Socialism is evil?

[Intellectual47]

Okay, I'm restarting a thread that was closed not to long ago, "History Lesson". It'll be on the same thing as my last thread and this time I hope that we can have good logical debate with no flaming or trolling. I hope we all learn something from this.

"Why is it that almost socialistic country has a poor economy, enormous poverty, oppression of the prolterliat(please excuse my spelling), atrocious human rights records, and a poor armed forces. I can't even think of a Socialistic country that doesn't have two or more of these qualities.

Can ya'll think of a few? (and tell me why)

[An archist]

because all power corupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely

[Intellectual47]

So, are you agreeing with me or not? That's kinda hard to tell.

P.S. I will always try to respond to all your replies in a timley manner.

[Whitten]

He's agreeing with you, he's an anarchist.

First of all I think its important that I point out that not every country that has claimed to be, or claims to be, socialist is really socialist. Most could claim to have been working towards socialism at best. This is because socialism as an economic system to a pre-industrial society would be about as workable as capitalism in a pre-agricultural society.

I'll try to break up your question into answerable chunks:

poor economy - This depends what you mean by poor economy. For the average citizen in the USSR and Cuba (I use these examples because they were/are the closest to real socialism and they are ones which I know about in more detail) the standard of living increased post revolution. The Communist party in the USSR raised the standard of russia's economy from almost non-existant in the 1910s to highly productive and a major world super power by the 1950s.

enormous poverty - I'm not really aware of any socialist countries with enormous poverty. Even in the countries which could be considered impoverished, kepp in mind they werent exactly economic powerhouses before the revolution.

oppression of the proletariat - Again depends on time and place but I dont think this is true for Cuba or the USSR. The oppressions most people think of an associate with the USSR, particuarly the early USSR, were mostly oppression of the Bourgeois. No one will claiim their system of government wasnt authoritarian, but that isnt necessarily a bad thing, if it is the Authority of the proletariat which is being applied.

atrocious human rights records - Depends on what you mean. I'd ask for a few specific examples to debate. Although I'd point out that most capitalist states also have terrible human rights records.

a poor armed forces. - Again I dont really see how this is so. What information are you basing this one?

[Intellectual47]

Let's get back on topic here. Please try to answer the question so we can talk about it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 04:31 pm
Let's get back on topic here. Please try to answer the question so we can talk about it.
Whitten answered your fucking question, you obtuse tit.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Poor Economy: In the case of Eastern Bloc nations, this was partially due to the misery left in place by WWI and WWII, where people starved and enormous portions of the population died, creating a intense labor shortage. During the Cold War, most of these nations with a "socialist" (State-planned/controlled) economy allowed enormous corruption, and places like Maoist China also exported tons of food and supplies other countries, thus messing up their own economies even more.

Enormous Poverty: Most of these nations had enormous poverty long before the revolutions or takeovers. Thats percisely why revolutions happened. Otherwise, it can be attributed to the poor economic factors explained above.

Oppression of the Workers: As Chairman Avakarin (RCP) says (Paraphrasing), the paranoia of fighting against bourgeois enemies made the rulers begin to think that even suggestions on real problems in the system were "counter-revolutionary", thus leading to terrible instances such as the Great Purge, and mass executions mostly in Eastern Bloc nations. In places like Cuba, such is nonexistant.

Atrocious Human Rights Record - Same as for 'oppression of workers'. And to point the finger, the times before the revolution were usually worse.

Poor Armed Forces: Really? These "Socialist" Countries often had pretty strong militaries - North Korea ? (Even though while not socialist, it claims to be, so for the sake of this question and simplicity we will include it here), Cuba? Russia? Who won World War II? Who detonated the biggest nuclear bomb in history (Tsar Bomba -1962)? Who sent the first satellite out into space (Sputnik)?

Thats about all I can think of right now

[Intellectual47]

Jazzrat, he edited that into his reply after I posted my comment.

Okay Whitten let's just add China for more different results.

1.your first arguement is rather old. It does seem an odd coincidence that so many countries get Socialism wrong as you say. Perhaps not wrong, but maybe not full Socialism. This does not excuse what they did.

2.What I mean by poor economy is one that isn't very flexible or efficent. Consumer goods were of poor quality, the Soviets had to spend 60% of their budget on military just to keep up with us in the Arms Race, they had very little foreign money, and even the military products weren't very good. Which could be why the Soviets were famous for reliable weapons; so the factories couldn't mess it up. The growth in the Soviet Union was about equal to America's weapon production during WWII.

2.But didn't you just tell me that the USSR grew tremendously when it became Communist? Well, I guess you got me there. I was thinking of Venuezuela when I said that, but I can't mention them.

3. socialistic governments have little interest in getting the poor out of poverty. Because that would mean contradicting the idea that you don't need money.So, from what I've read and heard, they didn't try to make the Proleterliat(Is that how you spell it?) rich. i call that oppression since it keeps them from attaining a higher standard of living.

4. Mr. Armando Valladares spent 20 years in a Cuban prison for a statement he made. Ion Bugan spent ten years in a Romainian jail for having a bumper sticker that read "Executioners, we don't want you any more". A Soviet memo had this to say " in 1924 the GPU "arrested 11,453 bandits, 1,835 of which were immediantly executed. If you would like more my sources are "The Black book of communism", "Against All Hope", and "Gulag archipeligo". I am still researching it so more will come.

5. Since you want to stick with the USSR and Cuba, I will stick with America. While we don't have an unblemished rights record, its certainly better than the USSR, Cuba, or China.

6.The Soviet inablity to win a war, except against peasants; like in the Hungarian revolution. Of course I'm not saying they've never won a war, but when they do it's usually with high casualties and collateral damage.

[Intellectual47]

Now I will answer you RevolutinaryMarxist.

1. The areas that suffered worst in the Russian famine of 1924-25 were not battlefields in WWI. And the Great Leap Forward famine was 15 years after WWII. Why did the famine wait 15 years? People starved because of the socialistic ideals the Government had. And their economy wasn't comparable to the US at any time. In all sectors.

2. Yes the poverty was there, but it didn't get better.

3. see answer I gave Whitten

4.North Korea has an outdated military, though large. The Tsara bomb was completley worthless as a military weapon. (odd sidenote: making the parachute for the Tsara Bomb threw a huge kink in the Soviet nylon industry). Russia won WWII because they used the weather effectivley, fought battles of attrition which the Germans were horrible at, and had a complete disregard for human life. Stalin used the citizens of Stalingrad as a human shield against the Germans. Cuba has never won a war they fought (Bay of Pigs was a battle). And last but not least, Sputnik was thanks to the Soviet plundering of German research labs during WWII.

Last note: When the Bolshevieks came into power they killed as political prisoners in weeks as Czar Nicholas did in his entire reign. The same is true of Cuba.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 05:55 pm
Jazzrat, he edited that into his reply after I posted my comment.

Understod. My name has more than one t in it for a reason shitheap.


Okay Whitten let's just add China for more different results. Why do you get to choose who is or is not socialist? What critrea do you measure it by? The use of the word 'communist' by their leaders? Or actual relation to marxist writings?


1.your first arguement is rather old. It does seem an odd coincidence that so many countries get Socialism wrong as you say. Perhaps not wrong, but maybe not full Socialism. This does not excuse what they did. Whether what they did is 'excused' is neither here nor there, no matter what they did if they are not actually socialist nations it is impossible for you to use those actions as a critiscism of socialism. It would make as much sense as me critising lassiez-fair capitalism (another ideology that has yet to be implemented) on the basis that the US is an exploitative shithole.


2.What I mean by poor economy is one that isn't very flexible or efficent. So any price system economy (which is what both the US and the USSR have/had).
Consumer goods were of poor quality, Source for that?
the Soviets had to spend 60% of their budget on military just to keep up with us in the Arms Race, 60% is a rather precise figure, which leads me to wonder how many peer reviewd sources there are that state it.
they had very little foreign money, That's because most foriegn countries were capitalist you dolt. Of course none of them would give any money to "teh evil redz0rz!", fucknut.
and even the military products weren't very good. Soviet weapons are famously cheap and reliable.
Which could be why the Soviets were famous for reliable weapons; Reliability is generally indictive of a well made weapon, which kind of goes against your claim that their 'military products weren't very good'.
so the factories couldn't mess it up. That makes no sense - they made their weapons reliable (i.e. better) so they were easier to produce (despite the fact making a reliable weapon is difficualt?). What fucking cuckoo land are you from?
The growth in the Soviet Union was about equal to America's weapon production during WWII. Peer-reviewed source. No bourgeoise propaganda if you would be so kind.


3. socialistic governments have little interest in getting the poor out of poverty. Bollocks. That shows you understand so little of socialism that even the other cappies on this board must be laughing at you. Socialists recognise that getting somone out of poverty at the expense of other people (i.e. making them 'rich) is clearly counter productive.
Because that would mean contradicting the idea that you don't need money. How? How did you reach the conclusion that having poor people shows that you don't need money, if anything poverty proves the opposite.
So, from what I've read and heard, they didn't try to make the Proleterliat(Is that how you spell it?) rich. 'Rich' is a meaningless term under socialism.
i call that oppression since it keeps them from attaining a higher standard of living. I call you a cretin because you wouldn't know marxism if it came to your house, painted your bedroom, performed a dance, cleaned your clothes, gave you a haircut and finally waved its hand in front of your face whilst singing a fifteen part ballad, backed by an orchestra, entitled "I am marxism". The whole fucking point of marxism is that everyone's lives are improved, not just those of the few.


4. Mr. Armando Valladares spent 20 years in a Cuban prison for a statement he made. Ion Bugan spent ten years in a Romainian jail for having a bumper sticker that read "Executioners, we don't want you any more". A What was the statement? When was it made? You do understand that a lot of people have tried to murder castro and as such he has every right to be paranoid about counter revolutionaries talking about, for example, his death. B) When was this? Was it before or after the corruption of khurshcev's capitalism had entered the USSR?
A Soviet memo had this to say " in 1924 the GPU "arrested 11,453 bandits, 1,835 of which were immediantly executed. Should I be feeling sorry for fucking bandits now?
If you would like more my sources are "The Black book of communism", "Against All Hope", and "Gulag archipeligo". I am still researching it so more will come. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that's your fucking research? Fucking bourgeoise propaganda. I was almost prepared to believe your stories were the truth, but looking at your sources I've become extremely fucking skepitcal.


5. Since you want to stick with the USSR and Cuba, I will stick with America. While we don't have an unblemished rights record, its certainly better than the USSR, Cuba, or China. A) It's not better thanCUba, B) No one mentioned CHina, apart from you - making that an obvious strawman. C) Bay Of Pigs, The CHilean Coup, Contras in Nicuaragua, Afghanistan, Iraq (All three times), Iran (the delivering of arms to), South Africa. Need I go on with all these publically known examples of US human rights violations/ interventions.


6.The Soviet inablity to win a war, except for peasants like in the Hungarian revolution. Of course I'm not saying they've never won a war, but when they do it's usually with high casualties and collateral damage. ...is neither here nor there.

By the way 'evil' is an incredibly stupid word that doesn't take into account any nuances of reality. It is used mainly by the morally indignant to try to imply that by opposing 'evil' they are somehow good. Therefore I have never referred to capitalism as evil, although I see you lack that kind of intellectual integrity.

[cb9's_unity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 05:55 pm
5. Since you want to stick with the USSR and Cuba, I will stick with America. While we don't have an unblemished rights record, its certainly better than the USSR, Cuba, or China.


America itself may not have the worst human rights record but the dictators it supports sure do. And Actually cuba just got elected to the human rights counsil in the U.N, the U.S didn't have the balls to run. The USSR was actually pretty bad at human rights but the western numbers are no where nere true, especially about stalin (believe me i'm not a big fan of that guy but the cappies did put a few too many zero's at the end of there figures). And as for china i think Jazzrat said it best.

[Whitten]

Okay Whitten let's just add China for more different results.

You could, but I feel compelled to point out I dont in any way support the actions of the Chinese government, and as you yourself stated in the last thread, they are more capitalist than anything anyway.


1.your first arguement is rather old. It does seem an odd coincidence that so many countries get Socialism wrong as you say. Perhaps not wrong, but maybe not full Socialism. This does not excuse what they did.

So many countries call themselves "democracies" yet are nothing of the sort. And frequently have terrible human rights records. Many times the US government just plays along so long as they have open markets and dont allow anti-US terrorists to operate. Its was the same thing with socialism, just wioth the USSR in the place of the USA really.

And no, it doesnt excuse what some of those governments did.


2.What I mean by poor economy is one that isn't very flexible or efficent. Consumer goods were of poor quality, the Soviets had to spend 60% of their budget on military just to keep up with us in the Arms Race, they had very little foreign money, and even the military products weren't very good. Which could be why the Soviets were famous for reliable weapons; so the factories couldn't mess it up. The growth in the Soviet Union was about equal to America's weapon production during WWII.

The amount of foreign money in the country doesnt mean much to a socialist state, after all you can add as much foreign ownership within your boarders as you want but you dont own any moe yourself.

What evidence do you have about the quality of produced goods?

The fact that even had as much money as the US spends on its military is a testiment to their economic success, most countries in the world dont have that sort of money at all.


3. socialistic governments have little interest in getting the poor out of poverty. Because that would mean contradicting the idea that you don't need money.So, from what I've read and heard, they didn't try to make the Proleterliat(Is that how you spell it?) rich. i call that oppression since it keeps them from attaining a higher standard of living.

Its not our belief that money (or more importantly the things which its used to buy) dont matter. Hell the very basis of socialism is that they do matter alot. If we didnt believe it mattered what sort of life the proletariat lived in why would we even fight against capitalism?


4. Mr. Armando Valladares spent 20 years in a Cuban prison for a statement he made. Ion Bugan spent ten years in a Romainian jail for having a bumper sticker that read "Executioners, we don't want you any more". A Soviet memo had this to say " in 1924 the GPU "arrested 11,453 bandits, 1,835 of which were immediantly executed. If you would like more my sources are"The Black book of communism", "Against All Hope", and "Gulag archipeligo" . I am still researching it so more will come.

Lol at the names of those sources. ALthough I cant say I feel sorry for executed bandits. Also Armando Valladares was a member of Batista's secret police.


5. Since you want to stick with the USSR and Cuba, I will stick with America. While we don't have an unblemished rights record, its certainly better than the USSR, Cuba, or China.

The USA practiced a form of appartide while it accused the USSR of human rights abuses. It also participated in a genocide in the previous century, and used Napalm on civilian villages during the Vietnam war.


6.The Soviet inablity to win a war, except against peasants; like in the Hungarian revolution. Of course I'm not saying they've never won a war, but when they do it's usually with high casualties and collateral damage.

The USSR won world war 2. As I recall the USA's record since WW2 hasnt been that great either.

[Intellectual47]

Mr. Jazzratt

1.China was obviously trying to attain communism.

2.Actually, IF the US were a "shithole", then it would be fair to criticize lassez-faire economics. It's kinda like trying to jump 20 feet to a utopia over a cliff. No one makes it, but you don't tell people that utopia is still perfect. The utopia has becomes almost malevolant because it is an unfulfillable dream that led men to jump over the cliff. Actually a better metaphor would be the Greek Sirens.

3. capitalism is much more flexible than Communism turned out to be.

4. Actually they had very little money because they never let anyone do buisness in thier country.

5. 60% came from Brittanica

6. It actually makes good sense. If you give a 30 year old man a homework problem that is "what is the subject of a sentence?" You assume that he is either un-educated or retarted. You can tell because the work he does is extremely easy. Similarly the Ak-47 is extremely easy to make. So is the T-34. Therefore one conclusion is that the Soviet industries aren't good at complex things.

7. what's a Bollocks? And you agreed with me here. You told me why Socialists don't make those in poverty and allow them to have wealth. And when It's a communist idea that you don't need money, not a capitalist idea.

8.That was a rather long metaphor for a easily refutable point. Communism holds that the prolterliat is virtually everyone. So how can you make everone's lives better, excpet the prolterliat; which is everyone?

9. I just realized I was incorrect there. Armando didn't make a statement, he was angry at the firing of his friend for anti-marxist remarks and Armando opposed communism. Ion was arrested in the 30's, before Kruschev

10. "bandit" was Soviet for anyone who tried to keep a little food for himself and his family when the collective man cam around

11.What proof do you have that my sources are bad. And I would enjoy hearing a source or two from ya'll every now and then.

12.Cuba kills its own people and keeps them in a horrid state of fear and poverty. You can ask any Cuban exile about that. And China killed 60 million people btween the famines, purges, re-education centers, and just daily police brutality.

13.I don't understand you reply on my war comment.

14. I never used the word "evil" in this thread, but you seem to think I did. But ya'll agree that Hitler was evil. Why doesn't your logic apply there?

I think I've answered your questions Mr. Jazzratt and I hope you learned something from this.

[cb9's_unity]

I just realized I was incorrect there. Armando didn't make a statement, he was angry at the firing of his friend for anti-marxist remarks and Armando opposed communism. Ion was arrested in the 30's, before Kruschev

Ok i found tons of stupid shit your article and didn't feel like responding, knowing someone else more knowledgable than i would rip apart everything you said, but this one is just too good to let pass up. I have never heard about armando but you statement about Ion is completly discredited when you realize that THE CUBAN REVOLUTION HAPPENED IN THE 50'S!!!! Actually for most of the 30's cuba was ruled by Batista, the brutal american backed dictator.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Intellectual47+December 02, 2006 07:45 pm--> (Intellectual47 @ December 02, 2006 07:45 pm) I never used the word "evil" in this thread [/b]

Threat Title
Socialism is evil?

[Intellectual47]

Whitten, here's yours

1.China TODAY is mostly capitalist. I refer to Maoist China, not modern China. Modern China is cool.

2.you're partially correct because the US did support right-wing dictatorships. But as I recall, we never rolled tanks into their countries when they were bad. Like Afghanistan or Hungary.

3. It may not matter to a socialist state but while they still had to trade with us to get some goods, money would be of importance to them. My source for the poor consumer goods were my history books in school and a little logic. Since the Soviets spent a huge amount of money on the armed forces, where would they get the cash to pay for high-quality goods?

4. But isn't cruel to the people that the government would rather spend money to save face with the US rather than to get them decent goods?

5. See? I learned something. I had always thought that Communism was anti-materialistic and anti-monetary units.

6. same thing I said for Jazzratt excpet that Armando worked at a postal savings bank. Please list your source for what you said.

7. the USSR killed million of people with it's gulags, sham trials, sham justice, sham freedom, exportation of communist ideals, unprovoked wars, artificial famines, and purges. The US "appartide" was ended fifty years ago. and the Native American genecide ended approxtimetly 100 years ago. And I'm sure the Soviets never practiced racism with their constant deportation of various races across Russia.

8. same thing I said to Jazzratt about WWII. And the US did fine during WWII. We won remember. Please don't make this into an arguement about who was more important in WWII. The USSR, USA, and Great Britian were all essential during the war.

[Intellectual47]

Whitten, the topic title is a question, not a statement.

And Mr. cb9's unity, if you would have read more closely I said earlier that Mr. Ion Bugan was Romanian, not cuban. You might want to read more closely next time.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 07:45 pm
1.China was obviously trying to attain communism.
And didn't.


2.Actually, IF the US were a "shithole", then it would be fair to criticize lassez-faire economics. No it wouldn't because the US is not a perfectly lassiez-faire system.
It's kinda like trying to jump 20 feet to a utopia over a cliff. No one makes it, but you don't tell people that utopia is still perfect. The utopia has becomes almost malevolant because it is an unfulfillable dream that led men to jump over the cliff. Actually a better metaphor would be the Greek Sirens. Sheer, unmitigated bollocks. You cannot critisise a goal based entirely on whether or not somone has achieved that goal or indeed how people have tried to reach it.


3. capitalism is much more flexible than Communism turned out to be. What does 'flexibility' have to do with anything. Besides which all the economies you've mentioned have been debt-token based price systems.


4. Actually they had very little money because they never let anyone do buisness in thier country. Bussiness is antithetical to socialism, which means on a world market based on bussiness of course they are going to fail, this is nothing to do with their being socialist, more with the rest of the world's capitalism using its built in defense to crush any dissent.


5. 60% came from Brittanica Who in turn got that figure from?


6. It actually makes good sense. If you give a 30 year old man a homework problem that is "what is the subject of a sentence?" You assume that he is either un-educated or retarted. You can tell because the work he does is extremely easy. Similarly the Ak-47 is extremely easy to make. So is the T-34. Therefore one conclusion is that the Soviet industries aren't good at complex things. Or one could conclude that the designs didn't need to be overly complex to be relaible and decent weapons, something which soviet weapons producers recognised and therefore decided it would be more efficent to make thousands of relaiable weapons rather than hundreds of complex ones prone to failure.


7. what's a Bollocks? Bollocks is a plural term, meaning testicals, it is used in british slang to indicate something is perhaps not entirely accurate. The other commonly used term is Cobbler's.
And you agreed with me here. You told me why Socialists don't make those in poverty and allow them to have wealth. And when It's a communist idea that you don't need money, not a capitalist idea. Socialists try to take people out of poverty. THe difference between them and capitalists is they do this without using a system that requires abject poverty.


8.That was a rather long metaphor for a easily refutable point. Communism holds that the prolterliat is virtually everyone. So how can you make everone's lives better, excpet the prolterliat; which is everyone? What the fuck are you babbling about? Who suggested not improving the lives of the proletariat (aside from liberals and other assorted capitalist wankshafts.).


9. I just realized I was incorrect there. Armando didn't make a statement, he was angry at the firing of his friend for anti-marxist remarks and Armando opposed communism. This anectdote means very little too me, especially coming from such obviously biased sources.
Ion was arrested in the 30's, before Kruschev Odd that I've never, in all my reading of history (from various baises) and arguments with cappies I never heard of this anectdote. Then again I've never read any works as heavily baised as those you're parroting without question.


10. "bandit" was Soviet for anyone who tried to keep a little food for himself and his family when the collective man cam around Bollocks. Prove it.


11.What proof do you have that my sources are bad. And I would enjoy hearing a source or two from ya'll every now and then. The hyperbolic titles give it away rather swiftly. I'm not obliged to give you shit, I've made no claims that require sourcing.


12.Cuba kills its own people and keeps them in a horrid state of fear and poverty. You can ask any Cuban exile about that. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you suggest that I should actually listen to gusanos as opposed to residents of cuba.
And China killed 60 million people btween the famines, purges, re-education centers, and just daily police brutality. Source? Also an ideology or leader doesn't cause famines, unless you think the Chinese Communist Party was somehow omnipotent


13.I don't understand you reply on my war comment. It's neither here nor there whether or not a country using a certian political system wins or loses wars, as there are many other factors to take into account.


14. I never used the word "evil" in this thread, but you seem to think I did. But ya'll agree that Hitler was evil. Why doesn't your logic apply there? Strawman. When did I ever say 'hitler is evil', those words have never once been typed or spoken by me. I think he was brutal, wrong and oppressive - but nothing is 'evil'.


I think I've answered your questions Mr. Jazzratt and I hope you learned something from this. You did answer my questions. You were wrong, but you answered them. I did learn something too: that you're a pretentious twat and can bugger off.

[Whitten]

1.China TODAY is mostly capitalist. I refer to Maoist China, not modern China. Modern China is cool.

You think Tiananmen square was cool?


2.you're partially correct because the US did support right-wing dictatorships. But as I recall, we never rolled tanks into their countries when they were bad. Like Afghanistan or Hungary.

It's funny because you did roll tanks into one of those very countries when they were bad.


3. It may not matter to a socialist state but while they still had to trade with us to get some goods, money would be of importance to them. My source for the poor consumer goods were my history books in school and a little logic. Since the Soviets spent a huge amount of money on the armed forces, where would they get the cash to pay for high-quality goods?

Take what you read in school with a grain of salt. They had the money because they saved money by not paying out to the pockets of rich businessmen, where most of the money spent on consumer goods in the west goes. Also not all capital was owned by the state.


4. But isn't cruel to the people that the government would rather spend money to save face with the US rather than to get them decent goods?

That depends whether the people want it. You may have noticed alot of anti-americans can feel pretty stringly about it, especially if they consider the US a threat. The same arguement could be used for the US though, your government spends most of its cash on its military, and very little on social programs or welfare. Thats not to say I wouldnt have opposed a refocus of Soviet priorities away from the military.


5. See? I learned something. I had always thought that Communism was anti-materialistic and anti-monetary units.

Ahh, now we actually do oppose the use of "currency" in its conventional form in the long term, but we're not anti-materialistic.


6. same thing I said for Jazzratt excpet that Armando worked at a postal savings bank. Please list your source for what you said.

Cuban Communist party. Yea okay they're going to be biased, but then so is Armando, we dont really know what he did to get locked up in their, but his story does sound in the extreme considering the open opposition of the government some people there have displayed and gotten away with.


7. the USSR killed million of people with it's gulags, sham trials, sham justice, sham freedom, exportation of communist ideals, unprovoked wars, artificial famines, and purges. The US "appartide" was ended fifty years ago. and the Native American genecide ended approxtimetly 100 years ago. And I'm sure the Soviets never practiced racism with their constant deportation of various races across Russia.

Gulags: The Gulags were a prison system for criminals (and yes traitors were sent there). Only a relativly small percentage of people sent there died excessivly prematurly.

Sham trials: All trials are shams as the jury will always consist of humans with opinions. The best any state can do is approximate justice, its one of those unfortunate truths.

sham freedom: how would this work?

exportation of communist ideals: So?

unprovoked wars: hardly unique to the USSR, and infact the USSR were generally on more of a defencive for most of the cold war than the USA, who always seemed to have a new third world threat to freedom and democracy to destroy.

artificial famines: Civil wars cause famines, especially when you control the cities and your enemy controls the countryside.


8. same thing I said to Jazzratt about WWII. And the US did fine during WWII. We won remember. Please don't make this into an arguement about who was more important in WWII. The USSR, USA, and Great Britian were all essential during the war.

Yes they were, but I used ww2 as an example where the USSR was indeed successful, and said that neither had the USA been overly successful since then.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 03:50 pm
Okay, I'm restarting a thread that was closed not to long ago, "History Lesson". It'll be on the same thing as my last thread and this time I hope that we can have good logical debate with no flaming or trolling. I hope we all learn something from this.

"Why is it that almost socialistic country has a poor economy, enormous poverty, oppression of the prolterliat(please excuse my spelling), atrocious human rights records, and a poor armed forces. I can't even think of a Socialistic country that doesn't have two or more of these qualities.

Can ya'll think of a few? (and tell me why)
trouble is, what you consider socialist is not really socialist; the media portrays places like north korea, vietnam, and cuba as socialist because they are under the control of a socialist or communist party.

these places are far from being socialist. no truly socialist country has ever existed, and most socialists would agree that a true socialist country will never exist, because socialism cannot be realised until the entire world is socialist, and hense no countries will exist, because all a country does is separate the people from their fellow working class comrades based on territory, religion, language, etc.

as far as these "socialist" countries go, they are actually single-party dictatorships with a government-operated/controlled economy that institutionalise a few social benefit programs (like free education or free health care). on top of that, nearly all (if not all) of the communist parties around the world claim that they are not yet socialist or communist, but rather 'dictatorships of the proletariat,' which are in the process of leading their nations to the socialist stage of human development.

the soviets once offered 'socialism in 30 years.' they never realised it, and, considering the depth of corruption and the restriction of personal freedoms that existed in the soviet union, i doubt they would have ever been able to realise socialism, even if they had all the time in the world.

but don't get me wrong: i'm not just bad-mouthing the soviets and all the other "communist" nations in the world: they all started with the right idea in mind; however, their progress toward their ultimate goal was hindered by capitalist nations exerting pressure in diplomatic, militaristic, and economic forms to halt their progress (capitalist nations are controlled by their bourgeois, the bourgeois fear the day when they no longer can exploit the working class, and will do everything within their power to stop communism). this pressure results in the establishment of a military dictatorship that has to restrict the people (internal dissent is the last thing they need when they're faced with severe external pressure) and consume the vast majority of the nation's resources to build an adequate military - this is just to ensure their existence.

then, the capitalists view this as a threat, so they further develop their militaries (which requires far less of their resources, since more resources are available to capitalist nations - capitalism (in at least one form or other) has been developing for over a thousand years, while communism is a realitively new development. it's the new guy just getting started and already going toe-to-toe with the big guy who has had years to collect his arsenal and develop his skill). the communists, now faced with a much more powerful enemy (and one that seeks nothing more than to destroy them), must also respond with further development of its military, thus consuming even more of the resources. it's a bad cycle, and it results in the removal of resources from the populus and relocating them in the hands of a government that only wants to help the populus.

on top of that... all of this relocating power from the people to the revolutionary government winds up resulting in corruption and the recreation of a class of elites (the soviet communist party, for example).

this is why the soviet union, especially under the control of iosef stalin, was, infact, essentially the opposite of communism: in a truly communist nation, the power lies with the people as a whole, not with one person.

[Intellectual47]

Jazzratt, can you please say something without being insulting to me. It's beginning to bug me.

Okay Whitten let's have a go at it again

1. Tiannanmen Square is not modern China. Modern China means today China.

2.got me there, but when I said "bad" I meant they were'nt acting marxist enough. Which is why the USSR invaded Afghanistan.

3. Actually the US budget spends 70% on welfare and social security while we spend 12% on the armed forces. Please check your facts next time.

4. Actually the Cuban's said he was a CIA spy. Have you read his book, by any chance?

5. 17% died in Gulags. the sham trial I'm describing is whereit doesn't matter what the verdict is; you still get shot. Sham freedom is the freedom that the Socialists promissed the people but never gave them. And they still called it freedom.
Exportation of Stalinist ideals, which as I recall most people here don't agree with, is what I meant.

Defensive? The Soviet-Afghani war was defensive? The Vietnamese war (for the Soviets) was defensive? The Korean war was a defensive war for the Chinese?

6. So the Great Leap Forward famine was caused by a civil war that had ended years before? As I keep saying, The Chinese made the famine worse because of collectivism. And they didn't do anything to help. Even if you can't stop a famine you can still try to fix it. You don't make things worse. And it was Mao's ideas that led to the famine

Jazzratt, maybe you need a different metaphor. Let's imagine that a hundred thousand people all want to be a great soccer star. To achieve this goal, they followed a book that promised to make them all great soccer players. Now if 3/4 through the training book they are worser soccer players than when they started, should they follow the other 1/4 of the book?


Communism through it's actions shows that it doesn't care about improving the lot of the prolterliat.

I'm going to leave you with this last thought because I need to leave for a while.

Why was the Berlin wall built?
please think about this for a while and come up with a good answer. And please try to make it short. It's getting tiring answering these endless replies that could easily be refuted by Freshman (fourteen year-old)

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Why was the Berlin wall built?
please think about this for a while and come up with a good answer. And please try to make it short

as i pointed out... the east german government (eastern bloc) was not communist. they were a dictatorship. that's what dictatorships (of all kinds - leftist, rightist, etc.) do: they separate and restrict the people.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 09:15 pm
Jazzratt, can you please say something without being insulting to me. It's beginning to bug me.
No I can't I was born with a complete inability to be civil with stupid wankers.


Jazzratt, maybe you need a different metaphor. Let's imagine that a hundred thousand people all want to be a great soccer star. To achieve this goal, they followed a book that promised to make them all great soccer players. Now if 3/4 through the training book they are worser soccer players than when they started, should they follow the other 1/4 of the book? Your analogy doesn't work. It first assumes that Any "socialist" countries have actually been socialist and secondly it assumes that the last 1/4 if the book wouldn't work. Oh and it assumes worser is a word.


Communism through it's actions shows that it doesn't care about improving the lot of the prolterliat. Communism = STATELESS, CLASSLESS SOCIETY,
Now has there been one of those in the world before? NO! There hasn't you thick fucker. Also, went you get back from masturbating or whetever you're off to do could you answer me this question:

How can an ideology, an abstract construct. do anything concrete?


I'm going to leave you with this last thought because I need to leave for a while.

Why was the Berlin wall built? Many reasons, one of which was that the westren part of Germany was in an alliance with countries that were in a state of defacto war with the eastern half, thus causing the CCCP to need a wall put up.

please think about this for a while and come up with a good answer. And please try to make it short. Done.
It's getting tiring answering these endless replies that could easily be refuted by Freshman (fourteen year-old) Funny, that's exactly why your threads were closed.

[MKS]

All Anarchists are socialists, but not all Socialists are Anarchists.

Socialism, like most ideologies has many varying schools of thought and theories of implementation. State Socialism has been predominant in most modern socialist states, while some have usually morphed into a state-capitalist model (like China or Vietnam). This to me just proves that Socialism cannot exist in any sort of non-democratic non-hierarchical administrative structure. A Socialist Republic is therefore impossible as it will eventually dissolve into either State Capitalism or Neo-Liberalism.


One should also ask can any Socialist society exist for long within a Capitalist world? Hasn't Cuba proved that this is impossible?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 04:50 pm
"Why is it that almost socialistic country has a poor economy, enormous poverty, oppression of the prolterliat(please excuse my spelling), atrocious human rights records, and a poor armed forces. I can't even think of a Socialistic country that doesn't have two or more of these qualities.
The simple answer is: The state.

The state is designed to perpetuate it's own control and the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' in regards to Leninism requires a vast bureaucracy. This, through the expanse of time will invariably solidify and institutionalise it's authority in the dichotomy of trying to maintain a state for the purpose of creating a stateless society; Thus is the fundamental and irreconcilable contradiction of classical Marxism - This has led, in many forms, to the failures we have witnessed.

This whole nonsense of millions of people dying is nothing more that bourgeois propaganda - That is the truth. Now I do not have the time, patience or inclination in attempting to make you believe that, so that one is entirely up to you and quite frankly I don't give two shits whether you do.

Suffice to say, and in gritted teeth, each socialist country has industrialised their nations faster and with more verocity than any capitalist nation has ever done.

[MKS]

Suffice to say, and in gritted teeth, each socialist country has industrialised their nations faster and with more verocity than any capitalist nation has ever done.

I dont think that is exactly true. England led the Industrial Revolution and they were neither Socialist or exaclty Capitalist at the time, America followed and post civil war era saw only a speedy growth of American industry. It can be argued that no other nation has been able to mirror the industrial growth and/or stablilty of either England or America.


This whole nonsense of millions of people dying is nothing more that bourgeois propaganda

What you just said is complete BS. The millions of deaths in the Soviet Union due to Stalinist policies and even pre-Stalin (Leninist) Russia are well documented historical events. As are the human rights violations in China, Cuba, and Vietnam. However I think where most go wrong is saying that only Socialist nations are responsible for such things which of course is not true. The US has killed hundreds of thousands if not millions, as has the UK, Germany, France, just about every colonial power in Western Europe. Belgium killed almost 10,000,000 in the Congo. Tyranny can and does exist behind the veils of Democratic Liberalism (Capitalist) as well as State Socialist, or Socialist nations.

[RNK]

In the past 100 years alone, capitalist imperialism has killed far, far more people than socialism. Nuff said?

[MKS]

In the past 100 years alone, capitalist imperialism has killed far, far more people than socialism. Nuff said
That might be true, but that dosent mean we should forget or forgive the high body count that socialism or attempts to socialism has created.

[RebelDog]

What you just said is complete BS. The millions of deaths in the Soviet Union due to Stalinist policies and even pre-Stalin (Leninist) Russia are well documented historical events. As are the human rights violations in China, Cuba, and Vietnam. However I think where most go wrong is saying that only Socialist nations are responsible for such things which of course is not true. The US has killed hundreds of thousands if not millions, as has the UK, Germany, France, just about every colonial power in Western Europe. Belgium killed almost 10,000,000 in the Congo. Tyranny can and does exist behind the veils of Democratic Liberalism (Capitalist) as well as State Socialist, or Socialist nations.

Remember that the savage reality of global capitalism kills millions and millions of people every year on this planet. Capitalism is a complete failure for the majority of people on this earth. We could feed, clothe and give shelter to all with the productive output the human-race has at the moment. Why doesn't this happen then? What are the forces, who are the people stopping this from happening? The answer is the class that owns and controls the means and distribution of production, they and their murderous free-market policies. Where genocide is concerned Stalin is not in the same league as our present day godfathers of capitalism. The free-market profiteers destroy food to make more money while others starve who have no money or the prospect of getting money. That is sick in the head.

[ComradeR]

1.China TODAY is mostly capitalist. I refer to Maoist China, not modern China. Modern China is cool.

So you think totalitarian states are cool so long as they are capitalist?


2.you're partially correct because the US did support right-wing dictatorships. But as I recall, we never rolled tanks into their countries when they were bad. Like Afghanistan or Hungary.

I'll name three right off the bat, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan.


3. Actually the US budget spends 70% on welfare and social security while we spend 12% on the armed forces. Please check your facts next time.

Does this figure include the $250 billion spent (or $100,000 per minute) on just the military costs of the iraq war so far? (Source: The US Defence Department)


Defensive? The Soviet-Afghani war was defensive? The Vietnamese war (for the Soviets) was defensive? The Korean war was a defensive war for the Chinese?

The exact same can be said about the US, of course in the case of the Vietnamese war the Soviets only supplied arms to the North while the US sent an invasion force which climaxed with the heaviest bombing in history (the saturation bombing of Hanoi)

And since you insist on using The Black book of communism as a source for the 100 million killed by the pursuit of communism i thought i might as well throw this in.

"371 treaties were made by the US government with Native Americans. The United States govenment violated 370 of those treaties, to date. Over 250 years, 160 million Native Americans have been killed by the US government."
- The White Book of Capitalism

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 03:13 am

This whole nonsense of millions of people dying is nothing more that bourgeois propaganda

What you just said is complete BS. The millions of deaths in the Soviet Union due to Stalinist policies and even pre-Stalin (Leninist) Russia are well documented historical events.
Prove it.

They are well documented by bourgeois historians. Provide me with evidence instead of regurgitating the same old propaganda.

[Red_Syphilis_Steve]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 03, 2006 07:18 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 03, 2006 07:18 am)
[email protected] 03, 2006 03:13 am

This whole nonsense of millions of people dying is nothing more that bourgeois propaganda

What you just said is complete BS. The millions of deaths in the Soviet Union due to Stalinist policies and even pre-Stalin (Leninist) Russia are well documented historical events.
Prove it.

They are well documented by bourgeois historians. Provide me with evidence instead of regurgitating the same old propaganda. [/b]
so if all of this evidence is bourgeois biased. what are we doing arguing about it. haha. listen, and you can even quote me on this, I really honestly believe that a good genocide every once in a while can is really healthy for the planet. Maybe that's just a little Darwinist though.

[RebelDog]

so if all of this evidence is bourgeois biased. what are we doing arguing about it. haha. listen, and you can even quote me on this, I really honestly believe that a good genocide every once in a while can is really healthy for the planet. Maybe that's just a little Darwinist though.

It is not as much Darwinist as it is twisted.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 12:44 am
All Anarchists are socialists, but not all Socialists are Anarchists.
anarchists might consider themselves socialists, but they would eventually cause more harm to the workingclass than good...

like i said before, if we livedin anarchy, it would quickly return to a state of despotism. suppose there was no government and no established laws... that means there is nothing stopping me from creating my own militia and conquering the territory around me, thus making my militia (my new political party) the sole rulers of my territory.

if anarchy was ever established, it would disappear in a matter of weaks and give way to government and established law - dictatorships especially. anarchy will, by its nature, destroy itself; it will result in thousands of small milityary dictatorships and countless intermilitia wars (street gangs would especially benefit from the absence of law) - the people would again become opressed (even moreso than ever before - i wouldn't be surprised if slavery would come back).

where's the socialism in that?

[Intellectual47]

Wow, I'm suprised by what can happen when I leave for a while. But seriously, can you address my last question?

Here's my answer you can quote me on.

The Berlin wall was built because before the people had a choice to live in a Socialistic state or a capitalistic state (neither pure socialims or capitalism has existed so that defense is meaningless). And the almost alwasy chose to live in a capitalist state. Before people had this choice. They could test both systmes on thier merits and see who was better. And Socialism always failed this test.

So Russia decided to discontinue this test, like the man who rigs an election when he's going to lose. They built the Berlin Wall to keep the the people of East Germany from getting both sides of an issue, like elimanating capitalists on a forum. This action was also an almost perect example of what socialism becomes. It becomes oppressive, tyrannical, cold( not litterally), inhumane, and resistant to debate or learning.

The Berlin Wall was built to keep the Socialists from taking the legitimancy test.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 03, 2006 03:30 pm
like i said before, if we livedin anarchy, it would quickly return to a state of despotism.
For what reason?


suppose there was no government and no established laws... that means there is nothing stopping me from creating my own militia and conquering the territory around me, thus making my militia (my new political party) the sole rulers of my territory.

Why would that happen?


if anarchy was ever established, it would disappear in a matter of weaks and give way to government and established law - dictatorships especially.

What is this based on? Your opinion is irrelevant unless you have some factual insight that justifies it in some way.


anarchy will, by its nature, destroy itself;

What "nature" and how does this "nature" mean that anarchy will "destroy itself"?


it will result in thousands of small milityary dictatorships and countless intermilitia wars (street gangs would especially benefit from the absence of law)

This agian is nothing more than conjecture. Why would this happen? Why is it you think "the rule of law" will enable our society to be free from these sorts of things?


the people would again become opressed (even moreso than ever before - i wouldn't be surprised if slavery would come back).

Could you explain to me what anarchism is?

[Intellectual47]

Anarchism is a lack of government. Which implies a lack of laws, justice, industry, hospitals, infrasturcture, and order.

I think Aeturanal is reffering to the nature of man, which has proven itself time and time again. TAT, you may find "Lord of the Flies" an intresting read.

I found his ideas incredibly correct because anarchy would soon become a dictatorship of street gangs and militias. Anarchy shows itself best in civil wars, which always have high casualty rates and loss of all the things I mentioned.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 07:14 pm
Anarchism is a lack of government. Which implies a lack of laws, justice, industry, hospitals, infrasturcture, and order.
The problem with being human in the modern/post-modern world is, it's difficult for most people to conceptualise anything other than what is in front of them at the conception of their abilities to understand the world around them.

For most people thinking is not necessarily something one thinks about doing and therefore you are left stating an opinion of apparent obviousness without actually contemplating any alternative. The world too many appears binary - It is either one way or the other - We either have governments to provide us with hospitals or we have no government and therefore no one to provide us with hospitals.

However, if one takes a moment to stop for just one second and engage the brain in taking a critical look at that sentence it is often possible to see the world in various different ways. What a phenomenon thought is!

"Government" is a form of human organisation that usually allows one group of people to dominate another. On a swift glance at the sum of all things one could easily say that the government provides us with industry and hospitals but again, engaging that thing they call reason, we can see that government is nothing more than a concept not an all powerful deity capable of handing to us hospitals when ever we desire them.

Hospitals are created by humans, not by this mystical all powerful "government" I hear so many people talk about.


I think Aeturanal is reffering to the nature of man, which has proven itself time and time again.

What is this nature you speak of?


TAT, you may find "Lord of the Flies" an intresting read.

I found it incredibly dull and I won’t be reading it again...


I found his ideas incredibly correct because anarchy would soon become a dictatorship of street gangs and militias.

I see, the "nature of man" would prevail and without the mystical deity of government we would all be left helpless, murdered in our own beds, our mouths raped and our eyes plucked out!

Attempt to entertain the possibility that our ability to defend ourselves, or indeed conceptualise the dangers of "anti-social behaviour" is indeed not wholly tied up into the hands of "the government" but is in fact the culmination of human action and thought.


Anarchy shows itself best in civil wars, which always have high casualty rates and loss of all the things I mentioned.

Do you know what anarchy/anarchism is? If so, can you please enlighten me?

[Dimentio]

Socialism [or marxism-leninism] was mostly tested out in states that had been imperial regimes with absolute god-like emperors before [the Soviet Union/Czarist Russia, the PRC/Empire of China, Vietnam, North Korea] or tribal societies with paternalism as the founding ideology. These countries were often both anti-egalitarian and hierarchic from the beginning, and ushered the establishment of authoritarianism. Peasant revolts had often deposed emperors before, just to install new ones.

None of the nations where marxism-leninism rooted were in the capitalist mode of production mentally. They had some modern industry, but the majority of their population lived in a pre-modern intellectual context.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

suppose there was no government and no established laws... that means there is nothing stopping me from creating my own militia and conquering the territory around me, thus making my militia (my new political party) the sole rulers of my territory.

Why would that happen?

because there would be no organised force to stop me.

chaos creates dictators (remember that horrible little austrian with a severe rectal itch, which he attributed to the jewish people?)


What is this based on? Your opinion is irrelevant unless you have some factual insight that justifies it in some way.

partially my opinion, partially logically assumed. the world has never been immersed in a state of pure anarchy... this is what i logically conclude would happen.


What "nature" and how does this "nature" mean that anarchy will "destroy itself"?

the nature of anarchy is to free the people from the control of governments, laws, organisation, etc. with these restrictions removed, there is nothing to stop, as i said, militants, street gangs, etc. from taking over, thus destroying this state of anarchy.


This agian is nothing more than conjecture. Why would this happen? Why is it you think "the rule of law" will enable our society to be free from these sorts of things?

it's the government/law/enforcement thereof that keeps militants and street gangs from taking over. hell, consider that most street gangs already have a set territory that they have some form of control over... with the cops gone to keep them from taking complete control, they will do just that.


Could you explain to me what anarchism is?

society minus organisation.


"Government" is a form of human organisation that usually allows one group of people to dominate another. On a swift glance at the sum of all things one could easily say that the government provides us with industry and hospitals but again, engaging that thing they call reason, we can see that government is nothing more than a concept not an all powerful deity capable of handing to us hospitals when ever we desire them.

that is one thing that i have to agree with, to an extent. most established government allow for class division, and the illegimate anal baby of class division: class exploitation.

this, i believe, is because no truly democratic government has existed. ever.

i believe in a truly democratic government... there will be no political parties (political parties serve an aim of one group of people). the people will elect from among themselves other, more politically minded, people to watch over institutions such as the police, hospitals, schools, tax collection, etc. however, these people will serve a short term, and will have no say in what laws get passed and what laws do not. i believe these elected officials should be able to create ideas for new laws that they think the people will agree with; if the people agree, they vote in favour of the law, if they disagree, they will reject it.

as well, i don't think any government body should have the responsibility of protecting any more than maybe 10,000 people. the larger populations in a nation become, the more bureaucratic and the less democratic the government becomes (consider the united states: we elect people to make up our minds for us. we don't even get to elect our own president - the 550 members of legislature do that for us).


What is this nature you speak of?

human nature is among the many reasons an anarchic system would ultimately fail. we are social animals, and we form unions with other of our species. these unions can become powerful (consider the relationship every ICP fan has with his fellow "juggalos," even ones that he has not met) and large. ultimately, our social nature will create groups of people - organisation. organisation is not anarchy.

...

a good movie, if you're interested in punk/anarchy lifestyle is SLC Punk. I recomend it.

[Intellectual47]

My quotes appear to have been messed up. how do you do them?

[Intellectual47]

Hospitals are created by humans, not by this mystical all powerful "government"

Hospitals are created by different industries put together and are run by people intrested in making money. It is the government that regulates the hospital and puts the industries together.


we can see that government is nothing more than a concept

Government is a group of people that rules the group B according to group B's intrests. If there is a group C, then it becomes a two-party system. Government exists to serve the people. This is the idea of many social philosphers such as Locke and Hobbes.


I found it incredibly dull and I won’t be reading it again....

Apparently you missed the whole point of the book. The book is a social expeirment in anarchy.

There was another expeirment done where they allowed some teenagers absolute power over another group that acted as inmates in a jail. There was no goverment to rule the ruling teens. The ruling teens quickley delved into authortarianism over the inmates and they had to call off the test.


I see, the "nature of man" would prevail and without the mystical deity of government we would all be left helpless, murdered in our own beds, our mouths raped and our eyes plucked out!!

While not what you describe, in all instances where anarchy has been tested; the "nature of man" did prevail; unfortunetly.


Do you know what anarchy/anarchism is? If so, can you please enlighten me?

Anarchy is a lack of government, In civil wars the governments power is weakened. So I look to these civil wars as examples.

P.S. do you listen to country music? If so, who's your favorite musician.
I'm assuming you live in America. If you don't; tell me that you don't

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Apparently you missed the whole point of the book. The book is a social expeirment in anarchy.


even i know this. Anarchism is what anarchists want. Not many here are primitivists.They want a highly organised society. a society of abundance too. So nothing like lord of the flies

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

My quotes appear to have been messed up. how do you do them?

Copy the text.

paste it

highlight it

then click the quote button.

then click a non text part too un highlight it and write your responce

[Intellectual47]

Thank you, capitalist sham.

[Intellectual47]

Hospitals are created by humans, not by this mystical all powerful "government
Hospitals are created by different industries put together and are run by people intrested in making money. It is the government that regulates the hospital and puts the industries together.

we can see that government is nothing more than a concept
Government is a group of people that rules the group B according to group B's intrests. If there is a group C, then it becomes a two-party system. Government exists to serve the people. This is the idea of many social philosphers such as Locke and Hobbes.
On "Lord of the Flies" (sorry, I can't figure out how to do double quotes)
Apparently you missed the whole point of the book. The book is a social expeirment in anarchy.
There was another expeirment done where they allowed some teenagers absolute power over another group that acted as inmates in a jail. There was no goverment to rule the ruling teens. The ruling teens quickley delved into authortarianism over the inmates and they had to call off the test.

I see, the "nature of man" would prevail and without the mystical deity of government we would all be left helpless, murdered in our own beds, our mouths raped and our eyes plucked out!!
While not what you describe, in all instances where anarchy has been tested; the "nature of man" did prevail; unfortunetly.

Do you know what anarchy/anarchism is? If so, can you please enlighten me?
Anarchy is a lack of government, In civil wars the governments power is weakened. So I look to these civil wars as examples.

P.S. do you listen to country music? If so, who's your favorite musician.
I'm assuming you live in America. If you don't; tell me that you don't

[Intellectual47]

even i know this. Anarchism is what anarchists want. Not many here are primitivists.They want a highly organised society. a society of abundance too. So nothing like lord of the flies
Actually, anarchism would lead to primitivism because there wouldn't be a government to keep technology up and running. Also the sheer chaos of anarchy would destroy technology.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Actually, anarchism would lead to primitivism because there wouldn't be a government to keep technology up and running. Also the sheer chaos of anarchy would destroy technology.

Well im not an anarchist, so i think you would get a more detailed answer from another board member. But the wikipedia can give you detailes on anarcho-communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism)

Anarchists certainly dont think it would to primitivism. THey oppose that on the whole. Just like socialists they want a High technology society.

Why exactly do you think there would be chaos?

[Intellectual47]

Why exactly do you think there would be chaos?
Because a lack of government would lead to a lack of reprecussions for crimes. Justice would become your local militia's version of justice. The economy would be completely screwed up and we would revert to a tyrranical, bartering society.

Anarchists certainly dont think it would to primitivism. THey oppose that on the whole. Just like socialists they want a High technology society.
Yes, but that doesn't mean what I say won't happen. Just because I WANT something to happen doesn't mean it will happen. You cannot OPPOSE chaos if you're in it because talking won't get you anywhere.

[Connolly]

Because a lack of government would lead to a lack of reprecussions for crimes.

Crimes such as what?

[Intellectual47]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 03, 2006 09:35 pm

Because a lack of government would lead to a lack of reprecussions for crimes.

Crimes such as what?
Crimes such as murder, assualt, battery, larceny, thievary, robbery, sexual assualt, fraud, rape, and hate crimes. Or just about every crime in the book

[Connolly]

Crimes such as murder

Why do people generally murder?

What percentage of crimes committed in total, amount to this crime?


assualt

Why do people generally committ this crime?

What percentage of crimes committed in total, amount to this crime?


battery

Why do people generally committ this crime?

What percentage of crimes committed in total, amount to this crime?


larceny

Why do people generally committ this crime?

What percentage of crimes committed in total, amount to this crime?


thievary, robbery

Why do people generally committ this crime?

What percentage of crimes committed in total, amount to this crime?


fraud

Why do people generally committ this crime?

What percentage of crimes committed in total, amount to this crime?


rape

Why do people generally committ this crime?

What percentage of crimes committed in total, amount to this crime?


hate crimes

Why do people generally committ this crime?

What percentage of crimes committed in total, amount to this crime?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I would like to know the logical purpose of that post.

[MKS]

Prove it.

They are well documented by bourgeois historians. Provide me with evidence instead of regurgitating the same old propaganda.

Not all history has been recorded in the interests of one socio-economic class of people, there is and always will be impartial parties who record history as it is found. Although such recordings are hard to find, they are not impossible. As for the deaths in Soviet Russia and the Ukraine a lot of the evidence comes from 1st person accounts of the Gulags, firing squads, KGB raids etc. Much like the Germans in WWII the Russians kept records of transports, census data, "arrests", executions etc. It is proven that Stalin is responsible for the deaths of millions of people, and his policies resulted in famine and abject poverty for much of the Soviet citizenry. I don’t understand your compulsion to defend a man such as Stalin, or his government, is it just because he was "anti-capitalist" that you willingly defend a genocidere? It is because of attitudes like yours that allow the pro-capitalists factions to successfully denounce all Leftists as Stalinists, or tyrants. We have to admit the crimes committed against humanity by all governments no matter what flag they flew or rhetoric they spewed. Read my Einstein quote below. You remind me a lot of the American who will or cannot admit the atrocities committed by their government.

Now, If I may say something about Anarchy. Anarchy is not the absence of government it is the absence of hierarchy and the absence of a centralized state power. government is always nessecary as an administrative tool to serve the intrests of the people. An anarchist administration (Libertarian-Socialist) would be completley democratic with no seats of executive power. Libertarian-Socialism places alot of responsibility and expectations on the indvidual to act with the intrests of the community in mind at all times.

[Intellectual47]

[QUOTE=RedStar1916,December 03, 2006 09:47 pm] I would like to know the logical purpose of that post.
To create (or extend) a debate about the goodness of socialism. I find this quite logical.


redbanner, I don't have time to answer all of these, however I will try.

Murder: people kill for money, anger, or mental disorders. (Reggretably I'm not knowledgeable enough to name percentages but I will give a guess) very low

assualt: anger or intimidation usually, probably medium

battery: same as assualt, except lower

larceny, thievary, robbery: money, goods, rarlely a mental disorder. quite high

fraud: money, no idea

rape: anger, sense of power. most likely low

hate crimes: racism, sexism added to the other crimes. low

You ignore the point of my listing these crimes.

[Connolly]

I would like to know the logical purpose of that post.

The "logical" purpose of the post is to get I47 to think for once.

Most of the crimes he outlines, as a percentage of the total crimes committed, are a result of economic and cultural circumstances - thats as fucking obvious as green grass. :angry: :rolleyes:

THESE CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE AFTER REVOLUTION. (hence the point of revolution itself).

The rest, such as possible murder or rape, are rare crimes and effects a very small minority of the population - thats even under capitalism.

The sort of "governance" and policing he's talking about is just unnecessary in a society where most crimes are unheard of that we know today.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

To create (or extend) a debate about the goodness of socialism. I find this quite logical.
I wasn't talking about the thread, I was talking about RedBanner's post.

Edit: just read the above post, okay point taken RB.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 09:39 pm

Hospitals are created by humans, not by this mystical all powerful "government"

Hospitals are created by different industries put together and are run by people intrested in making money.
Yes, people. People being human beings. Regardless of all the concepts and ideas you keep attaching to this, the point remains the same.

People make hospitals - How that is organised does not stop people from making hospitals.


It is the government that regulates the hospital and puts the industries together.

Well, I suppose you could call any group of people organising the co-ordination of social managment a "government". It is possible for a regional assembly to be called a government, but I would have a problem with that. The term government has much more historical nuance and context.

A regional assembly is by its very nature organised horizontally or bottom up and requires direct democracy or even consensus decision making and this is a disctintly different form of political organisation than a "government" in its historical context.



we can see that government is nothing more than a concept

Government is a group of people that rules the group B according to group B's intrests. If there is a group C, then it becomes a two-party system. Government exists to serve the people. This is the idea of many social philosphers such as Locke and Hobbes.

In contemporary society this system is designed to protect the interests of private property and profit. If you analyse in any serious way the functions of westernised or even capitalist and proto-capitalist nations you will easily see that the "interests" of the different groups of people are systematically ignored for the benefit of one sole group - The ruling class.

Of course liberal democracy has created better standards of living than 100 years ago, but of course that was a necessity economically. The ethos and function of this system of government has changed very little since it's instutionalisation.



I found it incredibly dull and I won’t be reading it again....

Apparently you missed the whole point of the book. The book is a social expeirment in anarchy.

Based on what? What was William Goldings anthropological research that he exhausted in the creation of this fiction book?

What is the basis for this "social experiment" - What hypothesis is he trying to prove? That human beings are inherently bad?


There was another expeirment done where they allowed some teenagers absolute power over another group that acted as inmates in a jail. There was no goverment to rule the ruling teens. The ruling teens quickley delved into authortarianism over the inmates and they had to call off the test.

Anti-social behviour/greed/badness are social constructs not objective facts. People behave in these ways much like racists and homophobes do. People react to their environment and the society we live in is authoritarian, greedy and violent. These things are legitimsed by our society; by our government, our church, our schools and our parents.

Of course people will behave in these ways - This is what they are taught is normal. This, however, is nothing more than an illusion - Just like racism and is easily counted by reason.



While not what you describe, in all instances where anarchy has been tested; the "nature of man" did prevail; unfortunetly.

Where are these examples?

And please clarify what this "nature" is?


Anarchy is a lack of government

Yes, that it's literal definition, but there is much more to Anarchy than the words literal definition. Anarchy represents hyper-organisation, direct democracy and freedom. It is based on class struggle and means to destroy capitalism and the state.

Read this: 'Anarchy' by Errico Malatesta (1891) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1891/xx/anarchy.htm)

[Connolly]

Murder: people kill for money, anger, or mental disorders. (Reggretably I'm not knowledgeable enough to name percentages but I will give a guess) very low

Money wouldnt exist.

Anger - well, over what exactly?

Mental disorders would be treated with proper care and attention before they even get the chance to committ murder.

Very low - exactly.


assualt: anger or intimidation usually, probably medium

Why does it occur?


larceny, thievary, robbery: money, goods, rarlely a mental disorder. quite high

Money wouldnt exist.

Goods are freely available.

Quite high - exactly.


fraud: money, no idea

Money wouldnt exist.


rape: anger, sense of power. most likely low

Quite low.


hate crimes: racism, sexism added to the other crimes. low

Would hopefully not exist.

EDIT: Just saw your post RS1916 :lol:

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 02, 2006 03:34 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 02, 2006 03:34 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2006 07:45 pm
1.China was obviously trying to attain communism.
And didn't.


2.Actually, IF the US were a "shithole", then it would be fair to criticize lassez-faire economics. No it wouldn't because the US is not a perfectly lassiez-faire system.
It's kinda like trying to jump 20 feet to a utopia over a cliff. No one makes it, but you don't tell people that utopia is still perfect. The utopia has becomes almost malevolant because it is an unfulfillable dream that led men to jump over the cliff. Actually a better metaphor would be the Greek Sirens. Sheer, unmitigated bollocks. You cannot critisise a goal based entirely on whether or not somone has achieved that goal or indeed how people have tried to reach it.


3. capitalism is much more flexible than Communism turned out to be. What does 'flexibility' have to do with anything. Besides which all the economies you've mentioned have been debt-token based price systems.


4. Actually they had very little money because they never let anyone do buisness in thier country. Bussiness is antithetical to socialism, which means on a world market based on bussiness of course they are going to fail, this is nothing to do with their being socialist, more with the rest of the world's capitalism using its built in defense to crush any dissent.

[/b]
Oh, so in other words:

1. Proof of the correctness of communism/socialism is that nobody has yet to figure out how to get there. That is quite brilliant.

2. China, the USSR, Hungary, Vietnam et. al. can define socilaism/communism as they wish and try to get there as they wish. But their failures to get there should not be considered proof as to the unattainability of socialism. Again, sheer brilliance.

Another comment: Unless there is going to be a a spontaneous world wide revolution which sweeps away capitalism and ushers in socilaism at the same time, then socilaists are going to deal with the reality of a socialist community existing side by side with a capitalist community. It does no good to whine that the failure of a socialist community in such a circumstance is due to the inability socilaist productivity to defeat the power of capitalist productivity. This failure ought to be viewed as a yet anotther blow against the viability of socilaism.

[Wozzeck]

Socialism is 'for the people' and must come 'from the people'. This is why it hasn't worked. A society must be made of children unspoiled by worldy things, to be taught the rightousness of human compassion through unity. This will obviously, and 'UNFORTUNATELY' never happen. :angry:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 03:36 pm
A society must be made of children unspoiled by worldy things, to be taught the rightousness of human compassion through unity. This will obviously, and 'UNFORTUNATELY' never happen. :angry:
Why not?

[Intellectual47]

Actually, on murder, people would still get angry under Socialism. Unless you drug people.
Assualt also occurs because of anger, which Socialism cannot fix. In fact, almost nothing can fix it.
Stealing would still occur because people are greedy and want more than they have. They might feel that the person next door has more than they deserve and thus steal from them. Socialism cannot fix this.
Hate crimes would hopefully not exist? :huh: Capitalism is the best cure for hatred since it allows all people an equal chance to be rich (in theory, just like Socialism is perfectly fair in theory :rolleyes:

P.S. how many people here listen to country? Because you can tell a lot about a person by what music they listen to.

[The Feral Underclass]

"Intellectual"; you have't responded to any of my points. Why is that? Are you prepared to have your mind changed or not?

[Wozzeck]

Socialist and Communist alike, often don't realize that the society they wish for is nothing short of 'heaven'. Chances are the current ways of the world will continue as they are until its chatostrophic demize, which will throw us into another 'MiddleAges'! All us socialist can do is point and say "I told you so!"

[Intellectual47]

TAT, I have responded to your points.
You are acting like a little child who whines and cries when no one pays attention to them. I reponded to your points in my last post.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 06:11 pm
TAT, I have responded to your points.
You are acting like a little child who whines and cries when no one pays attention to them. I reponded to your points in my last post.
No, I'm sorry that's just not acceptable. This is a forum for debate. Now you will go through my post to you and respond to each point individually and answer my specific questions.

I gave your posts attention, you should do the same. Now if you can't do that then you are not permitted to post here. You have to engage your brain otherwise you will never learn.

What is the purpose of you being here? Is it to learn or to antagonise? At the moment it appears you just want to antagonise people and then once you are unable to respond anymore, you ignore them.

I'm not going to tolerate that.

[Intellectual47]

TAT, I tell you I have responded to your points. Please check my posts and you will see your points quoted.

[Connolly]

Actually, on murder, people would still get angry under Socialism. Unless you drug people.
Assualt also occurs because of anger, which Socialism cannot fix. In fact, almost nothing can fix it.
Stealing would still occur because people are greedy and want more than they have. They might feel that the person next door has more than they deserve and thus steal from them. Socialism cannot fix this.
Hate crimes would hopefully not exist? Capitalism is the best cure for hatred since it allows all people an equal chance to be rich (in theory, just like Socialism is perfectly fair in theory

I couldnt even be bothered responding to this bullshit.

You still havnt addressed WHY assaults occur.

You still havnt addressed WHY people steal.

Your just repeating the same old bollox over and over without thinking. And im not thinking for you.


Why is it that you guys think crime will disappear?

Why? - because the overwheliming majority of crimes committed are due to economic and cultural conditions.

[Intellectual47]

I just said that assualts occur because of anger
People steal for goods and money. And occaisonely mental disoders (kleptomania)

Socialism cannot fix the assualt or stealing problems because they are bred in every human around the world.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 03:45 pm
Actually, on murder, people would still get angry under Socialism. Unless you drug people.
Assualt also occurs because of anger, which Socialism cannot fix. In fact, almost nothing can fix it.
Stealing would still occur because people are greedy and want more than they have. They might feel that the person next door has more than they deserve and thus steal from them. Socialism cannot fix this.
Hate crimes would hopefully not exist? :huh: Capitalism is the best cure for hatred since it allows all people an equal chance to be rich (in theory, just like Socialism is perfectly fair in theory :rolleyes:

P.S. how many people here listen to country? Because you can tell a lot about a person by what music they listen to.
This is not a satisfactory response. It's just repition!

You keep asserting and then reasserting your opinion without explaining it and this will inevitably lead to me having to repeat myself.

Please go through my post, point on point and respond to me properly.

[Connolly]

Explain how the vast magority of rapes, murders and assaults are caused by ecomomic and culture conditions. Cuz this makes no sense to me these things have been going on since the dawn of time long before capitalism existed.

Maybe you should put your glasses on.

I SAID "the overwheliming majority of crimes committed are due to economic and cultural conditions."

"OF CRIMES".

Murders, rapes and assaults DO NOT MAKE UP THE VAST MAJORITY OF CRIMES COMMITTED.
----------------------------------------------------------------

As for, murders, rapes and assaults - I would also argue that much has to do with economic and cultural conditions.

Assaults, for example - at least here in Ireland - where we have quite a "drink" problem, are caused while people are intoxicated for the majority of cases on late nights out.

Why do people get intoxicated with booze?


Murders, well, what can we expect when the mentally disturbed cannot get proper attention and care under a system driven by profit.

[Connolly]

Cuz its fun to go out and get shit faced with your mates, it has nothing to do with capitalists ruining the world.

:lol:

Its that simple is it?

---------------------------

Experience the REAL world first. Then maybe, you will see the social reasons as to why people get intoxicated beyond mere teenage experimentation.

The very act is highly interconnected with the economic state of a society.

[Connolly]

Your answers so far are make me think you have no clue what your talking about.

Likewise

[Intellectual47]

As I recall the USSR had extremely high levels of vodka consumption. And people drink beer for reasons besides their economic system.

[Connolly]

As I recall the USSR had extremely high levels of vodka consumption.

Why did you mention the USSR?


And people drink beer for reasons besides their economic system.

Beer didnt always exist. The simple act of consumption depends on a particular level of economic and technological development. So, actually, people can only drink because their economic and technological surroundings allow them too.

Unless God invented the beer can and gave it to Adam at the very start of human existence.

[Connolly]

Well at least we agree about something.

Uh, no.

You have no idea what your talking about, and I couldnt be arsed searching for, and providing COMMON SENSE. Thats is - people do not drink based on the fact that they want to get "shit faced", puke down a toilet, smack their head of a kerb and get the head digged off them by the end of the night, then, by the next day, probably a Monday in work, die with a hangover from a night they cant remember.

Honestly - with that sort of CHILDISH and most probably TEENAGE rationale, I couldnt be arsed putting in any effort to educate you.

Live with it - and hopefully learn from experience.

[Intellectual47]

Beer didnt always exist. The simple act of consumption depends on a particular level of economic and technological development. So, actually, people can only drink because their economic and technological surroundings allow them too.
Actually there is evidence that beer was in some ancient societies.

Why did you mention the USSR?
because they were a socialist country and you claim that Socialism would solve drinking problems. People drink for complex reasons like depression or mental disorders.

[MKS]

Alcohol consumption has been around for centuries; beer,wine, etc. "drug" use has been and continues to be a "staple" of the human animals existence. That is to say almost all humans use some sort of mind altering substance. Maybe its a sign; life is shitty no matter where you live or no matter what socio-econmomic system is prevelant. Maybe human nature is always looking for an escape, or trying to reach a different consciousness. Whatever the reason, it is clear that man/woman has always found some way to alter their perception.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 10:01 pm

Beer didnt always exist. The simple act of consumption depends on a particular level of economic and technological development. So, actually, people can only drink because their economic and technological surroundings allow them too.
Actually there is evidence that beer was in some ancient societies.

Why did you mention the USSR?
because they were a socialist country and you claim that Socialism would solve drinking problems. People drink for complex reasons like depression or mental disorders.
96 posts and you still don't know what socialism is.

Tell me Intellectual47......was production controlled by the workers in the USSR? Or was it the state?

The USSR was a statist command economy, not a socialist society. The aim of it-and other "socialist" states-was to accumulate enough national capital to compete with the imperialist countries, forcing them to exploit their workers. If this ain't capitalism I don't know what it is, but it's certainly nearer capitalism than socialism.

Once this is done the party members (the only ones with money and power) begin privitising industries for themselves.

The leaders of these parties pretend to be socialist, yet they are Bonapartist; they take power from the bourgeois to pacify the class struggle (for more information on this look up Louis Bonaparte and his suppression of the Paris Commune) and then use reformism to co-opt popular revolutionary sentiment, whilst in their actions they are actually suppressing the workers movements. (see Lenin's state co-option of the Soviets, USSRs suppression of Kronstadt workers, and the Ukrainian Black Army) I look at it as a sort of political wing of the bourgeois, which aims to defend capitalist social relations by suppressing democratic institutions and balancing between the classes. Early capitalism is always crisis ridden and prone to violent class conflict, so a third party is necassary to balance things out in order to preserve it.

Modern capitalist states have always grown out of controlled economies. I think however where the USSR and China differ to European development is they both needed to catch up with the imperialist countries so complete nationalisation is necassary.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 12:25 am
Alcohol consumption has been around for centuries; beer,wine, etc. "drug" use has been and continues to be a "staple" of the human animals existence. That is to say almost all humans use some sort of mind altering substance. Maybe its a sign; life is shitty no matter where you live or no matter what socio-econmomic system is prevelant. Maybe human nature is always looking for an escape, or trying to reach a different consciousness. Whatever the reason, it is clear that man/woman has always found some way to alter their perception.
Well I don't think this is a particularly important discussion, but we originally drank alcohol because the water was too dirty and alcohol kills germs. It's always been a cultural thing in the west, in Asian countries however they used to boil water instead of turning it into alcohol. Looking at alcohol in their societies would be interesting.

But, getting absolutely shitfaced at the weekend however is a recent thing. The media always talks about more and more people binge drinking in my country, but of course they don't offer any reasons why other than "the youth of today!" sort of balls.

[Intellectual47]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 03, 2006 10:16 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 03, 2006 10:16 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2006 09:39 pm

Hospitals are created by humans, not by this mystical all powerful "government"

Hospitals are created by different industries put together and are run by people intrested in making money.
Yes, people. People being human beings. Regardless of all the concepts and ideas you keep attaching to this, the point remains the same.

People make hospitals - How that is organised does not stop people from making hospitals.


It is the government that regulates the hospital and puts the industries together.

Well, I suppose you could call any group of people organising the co-ordination of social managment a "government". It is possible for a regional assembly to be called a government, but I would have a problem with that. The term government has much more historical nuance and context.

A regional assembly is by its very nature organised horizontally or bottom up and requires direct democracy or even consensus decision making and this is a disctintly different form of political organisation than a "government" in its historical context.



we can see that government is nothing more than a concept

Government is a group of people that rules the group B according to group B's intrests. If there is a group C, then it becomes a two-party system. Government exists to serve the people. This is the idea of many social philosphers such as Locke and Hobbes.

In contemporary society this system is designed to protect the interests of private property and profit. If you analyse in any serious way the functions of westernised or even capitalist and proto-capitalist nations you will easily see that the "interests" of the different groups of people are systematically ignored for the benefit of one sole group - The ruling class.

Of course liberal democracy has created better standards of living than 100 years ago, but of course that was a necessity economically. The ethos and function of this system of government has changed very little since it's instutionalisation.



I found it incredibly dull and I won’t be reading it again....

Apparently you missed the whole point of the book. The book is a social expeirment in anarchy.

Based on what? What was William Goldings anthropological research that he exhausted in the creation of this fiction book?

What is the basis for this "social experiment" - What hypothesis is he trying to prove? That human beings are inherently bad?


There was another expeirment done where they allowed some teenagers absolute power over another group that acted as inmates in a jail. There was no goverment to rule the ruling teens. The ruling teens quickley delved into authortarianism over the inmates and they had to call off the test.

Anti-social behviour/greed/badness are social constructs not objective facts. People behave in these ways much like racists and homophobes do. People react to their environment and the society we live in is authoritarian, greedy and violent. These things are legitimsed by our society; by our government, our church, our schools and our parents.

Of course people will behave in these ways - This is what they are taught is normal. This, however, is nothing more than an illusion - Just like racism and is easily counted by reason.



While not what you describe, in all instances where anarchy has been tested; the "nature of man" did prevail; unfortunetly.

Where are these examples?

And please clarify what this "nature" is?


Anarchy is a lack of government

Yes, that it's literal definition, but there is much more to Anarchy than the words literal definition. Anarchy represents hyper-organisation, direct democracy and freedom. It is based on class struggle and means to destroy capitalism and the state.

Read this: 'Anarchy' by Errico Malatesta (1891) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1891/xx/anarchy.htm) [/b]
Okay TAT. As it appears that you are a whiney child and must have people pay attention to you, These are your points. Now to refute them.


People make hospitals - How that is organised does not stop people from making hospitals.
This point will be addressed with another.

Well, I suppose you could call any group of people organising the co-ordination of social managment a "government". It is possible for a regional assembly to be called a government, but I would have a problem with that. The term government has much more historical nuance and context.
So it seems you're not really an anarchist as much as you just want a different government. If the regional assembly tells me where to work, is that not unjustly interfereing with my life? Like you say the governement does. Your idea of government is just a direct democracy, not a representative democracy.

In contemporary society this system is designed to protect the interests of private property and profit. If you analyse in any serious way the functions of westernised or even capitalist and proto-capitalist nations you will easily see that the "interests" of the different groups of people are systematically ignored for the benefit of one sole group - The ruling class.
I live in a Western country, the ruling class does not have it's intrests served. Right now the special intrests are in power. We don't suppress people's "intrests". We have Welfare for the poor, social security for the elderly, anti-racism acts for the minorities, disabilities acts for the disabled, medicare for the poor, We have listen to all people's intrests and try to accomplish them all. Of course this has led to some problems, like rampant spending and ignoring the majority.

What is the basis for this "social experiment" - What hypothesis is he trying to prove? That human beings are inherently bad?
He wrote the book after WWII and tryed to show through example the source of the evil in the world. His thesis is that humanity is naturally evil. It may not be a scientific study, but we can see that he is right because every society with humans in it has evil in it. If humans were naturally good then there would be multiple "good" societies.


Anti-social behviour/greed/badness are social constructs not objective facts. People behave in these ways much like racists and homophobes do. People react to their environment and the society we live in is authoritarian, greedy and violent. These things are legitimsed by our society; by our government, our church, our schools and our parents.
As I said above, it's not a social construct.


And please clarify what this "nature" is?
The nature to be evil and to do "evil" things.

Yes, that it's literal definition, but there is much more to Anarchy than the words literal definition. Anarchy represents hyper-organisation, direct democracy and freedom. It is based on class struggle and means to destroy capitalism and the state.
So Anarchy wishes to make MORE government or "regional assemblies" as you call them? That seems a bit of a misnomer. I think you're actually an anarchist-communist, not an anarchist. A true anarchist wouldn't want their governments powers to go beyond the local level.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Intellectual47+December 05, 2006 04:14 pm--> (Intellectual47 @ December 05, 2006 04:14 pm) Okay TAT. As it appears that you are a whiney child and must have people pay attention to you, These are your points. Now to refute them. [/b]
Don't fuck with me kid, because all I need is an excuse! I wanted you to respond to me because you started a debate. You don't get to pick and choose when you reply to people.

It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that you have no intention of learning. All you want to do is assert your opinion and then reassert it and reassert it. You have no intention of having your mind changed do you?



Well, I suppose you could call any group of people organising the co-ordination of social managment a "government". It is possible for a regional assembly to be called a government, but I would have a problem with that. The term government has much more historical nuance and context.
So it seems you're not really an anarchist as much as you just want a different government.

As I said, semantically you could call the system of assemblies and federalism a government, but again, as I said before...


Me
A regional assembly is by its very nature organised horizontally or bottom up and requires direct democracy or even consensus decision making and this is a disctintly different form of political organisation than a "government" in its historical context.

A regional assembly would be made up of spokespersons or representatives democratically elected by community assemblies and would have no legislative power. The administration of society would be done from the bottom up, not from the top down.

Whereas we have government who dictates down the chain to State assemblies etc the administration of society would be done from community assemblies upwards. What communities decided would be represented on the Regional Assemblies and any consensus reached at a regional level would be democratically verified at a community level.

None of these assemblies would have political authority or be able to pass laws or regulations. It would be a totally federated and de-centralised form of organisation - Totally the opposite of anything that is established at the moment.


If the regional assembly tells me where to work, is that not unjustly interfereing with my life? Like you say the governement does.

These assemblies don't tell you where to work, the relay to regions and communities where people need to work. Whether you participate in that is entirely up to you. You would do socially necessary work voluntarily.


Your idea of government is just a direct democracy, not a representative democracy.

That makes no sense.



In contemporary society this system is designed to protect the interests of private property and profit. If you analyse in any serious way the functions of westernised or even capitalist and proto-capitalist nations you will easily see that the "interests" of the different groups of people are systematically ignored for the benefit of one sole group - The ruling class.
I live in a Western country, the ruling class does not have it's intrests served.

The entire system of law is designed to maintain and defend private property. Governments consistently regulate the economy in order to safeguard the system of profit. If ever it's challenged in any meaningful way, the state uses violence in order to ensure its perpetuation.


Right now the special intrests are in power. We don't suppress people's "intrests". We have Welfare for the

What does that mean?


He wrote the book after WWII and tryed to show through example the source of the evil in the world. His thesis is that humanity is naturally evil. It may not be a scientific study, but we can see that he is right because every society with humans in it has evil in it. If humans were naturally good then there would be multiple "good" societies.

Highlight added.

It isn't a scientific study. It's a fiction book that draws on very dubious anthropological theories. None of which are backed up by any objective evidence.

Humans are "naturally" evil. How are they naturally evil? Is it instinct? Is it biological?



Anti-social behviour/greed/badness are social constructs not objective facts. People behave in these ways much like racists and homophobes do. People react to their environment and the society we live in is authoritarian, greedy and violent. These things are legitimsed by our society; by our government, our church, our schools and our parents.
As I said above, it's not a social construct.

Then it is biological? If it is biological, where is the biological evidence to support this theory? Is it genetic? Is it instinctive?




And please clarify what this "nature" is?
The nature to be evil and to do "evil" things.

Do you or do you not agree that "things" must take a material form in order for them to be real?



Yes, that it's literal definition, but there is much more to Anarchy than the words literal definition. Anarchy represents hyper-organisation, direct democracy and freedom. It is based on class struggle and means to destroy capitalism and the state.
So Anarchy wishes to make MORE government or "regional assemblies" as you call them?

No.


I think you're actually an anarchist-communist, not an anarchist.

:lol:

Look kid, don't try and teach me about anarchism or about what I am. I've been doing this allot longer than you and you are not as knowledgeable as you think you are so don't try and convince me.

[Matty_UK]

So it seems you're not really an anarchist as much as you just want a different government. If the regional assembly tells me where to work, is that not unjustly interfereing with my life? Like you say the governement does. Your idea of government is just a direct democracy, not a representative democracy.

It's not a "different government" it's a completely different means of organisation. A centralised state controlling a nation would not exist; nations would not exist; neighbourhoods would form councils to autonomously manage their own affairs, decide on property distribution etc; for projects over a wider area regional assemblies would be called to form a temporary federation; no political parties would exist, only temporary elected representatives. Workplaces would elect bosses and organise their affairs democratically, perhaps consumer-producer committees would be set up to decide what is needed to be produced.

It's the most democratic means of organisation imaginable, you can't say it's just "a different government."



I live in a Western country, the ruling class does not have it's intrests served. Right now the special intrests are in power. We don't suppress people's "intrests". We have Welfare for the poor, social security for the elderly, anti-racism acts for the minorities, disabilities acts for the disabled, medicare for the poor, We have listen to all people's intrests and try to accomplish them all. Of course this has led to some problems, like rampant spending and ignoring the majority.

If capitalism had not reformed itself since Victorian Times, the bourgeois would be confined to graves and history books by now. Reformism is in the interests of the bourgeois.

But still above all everything in our society is in defense of capitalists. The laws, everything....a police force that exists to protect bourgeois property and take you away if you don't pay your debts. We have no means of autonomous survival other than selling our labour to the bourgeois where we cannot help but be exploited. Capitalism effects everyones daily lives, and the bourgeois through it's control of the media has naturalised this state of affairs as the "norm" and anything else is not a "free society." I certainly don't feel free.


He wrote the book after WWII and tryed to show through example the source of the evil in the world. His thesis is that humanity is naturally evil. It may not be a scientific study, but we can see that he is right because every society with humans in it has evil in it. If humans were naturally good then there would be multiple "good" societies.

Humans once attaining power will try to cling to it. Humans when hungry will fight to survive. Property and the struggle for control of it is the root of all conflict.

It isn't an issue of "good" and "evil," life is struggle and sometimes terrible things happen. No-one enjoys these terrible things unless they're very ill.

And importantly, I'm a generous, understanding, considerate person and so are many-nay, most-people. But they will still look after themselves. So being a dick clearly isn't predetermined.


So Anarchy wishes to make MORE government or "regional assemblies" as you call them? That seems a bit of a misnomer. I think you're actually an anarchist-communist, not an anarchist. A true anarchist wouldn't want their governments powers to go beyond the local level.

Almost all anarchists are anarcho-communist. Individualist anarchism is an impossible and outdated petty-bourgeois ideology only followed by isolated nutcases, and primitivism (basically go back to tribes) is quite possibly even weirder people; and neither of them stand any sort of chance of happening.

[Intellectual47]

A regional assembly would be made up of spokespersons or representatives democratically elected by community assemblies and would have no legislative power. The administration of society would be done from the bottom up, not from the top down.
How large would a regional assembly be? And what would be the point of it if it holds no power. And again you fall into idealism. People are not going to suddenly start volunteering work if they still get free stuff. If a human can get free stuff, but told he CAN work, but he doesn't have to, he won't work. Any teacher will tell you that. We as humans naturally avoid labor unless we are sufficently motivated. Like the Capitalist motivation of work or make no money does much better than the Commie motivation of maybe I'll work maybe I'll work. To create a motivation Lenin had to establish the Work or Die motivation. So without secret police your society will fall and collapse.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 07:33 pm

A regional assembly would be made up of spokespersons or representatives democratically elected by community assemblies and would have no legislative power. The administration of society would be done from the bottom up, not from the top down.
How large would a regional assembly be?
That would vary.


And what would be the point of it if it holds no power

The point would be to work out the organisation of society, not to make decisions. It would be federated into a regional assembly for logistical purposes.

For example a regional assembly may meet every three months. Each community and work place assembly in that region would elect a one or two spokespersons to attend the assembly and would take with them an agenda.

At the assembly, each spokesperson would submit the agenda and once it was finalised the assembly would hear news, reports and there would be a discussion. The assembly would then put together proposals that would then be taken back to these communities where a vote on them could happen.


And again you fall into idealism. People are not going to suddenly start volunteering work if they still get free stuff.

They wouldn't get stuff for "free". They would receive what was nececssary in return for them to work what was necessary.


We as humans naturally avoid labor unless we are sufficently motivated

How is it natural? Stop saying these things without providing evidence for them. You have already been suspended once, if you continue to make baseless assertions then you will be suspended again.


Like the Capitalist motivation of work or make no money does much better than the Commie motivation of maybe I'll work maybe I'll work.

The motivation in a communist society would be because it benefited all.


To create a motivation Lenin had to establish the Work or Die motivation. So without secret police your society will fall and collapse.

As I have said in this thread already, if you continue to make baseless accusations without evidence then you will have your account suspended again.

[Connolly]

I wouldnt even bother responding to him anymore TAT.

Its like talking to a BRICK WALL.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 03:50 pm
Okay, I'm restarting a thread that was closed not to long ago, "History Lesson". It'll be on the same thing as my last thread and this time I hope that we can have good logical debate with no flaming or trolling. I hope we all learn something from this.

"Why is it that almost socialistic country has a poor economy, enormous poverty, oppression of the prolterliat(please excuse my spelling), atrocious human rights records, and a poor armed forces. I can't even think of a Socialistic country that doesn't have two or more of these qualities.

Can ya'll think of a few? (and tell me why)
It's ironic that someone calling themselves the intellectual could make such a stupid thread.

[Intellectual47]

Hey guys sorry I haven't been here for a while I was temporarily banned. Anyways what do I have here.

They wouldn't get stuff for "free". They would receive what was nececssary in return for them to work what was necessary.
So you're proposing wage-labor? I thought Marx hated that.

How is it natural? Stop saying these things without providing evidence for them. You have already been suspended once, if you continue to make baseless assertions then you will be suspended again.
Intresting you never responded to my point, but my base for these charges is the actions of every human I have come in contact with and expert opinions from teachers.

The motivation in a communist society would be because it benefited all.
Trust me that would never work. Everyone I've ever met would be a counter-example to that. When we hear that we can give charity and help someone, do we immediantly rush to donate all our money to charity? Of course not!

As I have said in this thread already, if you continue to make baseless accusations without evidence then you will have your account suspended again.
Again, you didn't answer my point.

I wouldnt even bother responding to him anymore TAT.
Ah, the feeling is mutual.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 08:40 pm
Hey guys sorry I haven't been here for a while I was temporarily banned. Anyways what do I have here.
You were temprarly banned for being a troll, we hoped perhaps that you'd come back and be less of a wanker toward the good members of this forum.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 09:40 pm
So you're proposing wage-labor? I thought Marx hated that.
No, that's not what I'm proposing.

Socially necessary work = work that is needed for society to function I.e. for it's inhabitants to have a decent standard of living that ensures their survival.

People would work, voluntarily in a job that was socially necessary and in return for that work would receive from society what they needed to survive.

In return for you committing 5 hours a week to cleaning the sewers or baking bread in a factory you would receive somewhere to live, food, water, electricity.

The reason you are able to receive these things for free, is because everyone in your community, region, "nation" and the world are all committing 5 hours a week to doing a socially necessary job that in turn produces the things you need.

Everyone commits their time to society and in return society commits to you the goods you need to survive.

That is communism.



How is it natural? Stop saying these things without providing evidence for them. You have already been suspended once, if you continue to make baseless assertions then you will be suspended again.
Intresting you never responded to my point, but my base for these charges is the actions of every human I have come in contact with and expert opinions from teachers.

Dude, that's not evidence. 400 years ago no one could even conceptualise a light bulb.

Opinion is not verifiable as truth. The only things that are verifiable are facts. Thus far you have only provided the fact that some people are selfish.

Now we need facts that determine why that is the case. In order to achieve that you need to provide other facts that when deduced by reason creates a truth.



The motivation in a communist society would be because it benefited all.
Trust me that would never work.

I notice that your faith has failed to teach you humility. Why should I trust you?


Everyone I've ever met would be a counter-example to that.

I agree entirely; but we live in a society that requires greed and selfishness in order to justify it's existence and ultimately survive.

The question here is not whether everyone you have met is selfish, but whether or not they have the capability of being the opposite?

It seems that your faith in god has negated any faith in humanity. That's a very sorry state of affairs, dear boy.


When we hear that we can give charity and help someone, do we immediantly rush to donate all our money to charity? Of course not!

Perhaps in America that is true, but in the UK and mainland Europe the opposite is in fact true.

Scandinavia for example is the highest contributor to global humanitarian funding. This does not include the billions of pounds donated by citizens to charities.

Britain also has one of the highest percentages of donators anywhere in the world in terms of citizens giving money. It is common practice here for people to have several standing orders in which donations are made monthly to charities.

Also, Britain has one of the highest amounts of humanitarian volunteers in the world. I was one of them. I think we come second after America, incidentally.

[Intellectual47]

Everyone commits their time to society and in return society commits to you the goods you need to survive.
yes that is all good, but what happens when you don't work. What if, by some bizzare anomaly, someone doesn't work. If they still get stuff, then a pshycologist will tell you that they will not work because they get rewarded for doing nothing.
If they don't get stuff, then it's wage-labor. One or the other. You can either be unproductive oe a hypocrite.
However there can be a solution to this problem. Built-in redundancy. You have 3 people doing the same task. If two of the people slack off, the job will still be done thanks to the third person.
This plan does have a flaw though; if anyone catches onto the redundancy, then productivity will go even further down, because now someone else will do it. Except the someone else will be thining the same thing.
Now there is a solution to even this problem. The great Comrade Stalin would send you to a gulag if you didn't work. But I don't think you want to try that.
So, what are you going to do about this motivation problem?

P.S. any psyhcologist you ask will agree with me.


Opinion is not verifiable as truth. The only things that are verifiable are facts. Thus far you have only provided the fact that some people are selfish.
Dude, can you name anyone at all who would work at Mcdonalds for 40 hours a week for nothing? Or any other menial job you come up with. Somehow you turned my EVERY HUMAN in to a SOME PEOPLE.



It seems that your faith in god has negated any faith in humanity. That's a very sorry state of affairs, dear boy.
I have extremely little faith in humanity to right itself. It would appear I've read to much history.

Also, Britain has one of the highest amounts of humanitarian volunteers in the world. I was one of them. I think we come second after America, incidentally.
It would appear even you can't get around this fact. America, the most selfish, greedy, capitalitstic country in the world, gives the most public and private money to charities and struggling countries. This would seem rather strange.

[Intellectual47]

OH, yah! :D 100 posts!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Intellectual47+December 08, 2006 02:15 pm--> (Intellectual47 @ December 08, 2006 02:15 pm)
Everyone commits their time to society and in return society commits to you the goods you need to survive.
yes that is all good, but what happens when you don't work. What if, by some bizzare anomaly, someone doesn't work. [/b]
Then we won't be able to sustain our society.


If they still get stuff, then a pshycologist will tell you that they will not work because they get rewarded for doing nothing.

I'm getting increasingly more irritated by you and your wild claims about. How do you know that a psychologist would tell me that...?

As I have already said, if you'd pay attention - which clearly you aren't, which is making me believe even more that your sole intention is to antagonise - if people don't work, they don't get provided with their necessities.


If they don't get stuff, then it's wage-labor. One or the other. You can either be unproductive oe a hypocrite.

Wage labour refers to a system of money that is ultimately exploitative. Communism is a society in which money know longer has value and is therefore meaningless.

People don't receive wages, they simply get provided with the things they need to exist. It's not exploitative; it's common sense. If you help society function, then society will help you exist. It's a voluntary two way exchange, which creates equality and fairness. You cannot live in society and be provided for, while at the same time refusing to do any of the work - That's exploitation.

If you choose not to help society, then you are more than welcome to go and survive on your own. It's entirely up to you.


However there can be a solution to this problem. Built-in redundancy. You have 3 people doing the same task. If two of the people slack off, the job will still be done thanks to the third person.

Your funny. It's as if you're the first person to ever have these discussions. You do realise that you're not new, or profound.


This plan does have a flaw though; if anyone catches onto the redundancy, then productivity will go even further down, because now someone else will do it. Except the someone else will be thining the same thing.

Just to reiterate.

If you do not give time to society in jobs that are necessary, you do no receive from society the things necessary for your to exist.


Now there is a solution to even this problem. The great Comrade Stalin would send you to a gulag if you didn't work. But I don't think you want to try that.

Stalin's not my comrade.


So, what are you going to do about this motivation problem?

I don't accept that there is or will be a motivation problem in the first place.



Opinion is not verifiable as truth. The only things that are verifiable are facts. Thus far you have only provided the fact that some people are selfish.
Dude, can you name anyone at all who would work at Mcdonalds for 40 hours a week for nothing?

Well, no one. But McDonald's won't exist in a communist society and I doubt very much that anyone will have to work 40 hours a week.


Or any other menial job you come up with. Somehow you turned my EVERY HUMAN in to a SOME PEOPLE.

I don't really understand what that means, but menial jobs are sometimes necessary to make society function and in a post-revolutionary society people will do them because they need doing.

If people aren't prepared to do the menial jobs then there wouldn't have been a revolution in the first place.


I have extremely little faith in humanity to right itself. It would appear I've read to much history.

Then you have ignored the history that shows the solidarity, kindness and struggle for equality.

Also, what a sad world you must live in if the only thing you can have faith in for good is a sky wizard you have no way of proving exists :(



Also, Britain has one of the highest amounts of humanitarian volunteers in the world. I was one of them. I think we come second after America, incidentally.
It would appear even you can't get around this fact. America, the most selfish, greedy, capitalitstic country in the world, gives the most public and private money to charities and struggling countries.

That's not what I said, but it's interesting to see how you have totally contradicted your original point:


You
When we hear that we can give charity and help someone, do we immediantly rush to donate all our money to charity? Of course not!

America isn't the the country who gives most. Actually, America is the least generous with Denmark being the most.


This would seem rather strange.

Listen kid, me and you can stay friends if you drop the attitude and at least open up to the possibility - just the possibility - that you may be wrong. Otherwise, we're going to have problems.

[Intellectual47]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 08, 2006 02:44 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 08, 2006 02:44 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2006 02:15 pm

Everyone commits their time to society and in return society commits to you the goods you need to survive.
yes that is all good, but what happens when you don't work. What if, by some bizzare anomaly, someone doesn't work.
Then we won't be able to sustain our society.

[/b]
Ah, so if a few people don't work, the society will collpase? :huh: And you call capitalism unstable.


I'm getting increasingly more irritated by you and your wild claims about. How do you know that a psychologist would tell me that...?
Because I've actually spoken to one about this and it is the observable effect of every human I know.

if people don't work, they don't get provided with their necessities.
So it's wage-labor. Or whatever you want to call it. If you don't work in a capitalist society, you don't get paid. Therefore, you don't get your neccesities. All you people do is take out the second step.

If you choose not to help society, then you are more than welcome to go and survive on your own. It's entirely up to you.
You are saying the exact same things a capitalist would say. If you don't work, you don't get money, which is used to acquire stuff. All you guys are going to change is taking out the extra step. What difference besides this is there? ;)

don't accept that there is or will be a motivation problem in the first place.
So you're in denial? Are honestly telling me that everyone in the world will suddenly stop being lazy, selfish, and greedy because it would benefit society? :rolleyes: That is denial?! You have no idea how humans think and act? You need to get out more and stop with the pie-in-the-sky ideas!

Well, no one. But McDonald's won't exist in a communist society and I doubt very much that anyone will have to work 40 hours a week.
You might not want to tell people that. That could really turn off a few converts. Plus I don't see why a resturaunt would be bad for an anarchist society.

Listen kid, me and you can stay friends if you drop the attitude and at least open up to the possibility - just the possibility - that you may be wrong.
That's two-way street my friend. You aren't exactly accepting the possibility you could be wrong.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Intellectual47+December 08, 2006 04:32 pm--> (Intellectual47 @ December 08, 2006 04:32 pm)

[QUOTE]Everyone commits their time to society and in return society commits to you the goods you need to survive.
yes that is all good, but what happens when you don't work. What if, by some bizzare anomaly, someone doesn't work.
Then we won't be able to sustain our society. [/b]
I assumed you meant if it was a general thing, rather than specific to one or two people. I didn't want to accept that you can be so myopic as to see how stupid and banal such a question would be.



I'm getting increasingly more irritated by you and your wild claims about. How do you know that a psychologist would tell me that...?
Because I've actually spoken to one about this and it is the observable effect of every human I know.

You've spoken to one psychologist?



if people don't work, they don't get provided with their necessities.
So it's wage-labor. Or whatever you want to call it. If you don't work in a capitalist society, you don't get paid. Therefore, you don't get your neccesities. All you people do is take out the second step.

You're repeating yourself!

I have adequately explained to you why it isn't "wage-labour".


Me
Wage labour refers to a system of money that is ultimately exploitative. Communism is a society in which money know longer has value and is therefore meaningless.

People don't receive wages, they simply get provided with the things they need to exist. It's not exploitative; it's common sense. If you help society function, then society will help you exist. It's a voluntary two way exchange, which creates equality and fairness. You cannot live in society and be provided for, while at the same time refusing to do any of the work - That's exploitation.



If you choose not to help society, then you are more than welcome to go and survive on your own. It's entirely up to you.
You are saying the exact same things a capitalist would say. If you don't work, you don't get money, which is used to acquire stuff. All you guys are going to change is taking out the extra step. What difference besides this is there? ;)

The difference is that exploitation no longer exists; people have control over the means of production and can organise society freely and equitably. This system of economics also means that people have much more time to pursue their dreams and ambitions without being constrained by the drudgery of endless unproductive work and lack of money.



don't accept that there is or will be a motivation problem in the first place.
So you're in denial? Are honestly telling me that everyone in the world will suddenly stop being lazy, selfish, and greedy because it would benefit society?

If everyone in the world was lazy, selfish and greedy, how would society function? It's absolutely untrue that this is the case.

And yes, I am telling you that people will reject selfishness and greed, just as with racism, and will struggle to create an economic and socially equitable society.


:rolleyes: That is denial?!

Be warned, you're treading on thin ace. Your position on this forum is not secure so enough with the belligerence.


You have no idea how humans think and act?

And you do?


You need to get out more and stop with the pie-in-the-sky ideas!

How old are you?



Well, no one. But McDonald's won't exist in a communist society and I doubt very much that anyone will have to work 40 hours a week.
You might not want to tell people that. That could really turn off a few converts. Plus I don't see why a resturaunt would be bad for an anarchist society.

I think people can live without Mcdonalds. If it's a choice between freedom and equality and McDonalds. I'm quite certain what people will choose.

And restaurants will be fine in a communist society. Just not ones that exploit the world and exist to generate profit by providing awful food.



Listen kid, me and you can stay friends if you drop the attitude and at least open up to the possibility - just the possibility - that you may be wrong.
That's two-way street my friend. You aren't exactly accepting the possibility you could be wrong.

I constantly re-evaluate my beliefs and I am totally up for the possibility that I am wrong. Only time will tell. But I am prepared to try and create a world based on freedom and equality and be proven wrong, than to live like you and never know.

[Intellectual47]

I assumed you meant if it was a general thing, rather than specific to one or two people.
Okay it is going to be a general thing.

You've spoken to one psychologist?
How many have you spoken to?

The difference is that exploitation no longer exists; people have control over the means of production and can organise society freely and equitably. This system of economics also means that people have much more time to pursue their dreams and ambitions without being constrained by the drudgery of endless unproductive work and lack of money.
I thought money wouldn't exist in your society? And why will "the drudgery of endless unproductive work" disappear when ya'll come around. You don't have any explanation of why what you say is going to happen. You haven't even explained how capitalism is exploitive yet.

If everyone in the world was lazy, selfish and greedy, how would society function? It's absolutely untrue that this is the case.
I meant everyone who is lazy, selfish, and greedy. There are too many of these kind of people for your society to survive and their numbers will grow because of the radical shift of lifestyle.

think people can live without Mcdonalds. If it's a choice between freedom and equality and McDonalds. I'm quite certain what people will choose.
Or they could live here and have both. Then again, maybe they have MCdonalds in britain. Do they?

But I am prepared to try and create a world based on freedom and equality and be proven wrong, than to live like you and never know.
But have you considered the concequence of being proven wrong? Lenin had to be proven wrong by the deaths, torture, and overall horrible things, happenening to millions of people. I really don't want to have to prove you wrong with that.


P.S. I am happy because I know that the American people will never give up their freedom to choose to be told what to have by a bunch of COMMIE'S

[Intellectual47]

It would appear that no one cares to refute me. So I'm now going to say something so crazy they have to respond or else I win.

Capitalism is the best system ever and the US is perfect. Communism has completly screwed the world over for 70 years and now you people think it should come back.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 02:53 pm
It would appear that no one cares to refute me. So I'm now going to say something so crazy they have to respond or else I win.
There is nothing to refute. I will not be apart of a debate that does not move forward. All you have done is repeat yourself and I don't have the time nor patience to do the same.


Capitalism is the best system ever and the US is perfect. Communism has completly screwed the world over for 70 years and now you people think it should come back.

Consider yourself suspended again.

I have warned you countless times but you seem to be ignoring me. I will not tolerate provocation by you and you will either learn that or be banned entirely from posting here again.

[Intellectual47]

I'd like to notice one thing about Marx.
Marx wrote down his ideas during the Industrial Revolution. During that time period, Capitalism did look like crap. I'm not going to lie, it was crap back then. So Marx wrote down a kind of conditional statement
A conditional statement is an if-then statement. It's usd in Math.
Marx (basically) said that "If capitalism looks like crap, then it is exploitive"

One of the things about Conditional statements is that if the first part is not true, then the statement is false. If capitalism is not crap then the statement is automatically false. This is a mathmatical postulate.
Now this is rather lengthy but I'm getting at something here. Marx was around when Capitalism was crap. That would make his statement true. But today Capitalism is not crap, so that makes his statement false. Capitalism is not exploitave because it is not crap. Marx was great for his time, but he's dead wrong for the right now.
Feel free to use EVIDENCE and LINKS to disprove me

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 08, 2006 02:44 pm

I have extremely little faith in humanity to right itself. It would appear I've read to much history.

Then you have ignored the history that shows the solidarity, kindness and struggle for equality.


This is an absolute joke.

I was involved in leftist politics for a while and my experience was similar to what we see on this board: leftists do not get along with one another very well when it comes time to make a decision.

First they spend hours fighting over which oppressed minority group should get to speak first. They should make a TV show about this process because it's funnier than any show in history.

Then come the actual policy debates over fuzzy terms like egalitarianism, equality, consensus, brotherhood, you name it. These terms are all slogans and are not practical ways to govern. The arguments are endless. Some leftists like you may claim that if you don't work you shouldn't get any societal rewards, but that opinion certainly is not shared widely by your fellow bongo players. Quite a few would be up in arms about how everyone deserves a minimum standard of living just for showing up.

Seriously, leftists view society like a giant cake: they want to figure out out to split it in a way that maximizes everyone's share equally but simultaneously they want to dole out special shares for special groups, usually those "historically underrepresented" groups. The fights over how the cake will be split are vicious and what ends up happening is that they just assume the cake is bigger than it really is. They start making grand plans and promises to every one of their coalition partners. Assuming they actually do reach consensus, which is nearly impossible (at which point the house of cards collapses), the whole thing falls apart once it's clear that the cake is only about 1/5th the size of what's been promised in sum.

But it never gets to that point because consensus is never reached, and here is why: the mindset of the leftist is entitlement. They as individuals are entitled to have their opinions adopted because they view themselves as the smartest and most enlightened of the bunch, and therefore everyone should listen to them and do as they say. They also feel that their pet groups are entitled to remedies for oppressions or slights of all different kinds, large or small, real or imagined.

Frankly I was always amazed they could ever even reach agreement on where to start their cute little marches in Washington. And the beauty of it was, once they figured it out, their marches always exposed their sense of entitlement with their absurd claims of "making the world listen"; while all you had to do was walk two blocks to a sports bar full of people who didn't give a rat's ass, drinking beer eating wings and watching college basketball.

[Intellectual47]

They can't even agree on what they believe in. How can I refute something if I don't know whether they're a anarcho-communist, leftist, bloshviek, neo-bolsheviek, communist, Marxist, Neo-Marxist, collectivist, technocrat, or facist.

[RebelDog]

I'd like to notice one thing about Marx.
Marx wrote down his ideas during the Industrial Revolution.

The industrial revolution had finished decades before Marx began writing about capitalism. Before actually reading Marx you should get yourself a primary school history textbook.


So Marx wrote down a kind of conditional statement
A conditional statement is an if-then statement. It's usd in Math.
Marx (basically) said that "If capitalism looks like crap, then it is exploitive"

Even the most ardent anti-marxist would surely not believe Marx postulated such a subjective analysis. That means your just stupid.


One of the things about Conditional statements is that if the first part is not true, then the statement is false. If capitalism is not crap then the statement is automatically false.

We should treat everything you say as automatically false if you have not even a basic grasp of elementary history.


Marx was great for his time, but he's dead wrong for the right now.
Feel free to use EVIDENCE and LINKS to disprove me

We have to provide links to disprove your highly intellectual theory that Marx simply thought capitalism was "crap" and thus exploititive. Why don't I just say Marx wasn't crap so he was completelly correct.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 03:50 pm
They can't even agree on what they believe in. How can I refute something if I don't know whether they're a anarcho-communist, leftist, bloshviek, neo-bolsheviek, communist, Marxist, Neo-Marxist, collectivist, technocrat, or facist.
It's usually obivious by their username, member title or signature. Also fascism is not a form of leftism or socialism, it's a corportist theory. We ban fascists on this site anyway so you probably won't be arguing with them

Fuckwit.

[Intellectual47]

Dissenter, are you talking about a different Marx here? Because I think you just said that Marx didn't think that capitalism is exploitive. So if capitalism isn't exploitive, why are you trying to get rid of it?

The industrial revolution had finished decades before Marx began writing about capitalism.
I meant the effects of it like a large prolterliat class, constant exploitation by the bosses, poor health conditions, and a destructive environmental policy.

We have to provide links to disprove your highly intellectual theory that Marx simply thought capitalism was "crap" and thus exploititive. Why don't I just say Marx wasn't crap so he was completelly correct.
You could just say that, but you might want to have a little evidence to go with it.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 02:40 am



Dissenter, are you talking about a different Marx here? Because I think you just said that Marx didn't think that capitalism is exploitive. So if capitalism isn't exploitive, why are you trying to get rid of it?


At the risk of pointing out the obvious here.

Karl Marx DID infact say capitalism was exploitive. But his reason for it was not " capitalism is crap ".

[Intellectual47]

So what was his reason? It's about time ya'll finally told me why you think that capitalism is exploitive.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 13, 2006 04:45 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 13, 2006 04:45 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 08, 2006 02:44 pm

I have extremely little faith in humanity to right itself. It would appear I've read to much history.

Then you have ignored the history that shows the solidarity, kindness and struggle for equality.


This is an absolute joke.

I was involved in leftist politics for a while and my experience was similar to what we see on this board: leftists do not get along with one another very well when it comes time to make a decision.

First they spend hours fighting over which oppressed minority group should get to speak first. They should make a TV show about this process because it's funnier than any show in history.

Then come the actual policy debates over fuzzy terms like egalitarianism, equality, consensus, brotherhood, you name it. These terms are all slogans and are not practical ways to govern. The arguments are endless. Some leftists like you may claim that if you don't work you shouldn't get any societal rewards, but that opinion certainly is not shared widely by your fellow bongo players. Quite a few would be up in arms about how everyone deserves a minimum standard of living just for showing up.

Seriously, leftists view society like a giant cake: they want to figure out out to split it in a way that maximizes everyone's share equally but simultaneously they want to dole out special shares for special groups, usually those "historically underrepresented" groups. The fights over how the cake will be split are vicious and what ends up happening is that they just assume the cake is bigger than it really is. They start making grand plans and promises to every one of their coalition partners. Assuming they actually do reach consensus, which is nearly impossible (at which point the house of cards collapses), the whole thing falls apart once it's clear that the cake is only about 1/5th the size of what's been promised in sum.

But it never gets to that point because consensus is never reached, and here is why: the mindset of the leftist is entitlement. They as individuals are entitled to have their opinions adopted because they view themselves as the smartest and most enlightened of the bunch, and therefore everyone should listen to them and do as they say. They also feel that their pet groups are entitled to remedies for oppressions or slights of all different kinds, large or small, real or imagined.

Frankly I was always amazed they could ever even reach agreement on where to start their cute little marches in Washington. And the beauty of it was, once they figured it out, their marches always exposed their sense of entitlement with their absurd claims of "making the world listen"; while all you had to do was walk two blocks to a sports bar full of people who didn't give a rat's ass, drinking beer eating wings and watching college basketball. [/b]
Unfortunately for you, the basis of understanding history is not done through your empirical obersavations.

You're on strike two!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 04:50 pm
They can't even agree on what they believe in. How can I refute something if I don't know whether they're a anarcho-communist, leftist, bloshviek, neo-bolsheviek, communist, Marxist, Neo-Marxist, collectivist, technocrat, or facist.
You don't understand any of those concepts anyway, so what difference does it make in terms of you trying to refute any of them.

In any case, all of those ideas are founded in the same fundamental basis and that is that capitalism is an exploitative economic and oppressive/alienating social system, historical materialism and class struggle.

The differences in those ideas has no concern for you and relate specifically to the differing theories on praxis. Something which in any case involves ridding the world of capitalists; perhaps that's all you need to know.

However, if you are interested in undersanding the differences, I'd be glad to help you.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 07:37 pm
So what was his reason? It's about time ya'll finally told me why you think that capitalism is exploitive.
I've told you at least twice.

Perhaps a picture would be better for you:

http://question-everything.mahost.org/images/work_faster.jpg

[Intellectual47]

So why do we want to destroy capitalism? It would easily seem that all ya'll have to do is raise the wages and it would be fair. Problem solved.

Except I know that communism means a lot more than that. Care to tell

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 08:09 pm
So why do we want to destroy capitalism? It would easily seem that all ya'll have to do is raise the wages and it would be fair. Problem solved
The point is to end the process of being exploited, not to get paid more money while doing it.


Except I know that communism means a lot more than that. Care to tell

Communism advocates the destruction of that system in which individuals or groups of individuals use our labour to generate money and create a system based on the maxim: "From each according to ability; to each according to need"

If you want me to explain more, you'll need to be specific.

[mikelepore]

Marx (basically) said that "If capitalism looks like crap, then it is exploitive"

"Exploitation" (which means "use") is a technical term in Marx economics. The capitalist buys the commodity labor-power in order to have its use value, but pays for it according to its exchange value. The use value of commodity labor is the fact that it causes in the product a "value added" (a term in both capitalist economics and Marxian economics). This value-added is greater than the exchange value of the labor power that caused it. Workers add to the products-in-process more exchange value than their _own_ exchange value. As a result, workers are paid in the form of wages a mere fraction of what they produce. Workers don't receive sufficient wages to buy back their own products. This fact is what inspired capitalists to hire the workers in the first place. In the capitalist perspective, it is what labor power is "used" for.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2006 06:49 pm
Unfortunately for you, the basis of understanding history is not done through your empirical obersavations.


It's closer to mine than yours, that's for sure.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 14, 2006 05:54 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 14, 2006 05:54 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2006 06:49 pm
Unfortunately for you, the basis of understanding history is not done through your empirical obersavations.


It's closer to mine than yours, that's for sure. [/b]
Oh well, touche :rolleyes:

Understanding history isn't done through my empirical obersvations either, you are quite right.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Socialism is not evil. There's nothing wrong with its belief. It is merely intellectually bankrupt. Marxists deserve our pity, not our anger.

[Intellectual47]

Socialism is not evil. There's nothing wrong with its belief. It is merely intellectually bankrupt. Marxists deserve our pity, not our anger.
I would have to disagree with that. I think there are tens of millions of people who must be pretty pissed off at socialism for a reason.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 01:52 am

Socialism is not evil. There's nothing wrong with its belief. It is merely intellectually bankrupt. Marxists deserve our pity, not our anger.
I would have to disagree with that. I think there are tens of millions of people who must be pretty pissed off at socialism for a reason.
What's your reason? Because everybody else does? At one point in time everybody thought the world was flat, look where we are now.

[Intellectual47]

What's your reason? Because everybody else does? At one point in time everybody thought the world was flat, look where we are now.
I really have no reason. I just assume that if you are unjustly killed, you would be very pissed off at the person/government/system that killed you.

At one point in time everybody thought the world was flat, look where we are now.
So killing millions of people is right? That's what I get from your comment.

[Rollo]

I really have no reason. I just assume that if you are unjustly killed, you would be very pissed off at the person/government/system that killed you.


The way capitalism does? Yeah I hate that. But it isn't a trait of socialism to kill everybody, if dictators go mad and do that it generally isn't because they are following socialism.


So killing millions of people is right? That's what I get from your comment.

Sometimes it can be, but not for stupid reasons. I'm going to take a wild guess here but you are obviously very stupid and un educated in politics. Go read.

[blueeyedboy]

The socialist principles are not evil, its just how certain people have interpreted it and the actions they have taken have made it evil. It's like some Muslim imams. They interpret the Qu'ran differently to Sunni imams. That's all that people have done with Socialism. If they are any Muslim members, that bit of information is what I learnt from secondary school, so forgive me if I am wrong.

[Intellectual47]

No, I have to disagree with ya'll here (that's shocking)
Socialism has a certain tendency for always producing evil dictators. It's because the system is just to ripe for a dictator to take. Every is dependanton the governement, they see the leader as a savior, the government(people) owns everything, they have great rhetoric, and they have an "other" that they can get the people to hate.

Even if you guys are against totalinariamism, Communism will always morph into it. It's like putting your steak in front of a rottwieler. You might not want him to eat it, but he always will. So after about the 9'th steak he's eaten, would it make sense to try again?

[Rollo]

Actually most of us are totilitarian.

[Intellectual47]

Actually most of us are totilitarian.
Woah! A Communist speaking the truth!? This is craziness.

[Rollo]

Marxists admit to being totilitarian, it's common fact.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Socialism is not evil. It has never been intended for evil and the concept shall never be evil. I47 your arguements are illogical. Just because some misguided people called themselves socialists and killed a whole bunch of people doesnt make the whole idea an evil one.

If I follow your logic than christianity is evil because hitler was christian and he killed a whole bunch of jews, right?

Or islam is evil because some people who claimed they were muslims blew up some buildings, right?

[Intellectual47]

If I follow your logic than christianity is evil because hitler was christian and he killed a whole bunch of jews, right?
Hitler wasn't a christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs)

Socialism is not evil. It has never been intended for evil and the concept shall never be evil. I47 your arguements are illogical. Just because some misguided people called themselves socialists and killed a whole bunch of people doesnt make the whole idea an evil one.
I don't say it's intended for evil. Did you see my metaphor with the steak? My point was that socialism makes it too easy for a totalitarian government to take over. Capitalism is much more difficult to take over. Because of a strange principle called "competition"

[Alexander Hamilton]

Intellectual47 wrote, commenting on my quote:


QUOTE
Socialism is not evil. There's nothing wrong with its belief. It is merely intellectually bankrupt. Marxists deserve our pity, not our anger.


I would have to disagree with that. I think there are tens of millions of people who must be pretty pissed off at socialism for a reason.

You're right, but Commies have only done what many faith based leaders have done by killing in the name of some nonsense.

AH

[Intellectual47]

I know this will look random, but I didn't want to make a thread for it.

How many Stalinists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
An infinite amount. One to screw it in, one to make sure the first one isn't a traitor, one to make sure the second one isn't a traitor, one to make sure the third one isn't a traitor...

How many Commie's does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Two. One to screw it in and one to denounce the old lightbulb as bourgiuos

How many of ya'll does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Five. One to screw it in, one to call the old lightbulb facist, one to call the old lightbulb capitalist, and one to call it a motherfucking troll, and one to say that they're not Communist.

How many of ya'll does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A lot. A few to start a forum about lightbulbs, a few to start a forum about screwing lightbulbs in, a few to start a forum denouncing the old lightbulb, and about a thousand to post on these forums.

How many Soviets emigres does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Soviets emigres prefer to be in the dark, it reminds them of home.

How many Technocrats does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
135. 5 to make a commitee of how to screw in the lightbulb, 7 to make a commitee of where to get the new lightbulb, 11 to make up the commitee of what to do with the old lightbulb, 9 to make up the commitee of how to take out the old lightbulb,3 to report to the regional assembly of lightbulbs, and 100 to say that they're not a government or a beuracracy

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 01:35 am
I know this will look random, but I didn't want to make a thread for it.

How many Stalinists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
An infinite amount. One to screw it in, one to make sure the first one isn't a traitor, one to make sure the second one isn't a traitor, one to make sure the third one isn't a traitor...

How many Commie's does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Two. One to screw it in and one to denounce the old lightbulb as bourgiuos

How many of ya'll does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Five. One to screw it in, one to call the old lightbulb facist, one to call the old lightbulb capitalist, and one to call it a motherfucking troll, and one to say that they're not Communist.

How many of ya'll does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A lot. A few to start a forum about lightbulbs, a few to start a forum about screwing lightbulbs in, a few to start a forum denouncing the old lightbulb, and about a thousand to post on these forums.

How many Soviets emigres does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Soviets emigres prefer to be in the dark, it reminds them of home.

How many Technocrats does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
135. 5 to make a commitee of how to screw in the lightbulb, 7 to make a commitee of where to get the new lightbulb, 11 to make up the commitee of what to do with the old lightbulb, 9 to make up the commitee of how to take out the old lightbulb,3 to report to the regional assembly of lightbulbs, and 100 to say that they're not a government or a beuracracy
what the fuck was that supposed to be?

why there is no capitalist that screw on the light bulb?

[Intellectual47]

I figured you guys had good capitalist jokes.

what the fuck was that supposed to be?
I said it was kinda random.
Someone dislikes humor.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 02:50 am
I said it was kinda random.
Someone dislikes humor.
well if that was a random how come capitalist are not in to? are capitalist is special so it wouldn't have to be in it?

oh i see, you don't mention capitalist and specialized it not to screw the lightbulb coz it is you ... god damn capitalist.

and i like joke actually. <_<

you now why i dislike cappies? coz now i figured that cappies (US) is the first one that call the country in Asia, Middle East as the "Third World."

[Pow R. Toc H.]

I47 your so fucking retarded man. Why do you gotta be such a douche bag? Why?

So just because socialism lets some random dictator and come and take over, that makes it evil? If i come and take away your computer would that make your computer evil?No. It means your computer is....WEAK. Fuckin douche bag man seriously.

[kingbee]

Socialism, has been pretty bad in many cases.

-Romania and North Korea were (and are) run by complete nutbags.

-Most of the countries in Eastern Europe had it implemented upon them from the USSR

-USSR: under Stalin was pretty awful, with show trials and the random terror and whatnot.

-Cambodia: I don&#39;t think I need to say anything here.

In the some places where I think it&#39;s been OK (China originally, Cuba) there are (were) still many, many things wrong with it. My conclusion therefore is that, when implemented, socialism is not perfect by any means. It&#39;s not good, and it&#39;s not evil.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 11:16 am

I really have no reason. I just assume that if you are unjustly killed, you would be very pissed off at the person/government/system that killed you.


The way capitalism does? Yeah I hate that. But it isn&#39;t a trait of socialism to kill everybody, if dictators go mad and do that it generally isn&#39;t because they are following socialism.


So killing millions of people is right? That&#39;s what I get from your comment.

Sometimes it can be, but not for stupid reasons. I&#39;m going to take a wild guess here but you are obviously very stupid and un educated in politics. Go read.
Would killing millions of people to advance worldwide socialism be considered "right?"

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The Crying [email protected] 15, 2006 11:51 pm
I47 your so fucking retarded man. Why do you gotta be such a douche bag? Why?

So just because socialism lets some random dictator and come and take over, that makes it evil? If i come and take away your computer would that make your computer evil?No. It means your computer is....WEAK. Fuckin douche bag man seriously.

The idea of socialism is that people are strong enough, wise enough, intelligent enough to rulr themselves, not just politically, but economically as well.
So now, the reason why dictatorships and socialism seem to go hand in hand is because people are weak? Either way, a piss-poor defense of socialism.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by ZX3+December 18, 2006 12:11 am--> (ZX3 @ December 18, 2006 12:11 am)
[email protected] 15, 2006 11:16 am

I really have no reason. I just assume that if you are unjustly killed, you would be very pissed off at the person/government/system that killed you.


The way capitalism does? Yeah I hate that. But it isn&#39;t a trait of socialism to kill everybody, if dictators go mad and do that it generally isn&#39;t because they are following socialism.


So killing millions of people is right? That&#39;s what I get from your comment.

Sometimes it can be, but not for stupid reasons. I&#39;m going to take a wild guess here but you are obviously very stupid and un educated in politics. Go read.
Would killing millions of people to advance worldwide socialism be considered "right?" [/b]
Who is advocating this, aside from a lunatic fringe?

Think before you post you thick shitheap.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 01:17 am
So now, the reason why dictatorships and socialism seem to go hand in hand is because people are weak? Either way, a piss-poor defense of socialism.
I find it bordering intolerable that you fools constantly tarnish all communists with the same brush.

If you are interested or had cared to look further than the end of your nose, you would realise that there are hundreds of works analysing and criticisng past "socialist" countries.

I don&#39;t know of any left-communist idea that supports or defends Russia, China, Cuba et al as communist or even barely socialist countries and there are critiques of why that is the case.

The reason dictatoships happen are for material reasons I.e. the state. The fact Stalin and Mao happened the way they did is not because communism as a theoretical society is flawed or because Marxism as an analytical tool is flawed but because Leninist praxis is flawed.

Do you understand?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 18, 2006 05:25 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 18, 2006 05:25 am)
[email protected] 18, 2006 01:17 am
So now, the reason why dictatorships and socialism seem to go hand in hand is because people are weak? Either way, a piss-poor defense of socialism.
I find it bordering intolerable that you fools constantly tarnish all communists with the same brush.

If you are interested or had cared to look further than the end of your nose, you would realise that there are hundreds of works analysing and criticisng past "socialist" countries.

I don&#39;t know of any left-communist idea that supports or defends Russia, China, Cuba et al as communist or even barely socialist countries and there are critiques of why that is the case.

The reason dictatoships happen are for material reasons I.e. the state. The fact Stalin and Mao happened the way they did is not because communism as a theoretical society is flawed or because Marxism as an analytical tool is flawed but because Leninist praxis is flawed.

Do you understand? [/b]

Certainly- Communism is perfect. The problem has been that people who have PRACTICED communism are imperfect.

But guess what? Humans are not perfect, even communist humans, even the communists/socialists humans on these boards.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 17, 2006 07:48 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 17, 2006 07:48 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 12:11 am

[email protected] 15, 2006 11:16 am

I really have no reason. I just assume that if you are unjustly killed, you would be very pissed off at the person/government/system that killed you.


The way capitalism does? Yeah I hate that. But it isn&#39;t a trait of socialism to kill everybody, if dictators go mad and do that it generally isn&#39;t because they are following socialism.


So killing millions of people is right? That&#39;s what I get from your comment.

Sometimes it can be, but not for stupid reasons. I&#39;m going to take a wild guess here but you are obviously very stupid and un educated in politics. Go read.
Would killing millions of people to advance worldwide socialism be considered "right?"
Who is advocating this, aside from a lunatic fringe?

Think before you post you thick shitheap. [/b]
Mr., or Mrs. or Ms. Rollo is certainly suggesting it would be defensible, if the cause was not "stupid." I am simply wondering if the cause of world wide socialism would not be considered "stupid."

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by ZX3+December 18, 2006 02:54 pm--> (ZX3 @ December 18, 2006 02:54 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 07:48 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 12:11 am

[email protected] 15, 2006 11:16 am

I really have no reason. I just assume that if you are unjustly killed, you would be very pissed off at the person/government/system that killed you.


The way capitalism does? Yeah I hate that. But it isn&#39;t a trait of socialism to kill everybody, if dictators go mad and do that it generally isn&#39;t because they are following socialism.


So killing millions of people is right? That&#39;s what I get from your comment.

Sometimes it can be, but not for stupid reasons. I&#39;m going to take a wild guess here but you are obviously very stupid and un educated in politics. Go read.
Would killing millions of people to advance worldwide socialism be considered "right?"
Who is advocating this, aside from a lunatic fringe?

Think before you post you thick shitheap.
Mr., or Mrs. or Ms. Rollo is certainly suggesting it would be defensible, if the cause was not "stupid." I am simply wondering if the cause of world wide socialism would not be considered "stupid." [/b]
Personally I think it would be defensible to kill millions, after all we have billions, and I am no idealist pacifist. However this is a means to an end, not something I advocate outright, if there is a way to avoid it.

In answer to your question though, yes it is. Especially if it starts with you.