Why?

[encephalon]

I'm curious as to why capitalists come here. I've narrowed the reasons down to this:

- Trolling.

- They like senseless debate in which they aren't going to convince the opposition, and the opposition isn't going to convince them, no matter the value or merit of either argument.

- They're idiots who think they actually are going to convince someone.

- They're zealots who get a boost of pride in telling people they are right and the other person is wrong.

- They're spies.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

What are your reasons for being here, cappies?

[redstar2000]

Boredom & frustration, I suspect.

First, consider what their own message boards must be like --

Liberals suck! I agree! Commies suck! I agree! Muslims suck! I agree! America is the greatest country in the history of the human race! I really agree!

You can imagine that such tedious exchanges wear on even the most limited intellects.

They have nothing to really dispute among themselves...Who's better looking? Ann Coulter [], Condoleeza Rice [], Rush Limbaugh[].

Then, you must consider the personalities they've displayed in their posts here. Most of them don't have many friends in the real world...and probably no one to "talk politics" with at all. No sensible and reasonably well-informed person would even give them more than five minutes of their time, tops.

So being bored with their own boards and being frustrated by the minimal opportunity to display their feeble skills at argument, they show up here to "smash the commies".

As I said in an earlier post, they'd be much better off using their social isolation as an opportunity to read some books.

Well-intentioned advice on my part...so they are certain to ignore it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[NovelGentry]

Who's better looking? Ann Coulter [], Condoleeza Rice [], Rush Limbaugh[].


The answer to this remains clear.

http://perlguy.com/images/condi_rice.jpg

[bunk]

That picture is actually terrible! She can't walk straight either if you notice her shuffling.

[October Revolution]

Yeh id pretty much agree with them five. Though i would say it is good to have them here it really lightens the mood, their a funny bunch of people :lol: Can they honestly believe they would convert some of us? thier arguments are just long winded, badly written rhetoric thats always easy to tell off. Most of the stuff they write must convert cappies away from thier ideology, it's awful :lol:

Yep and to go with that she's as smart as an ostrich (btw they are really stupid, have tiny brains can you see the resembalence :D)

[Publius]

I'm here so I can read your bad jokes.

Score 2 for the cappies motherfucker!

[October Revolution]

Hmmmm ofcourse you can arn't you clever

[Livetrueordie]

Why can't they? if there were only left wing it just be called "The Wing"
If other peoples opinions aren't valid neither are yours.

[NovelGentry]

Score 2 for the cappies motherfucker!

Well that may look good out of context, but compared to our score of 7,219,186,179,156 you're a long ways off.

[Publius]

Well that may look good out of context, but compared to our score of 7,219,186,179,156 you're a long ays off.

Tell that to the manager of the McDonald's down the street/road.

[NovelGentry]

Tell that to the manager of the McDonald's down the street/road.

I wasn't aware we were talking about real life scores, but if that's the case you apparently only have 2 working examples of capitalism. And since you're going to ask to try and make a point, no, we have no working example of communism. But 2 is far less than the majestic socio-economic end all be all you make it sound like.

[encephalon]

now now, let's be fair.. according to some of them, capitalism doesn't exist despite the existence of capital and private property! :P

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 03:22 PM
Boredom & frustration, I suspect.

First, consider what their own message boards must be like --

Liberals suck! I agree! Commies suck! I agree! Muslims suck! I agree! America is the greatest country in the history of the human race! I really agree!

You can imagine that such tedious exchanges wear on even the most limited intellects.

They have nothing to really dispute among themselves...Who's better looking? Ann Coulter [], Condoleeza Rice [], Rush Limbaugh[].

Then, you must consider the personalities they've displayed in their posts here. Most of them don't have many friends in the real world...and probably no one to "talk politics" with at all. No sensible and reasonably well-informed person would even give them more than five minutes of their time, tops.
[/IMG]
It is quite a leap of logic to assume all non communists are supports of extreme right-wing christian politics. Although, of course it sure makes criticizing non communists a lot easier.
And as a result makes Communist ideology appear more attractive to you and others on the board. Because hey, the only other solution is radical christian right wing politics.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:00 AM
I'm curious as to why capitalists come here. I've narrowed the reasons down to this:

- Trolling.

- They like senseless debate in which they aren't going to convince the opposition, and the opposition isn't going to convince them, no matter the value or merit of either argument.

- They're idiots who think they actually are going to convince someone.

- They're zealots who get a boost of pride in telling people they are right and the other person is wrong.

- They're spies.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

What are your reasons for being here, cappies?
Boredom.

You folks and your beliefs are pretty entertaining, quite frankly. To the point this is one of the funniest sites on the net.

[Lamanov]

It is quite a leap of logic to assume all non communists are supports of extreme right-wing christian politics. Although, of course it sure makes criticizing non communists a lot easier.
And as a result makes Communist ideology appear more attractive to you and others on the board. Because hey, the only other solution is radical christian right wing politics.

Well, from what ive seen [not just here, but generally], right wing ideologists and religious fundamentalists are the only ones trying to take a swing on marxism or anarchism. Creationism, religious pathetics and scientific pessimism is the only way used to slander free scientific thoguht and materialist philosophy .

There are 2 types of political action > revolutionary (progressive) and reactionist (static or in-reverse)
Revolutionary ideology is concidered to be left, and reactionist - right. I dont even know what so called "center" or "liberalism" means any more but hypocritical atempt to proclaim so called "End of History" in the world where rich get richer and poor get poorer.
[u]So basicly, no matter what you are : "democrat", "moderate", "liberal", facist or such > you are a reactionist > because you defend the system that is dialecticly bound to change.
This also goes for all those that call themselves "communist" or "socialist" if they embrace the reactionist measures.

Face it, this system is falling and its time to take a side: progress into the future or reactionist cataclism.

[bunk]

Revolutionary - progessive, conservative - static ( centre right), reactionary - inreverse

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 04:31 PM
Revolutionary - progessive, conservative - static ( centre right), reactionary - inreverse
How profound.

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 9 2005, 04:09 PM
Well, from what ive seen [not just here, but generally], right wing ideologists and religious fundamentalists are the only ones trying to take a swing on marxism or anarchism. Creationism, religious pathetics and scientific pessimism is the only way used to slander free scientific thoguht and materialist philosophy .

There are 2 types of political action > revolutionary (progressive) and reactionist (static or in-reverse)
Revolutionary ideology is concidered to be left, and reactionist - right. I dont even know what so called "center" or "liberalism" means any more but hypocritical atempt to proclaim so called "End of History" in the world where rich get richer and poor get poorer.
[u]So basicly, no matter what you are : "democrat", "moderate", "liberal", facist or such > you are a reactionist > because you defend the system that is dialecticly bound to change.
This also goes for all those that call themselves "communist" or "socialist" if they embrace the reactionist measures.

Face it, this system is falling and its time to take a side: progress into the future or reactionist cataclism.
Laugho, ok I see the majority of the current population being liberal, centrist, or slightly right wing means they are in fact pretty much fascists.

And your final comment, could you perhaps give some evidence for this, being one of the few true people who support free scientific thought.
Oh, and scientific pessimism? It's the very foundation of modern science, by the way.

[dakewlguy]

Oh jesus also one other point, the end of history refers to society having reached its final form, as proposed by Fukuyama to be modern liberal capitalism. Not the divide between rich and poor expanding.

[Lamanov]

I will repeat myself then: "I dont even know what so called "center" or "liberalism" means any more but hypocritical atempt to proclaim so called "End of History" in the world where rich get richer and poor get poorer."


ok I see the majority of the current population being liberal, centrist, or slightly right wing means they are in fact pretty much fascists.

That's [obviously] not what i said.


And your final comment, could you perhaps give some evidence for this, being one of the few true people who support free scientific thought.

Marxism is built on science, but unlike those ideologists who are not marxist but still like to use science to "confirm" their standpoint, it's uncompomising. It's obvious that you have too much time on your hands so why don't you use it to read something.... scientifical [anything would do], and see for yourself


Oh, and scientific pessimism? It's the very foundation of modern science, by the way.

If modern science is all about : "bah, what about human nature", "Lets check what the Bible says", and hopeless leap back to Kant and his "antinomies", or stupid Solipsism [allthough i'm not sure youv'e heard about all that] - even though the nature screams "i work by dialectical materialism" - so be it, i stand corrected. But is it really ? Big fat red No.

[dakewlguy]

I will repeat myself then: "I dont even know what so called "center" or "liberalism" means any more but hypocritical atempt to proclaim so called "End of History" in the world where rich get richer and poor get poorer."

And I repeat that that term does not refer to that at all.


That's [obviously] not what i said.

Well, from what ive seen [not just here, but generally], right wing ideologists and religious fundamentalists are the only ones trying to take a swing on marxism or anarchism.
Here you imply that all those who disagree with Marxism are right wing ideologists or religious fundamentalists.

There are 2 types of political action > revolutionary (progressive) and reactionist (static or in-reverse)
Revolutionary ideology is concidered to be left, and reactionist - right. I dont even know what so called "center" or "liberalism" means any more but hypocritical atempt to proclaim so called "End of History" in the world where rich get richer and poor get poorer.

Here you assert that all political thought can be split into two camps, 'Revolutionary' and the rest which you label 'reactionist'. Liberalism is not revolutionary, therefore it must belong to the other camp, with Fascism, fundementalism, et al.


Marxism is built on science, but unlike those ideologists who are not marxist but still like to use science to "confirm" their standpoint, it's uncompomising. It's obvious that you have too much time on your hands so why don't you use it to read something.... scientifical [anything would do], and see for yourself

Marxism is not built on science in the slightest. Being built on science would mean the theories of Marxism being backed up by research, whereas Marxist theory is based entirely on the work of Marx, using only anecdotal evidence to apply it to the modern world. In the time I have spent studying Sociology, no Marxist article I have came across has been based on actual research. They have all simply used previous literature and publically known statistics.


If modern science is all about : "bah, what about human nature", "Lets check what the Bible says", and hopeless leap back to Kant and his "antinomies", or stupid Solipsism [allthough i'm not sure youv'e heard about all that] - even thoug the nature screams "i work by dialectical materialism" - so be it, i stand corrected. But is it really ? No.
What you refer to is not scientific pessimism. It is religious and philosophical arguments. Scientific pessimism is approaching 'evidence' critically, and the ethic of trying to disprove theories rather than prove them when undertaking research. It's a standard all research, in psychology, chemistry, physics, etc, go by.

[Lamanov]

And I repeat that that term does not refer to that at all.

Oh, i see, it referes to 'nice' capitalism. ['nice' exploatation softened by social welfare]


Here you imply that all those who disagree with Marxism are right wing ideologists or religious fundamentalists.

Yes. That is what ive said, but...


Laugho, ok I see the majority of the current population being liberal, centrist, or slightly right wing means they are in fact pretty much fascists.

...THAT's not what i've said !

BTW : why don't you finally explain what is "liberal" ?


Here you assert that all political thought can be split into two camps, 'Revolutionary' and the rest which you label 'reactionist'. Liberalism is not revolutionary, therefore it must belong to the other camp, with Fascism, fundementalism, et al.

Liberalism is not revolutionary, but since it's "liberal" > it is simply static.
If you use logic you would come to a conclusion that it implies methods that can not be effective. Society is in constant motion, so you can't keep social peace combined with the exploatation forever.


In the time I have spent studying Sociology, no Marxist article I have came across has been based on actual research. They have all simply used previous literature and publically known statistics.

To create a scientific result it is not nececary to have your own research, but you can use, as you said, previous [scientific] literature and known statistics. What Marx did was implying* the dialectical method on the real, material world. This is dialectical materialism. Every scientific discovery in the last 150 years confirms that their view of the world and phenomena through dialectical materialism is correct.


Scientific pessimism is approaching 'evidence' critically, and the ethic of trying to disprove theories rather than prove them when undertaking research. It's a standard all research, in psychology, chemistry, physics, etc, go by.

I'm not sure that thats the right term for what you have in mind, but at least i know what you mean. I think it would be propper scientific criticism through empirical resreach. Pessimism, even if it is the term used, would be incorect.


* 'implied', don't confuse it with 'imposed'.

[October Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 09:30 PM
Why can't they? if there were only left wing it just be called "The Wing"

What has this got to do with the origional thread the forum is for left wing people and the majority of us are just that. We come on this site for serious (most of the time) political discussions with other lefties, right wing people can come on too and BOTH blatantly exist.

[Objectivist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:00 AM
I'm curious as to why capitalists come here. I've narrowed the reasons down to this:

- Trolling.

- They like senseless debate in which they aren't going to convince the opposition, and the opposition isn't going to convince them, no matter the value or merit of either argument.

- They're idiots who think they actually are going to convince someone.

- They're zealots who get a boost of pride in telling people they are right and the other person is wrong.

- They're spies.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

What are your reasons for being here, cappies?
Don't these same things apply to the "cappies" you are talking to in this forum? If we are as stupid as you think, why not ban us and be done?

[NovelGentry]

Don't these same things apply to the "cappies" you are talking to in this forum?

Yes, that is WHO he's talking about Mr. Objectivist.

[Objectivist]

Ooops, sorry, I meant:
Don't these same things apply to you since you are talking to the "cappies" and as you say, we are stupid morons and cannot have a resonable discussion? So why bother?

[NovelGentry]

So why bother?

I don't know about other people's reasons, but I know why I come around every now and then, and it's mainly so that I can develop standard arguments to bullshit logic for my book. You have to remember, that the majority of people buy these arguments as "objective" and "truth." Not because they are idiots too, but simply because the alternative hasn't been presented to a lot of them. If I can argue what the capitalists sell as their truth, then I can help get a lot more people to see the reality of the situation. While this isn't specifically what my book is designed to do, a portion of it will address such things.

So in short, even the dumbest argument in the world can help me develop counter-arguments, they might not stand up to a real argument, but I'll worry about that when real arguments are presented, until then, I've got an easy way to refute the propaganda of Ann Coulter and that other guy whose name I can't remember. Syndicated radio host... bleh.

Anyway, another reason I and I think a lot of my Comrades do it is cause we can't be serious 100% of the time. Much of the rest of the board with the exception of chit-chat is very serious and intense debate (of course there are other exceptions in other threads). Here we get a lot of "communism is EVIL." Or "You're taking my freedoms away." type arguments... we find it down right hilarious.

[Lamanov]

You have to remember, that the majority of people buy these arguments as "objective" and "truth." Not because they are idiots too, but simply because the alternative hasn't been presented to a lot of them. If I can argue what the capitalists sell as their truth, then I can help get a lot more people to see the reality of the situation.

;) couldn't have put it better myself.

_____________________
By the way, you're writing a book ? What about ?

[Objectivist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 12:08 AM
You have to remember, that the majority of people buy these arguments as "objective" and "truth."
...
I've got an easy way to refute the propaganda of Ann Coulter and that other guy whose name I can't remember. Syndicated radio host... bleh.
...
Which arguments do you mean?

Are the capitalists on this board all like Ann Coulter?

[NovelGentry]

Which arguments do you mean?

Arguments like the supposed right to private property. Arguments of pseudo-equal opportunity. Arguments that communism takes away freedom. Etc...


Are the capitalists on this board all like Ann Coulter?

In some ways, in other ways not.

[Objectivist]

Could you refute these arguments, or provide a link to something that does please?

[NovelGentry]

Just read the threads here.

[Objectivist]

Which ones? There seem to be quite a lot.

[NovelGentry]

So is the pain of joining a new board. If you're not interesting in what goes on here, you're welcome to leave.

[dakewlguy]

Oh, i see, it referes to 'nice' capitalism. ['nice' exploatation softened by social welfare]
In what part of my post did I say any of that. You are attempting to make me say things I have not. The End of History is a theory provided by Francis Fukuyama suggesting that society will not progress any further on the ideal of liberal capitalism. For more information see here: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/...us/fukuyama.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/fukuyama.htm). Or look for 'The end of history and the last man' in a local library.


BTW : why don't you finally explain what is "liberal" ?
Liberalism can be two things. Firstly social liberalism, supporting less restrictions on social freedoms like marriage and abortion. Secondly it can mean economic liberalism, supporting minimal government intervention. These two are often combined in the more general term 'liberal', meaning a progressive individual who supports moderate intervention in the economy.


...THAT's not what i've said !
The two quotes of mine have the same meaning.


Liberalism is not revolutionary, but since it's "liberal" > it is simply static.
If you use logic you would come to a conclusion that it implies methods that can not be effective. Society is in constant motion, so you can't keep social peace combined with the exploatation forever.
Wrong, it is possible to be neither revolutionary or static. Ie progressive within the current structure of society.


To create a scientific result it is not nececary to have your own research, but you can use, as you said, previous [scientific] literature and known statistics.
Haha, yes, you do. That is the entire point of science, you cannot rely on previous research. Even when research has shown that a certain trend may exist, still more research has to be done to confirm the trend isn't due to statistical luck and random variability.


Every scientific discovery in the last 150 years confirms that their view of the world and phenomena through dialectical materialism is correct
No they haven't. Especially in the field of sociology. I could give a huge list but really that's a lot of work and I only need one to disprove your statement. Studies in Ethnomethodology (1967) Harold Garfinkel. This research did not confirm dialectical materialism because its hypothesis was that society was a psychological construction and that no order exists in the world at all.

[Objectivist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:31 AM
So is the pain of joining a new board. If you're not interesting in what goes on here, you're welcome to leave.
If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't have asked. However, I was under the impression that capitalist ideas were understood as false by the members of this board, so I find it unlikely to encounter a thread where an explanation is laid out. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and asking whether such a thread exists, and to kindly point me in that direction. If you find this offensive, I can't imagine why.

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:22 PM

If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't have asked. However, I was under the impression that capitalist ideas were understood as false by the members of this board, so I find it unlikely to encounter a thread where an explanation is laid out. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and asking whether such a thread exists, and to kindly point me in that direction. If you find this offensive, I can't imagine why.
The work of Marx explains the technical flaws of Capitalism. There has been little development of his work though, or application of it to Modern Capitalism. Also Marx uses some economic terms and assumptions that economists dispute.

[Ramshaw is all]

I dont understand what cappies have got to be angry about, how can anyone say that equality among all people and sharing of wealth is a bad thing and still claim to be a good person. Fair enough, criticise the way people have gone about communism in the past, but i dont see the logic in hating the principle

[Objectivist]

Do you believe people have a right to the unearned? If no, then why does wealth need to be shared? If yes, why? What type of equality do you mean? Under the law? Equal intristic worth? Do you believe that all people have equal value? If you do, then what is the difference, say, between an intellectual and a murderer? Is there a difference? What characteristics, besides having a human body and human genes are required, if any, to be considered a human being?

EDIT: As for claiming to be a good person, what is your definition of a good person? What if another person has a different definition than you? Who is right? Do you expect others to comform to your idea of a good person, even if they think it is wrong? Would they be expected to under communism?

[NovelGentry]

If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't have asked. However, I was under the impression that capitalist ideas were understood as false by the members of this board, so I find it unlikely to encounter a thread where an explanation is laid out. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and asking whether such a thread exists, and to kindly point me in that direction. If you find this offensive, I can't imagine why.

It's not that I find it offensive, I find it strange that you cannot find a single thread where these issues are addressed and need me to point you to such a thread. The OI forum is filled with them, check out "In the name of violence" thread, started by none other than yours truly.

[Lamanov]

1) Chit Chat stuff:


"You are attempting to make me say things I have not."

Now, now! It's obvious that you countered yourself, everyone else can see that.


"The two quotes of mine have the same meaning."

Uuhhm. Yea, whatever.


"The End of History is a theory provided by Francis Fukuyama suggesting that society will not progress any further on the ideal of liberal capitalism."

That's the problem with that 'theory' - it will.


"Haha, yes, you do. That is the entire point of science, you cannot rely on previous research. Even when research has shown that a certain trend may exist, still more research has to be done to confirm the trend isn't due to statistical luck and random variability."

I'm not talking about trends, i'm talking about facts, empiric evidence of the existant. Besides, the point you were tryng to make is to say that Marx didn't do resreach. Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.


"The work of Marx explains the technical flaws of Capitalism. There has been little development of his work though, or application of it to Modern Capitalism. Also Marx uses some economic terms and assumptions that economists dispute."

He talks of modern capitalism like its a god. He even capitalises it [ Modern Capitalism ]. Kid, read it and see.

1) Some serious shit :

THREAD LINK (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33377)

[Objectivist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:23 PM
... The OI forum is filled with them, check out "In the name of violence" thread, started by none other than yours truly.
Thank you. I will do that.

[dakewlguy]

Now, now! It's obvious that you countered yourself, everyone else can see that.
Post the two or more statements where I have done this.


Uuhhm. Yea, whatever.
Great response I love it.


That's the problem with that 'theory' - it will.
You sure proved that.


I'm not talking about trends, i'm talking about facts, empiric evidence of the existant. Besides, the point you were tryng to make is to say that Marx didn't do resreach. Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.
Marx did no research other than looking into statistics, and this is not satisfactory at all when trying to support a theory. Engels did observational research in looking at the condition of the working class in England however this was an exception rather than standard. Also the world has changed tremendously since the late 1800's, even if Marx had found evidence for his claims, the research would be so out of date it would need to be repeated now.

Facts cannot be found with science. If you ever study any science you will find the use of the word 'fact' is never used. Because something can never be entirely proven, only evidence that suggests something exists can be found.

[Lamanov]

You sure proved that.

:huh: [?]
I didn't even try. :rolleyes:

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 11 2005, 01:28 PM

:huh: [?]
I didn't even try. :rolleyes:
Then I shall take it as an acceptance of my point.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by dakewlguy+Feb 11 2005, 07:29 PM--> (dakewlguy @ Feb 11 2005, 07:29 PM)
DJ-[email protected] 11 2005, 01:28 PM

:huh: [?]
I didn't even try. :rolleyes:
Then I shall take it as an acceptance of my point. [/b]
don't, I dissagree, history will go on... and with a vengance :ph34r: