't agree with this. There was no threat of revolution because in a democracy, the majority could get what they wanted by elections. Since the majority wanted welfare states, they got it. It's not the case of capitalists bribing the people with welfare state.

If anything, the wealthier people fought and are fighting tooth and nail to stop the transfer of their wealth to the lower income people. A good example is the "Tea Party" movement in America who comprise those with above average income. These voters demand a cut in income taxes and spending.

I think they will ultimately lose for one simple reason. The number of people that have below average income outnumbers the number of people with above average income. In America, the split is 60/40 ie 60% of the people have below average income. So politicians find it easy to get elected by promising to transfer wealth.

As Marx said, "Demoracy is the Road to Socialism". He was right on this though he was wrong on most things.

But as a result, most democracies are heavily in debt and some are going broke. They can no longer afford the exorbitant welfare states. So once again, Socialism is failing.

In a representative democracy, there is no 'majority rule' as you described it.

[capitalism is good]

3. If your market is so free, how about you let me see the books of your company? You know, so I can also decide whether the price I pay is fair? How about you show me how exactly is it possible that you produce cheaper than others without polluting environment and using forced labor even indirectly? If you truly, objectively produce more social value than your competitor what is there to fear? .

You need to read a book on economics. It is a common mistake to think that the selling price of a product has anything to do with the cost of producing it. The selling price of a product (unless by a monopolist) depends on the market forces of demand and supply.

The selling price can be higher or lower than the capitalist's costs of making the product. Of course, he hopes that it would be as high as possible just as a buyer hopes it would be as low as possible.

In most instances, the price is beyond the control of the buyer or seller. Let's say you own an apple orchard. If demand rises (ie more people want to eat apples), then the price of apples will rise. Your cost of producing the apple will remain the same and your profits increases.

If supply rises (ie more apples are being produced by rivals) the the price of apples fall. Your costs of producing apples remain the same and you could be making a loss.

Therefore, it makes no sense to ask if the price you pay is fair. What is fair? To me the fair price is whatever the market dictates. Who is the market? The market is you and me and everybody else. We decide how many apples we want to buy. The market is the people and the people is the market. So whatever the people decides is fair.

[Revolution starts with U]

"Black Book of Communism..."

lulz :thumbup:

I have no problem calling them attempts at socialism. But lacking "democratic worker controlled economies" they are not true socialism. ;)

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't agree with this. There was no threat of revolution because in a democracy, the majority could get what they wanted by elections. Since the majority wanted welfare states, they got it. It's not the case of capitalists bribing the people with welfare state.

The context of what you are saying is correct, but we both know the majority often doesn't/cannot vote in most capitalist democracies. I think they do in Sweden or something, because it's illegal not to...



If anything, the wealthier people fought and are fighting tooth and nail to stop the transfer of their wealth to the lower income people. A good example is the "Tea Party" movement in America who comprise those with above average income. These voters demand a cut in income taxes and spending.

Considering it is old, rich, white people that make up the vast majority of the actually voting public in western democracies, is it really so absurd that their government refect the interests of old, rich, white people?
This is, tho you may have disagreements, a direct refelction of the private property, capitalist system as it developed historically. Capitalism (among other things) means those with get to do with what they want, those with are the capitalists, the bouriousie; the private owners of the means of production and distribution.



As Marx said, "Demoracy is the Road to Socialism". He was right on this though he was wrong on most things.

But as a result, most democracies are heavily in debt and some are going broke. They can no longer afford the exorbitant welfare states. So once again, Socialism is failing.

Socialism != government spending. Every capitalist government in the world spends money. What you call a "mixed economy" is really just capitalism with limited worker tempering of the economy.


You need to read a book on economics. It is a common mistake to think that the selling price of a product has anything to do with the cost of producing it. The selling price of a product (unless by a monopolist) depends on the market forces of demand and supply.

The selling price can be higher or lower than the capitalist's costs of making the product. Of course, he hopes that it would be as high as possible just as a buyer hopes it would be as low as possible.

In most instances, the price is beyond the control of the buyer or seller. Let's say you own an apple orchard. If demand rises (ie more people want to eat apples), then the price of apples will rise. Your cost of producing the apple will remain the same and your profits increases.

If supply rises (ie more apples are being produced by rivals) the the price of apples fall. Your costs of producing apples remain the same and you could be making a loss.

Therefore, it makes no sense to ask if the price you pay is fair. What is fair? To me the fair price is whatever the market dictates. Who is the market? The market is you and me and everybody else. We decide how many apples we want to buy. The market is the people and the people is the market. So whatever the people decides is fair.

First I would say you neglect that economic demand is a reflection of purchasing power, not actual demand.
Second, that generalizations of person's wants isn't usually a road someone wants to take academically. But we all, myself included, do this because it makes it easier to understand... I guess...

But beyond these; what do we call it when supply hasn't changed, demand hasn't changed, populations haven't changed (or at least they have all changed proportionally), and yet prices fluctuate wildly, or simply drastically increase?

EDIT: Lastly, Capitalism is good, brother, especially in comparison to its historic predecessor; fuedalism. The question on Capitalism is what it does good, and for whom.

[o well this is ok I guess]

There was a thread here where a guy was talking about how he'd feel guilty taking a job with a mortgage company
and someone said it was ok so long as he redeemed himself through party work
which was kinda
creepy
ish

So uh yeah, some can make it pretty religious.

[capitalism is good]

"Black Book of Communism..."

lulz :thumbup:

I have no problem calling them attempts at socialism. But lacking "democratic worker controlled economies" they are not true socialism. ;)

Yes, I know someone will say something like that to absolve their ideology from blame. We can call it attempts at Socialism if you like. But all attempts failed. So what does that mean?

It means you revolutionary leftists are chasing at rainbows. Your Socialist ideal is not achievable. The likely results are poverty and mass murder ala Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim and Castro.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;2341950]The context of what you are saying is correct, but we both know the majority often doesn't/cannot vote in most capitalist democracies. I think they do in Sweden or something, because it's illegal not to...

"Does not" is accurate.

But would a socialist community MANDATE voting?





First I would say you neglect that economic demand is a reflection of purchasing power, not actual demand.

Didn't you just mention elsewhere that you would find it condescending to tell workers what they want, what they "demand?"


Second, that generalizations of person's wants isn't usually a road someone wants to take academically.

Yes.

But we all, myself included, do this because it makes it easier to understand... I guess...


But beyond these; what do we call it when supply hasn't changed, demand hasn't changed, populations haven't changed (or at least they have all changed proportionally),

An academic generalisation-- a fiction in practical reality.

[capitalism is good]

The context of what you are saying is correct, but we both know the majority often doesn't/cannot vote in most capitalist democracies. I think they do in Sweden or something, because it's illegal not to...


Considering it is old, rich, white people that make up the vast majority of the actually voting public in western democracies, is it really so absurd that their government refect the interests of old, rich, white people?

The best way to see who has the power is to follow the money. In general, money flows from the less powerful to the more powerful. Thus in the Ancien Regime of France, the peasants were taxed and the money flows to the nobility and the King. They were the parasitic class.

Today, money flow from richer people to the poorer people. Income taxes are progressive in nature. In the US, the top 1% pay 37% of all taxes but earns only 19% of all income. (http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes)If the rich are so powerful, they would have lowered their own taxes. The Tea Party is trying but are they successful?

Who is the new parasitic class now? Its those on welfare who don't work but get a paycheck. As Marx said, "Democracy is the road to Socialism (http://www.notable-quotes.com/m/marx_karl.html)."

Aristotle said something similar:


In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aristotle124802.html#ixzz1kILG28n9)
(http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aristotle124802.html#ixzz1kILG28n9)

Yes, I know that the poor vote less often than the rich. But it does not matter because there are so many of them and so will outvote the rich.




Socialism != government spending. Every capitalist government in the world spends money. What you call a "mixed economy" is really just capitalism with limited worker tempering of the economy.


Yes, every government must spend money. It is a matter of degree. The more money the government spends especially on entitlements or welfare, the more Socialist.

Truth is that there are no 100% Socialist or 100% capitalist economies. Its a matter of degree.




First I would say you neglect that economic demand is a reflection of purchasing power, not actual demand.


That's not standard economics. Purchasing power of individuals will affect demand but in the end its the total demand of all individuals that counts.



Second, that generalizations of person's wants isn't usually a road someone wants to take academically. But we all, myself included, do this because it makes it easier to understand... I guess...


You are right. In economics we have to make assumptions to explain things. Reality is different and more complicated.



But beyond these; what do we call it when supply hasn't changed, demand hasn't changed, populations haven't changed (or at least they have all changed proportionally), and yet prices fluctuate wildly, or simply drastically increase?


Population growth or decline will definitely affect demand. If demand and supply does not change, price should remain the same in theory and I believe in practice as well.



EDIT: Lastly, Capitalism is good, brother, especially in comparison to its historic predecessor; fuedalism. The question on Capitalism is what it does good, and for whom.


Capitalism existed even in fuedal times. Fuedalism was a political system while capitalism is an economics system. In the fuedal era, the capitalist was the landlord who owns the land. The land was given to the peasants to work on and he gets a share of the crop.

Capitalism in the modern era does good for the majority of people. It raises the standard of living far better than Socialism can ever do. The best proof is to see which way the refugees go. Cubans flee Castro's Socialst "paradise" for America. Americans don't flee to Cuba.

North Koreans flee the Socialist north for the capitalist south. East Germans fled to West Germany during the Cold War. They had to build the Berlin Wall to keep their people in. All walls in history were built to keep invders out. Only in Socialism do you get a Wall which keeps people in.

[RGacky3]

Yes, I know someone will say something like that to absolve their ideology from blame. We can call it attempts at Socialism if you like. But all attempts failed. So what does that mean?

It means you revolutionary leftists are chasing at rainbows. Your Socialist ideal is not achievable. The likely results are poverty and mass murder ala Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim and Castro.

No its totally achievable, and it HAS been achieved (everytime destroyed by violence though), and also socialistic policies have been acheived (with relative success).

There is NOTHING unachievable about economic democracy.

Its not an excuse, these attempts never involved the main tennant, the fundemental property of socialism, i.e. economic democracy.


"Does not" is accurate.

But would a socialist community MANDATE voting?


I don't see why it would.

But all the "would a socialist community ....?" questions are idiotic and meaningless, WE DON'T KNOW what a socialist community would do, just like we don't know exactly how political democracies would deal with specific problems, or a monarchy, or any sort of things.


Didn't you just mention elsewhere that you would find it condescending to tell workers what they want, what they "demand?"


He's not telling people what they demand, he's saying their demands are not represented in the market under capitalism, since capitalism ONLY measures purchasing power, which is highly highly inegalitarian.

Learn to read arguments.

[RGacky3]

The best way to see who has the power is to follow the money. In general, money flows from the less powerful to the more powerful. Thus in the Ancien Regime of France, the peasants were taxed and the money flows to the nobility and the King. They were the parasitic class.

Today, money flow from richer people to the poorer people. Income taxes are progressive in nature. In the US, the top 1% pay 37% of all taxes but earns only 19% of all income. (http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes)If the rich are so powerful, they would have lowered their own taxes. The Tea Party is trying but are they successful?


Except in Capitalism money is the main measure of power (as opposed to land in the ancient regime of france). So your argument is a tutology i.e.
money(power) flows from the less powerful(wealthy) to the more powerful(wealthy).

Also economic power only turns into political power at extreme numbers, its not the top 1% its the top 0.1% and even the .001% that has significant power, so you have to check those numbers.

Also its 37% of INCOME TAXES (no shit they pay more, this is a juvinle attempt at deception), you have to include sales taxes, state incomes taxes, capital gains taxes and so on.

But taxes are not the measure, a much more significant measure would be productivity vrs wages, if you look at those charts it shows the real story.

http://rortybomb.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/epi_productivity.jpg?w=640


Who is the new parasitic class now? Its those on welfare who don't work but get a paycheck. As Marx said, "Democracy is the road to Socialism (http://www.notable-quotes.com/m/marx_karl.html)."

Aristotle said something similar:



In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aristotle124802.html#ixzz1kILG28n9)

(http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aristotle124802.html#ixzz1kILG28n9)

Yes, I know that the poor vote less often than the rich. But it does not matter because there are so many of them and so will outvote the rich.


I'd say its the rich that actually directly benefit from other peoples labor.

Their compensation is WAY above their actual contribution, if you want to test that put compensation up to a democratic vote in the company and you'll see a majorly different picture (and a more proper one).


Yes, every government must spend money. It is a matter of degree. The more money the government spends especially on entitlements or welfare, the more Socialist.

Truth is that there are no 100% Socialist or 100% capitalist economies. Its a matter of degree.


Thats patently false, thats not the definition of socialism by any one who knows about the subject.


That's not standard economics. Purchasing power of individuals will affect demand but in the end its the total demand of all individuals that counts.


Which is MAJORLY disproportionaly representative of the very wealthy's individual demand ....

Again, your just resorting to semantics.


You are right. In economics we have to make assumptions to explain things. Reality is different and more complicated.


Actually Marxian economics has essencailly turned out totally right (rate of profit to fall, financialization of the economy, compound growth, snowball effect, labor theory of value [both marx's and ricardos and Smiths]).


Population growth or decline will definitely affect demand. If demand and supply does not change, price should remain the same in theory and I believe in practice as well.


Except it does'nt, since there are many other factors.


Capitalism existed even in fuedal times. Fuedalism was a political system while capitalism is an economics system. In the fuedal era, the capitalist was the landlord who owns the land. The land was given to the peasants to work on and he gets a share of the crop.


Fuedalism was an economic system, although capitalism was loosely based on feudalism.

Fuedalism did'nt have wage labor it had land rent, and it did'nt have a stable unitary monitary system it depended on, nor did it even have private property in the way capitalism entails.


Capitalism in the modern era does good for the majority of people. It raises the standard of living far better than Socialism can ever do. The best proof is to see which way the refugees go. Cubans flee Castro's Socialst "paradise" for America. Americans don't flee to Cuba.


The same argument could be given to Mexico (more Capitalistic), or people fleeying from Africa (more Capitalistic) to Europe (more socialistic).

Anyway, its a bullshit argument on those grounds (Cuba was a third world country when it started with Fidel), and on the grounds that Cuba is'nt an economic democracy thus patently not socialistic (although it does have an advanced form of local democracy).


North Koreans flee the Socialist north for the capitalist south. East Germans fled to West Germany during the Cold War. They had to build the Berlin Wall to keep their people in. All walls in history were built to keep invders out. Only in Socialism do you get a Wall which keeps people in.

North Korea does'nt havea trace of socialism, west germany was actually (in my estimation) MORE socialistic than east since they have co-determination laws which actually put companies under partial worker control, and other laws giving local communities partial control over companies.

You need to do your homework buddy.

[Klaatu]

In answer to the O.P.

IMHO, Leftist ideology is based on logic and reason, while Rightist ideology is based on faith and obedience.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, I know someone will say something like that to absolve their ideology from blame. We can call it attempts at Socialism if you like. But all attempts failed. So what does that mean?

It means you revolutionary leftists are chasing at rainbows. Your Socialist ideal is not achievable. The likely results are poverty and mass murder ala Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim and Castro.

Then the result of Capitalism is Andrew Jackson, Nixon, and Truman; all three amongst the top 10 most murderous rulers of all time. If anyone is trying to absolve their system of blame, I have to say it's not me. I'm willing to own up to the USSR (which I'm sure, seeing as how you think the Black Book has a shred of truth, you think was far worse than it actually was).

But socialism is not Marxism, and those were mostly attempts at Marxism. Socialism is worker controlled economies. Nobody has tried that, so we can't say there has been "true socialism." Maybe in a few areas, Paris Commune, Catalonia, somewhat the Zapatistas, the cooperative workplaces of the world, etc.

[Revolution starts with U]

"Does not" is accurate.

But would a socialist community MANDATE voting?


Some might, others won't. I will say people would be far more likely to vote when they have a stake in it; that's what most non-voters say, "it's not like my vote matters."



Didn't you just mention elsewhere that you would find it condescending to tell workers what they want, what they "demand?"

Well, when people start having actual purchasing power, we can talk about what worker's want. Right now the economy is a reflection of what those with money want; and those with more money have more say.




Yes.

But we all, myself included, do this because it makes it easier to understand... I guess...



An academic generalisation-- a fiction in practical reality.

You might want to check gas and food prices over the last few years; but I'm sure all those people rioting in the middle east were just "a fiction" right?

[Revolution starts with U]

The best way to see who has the power is to follow the money. In general, money flows from the less powerful to the more powerful. Thus in the Ancien Regime of France, the peasants were taxed and the money flows to the nobility and the King. They were the parasitic class.

This I would agree with.



Today, money flow from richer people to the poorer people. Income taxes are progressive in nature. In the US, the top 1% pay 37% of all taxes but earns only 19% of all income. (http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes)If the rich are so powerful, they would have lowered their own taxes. The Tea Party is trying but are they successful?

You do know that
1) taxes used to be 90% on the wealthy. Looks like the rich severely lowered the taxes after the dazzle of worker emowerment wore off.
2) Those are other rich people making other rich people pay those taxes.
3) Most government spending goes to the benefit of wealthy businesses; defense contracts, research grants, subsidies, corporate welfare; this makes up a gigantically larger portion of the budget than those poor single mothers trading in their food stamps for gas money.



Who is the new parasitic class now? Its those on welfare who don't work but get a paycheck. As Marx said, "Democracy is the road to Socialism (http://www.notable-quotes.com/m/marx_karl.html)."

Aristotle said something similar:


In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aristotle124802.html#ixzz1kILG28n9)
(http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aristotle124802.html#ixzz1kILG28n9)

Yes, I know that the poor vote less often than the rich. But it does not matter because there are so many of them and so will outvote the rich.

Government spending and welfare is not socialism. Every capitalist government in the world spends money and has welfare. You do know the first people to call themselves anarchists and libertarians were... socialists, right? ;)

Socialism means a system wherein the difference between worker and boss has all but disappeared. There are no class distinctions, and work is done voluntarily, rather than through the coercion of the property system.



Yes, every government must spend money. It is a matter of degree. The more money the government spends especially on entitlements or welfare, the more Socialist.

Straw man. You're not going to get far on this site if you keep eating this platter provided you by your school and mainstream news.


Truth is that there are no 100% Socialist or 100% capitalist economies. Its a matter of degree.

Horsewallup. Capitalism means a system of private ownership and market exchange. Do we, or do we not have "a system of private ownership and market exchange" in almost every country in the world? Or are you suggesting we have a system of worker controlled economies, voluntary social relations, and the non-existence of class distinction.

If you're arguing against government spending, you're arguing against specific people (some socialists, but mostly just social democratic liberals) not socialism as a whole, nor the majority of people here.





That's not standard economics. Purchasing power of individuals will affect demand but in the end its the total demand of all individuals that counts.


Id lke to see your argument for that. How do people with no money have their demand reflected in the actual economy? More importantly, how does their limited effect have nearly a smidgeon the impact as those with more money than they can spend?




You are right. In economics we have to make assumptions to explain things. Reality is different and more complicated.

Which is why Economics, and most social sciences, are not sciences, but belief systems. It's not wonder you don't find many kids who grew up in right wing households that grew up and became sociologists, or left wing ids becoming economists. Yet both might grow up and become physicists.




Population growth or decline will definitely affect demand. If demand and supply does not change, price should remain the same in theory and I believe in practice as well.

Wild fluctuations in the market, as caused by investor speculation, have drastically removed gas and food prices from their hypothetically predicted rates.




Capitalism existed even in fuedal times. Fuedalism was a political system while capitalism is an economics system. In the fuedal era, the capitalist was the landlord who owns the land. The land was given to the peasants to work on and he gets a share of the crop.

Even were this an adequate definition, it is not, but even if it was, it is telling that you are willing to call fuedal landowners "capitalists" as they got their property through fiat.
I think with a little work, you could see the flaw in property, and come around to our side.



Capitalism in the modern era does good for the majority of people. It raises the standard of living far better than Socialism can ever do. The best proof is to see which way the refugees go. Cubans flee Castro's Socialst "paradise" for America. Americans don't flee to Cuba.


North Koreans flee the Socialist north for the capitalist south. East Germans fled to West Germany during the Cold War. They had to build the Berlin Wall to keep their people in. All walls in history were built to keep invders out. Only in Socialism do you get a Wall which keeps people in.

We'll get nowhere with this line of argument. If you are arguing against Marxist-Leninism, I'm sorry but you're arguing against something I don't subscribe to.

[#FF0000]

I see you are not so "religious" as some people here. You have common sense and are more realistic.

Yeah maybe but the thing is that you should sort of be operating off the assumption that the people you're dealing with are reasonable, rational people instead of saying "yeah sure leftism is a religion and leftists are dogmatic".

And that goes for anything.

[Klaatu]

If anything, the wealthier people fought and are fighting tooth and nail to stop the transfer of their wealth to the lower income people.


"Their wealth"? You have that backwards. The wealth is created by the worker, not by the overlord. All wealth is the product of human effort. That effort is by the sweat of the worker, not of the owner. Therefore wealth belongs to the working class.



But as a result, most democracies are heavily in debt and some are going broke. They can no longer afford the exorbitant welfare states. So once again, Socialism is failing.

Again, you have that backwards. It is Capitalism that is failing, as it should. People are only going to be fooled for so long, until they catch on to the Grand Master Scheme of capitalists. Capitalists have invented the welfare state, to hide and draw attention away from their greed.

Do not equate "welfare state" with Socialism... apples and oranges

[Platonic Sword]

Ideology in general has a tendency to take on a religious character. The radical left is certainly not immune from this phenomenon.

[RGacky3]

I don't agree with this. There was no threat of revolution because in a democracy, the majority could get what they wanted by elections. Since the majority wanted welfare states, they got it. It's not the case of capitalists bribing the people with welfare state.


This simply historically incorrect, democracies in europe are limited and the US democracy is EXTREMELY limited, in europe the parties control the politics and the bourgeois control the parties, historically the welfare states came from the communists, hardline socialists and labor unions forcing the social-democratic parties to push left.

[Rooster]

In answer to the O.P.

IMHO, Leftist ideology is based on logic and reason, while Rightist ideology is based on faith and obedience.

That sentence misunderstands the words logic and reason. There is logic and reason, it's just based on false precepts. Something that happens just as much in the left.

[Kotze]

You need to read a book on economics. It is a common mistake to think that the selling price of a product has anything to do with the cost of producing it. The selling price of a product (unless by a monopolist) depends on the market forces of demand and supply.
Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.:closedeyes:

Btw it should be obvious that the selling price of products has a lot to do with production cost and very little with demand precisely when there are low barriers to entry and production is quick, and that the demand-side matters more to what prices a monopolist can get away with.

[ijrjrnz]

There are many leftist dogmatists.:D There are dogmatists everywhere. Trusting the same old dogmas is never good for leftists.

Religious people can also be leftist. I especially like catholicism. Many catholics are also leftists.

[Platonic Sword]

http://iranian.com/main/files/blogimages/Kissing%20Stalin.jpg