is socialism even viable?

[marxist troglodytes]

I posted this passage here previously:
"...Karl Marx and all his ideological descendants claim that communist doctrine is "scientific".
Yet scientific methodoly requires that a theory first be proven by empirical evidence before said theory can be confirmed as fact.
Every single leftist I've read here adamantly claims that "NO COMMUNIST COUNTRY HAS EVER EXISTED ON EARTH."
Besides this being a childishly desperate excuse, leftists are admitting that their communist propaganda message of a "stateless and classless society" has yet to materialize anywhere.
So the entire leftist premise is an unproven theory.
What proof or evidende can leftists present to prove their case that the communist innovation of total government ownership of the means of production leads to their socialist utopia?...Again, leftists are trying to force their communist utopia as a fact before it has even existed anywhere."



Leftists became enraged and dumped it in the trash can.
Lets cool down and be reasonable.
A leftist responded to that passage with this:


By a parity of reasoning, you'd have to say that medical research isn't scientific, because its goal of abolishing all disease and injury hasn't been achieved.

This is simply absurd. And the response to this leftist's quote is actually contained in his own words.
Medical "research" is carried out find a cure for diseases.
The scientific process requires that tests and trials be performed to find the solution, if there is a solution to be found. There might not be a solution.
To make an analogy with the marxist approach, this would be like a crackpot scientist claiming that, I dont know, something totally off the wall, like say, "rat piss mixed with cognac" is the cure to all diseases, and then claiming that the task is now to find a way to make Rat Piss & Cognac (as the solution to all diseases) a reality.
See? That is totally backwards.
Leftists claim to have found the solution to humanity's ills in marxist theory, before empirical evidence exists to confirm that, yes indeed, communism results in parasise on Earth. Not to mention that there already exists a festering mountain of ruined humanity attesting to the results of the communist theory in practice.
Socialist economics only excelled at producing famine, shortages, scarcity, inefficiency waste and a bureacratic leviathan that doubled as the commanding heights of the police-state terror inflicted on the people to force them to live the socialist lie.
By 1989, the Soviet union had meat rations in peacetime! Peacetime! The average Russian living in czarist times had more daily meat intake than a Soviet citizen more than 70 years after socialism was supposed to have delivered material prosperity.
Pre-communist Russia that was once the "bread-basket of Europe" , was importing grain after the communist collectivization of the countryside that murdered some of the most productice Russian people and stole their farms to create famine, pestilence and genocide. All in the name of "progress" ofcourse.

One leftist responded to that original post with something to the effect that :


" some native american tribes had communist traits"

That is the first time here that I agree with a leftist.
I would even add that all indian tribes were communist. Small-scale, prehistoric, non-literate, stone-age, primitive peoples were communist because that was all that they could muster.
Hunters-and-gatherers, gathered fruits and vegetables from crops and lands no person owned, and hunted animals that no one owned.
Small, vulnerable, groups that were family related and had common goals and interests were ideal for the archaic rustic system of socialist living. Pre-historic people had no economy, no money, no written language, no mathematics, no science and no social framework larger than a pack of people small enough to avoid starvation.
But when it comes to complex, modern, industrialized, information age, multi-race, multi-religion, multi-ethnic, multi-interest, politically diverse, spread out over huge geographic areas societies; then communism is a tragic putrid failure at producing the goods and services that are needed cheaply, efficiently and in surplus-style abundance.
The ''commodity fetishism" that Marx and his disciples deride, is actually a (maligned) by-product of the market's productive-prowess to respond to market forces and deliver goods and services in the most efficient way possible.
No amount of central-planners in the world will ever match the mind-boggling amount of adjustments and calculations needed for a productive and streamlined means of production.
It is better to be ruled by the impersonal yet hyper-productive market, then by the passions of a pack of revolutionary clowns. (bloody clowns with fangs, at that)

Socialism creates inefficiency, poverty, shortages, and famine; not wealth and abundance.

You guys are putting the wagon before the horse. So to speak. Thats all I'm saying.
Now lets be good comrades and talk this out.

[ComradeRed]

Oh wow, your spelling errors and lack of logic has convinced me; capitalism is paradise on Earth, where the streets are paved with gold and the fountains have champagne rather than water.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by marxist [email protected] 16, 2006 02:51 am
What proof or evidende can leftists present to prove their case that the communist innovation of total government ownership of the means of production leads to their socialist utopia?...Again, leftists are trying to force their communist utopia as a fact before it has even existed anywhere."
It is irrefutable fact that society has developed based on economic antagonisms between classes; this period of history is no different.

It is totally possible that communism will not work, but regardless of that, it is historically inevitable that the class which is being antagonised will eventually fight its “antagoniser” for economic and political superiority.

Being the only class left in history to achieve that superiority, the working class will be the force for change; there is no logical step left but to organise the economy collectively, rather than for the benefit of the individual, which is the cause of the antagonism in the first place.

Also, to clarify communism and socialism are two different things, yet you seem to be using the words interchangeably. Do you require an explanation?

[Demogorgon]

Do you think these long, deranged, semi-coherant rants are going to convince anybody?

I feel like I have found the right wing Marx-Lenin-Stalin

[cb9's_unity]

Originally posted by marxist [email protected] 16, 2006 01:51 am
I posted this passage here previously:
"...Karl Marx and all his ideological descendants claim that communist doctrine is "scientific".
Yet scientific methodoly requires that a theory first be proven by empirical evidence before said theory can be confirmed as fact.

So socialism needs to be tested like a scientific experiment in order for you to accept it. Well i'm gratefull that capitalists are so willing to try to advance society and give socialism that testing ground. I mean in Cuba the capitalists were nice enough to dish out a crippiling embargo in order to give it a fair test. In mexico the capitalist government has been nice enough to beat and kill people fighting for socialism. Hugo Chavez and his socialist reforms that have taught millions to read and gave jobs to the poor and unemployed have been welcomed by strikes and intimadation of workers by the capitalists. Have you heard of the attempt by the sandinistas to creat a leftists government in Nicaragua, Ronald Reagan sent in the contras and terrorized and killed many innocent people. How do expect socialists to try to advance society if whenever they try they are slaughtered by capitalists like yourself.


Every single leftist I've read here adamantly claims that "NO COMMUNIST COUNTRY HAS EVER EXISTED ON EARTH."
Besides this being a childishly desperate excuse, leftists are admitting that their communist propaganda message of a "stateless and classless society" has yet to materialize anywhere.
So the entire leftist premise is an unproven theory.

Childish? what the hell do you even mean by that? This is usually said in order to explain that the USSR or China weren't actually communisms. Yet for some reason you still talk about russian atrocities as if they mattered to the debate. It seems a bit childish to me to ignore some facts because they don't fit your attack plan.

The bases of your arguments is severly flawed. You claim you need "empirical evidence" but you support a system that doesn't allow for others to choose to test there theories. I hope you do not support the actions of the capitalists i mentioned earlier or i must conclude that you are a true conservative or reactionary. You must not believe in trying anything new as everything new is a theory that has not been applied to the real world. If you really believe in what you have said then you and others like you will be looked back on as just another group of reactionaries that tried to stop human progress.

[Zero]

This guy seems like a less-coherent version of General_Patton.

[marxist troglodytes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 01:58 am
Oh wow, your spelling errors and lack of logic has convinced me; capitalism is paradise on Earth, where the streets are paved with gold and the fountains have champagne rather than water.
What spelling errors?
If a "paradise", "streets paved in gold" and "fountains of champagne" is what you crave, then why dont you apply that same standard to the countries impounded by leftist revolutionaries?
The late Soviet Union, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba for example--all countries exempt from the left's indictment--are therefore marxist dungeons, have streets paved with blood, and have sewer water coming out of the fountains.
Why dont you demand that countries exempt from the left's indictment deliver the ''paradise" here and right now immediately, the same manner in which you demand the same from capitalist countries.

The great advantage of being a leftist is that leftists argue from the position of a perfect paradise imaginary future that only exists in their rhetoric. Whereas practical lucid people accept the challenge of confronting the reality of human existence as it exists today and will exist tommorrow.
A jackass fantastical theoretical wonderland of communist delusions will always fare better in comparison to the real world with human beings in all their myriad failings, emotions, and folly.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by marxist troglodytes+December 16, 2006 02:40 pm--> (marxist troglodytes @ December 16, 2006 02:40 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2006 01:58 am
Oh wow, your spelling errors and lack of logic has convinced me; capitalism is paradise on Earth, where the streets are paved with gold and the fountains have champagne rather than water.
What spelling errors? [/b]
Uh, try this one for starters:

Yet scientific methodoly requires... Methodology?



If a "paradise", "streets paved in gold" and "fountains of champagne" is what you crave, then why dont you apply that same standard to the countries impounded by leftist revolutionaries? Thanks for ignoring my point! What a super genius, it's as though he's choosing not to reason...that or he's a libertarian.

[marxist troglodytes]

Uh, try this one for starters:

Yet scientific methodoly requires... Methodology?


"Methodology" in that post was a typo, not a mispelling.
Leftists are so intellectually bankrupt that they will cling on to the most inane irrelevant details to derail a debate they know they can never win.



Thanks for ignoring my point! What a super genius, it's as though he's choosing not to reason...that or he's a libertarian.

What the hell is this parlor-communist barking about?

[marxist troglodytes]

It is irrefutable fact that society has developed based on economic antagonisms between classes; this period of history is no different.

Putting aside your unoriginal cliche parroting of Karl Marx's opening line of his Manifesto, what evidence do you have that all human history is a narrative of class struggle?
In a modern, industrialized, information age, liberal democracy; class warfare is not only irrelevant but criminal.
What leftists will never understand is the concept of social mobility and fluidity inherent in a market economy complimented by a liberal democracy.
The poor man today can be tomorrow's rich man. The rich man of today can be living under a bridge tomorrow.
In America one can be born in the gutter and yet grow up to be the CEO of a multi-national corporation. And vice-versa: one can be born an idle rich parasite (like many leftist activists) and wind up broke and living in a drug-rehabilitation center.
Leftists need to paint "classes" as if being of a certain class is akin to being of a certain race. Leftists need their class warfare circus to cast classes as some sort of permanent feature on a person's body. As if a "working class" person is born with the words "proletariat" tattooed on his forehead.
Fidel Castro was born from a rich white family in Cuba, and by plundering Cuba and exploiting the Cuban people, today the communist demagogue Castro that pretends to denounce wealth and greed, makes the capitalist Forbe's list as one of the richest men in the world. All this while the average Cuban lives in utter poverty and in terror over when Fidel's henchmen will arrest, torture and kill him.
This is the left's idea of ''classless".


It is totally possible that communism will not work, but regardless of that, it is historically inevitable that the class which is being antagonised will eventually fight its “antagoniser” for economic and political superiority.
Its relieving to finally hear a leftist admit that communism may not work.
As for the puerile class warfare tripe that follows it, you need to let go of the past.
Marx's creed was already outdated when he published it.
Leftism is a (perverse) romantic longing for the time when there actually were rigid tangible class divisions. Marx had as his emotional model France in the time of French Revolution of the 18th century, a genuine monarchic feudal-like society where classes were immutable and class divisions were at the forefront of the civic culture.
Communism is a reactionary delusion where the communist's indignation is sourced from the genuine class divisions of extinct societies that for political reasons are held as evidence by the left. What I mean by this is that today there actually still are real classist societies, but none of them are the liberal democracies and market economies of the left's demonized West.

Nope, the real reactionaties countries with severe class stratification are places like India (caste system), the muslim Middle East (muslims lording it over dhimmis), Leftist dictatorships like Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, China, Nicaragua, Venezuela-in-the-making (ruling marxist vanguard versus the brutally oppressed masses); and yet all these oppressive exploitative classist nightmares are exempt from the Left's indictment.
See?


Being the only class left in history to achieve that superiority, the working class will be the force for change; there is no logical step left but to organise the economy collectively, rather than for the benefit of the individual, which is the cause of the antagonism in the first place.

Again this is based on a false premise because your agitprop is aimed only at the West. But lets stipulate your argument: Go protest in the streets to demand a classless and stateless society in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, North Korea, Vietnam, and China to be realized right now immediately this very second. No excuses and no historical or political context.
See? You can't and you never will.


Also, to clarify communism and socialism are two different things, yet you seem to be using the words interchangeably. Do you require an explanation?

I will not play your semantic games. Leftists slander decent people with pure distortion, invective and lies, so why should we allow leftists to manipulate the political lexicon?

[marxist troglodytes]

So socialism needs to be tested like a scientific experiment in order for you to accept it. Well i'm gratefull that capitalists are so willing to try to advance society and give socialism that testing ground. I mean in Cuba the capitalists were nice enough to dish out a crippiling embargo in order to give it a fair test. In mexico the capitalist government has been nice enough to beat and kill people fighting for socialism. Hugo Chavez and his socialist reforms that have taught millions to read and gave jobs to the poor and unemployed have been welcomed by strikes and intimadation of workers by the capitalists. Have you heard of the attempt by the sandinistas to creat a leftists government in Nicaragua, Ronald Reagan sent in the contras and terrorized and killed many innocent people. How do expect socialists to try to advance society if whenever they try they are slaughtered by capitalists like yourself.
Socialism was already put to the test many times over; and not only did socialist economics fail, but the need to perpetuate the socialist lie gave rise to hyper-brutal repressive genocidal police-state gulags.
Leftists claim that the source of all evil and exploitation is American "economic imperialism". And as many leftists have argued--leftists like Noam Chomsky--only by a nation ''liberating'' themselves from the ''capitalist'' sphere can they achieve utopia. Leftists claim that Fidel Castro and the rest of his henchmen have "liberated" Cuba from capitalism.
So what do leftists demand with a rabid passion? That the "evil imperialist capitalist monster" America conduct DIRECT TRADE WITH "LIBERATED" CUBA!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
If commmunist dungeons like Cuba are supposedly "workers paradises" precisely because they have rejected American "economic imperialism", then why do leftist charlatans demand that America remove the embargo that supposedly would be a bulwark against this purported American "economic imperialism".
Leftists are so mendacious, intellectually bankrupt, and rabid that they cannot even smell the putrid odors of their CONTRADICTIONS.

Mexico is a diseased kleptocracy not unlike communist countries. Mexico is an anti-American culture mired in a passionate hate for the "yankees"; thats why Mexico sends their illegal alien scam artists to colonize the American Southwest for the purpose of the "reconquista". Mexico is sending their Mexican colonists, legal and illegal, to drastically alter America's demographics to ensure a Mexican-separatist majority. Leftists--whom endorse illegal immigration and latino racial-mongering--will get a leftist American majority out of the bargain also.
Hugo Chavez is just another brutal corrupt Castroite thug that encourages Iran's impending nuclear holocaust. The routine leftist propaganda about "literacy rates" is also used to justify Hugo Chavez's Stalinist agenda. Every leftist criminal gets excused by the left.

The Sandinista thugs were trained and organized by the late Soviet KGB from their very founding. The celebrated Sandinista founder Carlos Fonseca Amador was a KGB agent codenamed "GIDROLOG" (hydrologist)
KGB Chairman Aleksander Shelepin championed the program and recently published KGB documents reveal that the KGB's orientation for the Sandinistas was as a "terrorism-sabotage group". And sabotaging and terrorizing the Nicaraguan people is the Sandinistas' forte.
Leftists despise Reagan and the Contras because these two dared to get in the way of the wholesale communist plundering and killing of the Nicaraguan people.
If socialists are "superior" in every way to "capitalists" then why do communists need to use the excuse that "the capitalists wont let us" when it would supposedly be the other way around? Leftists are a fraud.


Childish? what the hell do you even mean by that? This is usually said in order to explain that the USSR or China weren't actually communisms. Yet for some reason you still talk about russian atrocities as if they mattered to the debate. It seems a bit childish to me to ignore some facts because they don't fit your attack plan.
Ofcourse, real actual communist countries like China and the late USSR are such hideous failures that leftists are embarrassed by their comrades' handiwork.
So leftists like to imagine that by simply claiming that "USSR and China were not really communist at all" then all of sudden miraculously communism is supposed to be rehabilitated.
Notice how leftists only disown their communist disasters after the mass atrocities and general poverty are too obvious to ignore, but while the communist rogue states are keeping their dirty secrets under the rug, leftists sing the praises of their Stalinist hell-holes.


The bases of your arguments is severly flawed. You claim you need "empirical evidence" but you support a system that doesn't allow for others to choose to test there theories. I hope you do not support the actions of the capitalists i mentioned earlier or i must conclude that you are a true conservative or reactionary. You must not believe in trying anything new as everything new is a theory that has not been applied to the real world. If you really believe in what you have said then you and others like you will be looked back on as just another group of reactionaries that tried to stop human progress.

Unfortunately no-one was able to stop communist experiments, and thus communism had a chance to disprove itself and take a huge chunk of ravaged humanity down with them.
HOW MANY MORE TIMES DOES COMMUNISM NEED TO BE PROVEN WRONG?
HOW MANY MORE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE NEED TO BE IMPOVERISHED, TORTURED, AND MURDERED BEFORE COMMUNISTS SHOW SOME SELF-EXAMINATION??
Communism is not really new:brutal, savage, prehistoric peoples lived in communist squalor. At a time when human beings were merely squatters on this Earth, and no one owned the berries and fruits that primitive peoples gathered, and no one owned the animals that stone age peoples hunted, then communist living existed.
Simple little bands of hunters-and-gatherers had no economy, no monetary currency, no written language, no science, no property; and hence communist homelessness was their sad existence. The sanguinary cruelty and ruthlessness of ancient peoples is a testament to the sick mentality of regressing back to the communist cauldron that humanity outgrew thousands of years ago.
This is what leftists call "progess"...

[black magick hustla]

:lol: do you like breaking rocks with your head

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Socialism was already put to the test many times over; and not only did socialist economics fail, but the need to perpetuate the socialist lie gave rise to hyper-brutal repressive genocidal police-state gulags.

Socialist economics was really not too different from capitalist economics. ComradeRed is the guy who can explain this best to you, since hes freaking clever and well read, though given your responses so far, im not sure he will be inclined to.

All socialist countries so far, have been interested primarily in industrialization. Copying capitalist measures was needed to do this. Markets and capitalist relations all existed within socialist countries.

Socialism also, cannot sustain itself without it being the dominant ideology in the world. Socialism in one country was rejected by lots of Marxists as unfeasible. Even if Stalin said it was possible, I suspect he really thought industrialization and modernization was the only real reality. But, that was a gain in itself.



If communist dungeons like Cuba are supposedly "workers paradises" precisely because they have rejected American "economic imperialism", then why do leftist charlatans demand that America remove the embargo that supposedly would be a bulwark against this purported American "economic imperialism".

All economies need trade you fucking moron.

Your post reeks of propaganda, and bourgeois patriotism.

you seem to buy into to the idea of hating countries that don't want to get exploited by all the fat fuckers in the US.

People don't want Americans in their back door, owning their economy and pumping the capital they generate back home. I suppose though, that you don't mind that enslavement, after all you benefit from it.

fucking redneck brainwashed Yankee imperialist!

[Rawthentic]

Oh please, like I said, we have gotten over these kinds of freaks already. Why waste our time and slaughter them here in the forums? We know what is right and what is wrong, we have history and reason on our side, so lets engage in class struggle. We are right simply because people, the masses will always be struggling for justice until they get it. We have Oaxaca, Cuba, May Day in the US, and many others in the world where popular bases have been built to create a new world. Socialism is possible, because people create it, it doesn't fall from the sky. If this is not achieved, then we will fall into the rhetorical world that the corporate dominated world has fabricated for us in this money-driven world. They have nothing to gain by preaching their lost cause. Capitalism will fall whether they like it or not. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. So, we are not utopians simply because there are people all over the world fighting against this rotten system, and come on, even ignorant parasites like you cant deny that controlling your workplaces and lives is not utopian. So let move on yeah?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by marxist [email protected] 17, 2006 12:26 am

It is irrefutable fact that society has developed based on economic antagonisms between classes; this period of history is no different.

Putting aside your unoriginal cliche parroting of Karl Marx's opening line of his Manifesto
The opening line of the Communist Manifesto is "A spectre is Haunting Europe". How is what I said anything like that?


what evidence do you have that all human history is a narrative of class struggle?

History. Or more aptly, the history of human economic progression.


In a modern, industrialized, information age, liberal democracy; class warfare is not only irrelevant but criminal.

Irrelevant to who? The concept of criminality is clearly subjective and ultimately inconsequential to class struggle.


What leftists will never understand is the concept of social mobility and fluidity inherent in a market economy complimented by a liberal democracy.
The poor man today can be tomorrow's rich man.

That was the theory and it has long been proven wrong.

Firstly, on a basic level capitalism cannot exist if everyone is a CEO of a company. The logic in that is totally ridiculous. How could two hundred and thirty million people all own their own company? Who would drive the trains, package the goods, operate the electricity companies, build our roads etc etc?

Secondly, this liberal democracy ensures that a working class exist so that wealth and power can be centralised to a few, rather than to the entire mass which would be totally antithetical to the desires of the ruling class who wish to maintain rule and wealth exclusively.


The rich man of today can be living under a bridge tomorrow.

We don't want anyone living under a bridge when there are enough houses for everyone.


In America one can be born in the gutter and yet grow up to be the CEO of a multi-national corporation.

Then why is this not already the case? Apart from the fact that this little utopia in which everyone is a CEO of a multi-national corporation is totally impractical the ruling class can't and won't allow it.


Leftists need to paint "classes" as if being of a certain class is akin to being of a certain race.

Where have "leftists" done this?


Fidel Castro was born from a rich white family in Cuba, and by plundering Cuba and exploiting the Cuban people, today the communist demagogue Castro that pretends to denounce wealth and greed, makes the capitalist Forbe's list as one of the richest men in the world.

[...]

Nope, the real reactionaries countries with severe class stratification are places like India (caste system), the muslim Middle East (muslims lording it over dhimmis), Leftist dictatorships like Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, China, Nicaragua, Venezuela-in-the-making (ruling marxist vanguard versus the brutally oppressed masses); and yet all these oppressive exploitative classist nightmares are exempt from the Left's indictment.
See?

What has this got to do with anything that we're talking about?


Communism is a reactionary delusion where the communist's indignation is sourced from the genuine class divisions of extinct societies that for political reasons are held as evidence by the left. What I mean by this is that today there actually still are real classist societies, but none of them are the liberal democracies and market economies of the left's demonized West.

While a means of production exists in a capitalist society there will be those who control it and those who work within it and thus there will exist class.

If you don't think that's true, prove it.


Again this is based on a false premise because your agitprop is aimed only at the West.

What is this false premise? That class exists?


But lets stipulate your argument: Go protest in the streets to demand a classless and stateless society in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, North Korea, Vietnam, and China to be realized right now immediately this very second. No excuses and no historical or political context.
See? You can't and you never will.

No, you're right I never would and why would I? That would make no sense whatsoever.


I will not play your semantic games. Leftists slander decent people with pure distortion, invective and lies, so why should we allow leftists to manipulate the political lexicon?

Erm, communism and socialism are two different things. This isn't a word game; I’m not trying to hypnotise you into believing in communism. If you don't understand that distinction then I am happy to help you.

For example, I am a communist, but I'm not a socialist.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 11:26 pm
Oh please, like I said, we have gotten over these kinds of freaks already. Why waste our time and slaughter them here in the forums? We know what is right and what is wrong, we have history and reason on our side, so lets engage in class struggle. We are right simply because people, the masses will always be struggling for justice until they get it. We have Oaxaca, Cuba, May Day in the US, and many others in the world where popular bases have been built to create a new world. Socialism is possible, because people create it, it doesn't fall from the sky. If this is not achieved, then we will fall into the rhetorical world that the corporate dominated world has fabricated for us in this money-driven world. They have nothing to gain by preaching their lost cause. Capitalism will fall whether they like it or not. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. So, we are not utopians simply because there are people all over the world fighting against this rotten system, and come on, even ignorant parasites like you cant deny that controlling your workplaces and lives is not utopian. So let move on yeah?

This is nothing but a sermon, an expression of faith. "it will be done, else we will descend into purgatory." No reason is needed, because the belief is not based upon reason

The other way to read it is "YOU will do this, or else." And the socialists can't understand why anyone would be so foolish to think the USSR, red china ect. with all its bloodbath and tyranny were examples of successful socilaist communities.

[Rawthentic]

Haha, ok. Do you feel better now?

[Guild-soicalist]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 17, 2006 07:45 pm

For example, I am a communist, but I'm not a socialist.
That makes no sense. Communism is the final stage of socialism.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by marxist [email protected] 16, 2006 01:51 am
I posted this passage here previously:
"...Karl Marx and all his ideological descendants claim that communist doctrine is "scientific".
Yet scientific methodoly requires that a theory first be proven by empirical evidence before said theory can be confirmed as fact.
Every single leftist I've read here adamantly claims that "NO COMMUNIST COUNTRY HAS EVER EXISTED ON EARTH."

Not one poster here has actually addressed this point, which is made clear on this board every day.

Lots of excuses and diversions, my favorite being "well but capitalism sucks!"

:lol:

[Enragé]

marx's economic theory is scientific, not what he proposed what would come after it (or, if anything, it was an extrapolation of human progress).

Obviously, one cannot have scientific proof of how the future will look like.
Also, if you look at marx's writings, you can see 99% deals with pre-revolutionary society, and he was explicitly vague about post-revolutionary society.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 04:53 pm
marx's economic theory is scientific, not what he proposed what would come after it (or, if anything, it was an extrapolation of human progress).


I can say the same thing about capitalism.

I think as a result of this thread, the claims that Marxism is "proven scientifically" are false.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 18, 2006 08:49 am--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 18, 2006 08:49 am)
marxist [email protected] 16, 2006 01:51 am
I posted this passage here previously:
"...Karl Marx and all his ideological descendants claim that communist doctrine is "scientific".
Yet scientific methodoly requires that a theory first be proven by empirical evidence before said theory can be confirmed as fact.
Every single leftist I've read here adamantly claims that "NO COMMUNIST COUNTRY HAS EVER EXISTED ON EARTH."

Not one poster here has actually addressed this point, which is made clear on this board every day.

Lots of excuses and diversions, my favorite being "well but capitalism sucks!"

:lol: [/b]
Maybe once you get your head out of your ass and learn to read previous Threads (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59407) you'll understand that his entire point is moot.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Guild-soicalist+December 18, 2006 05:15 pm--> (Guild-soicalist @ December 18, 2006 05:15 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 17, 2006 07:45 pm

For example, I am a communist, but I'm not a socialist.
That makes no sense. Communism is the final stage of socialism. [/b]
Within the context of Marxist praxis. However, communism is an idea for a theoretical society, not praxis.

I don't believe a workers state can create a communist society (proven countless times). Hence why I have the word Anarchist in my title.

[ack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 09:58 pm
Oh wow, your spelling errors and lack of logic has convinced me; capitalism is paradise on Earth, where the streets are paved with gold and the fountains have champagne rather than water.
Maybe instead of just mocking him for having poor grammar, you should also address the points that were made.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by ack+December 18, 2006 02:38 pm--> (ack @ December 18, 2006 02:38 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2006 09:58 pm
Oh wow, your spelling errors and lack of logic has convinced me; capitalism is paradise on Earth, where the streets are paved with gold and the fountains have champagne rather than water.
Maybe instead of just mocking him for having poor grammar, you should also address the points that were made. [/b]
The only point the poster has had was on the top of his head <_<

[ack]

True.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by ack+December 18, 2006 10:38 pm--> (ack @ December 18, 2006 10:38 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2006 09:58 pm
Oh wow, your spelling errors and lack of logic has convinced me; capitalism is paradise on Earth, where the streets are paved with gold and the fountains have champagne rather than water.
Maybe instead of just mocking him for having poor grammar, you should also address the points that were made. [/b]
He did, if you read further into the thread, you fuckstick.

[groundinghubris]

Originally posted by marxist [email protected] 16, 2006 01:51 am
One leftist responded to that original post with something to the effect that :


" some native american tribes had communist traits"

That is the first time here that I agree with a leftist.
I would even add that all indian tribes were communist. Small-scale, prehistoric, non-literate, stone-age, primitive peoples were communist because that was all that they could muster.
Hunters-and-gatherers, gathered fruits and vegetables from crops and lands no person owned, and hunted animals that no one owned.
Small, vulnerable, groups that were family related and had common goals and interests were ideal for the archaic rustic system of socialist living. Pre-historic people had no economy, no money, no written language, no mathematics, no science and no social framework larger than a pack of people small enough to avoid starvation.
But when it comes to complex, modern, industrialized, information age, multi-race, multi-religion, multi-ethnic, multi-interest, politically diverse, spread out over huge geographic areas societies; then communism is a tragic putrid failure at producing the goods and services that are needed cheaply, efficiently and in surplus-style abundance.
The &#39;&#39;commodity fetishism" that Marx and his disciples deride, is actually a (maligned) by-product of the market&#39;s productive-prowess to respond to market forces and deliver goods and services in the most efficient way possible.
No amount of central-planners in the world will ever match the mind-boggling amount of adjustments and calculations needed for a productive and streamlined means of production.
It is better to be ruled by the impersonal yet hyper-productive market, then by the passions of a pack of revolutionary clowns. (bloody clowns with fangs, at that)

Socialism creates inefficiency, poverty, shortages, and famine; not wealth and abundance.

You guys are putting the wagon before the horse. So to speak. Thats all I&#39;m saying.
Now lets be good comrades and talk this out.
Socialism has worked, in its purest form it is people control vs government. I truly resent your statement regarding native americans. For one, The very foundations of your democracy was taken from Native American Tribes, please read your American history. They were not ignorant nor stupid. Just slaughtered.
They believed that if one of the tribe did without, it shamed the whole tribe.
One of the metaphors used to teach the young of the tribe was the ants. All working together lightens the load of all and ensures enough food is gathered for everyone.

Where is the scientific methodolgy which supports capitalism? My question is how do you compare social methodologies with scientific? Apples and organges, comrade.


When was the last time you visited Cuba? Or read how Cuba has set up free medical schools in many third world countries so they can train doctors. How about the first to send aide to Lebanon after being bombed mercilessly by Israel?
Really need to get beyond propaganda before making accusations against others. Did you know Cuba is listed as the only sustainable economy in the world right now?
Is Cuba utopia? No. Is America? Hell no.
Take a look at Sweden and Switzerland, they may fit into the methodolgy.



Where is our wealth and abundance in our capitalist country? where the majority live at or below poverty level, without any type of healthcare, or at best are in debt to credit cards, mortage companies, and banks for all they think they own.

Capitalism creates greed, selfishness, and environmental poisonings.

[blueeyedboy]

No, socialism isn&#39;t viable in the real world and never will be. All it is is just a dream that Karl Marx and Engels and Saint Simon and other people came up with. It is not logical and I don&#39;t beleive people will happy under a socialist regime.

[Zero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 01:08 pm
No, socialism isn&#39;t viable in the real world and never will be. All it is is just a dream that Karl Marx and Engels and Saint Simon and other people came up with. It is not logical and I don&#39;t beleive people will happy under a socialist regime.
DURP DURP DURP.

Great propaganda. :lol: You must watch a lot of FOX news huh? Give something to debate, don&#39;t just spew pre-chewed official talking points.

[blueeyedboy]

I dont watch FOX news because I dont have access to it. End of story.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 06:04 am
Where is our wealth and abundance in our capitalist country? where the majority live at or below poverty level, without any type of healthcare,
Um, speaking of propaganda, neither of these are true, ace.

Unless you&#39;re talking about a capitalist country outside the West, that is...

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 01:08 pm
No, socialism isn&#39;t viable in the real world and never will be. All it is is just a dream that Karl Marx and Engels and Saint Simon and other people came up with. It is not logical and I don&#39;t beleive people will happy under a socialist regime.
Restriction please?

[groundinghubris]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 19, 2006 09:06 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 19, 2006 09:06 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2006 06:04 am
Where is our wealth and abundance in our capitalist country? where the majority live at or below poverty level, without any type of healthcare,
Um, speaking of propaganda, neither of these are true, ace.

Unless you&#39;re talking about a capitalist country outside the West, that is... [/b]
Well, Ace you might want to check the government statistics, like the census site. True probably is propaganda, the numbers are surely higher.


In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty

People whose poverty
status cannot
be determined:
People in:

institutional group quarters (such as prisons or nursing homes)***many elderly not counted
college dormitories***college students not counted
military barracks
living situations without conventional housing (and who are not in shelters)****most homeless are not counted in the poverty numbers.

Who is considered living in poverty per government standards:
Persons in
Family or Household 48 Contiguous
States and D.C.
1 &#036; 9,800
2 13,200
3 16,600
4 20,000
5 23,400
6 26,800
7 30,200
8 33,600
For each additional
person, add 3,400



Now anyone who thinks a family of four earning more then 20,000 a year is not poverty level, then I would like to know where you live so I can move.

Actually median income for a family of 4 in the US is 46,000 dollars a year.

Sounds like a lot, consider cost of housing, utilities, health insurance (if its even available), food, transportation, and sales/state taxes.

So how many do live above the poverty level?

and, ACE keep in mind these are the governments numbers.

so tell me again how capitalism is working for anyone other then the elite; or those very few they allow success just to keep us all chasing that elusive carrot.

a bunch of jack asses we are.

[TG0]

Well, Ace you might want to check the government statistics, like the census site. True probably is propaganda, the numbers are surely higher.


In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty

People whose poverty
status cannot
be determined:
People in:

institutional group quarters (such as prisons or nursing homes)***many elderly not counted
college dormitories***college students not counted
military barracks
living situations without conventional housing (and who are not in shelters)****most homeless are not counted in the poverty numbers.

Who is considered living in poverty per government standards:
Persons in
Family or Household 48 Contiguous
States and D.C.
1 &#036; 9,800
2 13,200
3 16,600
4 20,000
5 23,400
6 26,800
7 30,200
8 33,600
For each additional
person, add 3,400



Now anyone who thinks a family of four earning more then 20,000 a year is not poverty level, then I would like to know where you live so I can move.

Actually median income for a family of 4 in the US is 46,000 dollars a year.

Sounds like a lot, consider cost of housing, utilities, health insurance (if its even available), food, transportation, and sales/state taxes.

So how many do live above the poverty level?

and, ACE keep in mind these are the governments numbers.

so tell me again how capitalism is working for anyone other then the elite; or those very few they allow success just to keep us all chasing that elusive carrot.

a bunch of jack asses we are.


you fail to realize that these numbers have been steadily increasing ever since FDR brought his perverted socialism to the united states, and more government thievery of money has only lead to more poverty.

[TG0]

that was so important that i posted it twice by accident.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 01:39 am
you fail to realize that these numbers have been steadily increasing ever since FDR brought his perverted socialism to the united states, and more government thievery of money has only lead to more poverty.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: FDR, socialist?

Fuck off you useless troll.

You have made no points, which has made it very fucking hard to refute them.

[Rawthentic]

Of course socialism is viable. I mean, its so logical and practical i find it hard to believe that these ignorant parasites cant see it as well. Just watch yourself controlling your workplace, neighborhood, schooling, etc. Its self-determination, not some utopian idea.

[TG0]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 20, 2006 01:51 am--> (Jazzratt @ December 20, 2006 01:51 am)
[email protected] 20, 2006 01:39 am
you fail to realize that these numbers have been steadily increasing ever since FDR brought his perverted socialism to the united states, and more government thievery of money has only lead to more poverty.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: FDR, socialist?

Fuck off you useless troll.

You have made no points, which has made it very fucking hard to refute them. [/b]
yes, i consider increased government regulation of the economy as well as the introduction of programs to steal money from the rich and give it to the poor "socialist"

perhaps my definition is way off?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by TG0+December 20, 2006 01:56 am--> (TG0 @ December 20, 2006 01:56 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 01:51 am

[email protected] 20, 2006 01:39 am
you fail to realize that these numbers have been steadily increasing ever since FDR brought his perverted socialism to the united states, and more government thievery of money has only lead to more poverty.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: FDR, socialist?

Fuck off you useless troll.

You have made no points, which has made it very fucking hard to refute them.
yes, i consider increased government regulation of the economy as well as the introduction of programs to steal money from the rich and give it to the poor "socialist"

perhaps my definition is way off? [/b]
Yes, yes it is. Although something about your attitude and the wording of your post ("stealing money from the rich" for example) suggests that you perhaps wouldn&#39;t want to know the correct definition.

[TG0]

=O i&#39;m here to learn&#33; teach me the proper definition

[groundinghubris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 01:39 am

you fail to realize that these numbers have been steadily increasing ever since FDR brought his perverted socialism to the united states, and more government thievery of money has only lead to more poverty.
and what socialism is that? social security which we ourselves pay for? That is the only federal social program--meant and used for elderly and disabled.
So what other socialistic programs do we have? And Please unless you really know what you are talking about do not bring up the food stamp and welfare system joke. which was created in a way such as to keep poor in poverty--again a capitalist concept.

Please define for me your idea of socialism. I am not sure we are talking about the same thing or at least the same idealogy (since there are several different ones).

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 02:04 am
=O i&#39;m here to learn&#33; teach me the proper definition
:lol: I guess I&#39;ll bite.

Socialism is moving control of the means of production from the bourgeoise to the proletariat, with the eventual aim of introducing communism - a system whereby there are no classes and no state.
(That&#39;s a very simple way of putting it).

[Rawthentic]

Once again, I am amazed at this right-wing ignorance.

[groundinghubris]

My defination for those who have had too many years of corrupted education aka propaganda (mainly americans)

The bottom line of the socialist theory is that economics are ran for the good of the whole as opposed to individual elite.
It has been part of society since societies began forming. First known socialist revolution was in England in 1300&#39;s. It was not until the 19th century that it became the base of the communist teachings.
There are many different teachings and philosphies. there are communist-socialist, anarchist-socialist, and even a combo of captialism-socialism (good example is sweden).

It is more then a political or even economic system, imo. It is a humanity driven system. In that, if we do not help one another survive we are all doomed (physically as well as morally).

For anyone to call themselves christians, and not socialist, is a contridication. For anyone to claim they believe in human rights, equality, and a basic right to human dignity for all and not call themselves a socialist is a contridiction. you can not have true compassion for others without some belief in socialism.

For those, who keep wanting to bring up fdr as socialist, etc.... socialism does not have to be government ran. it is just as effective, probably more so if people ran and owned.

to get back on topic, is it a viable system? only as far as the people allow it to be.
but that means setting aside greed and selfishness, which i am not sure (at least in america) many are ready for.

[groundinghubris]

Originally posted by TG0+December 20, 2006 01:56 am--> (TG0 @ December 20, 2006 01:56 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 01:51 am

[email protected] 20, 2006 01:39 am
you fail to realize that these numbers have been steadily increasing ever since FDR brought his perverted socialism to the united states, and more government thievery of money has only lead to more poverty.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: FDR, socialist?

Fuck off you useless troll.

You have made no points, which has made it very fucking hard to refute them.
yes, i consider increased government regulation of the economy as well as the introduction of programs to steal money from the rich and give it to the poor "socialist"

perhaps my definition is way off? [/b]
:wacko:
hmmm steal from rich and give to the poor? that is a very sick and evil concept. imagine thinking rich corporations which have profits in the billions actually having to pay fair livable wages with benefits. imagine the horror if they even had to pay their fair share of taxes.
and godforbid we move from a budget spent on death to one spent on elevating the human condition.
who the hell would come up with a concept like that??????
must be evil, demons. for we all know the love of money is the greatest of all human attributes.

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by groundinghubris+December 20, 2006 04:04 am--> (groundinghubris @ December 20, 2006 04:04 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 01:56 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 01:51 am

[email protected] 20, 2006 01:39 am
you fail to realize that these numbers have been steadily increasing ever since FDR brought his perverted socialism to the united states, and more government thievery of money has only lead to more poverty.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: FDR, socialist?

Fuck off you useless troll.

You have made no points, which has made it very fucking hard to refute them.
yes, i consider increased government regulation of the economy as well as the introduction of programs to steal money from the rich and give it to the poor "socialist"

perhaps my definition is way off?
:wacko:
hmmm steal from rich and give to the poor? that is a very sick and evil concept. imagine thinking rich corporations which have profits in the billions actually having to pay fair livable wages with benefits. imagine the horror if they even had to pay their fair share of taxes.
and godforbid we move from a budget spent on death to one spent on elevating the human condition.
who the hell would come up with a concept like that??????
must be evil, demons. for we all know the love of money is the greatest of all human attributes. [/b]
yes, i would consider punishing the rich for helping the economy to grow and rewarding the poor for being lazy and unmotivated to be a generally bad idea. you&#39;re a joke if you think the rich don&#39;t pay their fair share of taxes; they pay far, far higher percentages than poor people do and take no more back out (assuming we&#39;re not talking about the corrupt individuals in my cabinet and in my circle). you are correct in saying that the richest do share an incredibly disproportionate amount of the wealth, but this due to government regulation of the economy; digging large failing corporations out of their holes instead of allowing them to fall and be replaced by new ones. you may not consider love of money a great human attribute, but love of money is one of the greatest motivators to be innovative, inventive, and successful.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 10:53 pm
My defination for those who have had too many years of corrupted education aka propaganda (mainly americans)

The bottom line of the socialist theory is that economics are ran for the good of the whole as opposed to individual elite.

That is the broad based theory, to be true. The devil is in the details, and that is where socialism always seems to trip up.

[Guerrilla22]

No socilism isn&#39;t viable, it has never existed ever and never will.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 09:53 pm
No socilism isn&#39;t viable, it has never existed ever and never will.
What the fuck, dude?

[ludwigvonmises]

Just skimming over the past three pages I felt like ending my life. "Socialist economics" is a contradiction of terms. I was appalled that some "member" of this "revolutionary" board actually posted that Capitalist and Socialist economics were "quite similar."

Socialism; where to begin? There are so many errors that it&#39;s difficult to find a starting point- I suppose illustrating the fact that social liberty necessarily flows from economic liberty; indeed he who is not the master of his economic future is not a master of his life. Socialism (and communism) seek to abolish all private methods of production. Thus, the Socialist government becomes a "paternalistic" force that dictates what to produce and when. It is the complete negation of all freedoms. The government monopolizes the means of production, and thus power; in their misguided paternalism they believe that through "rational calculation" that they can dictate what the people want better than the people themselves.

How would socialist economics work? To put it bluntly, it wouldn&#39;t. Money arose out of the need to find a common ground in barter. Since all worth is ultimately subjective (bread costs 1.50 a loaf whereas Diamonds cost thousands), with the abolition of money comes the abolition of barter. Since the profit/loss system allows entrepreneurs to assess the market wants/needs through a subjective methodology, without this, "planning" becomes arbitrary and useless. Do we build another farm? What price do we charge for wheat? It&#39;s all guesswork, and as you can understand, this causes both severe shortages in goods that the public deems useful and severe surplus of goods deemed non-useful. I should also add that since there is no profit/loss economic incentive (that is, to produce the most efficient product possible), there must necessarily follow a system of physical coercion to speed up production. Hence both Bolshevist Socialism and the NAZI socialism, or Zwangswirtschaft (compulsion economics) relied primarly on the use of armed thuggery to enforce their resolutions and production figures. Under such a system, private sale becomes a capital punishment (it is theft from the state, after all).

Socialism rests on a fallacious belief that public ownership of the means of production will produce more efficient production, and thus raise the wages of even the lowest workers. However, their trade-unionist policies are simply post hoc ergo propter hoc in that wealth is not "created" through economic destructionism (that is, impeding the free-market), but through the slow accumulation of capital. In Socialism wealth expropriated from the productive classes (tax-payers) for the use of the non-productive classes (tax users - George W?&#33;?&#33;&#33;). Perhaps I should deal with class-warfare. Contrary to "Republican" or "Democratic" thought (that is, inconsistency) there does exist class warfare. However, this is not between the "Proletariat" and "Bourgeoisie" of Marxist Orthodoxy, but as previously mentioned, between the producers (tax payers) and the expropriators (tax consumers). All governments exist due to a monopolization of force. Socialist government is no different. THe problem with Marx&#39;s Theory of labour exploitation (among other things) is that he misses a crucial element of the Market process: Time. The Employee-Employer relationship is one of mutual gain and characterized by voluntary contract in so far as the employee values present goods (that is, his wage) at the expense of possible future goods (in which the capitalist will sell the results of the employees work for profit). This is anything BUT exploitation. Now granted, Marxists could appeal to some Hegelian "underlying material" level of realityin which exploitation does in fact happen, but even if this was shown to exist (I don&#39;t see how it could) then one could simplyreject Marx&#39;s rigid philosophy.

Finally, Socialism rests on a faulty premise of the merits of material equality. All humans are equal (contrary to what the Marxists will say&#33;) but a quick venture outdoors will show that nature has not endowed men with equal opportunities, but with certain death. Nature is stingy, not generous. A man in New York might enjoy the skyline, while a Man in the Bengal will enjoy the Ganges. Naturally, the man in New York will have opportunity for near-endless financial advancement, whereas the man in the Bengal will become an excellent swimmer. Is this fair? No. But it is an undeniable fact of life. It is unfair surely that the Man in New York cannot enjoy the Ganges, but it is nonetheless a fact of life.

I should also add that Orthodox Marxists are in no position to critique any system as "unjust" or "just" because they are merely stages in the socio-historical development of man. Indeed Marx himself never explicitly decried Capitalism as "unjust" and went even so far as to characterize the sale of labour as "hardly unjust" in Kapital.

[ComradeRed]

Since all worth is ultimately subjective (bread costs 1.50 a loaf whereas Diamonds cost thousands), with the abolition of money comes the abolition of barter. Since the profit/loss system allows entrepreneurs to assess the market wants/needs through a subjective methodology, without this, "planning" becomes arbitrary and useless. OK Einstein, how do you measure subjective "quantities"? :huh:

Subjective things are beyond the scope of mathematics, i.e. it becomes unquantifiable. Yet you somehow magically propose that it is measurable.

For a more mathematically rigorous proof, here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56640) is a previous thread on the issue.


I should also add that Orthodox Marxists are in no position to critique any system as "unjust" or "just" because they are merely stages in the socio-historical development of man. Indeed Marx himself never explicitly decried Capitalism as "unjust" and went even so far as to characterize the sale of labour as "hardly unjust" in Kapital. Point out one instance when Marx argued capitalism was "unjust" (sources please).

[ludwigvonmises]

OK Einstein, how do you measure subjective "quantities"?

Subjective things are beyond the scope of mathematics, i.e. it becomes unquantifiable. Yet you somehow magically propose that it is measurable.

For a more mathematically rigorous proof, here is a previous thread on the issue.

There is no "quantity" in economics. Since it is a fundementally subjective methodology, it should be assessed as such. You&#39;re fallaciously assuming that human action can be "mapped out" and economic trends can be predicted/controlled etc. What determines these subjective prices? Simply put: the market. Individuals assess the worth of goods through purchasing or abstaining from market processes. If they do not view certain goods as a worthy use of their capital, the price will fall. Simple supply and demand.


Point out one instance when Marx argued capitalism was "unjust" (sources please).

Trying reading that again.

[ComradeRed]

There is no "quantity" in economics. *cough*price*cough*

Yeah, there are no such things as quantities. It&#39;s all just dealing with utilitarianism; oh wait, that&#39;s philosophy&#33; :rolleyes:

"Sadly" economics deals with a variety of quantities, dealing with the production and distribution of commodities. Or you can just reinvent terms as randomly as you like, Austrians love doing that ;)


You&#39;re fallaciously assuming that human action can be "mapped out" and economic trends can be predicted/controlled etc. Nope, I&#39;m "fallaciously" arguing that anyone that touches the Marginalist paradigm is touching a landmine&#33; If you had bothered to have read the thread I linked you to, you would see that you are contradicting yourself since Austrians use the marginalist paradigm. (Supposing that you didn&#39;t choose your name because "it sounded cool")

Economics, contrary to your wishes, is not dealing with human behavior. Look to the sociologists or psychologists for that. Economics is the field dealing with the production and distribution of commodities (which really isn&#39;t that subjective, random, or stochastic).


What determines these subjective prices? Simply put: the market. Individuals assess the worth of goods through purchasing or abstaining from market processes. If they do not view certain goods as a worthy use of their capital, the price will fall. Simple supply and demand. :rolleyes: Too bad you have your head up your ass, you might have actually learned something from reading the other thread.


Trying reading that again. You assert that orthodox Marxists are asserting Marxism is unjust and not citing any sources, what a surprise. <_<

[Enragé]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 18, 2006 05:00 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 18, 2006 05:00 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2006 04:53 pm
marx&#39;s economic theory is scientific, not what he proposed what would come after it (or, if anything, it was an extrapolation of human progress).


I can say the same thing about capitalism.

I think as a result of this thread, the claims that Marxism is "proven scientifically" are false. [/b]
depends what you mean with "marxism".

Look
the economic theory underlying marxism is scientific, as in you can prove it. For instance you can prove society is basicly divided into two camps, etc.
What is meant with scientific is to focus on the fact that marxism isnt just thin air, dreaming about some future, its based on reality.

And yes capitalism is a scientific too. It does indeed work for certain people, and that was the whole point of it/that is how it has grown into being since its growth as you will has been controlled by those in power.

[groundinghubris]

article (http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/644/)

Reflections on Socialism by Sam Webb-National Chair CPUSA

Great article

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 20, 2006 10:36 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 20, 2006 10:36 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2006 09:53 pm
No socilism isn&#39;t viable, it has never existed ever and never will.
What the fuck, dude? [/b]
I was being sarcastic. Obviously socialism can work, it has been going strong in Cuba since &#39;59.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+December 21, 2006 04:41 am--> (Guerrilla22 @ December 21, 2006 04:41 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 10:36 pm

[email protected] 20, 2006 09:53 pm
No socilism isn&#39;t viable, it has never existed ever and never will.
What the fuck, dude?
I was being sarcastic. Obviously socialism can work, it has been going strong in Cuba since &#39;59. [/b]
Ah right. I thought you&#39;d gone all cappie on us, which would have been a shame.