Communism-Democracy-dictatorship???

[Dune Dx]

Which one is the best or is it different for each state????

[Misodoctakleidist]

Communism by definition is democratic.

[Dune Dx]

No because it is not elected by the people it just asks them which of all these same parties would u prefer.

[Intifada]

this is offtopic, but why do you have a che avatar? from what i have heard from you so far you dont seem like a communist or socialist.

[Misodoctakleidist]

What are you talking about?

An ideology can't ask people questions. I seriously doubt that polotical parties would have any funtion in a communist society.

[Dune Dx]

to the guy who asked me y I have a che avatar. Cos i like the fact he was ready to fight for wat he believed in and I think communism is a good Idea but man is corrupt so u will always have currupt leaders and on the off chance u get a good leader there going to die and ull end up with another currupt one

[Intifada]

would you call yourself a communist?

[Dune Dx]

and the guy with the union jack avatar I dont understand ur point thats wat im saying the people hav no voice in a communist regime

[Misodoctakleidist]

What makes you say that?

[Dune Dx]

no not really cos I feel communism will just turn currupt I think we need a political system with lots of parties and lots of seats in parliment

[Misodoctakleidist]

How could communism become corrupted? Once it has been achieved i don't see anyway in which the market, state or class system could be restored.

[Dune Dx]

and to the union jack guy again

I think that the people have no voice in acommunist stae because if they dont like communism theres nothing they can do about it and once a leader is in power popular or not its hard to get them out of power

[Dune Dx]

Im guessin both of u r communist?????
wat do u think is the best system

[Misodoctakleidist]

Like many people, you don't know what communism is. Communism is statless.

If people don't want commuism they can opt out of society and fend for themselves.

[Dune Dx]

No they cant cos the goverment wont let them leave like with seen in loads of communist countries

[STI]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 20 2004, 09:37 PM
to the guy who asked me y I have a che avatar. Cos i like the fact he was ready to fight for wat he believed in and I think communism is a good Idea but man is corrupt so u will always have currupt leaders and on the off chance u get a good leader there going to die and ull end up with another currupt one
What evidence do you have supporting your belief that humans are naturally corrupt?

[Misodoctakleidist]

There is no government in a communist society.

[Intifada]

No they cant cos the goverment wont let them leave like with seen in loads of communist countries

strictly speaking there never has been a communist country.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 20 2004, 09:37 PM
...I think communism is a good Idea but man is corrupt so u will always have currupt leaders and on the off chance u get a good leader there going to die and ull end up with another currupt one
Why do we need leaders?

[Dune Dx]

wow so many peep 2 reply to.
People turn curupt with power

"power currupts absolute power currupts absolutly" Lord Acton

like stalin Castro and alot of other politicians that I dont have time to put down right now.

Initially there is a goverment b4 society no longer needs it and as we have seen It just doesnt happen Russia collapsed and China is turning capatilist.

Yes there r communist countries they may not b totally communist but thats wat they call themselves and wat else could u call the soviet union

[Misodoctakleidist]

The soviet union was socialist.

[Dune Dx]

we need leaders because there population is too large and there are people who r hostile towards out there we need peep to make decissions as long as they can be made accountable to the people

[Intifada]

Yes there r communist countries they may not b totally communist but thats wat they call themselves and wat else could u call the soviet union

that what they call themselves? does that mean that the Nazis were socialists? dont talk shit.

the soviet union cannot be called communist.

[Dune Dx]

why not it treated everyone equally it had no unemployment and had good public services like transport.
It had communist ideals there for its communist
like Britain is democratic even though the country disagreed eith the goverment on top of fees doesnt change our ideologie

[Commie Girl]

:) Dune....


We have yet to see a Communist country...the USSR was Socialist ( Union of Socialist Republics)....maybe brush up on the definition of Communism....

The U$ has placed so many barriers to any country that even TRIES to be for the people, by the people....therefore, the experiment has yet to fully succeed!

DyerMaker's Edit: Basically, I saw that this was double posted, and I deleted the second post without noticing that there was an extra line in it until it was almost deleted. Luckily I copied it so I could paste it in this edit.

Sorry! The original poster can remove this notice if he or she wants.

[Dune Dx]

Britain tries to be for the people by the people and most of the time I think it succedes. But y dont u describe communism to me

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Ok Im sorry but there is so much idealism in this thread that I need to help this guy out, it just aint fair.


How could communism become corrupted? Once it has been achieved i don't see anyway in which the market, state or class system could be restored.

Communism could be easily corrupted during the transitional stages, the transfer of power to the proletariat will never be achieved unless you manage to get one hell of a selfless group of individuals in power to make the transfer.

The Russian Revolution is the oldest and greates example of how communism is corrupted.

It could be restored by counter-revolutionary activity, a revolut of the beourgoius. What makes you think everybody will be happy in a communist society?


Like many people, you don't know what communism is. Communism is statless.

Communism if it occurs in any country will be a state whilst it awaits the unlikely international revolution.


If people don't want commuism they can opt out of society and fend for themselves.

Most likely they will get together to overthrow y=the communist society with talk of how great private property is etc. Materialism corrupts and these people will not idly leave your society and fend for themselves they will work like you you do to bring the establishment down.


What evidence do you have supporting your belief that humans are naturally corrupt?

What evidence do you have that they are not?



strictly speaking there never has been a communist country.

Because communism has never worked just pretend there has never been a communist society...

Ever wonder why? Despite the so called Marxist revolutions?


Why do we need leaders?

The same reason we need laws and because the vast majority of people want an easy life and want to be lead.

[Dune Dx]

I just looked up socialism and communism in the dictionary their the same thing

[Intifada]

i cant be bothered with this guy anymore.

may i suggest something. read about communism and socialism before speaking so much crap.

[El Che]

Dune Dx, the questions you raise have all been made before. Stick around, read current threads and maybe some of the olds ones as well, and you may find the answers. You can learn alot here. Its good that you admire che, its a start but its not enough. You need to read more to decide where you stand. Don't ask us to spoonfeed you though. Thats not what we're here for.

[Dune Dx]

Communism can never be achieved so why fight for it?

U$ is too intoxicated with capitalism so that it can never go communist. as its the worlds superpower it will eradicate its enemies where it finds them.


materialsm weakens far too many societies

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Dune I agree that communism is not possible but some advice, have a look around here anyway and see what you can learn. Marxism offers a lot of interesting insights into the negative sides of capitalist economics etc.

Read some Marx anyway. Im a Social Democrat these days so I still believe in a kind of socialism.

[Dune Dx]

I agree but I dont think we can have a system where everything will work it just depends where you want to make your compromises capatilist states usually have a content populace and safety

[Dune Dx]

and I just read wat el che said spoon fead me chuh u expect me to read stuff 4 myself like u peep have better things to do neway lol

[Dune Dx]

nice talkin 2 all of u Ive learnt alot but im going to go 2 bed :lol:

[STI]

Can we pls nt tlk lik dis bc it mks u sound lik a tool and is hrd to undrstd.

The soviet union was state capitalist, by the way. I will still hold firmly that human nature is unproven, unscientific, and unfit to be part of an intellectual discussion (if this one could be deemed as such).

Anyway, i agree, read some stuff around here first and come back when you have a better understanding :)

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 12:07 AM




The soviet union was state capitalist, by the way.

Do you know that for sure or did you hear it from Redstar? Prove it? Maybe its what ahppens when man attempts a communist society.


I will still hold firmly that human nature is unproven, unscientific, and unfit to be part of an intellectual discussion (if this one could be deemed as such).

Dear God, might as well give up psychology or psyhciatry so. Unfit as an intellectual discussion, human nature? 2,5000 years of philosophy down the drain so.

[STI]

Originally posted by Geist+Mar 21 2004, 12:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Geist @ Mar 21 2004, 12:20 AM)
[email protected] 21 2004, 12:07 AM




The soviet union was state capitalist, by the way.

Do you know that for sure or did you hear it from Redstar? Prove it? Maybe its what ahppens when man attempts a communist society.


I will still hold firmly that human nature is unproven, unscientific, and unfit to be part of an intellectual discussion (if this one could be deemed as such).

Dear God, might as well give up psychology or psyhciatry so. Unfit as an intellectual discussion, human nature? 2,5000 years of philosophy down the drain so. [/b]
No, i didn&#39;t hear it from redstar. I originally read it in Noam Chomsky&#39;s "What Uncle Sam Really Wants". Here&#39;s the actual writing:


Socialism, real and fake
One can debate the meaning of the term "socialism," but if it means anything, it means control of production by the workers themselves, not owners and managers who rule them and control all decisions, whether in capitalist enterprises or an absolutist state.

To refer to the Soviet Union as socialist is an interesting case of doctrinal doublespeak. The Bolshevik coup of October 1917 placed state power in the hands of Lenin and Trotsky, who moved quickly to dismantle the incipient socialist institutions that had grown up during the popular revolution of the preceding months -- the factory councils, the Soviets, in fact any organ of popular control -- and to convert the workforce into what they called a "labor army" under the command of the leader. In any meaningful sense of the term "socialism," the Bolsheviks moved at once to destroy its existing elements. No socialist deviation has been permitted since.

These developments came as no surprise to leading Marxist intellectuals, who had criticized Lenin&#39;s doctrines for years (as had Trotsky) because they would centralize authority in the hands of the vanguard Party and its leaders. In fact, decades earlier, the anarchist thinker Bakunin had predicted that the emerging intellectual class would follow one of two paths: either they would try to exploit popular struggles to take state power themselves, becoming a brutal and oppressive Red bureaucracy; or they would become the managers and ideologists of the state capitalist societies, if popular revolution failed. It was a perceptive insight, on both counts.

The world&#39;s two major propaganda systems did not agree on much, but they did agree on using the term socialism to refer to the immediate destruction of every element of socialism by the Bolsheviks. That&#39;s not too surprising. The Bolsheviks called their system socialist so as to exploit the moral prestige of socialism.

The West adopted the same usage for the opposite reason: to defame the feared libertarian ideals by associating them with the Bolshevik dungeon, to undermine the popular belief that there really might be progress towards a more just society with democratic control over its basic institutions and concern for human needs and rights.

If socialism is the tyranny of Lenin and Stalin, then sane people will say: not for me. And if that&#39;s the only alternative to corporate state capitalism, then many will submit to its authoritarian structures as the only reasonable choice.

With the collapse of the Soviet system, there&#39;s an opportunity to revive the lively and vigorous libertarian socialist thought that was not able to withstand the doctrinal and repressive assaults of the major systems of power. How large a hope that is, we cannot know. But at least one roadblock has been removed. In that sense, the disappearance of the Soviet Union is a small victory for socialism, much as the defeat of the fascist powers was.



So there.


I have no problem with human nature being discussed, just not when its used as an argument for or against something in a discussion regarding something other than human nature.

Wow, would you look at all the super work them philosophers have done over the last 2500 years in the field of human nature. We&#39;ve got about five main beliefs as to what human nature is:

1) Humans are naturally good
2) Humans are naturlally bad
3) Neither good nor evil is part of human nature
4) Evil and good are both innate, but evil can be controlled
5) Human nature does not exist.

We&#39;re really no further ahead in our knowledge of what human nature actually is than, hmm, right, 2500 years ago&#33;

THAT is why human nature has no place is an intellectual discussion.

Phychology has some scientific roots, and phychological theories can and have been tested. They have some place in a discussion. Human Nature does not.

I&#39;m a big &#39;fan&#39; of philosophy. I just don&#39;t think there&#39;s any real merit to the &#39;human nature&#39; argument.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 12:35 AM






I have no problem with human nature being discussed, just not when its used as an argument for or against something in a discussion regarding something other than human nature.

But the case of whether human nature is inherently greedy is the main opposition to communism. If you intend to counteract this main argument you better show human nature isnt bad, greedy etc.



Wow, would you look at all the super work them philosophers have done over the last 2500 years in the field of human nature. We&#39;ve got about five main beliefs as to what human nature is:

1) Humans are naturally good
2) Humans are naturlally bad
3) Neither good nor evil is part of human nature
4) Evil and good are both innate, but evil can be controlled
5) Human nature does not exist.

Did you write Sophies World...;)


We&#39;re really no further ahead in our knowledge of what human nature actually is than, hmm, right, 2500 years ago&#33;

You are telling me there has been no advancement in our understanding of human nature since the time of the pre-Socratics?


THAT is why human nature has no place is an intellectual discussion.

What is THAT? Im sorry I dont see the argument anywhere, some mild polemic work but nothing substantial.


Phychology has some scientific roots, and phychological theories can and have been tested. They have some place in a discussion. Human Nature does not.

Seriously man, this has everything to do with psychology. I cant see how it isnt. Communism wont work unless human nature is fit for it and you have to prove that it is.

Communism has been tested and failed, should I just ignore it so?



I&#39;m a big &#39;fan&#39; of philosophy. I just don&#39;t think there&#39;s any real merit to the &#39;human nature&#39; argument.

Thats your belief but Im not convinced so far.

[STI]

But the case of whether human nature is inherently greedy is the main opposition to communism. If you intend to counteract this main argument you better show human nature isnt bad, greedy etc.


You&#39;re reversing the burden of proof. I don&#39;t have to prove that your belief is wrong, you have to prove that it&#39;s right.


Did you write Sophies World...

I was intentionally oversimplifying for effect


You are telling me there has been no advancement in our understanding of human nature since the time of the pre-Socratics?


Yes, i am. If you disagree, tell me, what is human nature? What proof do you have? We certainly have more theories, but no more actual knowledge.


What is THAT? Im sorry I dont see the argument anywhere, some mild polemic work but nothing substantial.

&#39;THAT&#39; (forgive the capitals, i was FAR too lazy to click the bold button), is the lack of real scientific proof regarding the natural human condition.


Seriously man, this has everything to do with psychology. I cant see how it isnt. Communism wont work unless human nature is fit for it and you have to prove that it is.


You&#39;re twisting my words. I&#39;m saying that things which have been proven have a place in an intellectual discussion, while things which have not, don&#39;t. Some psychological theories have been proven. The theory of human nature has not.


Communism has been tested and failed, should I just ignore it so?


When has actual (see, i used bolds this time) communism been tested? As you read above, the USSR was uncommunist from the get- go.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

You&#39;re reversing the burden of proof. I don&#39;t have to prove that your belief is wrong, you have to prove that it&#39;s right.

I have nothing to prove, I am not a cappie. I am just curious of your views of communism. You dont have to engage with me but if you like, you can try prove how its plausible. You may convert me back.


I was intentionally oversimplifying for effect

I know... :(


Yes, i am. If you disagree, tell me, what is human nature? What proof do you have? We certainly have more theories, but no more actual knowledge.

Science is based on theories not actual knowledge. Depending on your philosophical school and youre talking to a strict substantial monist of the Spinozian kind there can be no real actaul knowledge, are you interested in epistomology?


You&#39;re twisting my words. I&#39;m saying that things which have been proven have a place in an intellectual discussion, while things which have not, don&#39;t. Some psychological theories have been proven. The theory of human nature has not.

So we cant try dispute anything because it hasnt been proved? All modern intellectual discussion is about theory, it how we move forword. You need only look at how the journals which are the intellectual hotbeds of today deal with human nature to see it has a place in the intellectual domain.


When has actual (see, i used bolds this time) communism been tested? As you read above, the USSR was uncommunist from the get- go.

I believe it was tested and failed due to beaucracy, greedy human nature and a failure of communist theory in general.

There has been several tests for communism and all have failed bar a socialist state in the form of Cuba.

[synthesis]

Communism could be easily corrupted during the transitional stages, the transfer of power to the proletariat will never be achieved unless you manage to get one hell of a selfless group of individuals in power to make the transfer.

Your assessment is completely ignorant of the Marxist idea of revolution. Marxian communism can&#39;t be stopped by a few corrupt individuals because it is a complete social overhaul forced by material conditions. The socialist revolution puts the power in the hands of the proletariat because it is a revolution by the proletariat, and not any &#39;group of individuals.&#39;

To whoever claimed that communism can be subverted by a bourgeois counter-revolution, I would advise you to re-learn your ideas of what communism &#39;is&#39;. The purpose of socialism is to repress and eventually abolish bourgeois counter-revolutionaries. It ain&#39;t communism till all the capitalists are converted or eliminated.

Perhaps Marx put it better than anyone else could... "The real meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism."

[Dune Dx]

but thats never going to happen because people just naturally exept a leader which then destroys the hope of communism.

Communism will never work so why should we fight for it?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Giest, i said that communism couldn&#39;t be corrupted once it has been achieved.

If you claim that human nature will corrupt communism then it is up to you to construct an argument, what exactly do you mean by &#39;human nature&#39;? If you want to discuss this seriously then tell me what aspects of human nature will corrupt communism, how they will do so and why you&#39;re so sure they aren&#39;t a product of society. If not then don&#39;t repeat the mantra "oh it won&#39;t work, it&#39;s human nature to want more, survival of fittest blah blah..."

Have you seriously examined the reasons previous attempts at communism have failed? You might have noticed something they all have in common, they&#39;re all Leninist. I&#39;m sure many people will disagree with me but in my opinion Leninism is contradictive, it creates a new class system supported by the state with complete controll of society. Marx&#39;s theory was that a change in material conditions would bring about communism so saying that so many revolutions have failed when the material conditions weren&#39;t there for communism is hardly proof that it&#39;ll never happen. Countries such as the USSR and China actually prove Marx correct, he said that it was possible for the proletariat to sieze power before the materail conditions were right and that it would act as a point in the bougoire revolution. The proletariat would clear away the last remenants of feudalism and prepare society for capitalism as happned in Frnace with the Jacobin revolution.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Actually you have just hit on my fear, that of Leninism.

I agree that a true communist state would be almost impossible to overthrow, my problem is that in any revolution there is always a Leninist element vying for power that corrupts the revolution and leads to beaucracy.

Since I have exames soon and I will be studying Marx over the next five weeks I will come back to this argument with a more solid basis. At the moment we will just be engaging in polemics.

[BOZG]

wat else could u call the soviet union



The soviet union was socialist.

The Soviet Union like China, Vietnam, Cuba etc was a deformed workers&#39; state. A state based on a nationalised and planned economy, economic socialism while lacking any workers&#39; democracy and controlled by a bureaucratic clique at the top.



I just looked up socialism and communism in the dictionary their the same thing

You cannot define an ideology by a dictionary. It&#39;s far more complex than that. Socialism is a stage to communism, where the state along with class society still exists. Under socialism, the economy would be nationalised and planned and the state would be wrestled from the capitalist class and used as a tool to crush the capitalist class, while adhering to workers&#39; democracy. Communism is the end goal,a society where class society has been crushed along with the capitalist class and because of that a centralised state becomes unnecessary and disolves of itself.

[BOZG]

The soviet union was state capitalist, by the way.

I didn&#39;t know we had any state caps lurking on the board. ;) Bourgeois rubbish :P

[Dune Dx]

correct me If im wrong BORN OF ZAPATRAS GUNS but are you saying that a socialist goverment will nacionalise everything crush capatilism then when its no longer needed relinquish power - I think not they will just hold onto power saying theres more problems that need to be solved by the goverment

[Misodoctakleidist]

BOZG is a Leninist so he believes that the state will wither away becuase it no longer has a function, the function of the state is to mediate the class war.

I don&#39;t agree with that but it&#39;s hardly as simple as the state &#39;relinquishing power.&#39;

[Dune Dx]

wat do think the role of the goverment should b?

[Bolshevika]

No offense BOZG, but you talk like a trot.


The Soviet Union like China, Vietnam, Cuba etc was a deformed workers&#39; state. A state based on a nationalised and planned economy, economic socialism while lacking any workers&#39; democracy and controlled by a bureaucratic clique at the top.

How so? There were/are elections, workers unions who worked side by side with the government, etc. Most workers states, especially the Soviet Union and China, were modeled after the Paris Commune, just applied on a large scaled basis. So I will assume you mean the Soviet Union under Stalin yes?

What democratic functions did Stalin repeal that Lenin installed?


I think not they will just hold onto power saying theres more problems that need to be solved by the goverment

Can you name me an example where a socialist government has solved all external and internal class antagonisms, and been capable of withering away?

I cannot. Hence, your judgement is based on pure idealism and speculation, one that the capitalist parrots "All humans are evil power mongering, greedy murderers".

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 20 2004, 10:06 PM
we need leaders because there population is too large and there are people who r hostile towards out there we need peep to make decissions as long as they can be made accountable to the people
I don&#39;t remember a "leader" ever representing my view on a certain issue, oh wait...yes, maybe, but on one every 50000000000000 issues&#33;

And who cares if the population is large while they can direct their own lives?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 01:52 PM
No offense BOZG, but you talk like a trot.


The Soviet Union like China, Vietnam, Cuba etc was a deformed workers&#39; state. A state based on a nationalised and planned economy, economic socialism while lacking any workers&#39; democracy and controlled by a bureaucratic clique at the top.

How so? There were/are elections, workers unions who worked side by side with the government, etc. Most workers states, especially the Soviet Union and China, were modeled after the Paris Commune, just applied on a large scaled basis. So I will assume you mean the Soviet Union under Stalin yes?

What democratic functions did Stalin repeal that Lenin installed?


I think not they will just hold onto power saying theres more problems that need to be solved by the goverment

Can you name me an example where a socialist government has solved all external and internal class antagonisms, and been capable of withering away?

I cannot. Hence, your judgement is based on pure idealism and speculation, one that the capitalist parrots "All humans are evil power mongering, greedy murderers".
O goodie, look whose back.

[STI]

I have nothing to prove, I am not a cappie. I am just curious of your views of communism. You dont have to engage with me but if you like, you can try prove how its plausible. You may convert me back.


By &#39;You&#39; i was referring to those who use human nature as an argument against communism. I don&#39;t see any reason why communism isn&#39;t possible. It&#39;d be hard, but hey, nothing is all that easy these days (except for making nachos). Why do you not think communism is plausible.


I know... :(

What&#39;s with the winking and sadness?&#33;?&#33;? I&#39;m SO confuzzed&#33;&#33;&#33;


Science is based on theories not actual knowledge. Depending on your philosophical school and youre talking to a strict substantial monist of the Spinozian kind there can be no real actaul knowledge, are you interested in epistomology?

Scientific theories are supported by controlled testing. There have been no such tests of human nature, therefore, it is unproven and unacceptable in a serious debate.


So we cant try dispute anything because it hasnt been proved? All modern intellectual discussion is about theory, it how we move forword. You need only look at how the journals which are the intellectual hotbeds of today deal with human nature to see it has a place in the intellectual domain.


But when theory is being discussed the discussion is about the theory, and the theory can be proved and disproved. The theory of &#39;human nature&#39; is unproven and unprovable. I&#39;m not saying the debate of human nature has no place in the intellectual domain, i&#39;m saying that it has no place as an argument, as it is unproven and completely speculatory.


I believe it was tested and failed due to beaucracy, greedy human nature and a failure of communist theory in general.

There has been several tests for communism and all have failed bar a socialist state in the form of Cuba.

Noam Chomsky explained above how it was uncommunist from the beginning. The Bolshevieks weren&#39;t a majority when the insurrection took place, for example. This is essential for a true communist revolution. Where exactly has communism, true communism, been tested?

[BOZG]

correct me If im wrong BORN OF ZAPATRAS GUNS but are you saying that a socialist goverment will nacionalise everything crush capatilism then when its no longer needed relinquish power - I think not they will just hold onto power saying theres more problems that need to be solved by the goverment

As a basic explanation yes. It would take a long time to give a proper explanation but I&#39;m sure if you searched you&#39;d find one. I would argue that under a socialist state, the government itself doesn&#39;t have any power but is merely an administrative body, that does as its told and is responsible for the general functioning of society but ultimately power lies in the hands of the workers themselves.



No offense BOZG, but you talk like a trot.

Quite possibly because most people would classify me as one. Most anti-Stalinist are renounced as Trots anyway.



There were/are elections, workers unions who worked side by side with the government, etc.

Controlled by those loyal to Stalin.



What democratic functions did Stalin repeal that Lenin installed?

I believe that Lenin himself began repealing some of the functions he installed. Many of them I believe were somewhat necessary regarding the situation the Soviet Union was in at the time. He took authoritarian measures, I do not reject that. Would he have continued to do so? I do not know. He was pretty much incapacitated by 1923. Stalin did continue with the process though. He did not repeal function as such but he manipulated them and was able to put people loyal to him in important positions, undermining the democratic positions.


I believe in Leninism as a theory but as for Lenin the person, I do have some reservations.

[Dune Dx]

Oh this is a very sad day you people have succesfully converted me into thinking communism can work.

Although I think it can only work if it takes place in a world power that cant be bullied by large capatilist states.

And I think it would only work if you dont have a recognisable head in the socialist adminstrive goverment before it turns communist.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I think the best repsonse to the &#39;human nauture&#39; argument is to ask them to define what &#39;human nature&#39; is, most people end up looking like complete idiots.

[Dune Dx]

Human nature is what the majority of humans do

[Misodoctakleidist]

So do you think human nature changes over time?

[Dune Dx]

I believe that u can change some human nature at a young age but things like power hunger that when you experience it is when the problems occur there is nothing u can do about.

it if that makes sense

but most things like lust
love
h8
power hunger you cant change
actually mayb love

[Dune Dx]

what do you people think of my sig???????

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 22 2004, 05:32 PM
what do you people think of my sig???????
"Communism is like prohibition, It&#39;s a good idea but it wont work."
Will Rogers

This ones a little silly, prohibition isn&#39;t a good idea.

[Dune Dx]

I know I thought it was funny

[Dune Dx]

Communism will only succede when either the US turns communist or no longer exists

[STI]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 22 2004, 04:53 PM
Human nature is what the majority of humans do
But that doesn&#39;t make it &#39;natural&#39;. In order for it to be &#39;human nature&#39;, it would have to occur completely naturally and universally. It has to be &#39;natural&#39; to be human &#39;nature&#39;


I believe that u can change some human nature at a young age but things like power hunger that when you experience it is when the problems occur there is nothing u can do about.


If you could change it, it&#39;s not really nature. What evidence do you have that power-hunger is natural?


what do you people think of my sig???????

I think it&#39;s quite drawn out. Consider shortening it a bit.


Communism will only succede when either the US turns communist or no longer exists


The US will collapse eventually, if it doesn&#39;t abandon capitalism.
"Tomorrow, America just might fall apart" - Against Me&#33;

[Dune Dx]

If u eradicate something at an early age its still in human nature its just it has been interfeered with and there are allways going to be exeptions.

but after thinking about this I have changed my view there are completely selfless people in this world you just dont here about them that much there the people that devote their lives to helping people in the third world if we got someone like that at the head of socialism for the transfer to communism it might just work.

[STI]

If u eradicate something at an early age its still in human nature its just it has been interfeered with and there are allways going to be exeptions.


But you still havn&#39;t shown any evidence supporting your belief that these things are inherent at birth.

[Dune Dx]

I only believe they are inherrent at birth because they are not taught to people and they seem to occur in us all

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Here is a quick question.
Who &#39;teaches a baby to be greedy?&#39;

[Dune Dx]

thats what Im saying there not taught there for its human nature - inless you were agreeing with me and Ive just made myself look like a fool

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I am agreeing with you yes, dont not everyone here is a communist, welcome to the Social Democrat tendency of the board.

;)

[Dune Dx]

wow your the only person in so many posts thats agreed with me :)

[Misodoctakleidist]

So would you say that human nature is anything that people can do or things that all people do?

From your last few posts (dune dx and giest) i get the impression that you think greed is instinctive, is this true?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I believe greed is inherent, all you need to do is like at a baby of children.

They want everything for themselves, it is not the capitalist system that forces them to want everything, external influences like advertising at such an age has no effect.

[Misodoctakleidist]

That would be selfishness not greed.

[Dune Dx]

who teaches babies selfishness

[Misodoctakleidist]

They don&#39;t need to be taught but that doesn&#39;t mean that selfishness isn&#39;t a social creation.

[STI]

Babies are &#39;selfish&#39; because it is absolutely necessary for survival. this doesn&#39;t mean that they&#39;re greedy. It isn&#39;t &#39;greedy&#39; for a wolf to fight with another wolf over a piece of meat, it&#39;s necessary for survival. Babies are &#39;animals&#39; at birth, therefore, &#39;greed&#39; is not a thing which even exists to them.

It could be said that schools and society as a whole teach greed or selfishness (making them conditioned).

[Misodoctakleidist]

I think the key thing is that selfishness only exists when it aids survival, survival is the end, selfishness is only the means. If selfishness doesn&#39;t aid survival then it doesn&#39;t exist so i don&#39;t see how the arguement can be used againt communism.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Mar 22 2004, 01:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Mar 22 2004, 01:47 PM)
Dune [email protected] 22 2004, 05:32 PM
what do you people think of my sig???????
"Communism is like prohibition, It&#39;s a good idea but it wont work."
Will Rogers

This ones a little silly, prohibition isn&#39;t a good idea. [/b]
Hey, prohibition IS a good idea, and I am proud to say that I am Che-Lives only true prohibitionist. (Though I would be much happier if I WASNT the only prohibitionist.)

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Mar 24 2004, 02:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Mar 24 2004, 02:08 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 01:47 PM

Dune [email protected] 22 2004, 05:32 PM
what do you people think of my sig???????
"Communism is like prohibition, It&#39;s a good idea but it wont work."
Will Rogers

This ones a little silly, prohibition isn&#39;t a good idea.
Hey, prohibition IS a good idea, and I am proud to say that I am Che-Lives only true prohibitionist. (Though I would be much happier if I WASNT the only prohibitionist.) [/b]
Prohibition is an authoritarian idea that restricts an individuals rights.

[STI]

Prohibition is bad. If Prohibition existed, I wouldnt&#33; :o

[Dune Dx]

I really cant see the connection with a wolf in the wild fighting for a piece of meat that it needs to survive and a baby wanting more than it needs and even if theres a connection its still in human nature because as som1 said before babies need to be selfish to survive - i dont agree with babies needing to be selfish to survive

[STI]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 24 2004, 03:59 PM
I really cant see the connection with a wolf in the wild fighting for a piece of meat that it needs to survive and a baby wanting more than it needs and even if theres a connection its still in human nature because as som1 said before babies need to be selfish to survive - i dont agree with babies needing to be selfish to survive
Since when do babies take more than they need? I&#39;ve never seen a baby gorge itself. Babies (and people as a whole, up to about four years old) rarely ever eat more than they should.

[Dune Dx]

your probably right so that kind of destroys the argument of babies need to be selfish to survive though doenst it

but i can even remember what im arguing about but what the hey

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by Geist+Mar 24 2004, 09:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Geist @ Mar 24 2004, 09:49 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 01:47 PM

Dune [email protected] 22 2004, 05:32 PM
what do you people think of my sig???????
"Communism is like prohibition, It&#39;s a good idea but it wont work."
Will Rogers

This ones a little silly, prohibition isn&#39;t a good idea.
Hey, prohibition IS a good idea, and I am proud to say that I am Che-Lives only true prohibitionist. (Though I would be much happier if I WASNT the only prohibitionist.)
Prohibition is an authoritarian idea that restricts an individuals rights. [/b]
So? It might restrict the rights of individuals a little, but it makes society as a whole a better place.

[STI]

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Mar 24 2004, 07:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Mar 24 2004, 07:57 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 01:47 PM

Dune [email protected] 22 2004, 05:32 PM
what do you people think of my sig???????
"Communism is like prohibition, It&#39;s a good idea but it wont work."
Will Rogers

This ones a little silly, prohibition isn&#39;t a good idea.
Hey, prohibition IS a good idea, and I am proud to say that I am Che-Lives only true prohibitionist. (Though I would be much happier if I WASNT the only prohibitionist.)
Prohibition is an authoritarian idea that restricts an individuals rights.
So? It might restrict the rights of individuals a little, but it makes society as a whole a better place. [/b]
But then no commie parents would get drunk and have commie babies who aren&#39;t naturally selfish. :P


but i can even remember what im arguing about but what the hey

You were saying that greed was natural in humans, and hence communism couldn&#39;t work.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by socialist_tiger+Mar 24 2004, 05:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (socialist_tiger @ Mar 24 2004, 05:14 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 01:47 PM

Dune [email protected] 22 2004, 05:32 PM
what do you people think of my sig???????
"Communism is like prohibition, It&#39;s a good idea but it wont work."
Will Rogers

This ones a little silly, prohibition isn&#39;t a good idea.
Hey, prohibition IS a good idea, and I am proud to say that I am Che-Lives only true prohibitionist. (Though I would be much happier if I WASNT the only prohibitionist.)
Prohibition is an authoritarian idea that restricts an individuals rights.
So? It might restrict the rights of individuals a little, but it makes society as a whole a better place.
But then no commie parents would get drunk and have commie babies who aren&#39;t naturally selfish. :P [/b]
Good, a planned family is a stronger family.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 07:57 PM
So? It might restrict the rights of individuals a little, but it makes society as a whole a better place.
But what is society apart from a collection of individuals?

Simply because the people in a society might theoretically produce more goods while under prohibitionary legislation doesn&#39;t make society a better place.

In other words, if there&#39;s enough to go around, who cares what people do in their spare time?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by DyerMaker+Mar 24 2004, 11:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DyerMaker @ Mar 24 2004, 11:09 PM)
[email protected] 24 2004, 07:57 PM
So? It might restrict the rights of individuals a little, but it makes society as a whole a better place.
But what is society apart from a collection of individuals?

Simply because the people in a society might theoretically produce more goods while under prohibitionary legislation doesn&#39;t make society a better place.

In other words, if there&#39;s enough to go around, who cares what people do in their spare time? [/b]
A collection of individuals is exactly what society is, and when you look at society, you don&#39;t look at one individual, but the group as a whole. Alcohol destroys familys and lives. Alcohol cannot make society a better place in any way. If there is enough to go around, people can do as they wish, so long as it doesn&#39;t harm themselves or anyone else.

[Dune Dx]

Very good point but there are people out there (as hard as it may seem) who dont drink to get drunk&#33;

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 07:57 PM

So? It might restrict the rights of individuals a little, but it makes society as a whole a better place.

For example more or less everyopne in Ireland&#39;s main social existence is drinking, generally moderately among the older generation admittedly binge with the youth but we can generally handle a shit lot of drink and thats being pompous but honest.

I&#39;ll put it this way, just try install prohibition in Ireland in your Leninist Authoritarian Communist State and witness the return of Arthur Guinness and his capitalist buddies.

I am so glad the only place you can post is in here.

[Dune Dx]

Were kinda drifting off the point over what is better communism and the rest (cant be bothered to write much) Ive been talkin to peopl outside this forum (yes there are things outside Che-lives as hard as it may seem) and most of them say that as good as a communist state would be they wouldnt want to live in one - just shows the selfishness of human nature they dont want to give up their luxuries for the benefit of the world

[cubist]

yes people wouldn&#39;t want to live in a social utopia, the reason for that is that they heard about Cuba american media style, the heard about stalin and see him as a representative of communism even though he was far from it in a real socialists eyes,

a catholic said to me, the pope does more for the good of the workers than communism could ever hope for.

and

"if you put a flawed man in charge of a nation it will become totalitarian." in reference to stalin, by flawed he meant unchristian and fallable to the laws catholics attempt to abide by.

so he effectively said communism will never work becuase god isn&#39;t a requirement of a communist state, the view of communism is contorted far too much in the eyes of christians and the workers.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Very good point but there are people out there (as hard as it may seem) who dont drink to get drunk&#33;

Ok then, why do you drink? Do you harm your body just for shits and giggles?


For example more or less everyopne in Ireland&#39;s main social existence is drinking.

Exactly&#33; That is what needs to be put to an end&#33; The social traditions in Ireland and Russia in regard to drinking are so messed up...


I&#39;ll put it this way, just try install prohibition in Ireland in your Leninist Authoritarian Communist State and witness the return of Arthur Guinness and his capitalist buddies.

Maybe they will, but if they fail, in 20 years, they&#39;ll thank us.


a catholic said to me, the pope does more for the good of the workers than communism could ever hope for.

Ok then, come here, pull down your pants, and bend over...

[StalinsSoldiers]

all forms of government is corruption and dictatorship. dont mind this name, ive been here before with the same name it for the soldiers who died in ww2. but anyways look at spain during the 30&#39;s anarco-syndicalism worked and the fascist,communist, republicans destroyed a already working anarchist society which is real democraci. and che guevara is anti-oppresion anti-dictatorship.

[synthesis]

A collection of individuals is exactly what society is, and when you look at society, you don&#39;t look at one individual, but the group as a whole.

But that isn&#39;t what you were just arguing at all. As I stated, my idea of what a society should be is simply a collective assembly of individuals, with individual wants and needs. Your idea of a society is some sort of institution which represses individual desires and ultimately individuality itself.

Some individuals want to engage in an activity which may decrease their value to the rest of society. But if society as a whole depends on every single individual being at 100% efficiency, 100% of the time, it will be a society of ants rather than a society of humans.


Alcohol destroys familys and lives.

You missed the point. I was talking about the conflict between the individual and the archetypal, authoritarian &#39;society&#39;. This goes way beyond alcohol, and really, the nuances of one particular narcotic are far too small in scope to be worth tackling in a subject such as this.


Alcohol cannot make society a better place in any way.

Except for the fact that people in general are going to be more satisfied with their life if they can spend their leisure time doing things that they find pleasurable.


If there is enough to go around, people can do as they wish, so long as it doesn&#39;t harm themselves or anyone else.

But does it matter if individuals harm themselves as long as the rest of society doesn&#39;t have to pay the price for their actions?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

But that isn&#39;t what you were just arguing at all. As I stated, my idea of what a society should be is simply a collective assembly of individuals, with individual wants and needs. Your idea of a society is some sort of institution which represses individual desires and ultimately individuality itself.

Some individuals want to engage in an activity which may decrease their value to the rest of society. But if society as a whole depends on every single individual being at 100% efficiency, 100% of the time, it will be a society of ants rather than a society of humans.

You seem to be implying that alcohol and other drugs are some form of expression of a person&#39;s individuality, a claim which I would strongly refute. Individuality is perfectly fine, as long as it is neither divisive nor counter-productive. I believe that the best way to express your individuality is though creativity, not through self-destruction.

Society should be a cooperative institution which could be said to force the individual to do what is best for society as a whole, rather then to fight against it in a self-serving manner reminiscant of capitalism. I would prefer "a society of ants" who work together with a common purpose in mind rather then as a society of cannibalistic barbarians who only care what is best for themselves.


You missed the point. I was talking about the conflict between the individual and the archetypal, authoritarian &#39;society&#39;. This goes way beyond alcohol, and really, the nuances of one particular narcotic are far too small in scope to be worth tackling in a subject such as this.

So? What is the big deal?



Alcohol cannot make society a better place in any way.

Except for the fact that people in general are going to be more satisfied with their life if they can spend their leisure time doing things that they find pleasurable.

They might be more satisfied with themselves for the moment, but alcoholism hurts them in the long run. How ever much pleasure they might feel because they are high/drunk will quickly go away, and a load of trouble will be not far behind.



If there is enough to go around, people can do as they wish, so long as it doesn&#39;t harm themselves or anyone else.

But does it matter if individuals harm themselves as long as the rest of society doesn&#39;t have to pay the price for their actions?

It is impossible to harm yourself without harming society. Every individual is like an investment. It takes an entire town to raise a child. Food, education, clothes, love, medication, a lot of people do a lot of work to put you where you are today, and the least an individual can do is to return some of what society has invested in them. To harm yourself is an expression of complete disregard to society and to those who care for you.

[synthesis]

You seem to be implying that alcohol and other drugs are some form of expression of a person&#39;s individuality, a claim which I would strongly refute.

I notice, though, that you don&#39;t. ;)

What people do in their leisure time is an expression of their individuality. If people dig on experiencing altered states of mind after giving enough of their time and energy to help society, what&#39;s the problem with that?

I don&#39;t see anything worse about spending your Saturdays getting trashed with your friends (a social endeavor) than spending your Saturdays sitting on your couch, eating snacks and watching television.


So? What is the big deal?

What do you mean by big deal?

I simply meant that you were digressing from addressing the actual point I was trying to make.


They might be more satisfied with themselves for the moment, but alcoholism hurts them in the long run.

Alcoholism is a disease. Drinking is a pastime. There&#39;s a difference there (not exactly subtle) that you don&#39;t seem to be catching on to.

Your overall refusal to make a distinction between use and abuse might lend to the general lack of desire to take your views on these matters seriously.


How ever much pleasure they might feel because they are high/drunk will quickly go away, and a load of trouble will be not far behind.

There are two ways you can justify making a statement such as this: 1) by personal experience or 2) factual, statistical information.

Personal experiences are a terrible way to conduct debates; first, because they are confined to one person&#39;s life experience and usually mired in subjectivity, and secondly, because they are easily conjured by anyone who wants to do so. This is the Internet, after all.

Therefore, I would like to see you justify this claim using the second method.


It is impossible to harm yourself without harming society. Every individual is like an investment. It takes an entire town to raise a child. Food, education, clothes, love, medication, a lot of people do a lot of work to put you where you are today, and the least an individual can do is to return some of what society has invested in them. To harm yourself is an expression of complete disregard to society and to those who care for you.

To clarify - what is your definition of &#39;harming oneself?&#39;

[Dune Dx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:36 AM


Ok then, why do you drink? Do you harm your body just for shits and giggles?









i dont drink but I dont go around stopping everyone else

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 20 2004, 10:04 PM
"power currupts absolute power currupts absolutly" Lord Acton
Isn&#39;t the quote "Absolute power corrups absolutly"

The question of human nature is a big one on the revolutionary left. Maybe the biggest argument from non leftists ever. As miso said, it is important to define what Human nature is? Most people automatically assume that it is some innate being which lives inside the brain. Maybe a natural chip planted in the head by mother nature or baby jesus, or what ever god or silly flower princessn is fashionable at the moment.

Actually. It&#39;s not true. We don&#39;t have a chip or a human nature gene. The concepts of human nature such as selfishness, the lust for power and greed are not innatly human. These are simply ideas, not a material object which we can see and feel and which drives our desires as humans in our lives.

To quote myself:


Capitalism as a system has forced people to accept a certain set of rules to life. Throughout the generations human beings have accepted certain facts as some sort of inevitability to live. For working class people the rules are simple. You are born, you get a job, you pay your way, bills, rent, taxes and then you die. For most this is just a fact of life. But for me, who has been afforded the luxury of time, have learnt to be critical. What makes this a fact of life? The answer is capitalism. The system of profit. It is this concept of individual gain that has forced these rules to be accepted as fact. Throughout these generations individuals, or groups of individuals have been given the rights to maximise their power and wealth, and to do this they nave used other individuals, generations who have come after them, who have been born into certain conditions and have no choice, but to work, pay rent, pay taxes and then die.

If you are born into a world like this, as you grow up the idea that individual gain is going to become normal. If you take a child and you tell them that blue is red then they will believe that is the case. If you tell children that making the best for yourself is what life is about, then that is what those people are going to believe. Society is full of this. Look at celebrityism, look at the game shows and the money glorifying. Existence is all about selfishness and greed.

Of course now the argument could be given that these things happen because humans do have a chip in their brain that tells them to be selfish. If that were true, then why are not all humans that way. Why do we have doctors and nurses. Why are the people of Mozambique so warm and inviting. Why is that a family with no food will split what they have with someone who has nothing? People in different cultures, and I have seen this in Africa. I have only been here a week but the kindness and warmth shown by people who have nothing is breath taking. That is because this culture promotes values such as friendship, community and loyalty. Not DVD&#39;s, not who&#39;s got the biggest care or the highest paid job and they care about each other. They care about their families, their neighbours, their guests, not about what Jennifer Anniston wore to the Oscars or what the latest faschion tip from Vogue is.

Western civilization is in it&#39;s final chapter of history. We have gone from gather/hunter to tribe to feudel to Capialism. We have turned outselves into greedy, selfish people and with that comes a desire for control. People desire to have power because it allows them to obtain what they want. Marx himself said "being is consciousness." If you are a boss, you will become a boss.

The question of leaders is a myth. We do not need leaders, just as we don&#39;t need McDonalds. The only purpose they serve is convinience. Nothing more. Society can and should be organized without leadership, were individuals are taking a responsability for their communities. This is what communism is about. Freedom. And freedom can only come when every individual is given the opporunity to take control of their own lives and work together to achieve their objectives.

[cubist]

MM

your obnoxious but funny, seriously though communisms major problem is how other ideologies see it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 02:06 PM
MM

your obnoxious but funny, seriously though communisms major problem is how other ideologies see it.
Not just ideologies but even people who claim to be communists&#33;

[cubist]

AT

on human nature i am under the influence that god is a myth the end no argument what i am about to say is based on gods inexistance.

there is no human nature issue other than survival, the will to survive doesinccur a form of competitiveness seen best in animals as the fight for the women so that they can reproduce. thus that snakes family survives.

so man does it to0, we all want to be top man. Want to be comfortable, want to be happy, everyone believes happiness is different some find happiness in money (your average boergeoise) everyone else wishes to share that happiness that the class division has created, those that can&#39;t are lost and unhappy some commit suicide some find religion, some find a form of self fulfilment prime example is buddha himself not the religion that followed, another example is a charity worker. but for most they spend there entire lives wanting to be in the class above them. and if not they want to staty in that class so they have to keep making money.

it is capitalism that has created greed not human nature, to blame it on humans is just an easy way of justifying that humans should be greedy. a tool soley used for capitalisms advantage and everyone is suckered into it. I believe given the right social conditions everyone can live in complete harmony no greed, the transition however must be done on a huge global scale it has been prooved that communist countries have to make sacrafices to the epoch(example fidel allowing the dollar), if capitalism is still at large across the global market. that comrades is the problem not human nature

[cubist]

QUOTE (cephas @ Mar 27 2004, 02:06 PM)
MM

your obnoxious but funny, seriously though communisms major problem is how other ideologies see it.

Not just ideologies but even people who claim to be communists&#33;

true comrade

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

You seem to be implying that alcohol and other drugs are some form of expression of a person&#39;s individuality, a claim which I would strongly refute.

I notice, though, that you don&#39;t.

What people do in their leisure time is an expression of their individuality. If people dig on experiencing altered states of mind after giving enough of their time and energy to help society, what&#39;s the problem with that?

I don&#39;t see anything worse about spending your Saturdays getting trashed with your friends (a social endeavor) than spending your Saturdays sitting on your couch, eating snacks and watching television.


They might be more satisfied with themselves for the moment, but alcoholism hurts them in the long run.

Alcoholism is a disease. Drinking is a pastime. There&#39;s a difference there (not exactly subtle) that you don&#39;t seem to be catching on to.

Your overall refusal to make a distinction between use and abuse might lend to the general lack of desire to take your views on these matters seriously.

As far as I am concerned, anyone who drinks abuses alcohol. There is no distinction to be made.

QUOTE
How ever much pleasure they might feel because they are high/drunk will quickly go away, and a load of trouble will be not far behind.


There are two ways you can justify making a statement such as this: 1) by personal experience or 2) factual, statistical information.


Personal experiences are a terrible way to conduct debates; first, because they are confined to one person&#39;s life experience and usually mired in subjectivity, and secondly, because they are easily conjured by anyone who wants to do so. This is the Internet, after all.

Therefore, I would like to see you justify this claim using the second method.

In the course of its analysis, CASA identified the economic value of adult excessive drinking; that is, drinking in excess of the maximum amount recommended by the USDA and DHHS of no more than two drinks a day for most men. These standards are based on dietary guidelines acknowledging the links between excessive drinking, particularly chronic excessive drinking, and serious health problems. These guidelines caution: “[t]aking more than one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men can raise the risk for motor vehicle crashes, other injuries, high blood pressure, stroke, violence, suicide, and certain types of cancer.”
A recent report by the American Medical Association clearly outlines the physical damage to the brain that can result from underage drinking. Heavy alcohol use is the most important risk factor for liver disease in the United States. As much as half of violent crime, including murder, rape, assault, child molestation and spouse abuse, is connected with concurrent alcohol abuse. An estimated 89 percent of substance-abusing parents who abuse or neglect their children abuse alcohol alone or in combination with an illegal drug. Even one drink per day can slightly raise the risk of breast cancer, result in birth defects, and impair one’s ability to drive. Although moderate drinking may not raise an individual’s blood alcohol content (BAC) over the legal limit for driving (.08 percent for adults), even moderate drinking increases the risk of being involved in a fatal crash.

For many teens and young adults alcohol and drug use are closely linked to sexual decision-making and risktaking. Nearly nine out of ten say that their peers use alcohol or drugs before having sex at least some of the time and many young people report that condoms are often not used when people are drinking or using drugs. In spite of the risks, a fifth of teens and young adults are unconcerned that their peers often make decisions about sex while they are under the influence. Many young people report that they themselves have engaged in risky behaviors because of substance use. More than a third of sexually active young people report that alcohol or drugs have influenced their decisions about sex. Almost as many have “done more” sexually than they had planned while under the influence. Because of
decisions they made while drinking or using drugs, young people also report having unprotected sex and worrying about STDs and pregnancy. Seven out of ten (73%) young people 15 to 24 also agree
that condoms often don’t get used when people are drinking or using drugs. Girls and young women are more likely than boys and young men to report that their peers are having unprotected sex under the influence (79% vs. 65%, respectively).
In spite of the risks, one in five (21%) young people 15 to 24 say it is not a big deal if their peers make decisions about sex while drinking or using drugs. When it comes to their own decision-making, many young
people are worried about the influence of substance use. Forty-three percent of young people 15 to 24 say they are personally concerned that they “might do more sexually than [they] had planned because of alcohol or drugs.” Teens are more likely than young adults to express personal concern—almost half (49%) of teens 15 to 17 compared to 40 percent of young adults 18 to 24.

Sexual Assault and Violence
Substance use, particularly drinking alcohol, appears to play a role in a significant number of crimes of sexual violence – whether it is the victim or the perpetrator who uses. Substance use during instances of sexual violence and rape is estimated to range from 30 to 90 percent for alcohol use, and from 13 to
42 percent for the use of illicit substances. These statistics, however, are difficult to gather and track. A study of arrested sex offenders found that 42 percent of them tested positive for drugs at the time of their arrest. When it comes to date rapes among college students, alcohol use by the victim, perpetrator, or both, has been implicated in 46 to 75 percent of the incidents. Other drugs that disable a potential sexual assault victim, particularly Rohypnol and GHB, have been anecdotally implicated in date rape scenarios. In
addition to the immediate physical and emotional damage caused by sexual assault, women and girls who experience sexual violence may be unable to implement practices to protect themselves against unintended pregnancy or STDs.

Trading Sex for Money or Drugs
Research examining rates of substance abuse among prostitutes finds that from 40 to 86 percent of prostitutes use drugs and that some also drink while working. Meanwhile, 43 percent of women and 10 percent of men in alcohol treatment programs say they have traded sex for money or drugs. Risk
behaviors other than substance abuse are also implicated among people who engage in prostitution or sex trade. Studies have shown that condom use is highly inconsistent in cases of sex for drug or money exchanges: One of the many small studies of non-injecting, crack-using women who traded sex
for money found that only 38 percent said that they always used a condom with their paying partners. Prostitutes tend to have higher rates of infection with HIV and other STDs than the general population, and are more likely to report having been sexually victimized.



It is impossible to harm yourself without harming society. Every individual is like an investment. It takes an entire town to raise a child. Food, education, clothes, love, medication, a lot of people do a lot of work to put you where you are today, and the least an individual can do is to return some of what society has invested in them. To harm yourself is an expression of complete disregard to society and to those who care for you.

To clarify - what is your definition of &#39;harming oneself?&#39;

Use of drugs, suicide, self mutilation, activities like that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 03:49 PM
so man does it to0, we all want to be top man. Want to be comfortable, want to be happy, everyone believes happiness is different some find happiness in money (your average boergeoise) everyone else wishes to share that happiness that the class division has created, those that can&#39;t are lost and unhappy some commit suicide some find religion, some find a form of self fulfilment prime example is buddha himself not the religion that followed, another example is a charity worker. but for most they spend there entire lives wanting to be in the class above them. and if not they want to staty in that class so they have to keep making money.

it is capitalism that has created greed not human nature, to blame it on humans is just an easy way of justifying that humans should be greedy. a tool soley used for capitalisms advantage and everyone is suckered into it. I believe given the right social conditions everyone can live in complete harmony no greed, the transition however must be done on a huge global scale it has been prooved that communist countries have to make sacrafices to the epoch(example fidel allowing the dollar), if capitalism is still at large across the global market. that comrades is the problem not human nature
This was exactly my point.

[cubist]

excellent at least i got my idea of communism straight