So what DO you believe in? [Archive]

Bud Struggle

23rd March 2008, 14:59

You have to remember that people who come to OI are not representative of most people who oppose Communism. They tend to be hardcore Libertarians involved in the various cults associated with it.

FWIW: I oppose Communism.

I'm something of a Christian Conservative in most ways. For the most part I don't want anything to change in the United States. The representitive democratic government suits me just fine, as long as the populace has recourse to referendum when it so desires. The nation, while not being Christian per se, was based on the enlightened Judeo-Christian philisophical interests (not the "religion") of the Founding Fathers which I feel is appropriate to my Catholic Beliefs. And lastly, I'm a fan of good old fashioned--work hard, work smart and there is a chance you will succeed--capitalism.

I really don't care about the mix of haves to have nots, as long as one can start out as a "have not" and have the opportunity to move into the "haves," the system works for me.

In short, for the most part, I like things as they are. (And yes, we could always be kinder and gentler.)

I say all this as a 21st Century American. If I lived somewhere else and/or at another time, I might have other thoughts.

Awful Reality

23rd March 2008, 15:04

FWIW: I oppose Communism.

I'm something of a Christian Conservative in most ways. For the most part I don't want anything to change in the United States. The representitive democratic government suits me just fine, as long as the populace has recourse to referendum when it so desires. The nation, while not being Christian per se, was based on the enlightened Judeo-Christian philisophical interests (not the "religion") of the Founding Fathers which I feel is appropriate to my Catholic Beliefs. And lastly, I'm a fan of good old fashioned--work hard, work smart and there is a chance you will succeed--capitalism.

I really don't care about the mix of haves to have nots, as long as one can start out as a "have not" and have the opportunity to move into the "haves," the system works for me.

In short, for the most part, I like things as they are. (And yes, we could always be kinder and gentler.)

I say all this as a 21st Century American. If I lived somewhere else and/or at another time, I might have other thoughts.

The rampant poverty, corruption, starvation, crime and unpopular government doesn't concern you?

A have this inexplicable aversion to people who like forcing their beliefs upon others. Don't know why.

Bud Struggle

23rd March 2008, 15:32

The rampant poverty, corruption, starvation, crime and unpopular government doesn't concern you?

A have this inexplicable aversion to people who like forcing their beliefs upon others. Don't know why.

OF course all the disturbes me and of course things could be improved.

I specificly was talking about the United States, where there is poverty, but nothing that couldn't be overcome with more education and hard work by all parties involved. People have to start taking responsibility for their own actions and own states in life, but also the government has to be more responsible for education. America has very good public education, but it could always be improved especially in economicly deprived areas. Education and hard work is the way out of poverty--NOT handouts.

Starvation, isn't much of an issue in America.

Crime, is a result of free choice, mostly poorly educated free choice. If people were better educated, and thusly had better choices for employment I believe the crime rate would drop a good deal.

As far as unpopular government goes--the American people elected the government they have, it turned out to be a disapointment--that sometimes happens. They now have the opportunity to elect another government in the fall. Hopefully the new President and Congress will be better than the old one.

FWIW: In a Capitalistic society people in general work only enough to make money to be content. If people are content to be on welfare--then that's where their threshold is. If people need to be Warren Buffet, then that's where their threshhold is. I know myself, I and my family have certain needs and I work to fufill those needs--I don't do any more. If I had a hundred time what I have, I wouldn't live a bit differently. So I don't put in the effort to work any harder.

As to forcing my beliefs on anyone--I don't do that. This is what the system is. If you don't like it you can always leave. America isn't Cuba. Bringing Communism to America would be forcing a change on me.

Dejavu

23rd March 2008, 15:44

1.You have to remember that people who come to OI are not representative of most people who oppose Communism. They tend to be hardcore Libertarians involved in the various cults associated with it.

People at least claim different reasons for being Anti-Communists. All must acknowledge, however, it was often the 'democratic Left,' or rather the social democrats, democratic socialists, and other non-communist leftists that have opposed Communism the most throughout the 20th century. The democratic Left was interventionist and desired to confront Communism head on in the world theater even if it meant war. The 20th century, no doubt, was dominated by Leftist ideology both of the communist and non-communist brands. Except for a rise in the 30s, and later, 80s, the Right was rather silent compared to the Left. Even during the rise of the Right in the 30s, the agenda was more inclined towards Right wing socialism ( nationalist socialism) and didn't drastically differ from the Left in core ideology. Ronald Reagan ( or rather his administration) molded Trotsky interventionist doctrine with anti-communist ideas from the Right and thus began the rise of neoconservativism. Libertarians too were anti-communist but the overwhelming majority of libertarians did not desire an interventionists foreign policy. Personally, I come from a family of anti-communists since my parents migrated from southeastern Europe from totalitarian oppression and I have older family members that were executed by Communists.

2.Anti-communists may not have an ideology, but many capitalists certainly do. I can't help thinking of all the drones to that nutter Alex Jones, or the pro-imperialist Milton Friedman. The Ron Paul crowd in general does try to form an ideology around their inane dribble in lieu of not having Ayn Rand here to comfort (some) of them. Blind followers of Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard are equally intolerable. If you think Leftist sectarianism is bad - just get a load of an argument between a Christian anarcho-capitalist and Objectivist.

In reality, capitalism is merely an economic system. The propaganda, both pro and anti capitalist have no real relevance to the actual definition of capitalism. Capitalism simply means allowing private ownership of capital, thats it. Though I disagree strongly with Milton Friedman and the Chicago School I don't believe Friedman was an imperialist. I suggest you read some of his own writings to get a better idea where he stands. Milton, like most libertarians, was a supporter of non aggression. However, he was deluded that the monetarist scheme of the Fed can be sustainable and was actually good for this country. Monetarism is where I generally disagree with the Chicago School and their defense of a state. Most Ron Paul supporters are not very familiar with libertarian history or any of the philosophy that drives libertarianism. Only a few actually ever heard of Ayn Rand. Very few are familiar with the Austrian School and people like Mises and Rothbard. Most Ron Paul supporters, at least from what I've seen, simply want a change and since Ron Paul speaks out against government corruption he is appealing to them. And not so fast there. Lets bring something out into the light real quick. You appear to be accusing AnCaps and other libertarians of coming to disagreement yet why not look at the Communist side for a second. The Communist side is far worse IMO because the different branches of Communist ideology are all named after personalities of dictators and authoritarians such as Stalinists, Maoists, Leninists, Hoxhists, etc. The only non-dictator in the branches of Communism was Marx ( Marxism) but even Marx fancied a dictatorship as part of the revolution. Talk about cult of personalities, any movement which branches of it identify themselves with personalities of dictators has no grounds to talk about occult in other movements.

3.I also think it's highly ironic many anti-communist Republicans created their own personality cult out of Ronald Reagan. I once noticed a whole side table essentially devoted to the now-dead president while I was painting their back patio. Of course a Russian elder with a picture of Lenin or Stalin in their house is "brainwashed."

Well see my above response and tell me you're not being worse than the 'Reaganites.'

4.The only anti-communist theories I find tolerable are (neo)-Keynesianism and Georgism, one arguably more of a compromise between socialism and capitalism than anything else - the other a very stilted version of capitalism.

I have far greater respect for Henry George than Keynes. I don't know how someone can claim to be an Anarchist but then look favorably upon major statists like Keynes.

5.I'm something of a Christian Conservative in most ways. For the most part I don't want anything to change in the United States. The representitive democratic government suits me just fine, as long as the populace has recourse to referendum when it so desires. The nation, while not being Christian per se, was based on the enlightened Judeo-Christian philisophical interests (not the "religion") of the Founding Fathers which I feel is appropriate to my Catholic Beliefs. And lastly, I'm a fan of good old fashioned--work hard, work smart and there is a chance you will succeed--capitalism.

Good for you man. You'll probably get a lot of criticism here for being a spiritual person but I really respect that. I agree that many of the founders were inspired by Jewish and Christian theology but I think thats only one portion of it. Since the colonies had very different , and even conflicting, segments of Christianity, most colonies desired religious decentralization as far as the confederate ( later federal) Union went. Basically, no religious theocracy in government, no government statism in religion. But other non religious philosophy played a considerable roll too.

Happy Easter Tom !

Bud Struggle

23rd March 2008, 16:23

Good for you man. You'll probably get a lot of criticism here for being a spiritual person but I really respect that. I agree that many of the founders were inspired by Jewish and Christian theology but I think thats only one portion of it. Since the colonies had very different , and even conflicting, segments of Christianity, most colonies desired religious decentralization as far as the confederate ( later federal) Union went. Basically, no religious theocracy in government, no government statism in religion. But other non religious philosophy played a considerable roll too.

Happy Easter Tom !

Good point Dejavu and I should clarify. I don't believe that religion belongs in government in the least. The government should be entirely neutral to religion, BUT I as a Christian should be able to vote my conscience as a Christian, just as non Christians should be able to vote their concience. As far as America having other philosophical traditions besides Christianity--they all work together to make America the great nation that it is. America for the most part takes the best of everything e.g. the Christian idea that all men are equal (in the eyes of God) and leaves the bad things e.g. the Inquisition behind.

It's a completely workable system. That's why it's here and Communism ain't. :D

And Dejavu, though I gather you aren't of the believing ilk--thank you for the well wishes and I wish you the best on this day, also.

Dejavu

23rd March 2008, 17:48

Good point Dejavu and I should clarify. I don't believe that religion belongs in government in the least. The government should be entirely neutral to religion, BUT I as a Christian should be able to vote my conscience as a Christian, just as non Christians should be able to vote their concience. As far as America having other philosophical traditions besides Christianity--they all work together to make America the great nation that it is. America for the most part takes the best of everything e.g. the Christian idea that all men are equal (in the eyes of God) and leaves the bad things e.g. the Inquisition behind.

It's a completely workable system. That's why it's here and Communism ain't. :D

And Dejavu, though I gather you aren't of the believing ilk--thank you for the well wishes and I wish you the best on this day, also.

I wouldn't say I'm unbelieving. I am indifferent about it. I come from Catholic backgrounds so at least part of me feels a connection to Christ but I have many reservations too. I'm probably half Catholic, half Agnostic and I don't see a contradiction in that.

Sendo

23rd March 2008, 20:03

how the hell can you be a Catholic and not feel it is a moral duty to provide for the poor (esp. the children of poor) or realize capitalism does not pay dignified wages for honest and hard forms of work? This is some Liberation Theology coming in, but I feel that's what the man actually taught, the Jesus who said "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." The whole kingdom of heaven is a state of mind guy. The non-worshipping Jesus of the Gnostic Gospels. The man who may have traveled and learned about the suffering of man during age 12-33.

Too many so-called followers of Jesus merely celebrate Constantine's Roman cult of the Christ figure. Someone who can cure leprosy with magic but is unable to escape a crucifix. And then comes back as a ghost-zombie. Someone to be respected and loved, but most of all feared. That's the most important part, the fear. Too much love and you might start consorting with kindly Jews and other such heathens who want to destroy our American way of life. Like those god-damned Indians at AIM who want their way of life back. Or worse yet, you might develop compassion for poor people and prostitutes. Or you might challenge the capitalist nature of the Temple/Church. Or give women equal rights in priesthood. I shudder at the thought.

And what's happened to Catholicism? I thought it was finally gonna be a real good and sensible religion when they started accepting Evolution and vernacular languages and supporting progressivism. But I can see the Lutheran/medieval sense of "only through faith will you be saved" making a comeback, so is the questioning of evolution. Heil Ratzinger!

Oh and as for the classic "capitalism is what works" what the hell happened to our economy in 1929 and in 2008? (Hint: it begins with "the cycle of" and ends with "capitalism")

Bud Struggle

23rd March 2008, 23:32

how the hell can you be a Catholic and not feel it is a moral duty to provide for the poor (esp. the children of poor) or realize capitalism does not pay dignified wages for honest and hard forms of work? This is some Liberation Theology coming in, but I feel that's what the man actually taught, the Jesus who said "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

Here's the deal: every man should look after his own. to be a man: a REAL MAN you have to support you and your family. And you have to do it well. Give to the poor. Set them up un their feet, sure. But give them a living? nope.

The whole kingdom of heaven is a state of mind guy. The non-worshipping Jesus of the Gnostic Gospels. The man who may have traveled and learned about the suffering of man during age 12-33.

I'll take my Jesus as presented in the Gospels, thank you.

Too many so-called followers of Jesus merely celebrate Constantine's Roman cult of the Christ figure. Someone who can cure leprosy with magic but is unable to escape a crucifix. And then comes back as a ghost-zombie. Someone to be respected and loved, but most of all feared. That's the most important part, the fear. Too much love and you might start consorting with kindly Jews and other such heathens who want to destroy our American way of life. Like those god-damned Indians at AIM who want their way of life back. Or worse yet, you might develop compassion for poor people and prostitutes. Or you might challenge the capitalist nature of the Temple/Church. Or give women equal rights in priesthood. I shudder at the thought.

Whatever.

And what's happened to Catholicism? I thought it was finally gonna be a real good and sensible religion when they started accepting Evolution and vernacular languages and supporting progressivism. But I can see the Lutheran/medieval sense of "only through faith will you be saved" making a comeback, so is the questioning of evolution. Heil Ratzinger!

Yea, you gotta believe in Jesus to be saved by Jesus. It kinda makes sense, don't you think?

Oh and as for the classic "capitalism is what works" what the hell happened to our economy in 1929 and in 2008? (Hint: it begins with "the cycle of" and ends with "capitalism")

Unlike Communism--Capitialism doesn't go OUT OF EXISTANCE in the bad years.:lol::hammersickle:

Bud Struggle

23rd March 2008, 23:46

I wouldn't say I'm unbelieving. I am indifferent about it. I come from Catholic backgrounds so at least part of me feels a connection to Christ but I have many reservations too. I'm probably half Catholic, half Agnostic and I don't see a contradiction in that.

Neither do I. Sorry to be presumptuous. Everyone finds his own way to God.

You are a cool guy. We agree. Don't agree on stuff. Fine.

I have a lot of practicle knowledge, you seem to be of the theoretical sort. Between us we can go along way to spanking these Commies about how the world REALLY works.

Don't you think?

;):D;):D;)

Dejavu

24th March 2008, 04:27

Neither do I. Sorry to be presumptuous. Everyone finds his own way to God.

You are a cool guy. We agree. Don't agree on stuff. Fine.

I have a lot of practicle knowledge, you seem to be of the theoretical sort. Between us we can go along way to spanking these Commies about how the world REALLY works.

Don't you think?

;):D;):D;)

Well if you're talking about a business entrepreneur like yourself and an emerging economist like me, then certainly your diagnosis would be correct. I don't believe I have the talent required of an entrepreneur to make a business run successfully but I know the theory behind it and instead of demagoguing the businessman ( see greedy capitalist) I look at the business of profit as a noble enterprise able to achieve a lot of good in the world. That conclusion isn't difficult to arrive at, one merely has to have a basic understanding of economics and/or the business world to see the reasoning behind it. Unfortunately, it appears that many of our socialist friends here lack that basic understanding and take the general anti-capitalist narrative.

You'll be pleased to know Tom that I will be teaching economics at a California high school next year for seniors. As you can imagine, my class wont be one of the typical anti-capitalist variety. Ah, I can just imagine it now. The myth of the Robber Barons, these so called 'monsters' gave more to the public than any government welfare program in existence. The general fact about the so-called 'Robber Barons' being huge philanthropists is usually struck from the history books and I imagine it will be so in the books given to my class but that will not fly in my classroom. The myth of ethanol subsidies helping American industry will also be brought to light. :D The superiority of laissez-fair economics will be brought to light and a whole host of issues related.

Unfortunately I believe its an uphill battle. From childhood children are taught the socialist rhetoric starting from children's stories like Hanzel and Gretel and Goldie Locks and the Three Bears. I've already asked high school students and even fellow college students what is the general impression they come up with in their minds when someone mentions the 'businessman' to them. Its usually negative, the first thought is how do we prey on the businessman and redistribute his wealth to society. The businessman is a 'greedy capitalist' that has taken more at the expense of others. Government regulation is usually looked at as a good thing. Here are these selfless government officials looking out for the humanity of people while free markets attempt to rob them dry. You know ,the usual BS. Hopefully I can be a contributing factor in erasing some of these myths and show the reality of the situation. It should be fun.

PS: Its fun to bash on the commies but some of them are nice. :D:D

Qwerty Dvorak

24th March 2008, 06:36

If you guys are going to have secks right here in the thread at least post pics.

La Zora

24th March 2008, 09:31

In my opinion, the problem is that most capitalists or people who didn't/don't know exactly what communism and socialism want, tend to mix up the terms of economic and political systems. Because they never dealt with the ideas, goals or theories of communism and socialism, they believe that such systems have already been existing. They don't know, that systems like the former UdSSR, the GDR or now China are trials of socialistic systems and have nothing to do with the original defintion of a communist/socialist state or world. Thy can't differentiate between economic and politic, so they mostly associate communism with dictatorship and equate capitalism with democracy and a free world. They are fooled by their own inability to inform theirselves about coherences and the backround story.

pusher robot

24th March 2008, 17:50

In my opinion, the problem is that most capitalists or people who didn't/don't know exactly what communism and socialism want, tend to mix up the terms of economic and political systems.
No, the "problem" is that the people making up a website that specifically calls for armed revolution don't know exactly what communism and socialism want. They all agree on certain extremely vague goals, but have no coherent plan or shared set of principles as to how to achieve those goals in a real world filled with real people pursuing their own interest, asking everybody else to disregard past epic failures and accept on faith and good intention that their aims will be achieved "somehow."
Because they never dealt with the ideas, goals or theories of communism and socialism, they believe that such systems have already been existing.Lord knows we try, but how can you deal with something that doesn't exist except as shadows and enigmas?
They don't know, that systems like the former UdSSR, the GDR or now China are trials of socialistic systems and have nothing to do with the original defintion of a communist/socialist state or world.How can we "know" something that is so vehemently denied by the very same group of people? If the USSR has nothing to do with your ideas, goals, or theories, then why did a revlefter start another thread in this very forum arguing that the USSR demonstrates the success of those same theories?
Thy can't differentiate between economic and politic, so they mostly associate communism with dictatorship and equate capitalism with democracy and a free world. They are fooled by their own inability to inform theirselves about coherences and the backround story.You cannot possibly think that I will take this seriously, when members of your own movement are busily occupying themselves defending North Korea out of some misguided sense of solidarity.

pusher robot

24th March 2008, 17:52

As to the original question, I consider myself a liberal democrat, which might today be described as a "soft" libertarian.

Dejavu

24th March 2008, 17:56

As to the original question, I consider myself a liberal democrat, which might today be described as a "soft" libertarian.

I always took you for a libertarian of sorts. It appears to me on issues of economics you tend to take a libertarian stance , possibly Austrian and Chicagoan.

pusher robot

24th March 2008, 18:39

I always took you for a libertarian of sorts. It appears to me on issues of economics you tend to take a libertarian stance , possibly Austrian and Chicagoan.

There is much in both schools I agree with. By "soft" libertarian I mean that I recognize the value of both social and economic individualism, but I do see a state or quasi-state of some sort as a practical necessity.

La Zora

24th March 2008, 19:09

No, the "problem" is that the people making up a website that specifically calls for armed revolution don't know exactly what communism and socialism want.

I think you are wrong in this case. These people know what communism and socialism want, but there are different ways of reaching the goals. Different ways and possibilities, which stand open to everyone and every idea. You won't deny that your libertarian friends use armed "revolutions" in reaching their aims. It always belongs to the eye of the beholder. This community gives room for the exchange of lots of theories, ideas and methods for the economic and political revolution, not everybody wants the armed option.

They all agree on certain extremely vague goals, but have no coherent plan or shared set of principles as to how to achieve those goals in a real world filled with real people pursuing their own interest, asking everybody else to disregard past epic failures and accept on faith and good intention that their aims will be achieved "somehow."

Every truth needs a brave one to pronounce it, right?! Ignoring the necessity of a new society and order by calming down yourself in declarations how stupid and vague the goals of socialism and communism are, is an easy way to stagnate and accept the failures of the past, the present and the future. Fortunately there are people, like the people of revleft.com, which care about a bigger part of the human beings and are willing to overcome a society with people only pursuing their own interests. Declaring goals as utopian is always the most easiest and comfortable way, especially if your personal circumstances are advantageous.

Lord knows we try, but how can you deal with something that doesn't exist except as shadows and enigmas?

How do you think you could deal with something, you don't want to be existing?

How can we "know" something that is so vehemently denied by the very same group of people? If the USSR has nothing to do with your ideas, goals, or theories, then why did a revlefter start another thread in this very forum arguing that the USSR demonstrates the success of those same theories?

I lived in the GDR and so I know what I had then and what I have now. And believe me, there are things now, which I appreciate, of course! But there are also many things I badly miss....the most important are social safety and the way the community was acting together. People saying, that the UdSSR was a socialistic state in the terms of definition are wrong, because there was an abuse of power and material and many things went wrong. Counting aspects of effective prosperities within the UdSSR system only describe terms of the real existing socialism. You have to differentiate between those terms.

You cannot possibly think that I will take this seriously, when members of your own movement are busily occupying themselves defending North Korea out of some misguided sense of solidarity.

You are mixing up economic and political terms as I sad! What about Venezuala? Would you call Hugo Chavez a dictator? I won't! What about Bolivia? A dictatorship? Two states on the way to socialism, two states with a democratic system! And now, as a counter-example, the USA....would you call George W. Bush a democrat? Would you say that the United States act upon democratic principles, if they override decisions from the UN or the Security Council? I beg you! Communism or socialism don't exclude democracy!

Demogorgon

24th March 2008, 19:21

How can we "know" something that is so vehemently denied by the very same group of people? If the USSR has nothing to do with your ideas, goals, or theories, then why did a revlefter start another thread in this very forum arguing that the USSR demonstrates the success of those same theories?

http://www.amazon.com/Against-Capitalism-David-Schweickart/dp/0813331137/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206382735&sr=1-1

Read this. Naturally not everyone will agree with the model presented there, but it is definitely a very coherent argument for socialism.

Worth it alone for the first chapter where he takes apart the Austrian argument. Some of the later chapters criticisng social liberalism do drag a little though.

pusher robot

24th March 2008, 19:40

I think you are wrong in this case. These people know what communism and socialism want
Only in the vaguest sense. They cannot even agree on such fundamental questions like whether or not religion should be outlawed!

Every truth needs a brave one to pronounce it, right?! Ignoring the necessity of a new society and order by calming down yourself in declarations how stupid and vague the goals of socialism and communism are, is an easy way to stagnate and accept the failures of the past, the present and the future.

Again, I think, you misunderstand most of us. None of us that I know of claim that the status quo is perfect, or even necessarily ideal! But for your call to revolution to be persuasive, it is not enough to point out the failures of the status quo, you must also convince that your proposals will turn out better. Now, either we look at past attempts and make inferences based on their failure, or we disclaim those attempts and concede a complete lack of experience. Either way, where is the evidence, specifically the empirical evidence, that things would in fact be better?

People saying, that the UdSSR was a socialistic state in the terms of definition are wrong, because there was an abuse of power and material and many things went wrong. Counting aspects of effective prosperities within the UdSSR system only describe terms of the real existing socialism. You have to differentiate between those terms.

This is something you need to work out within your own movement. As it is, there is no coherent point of view with regards to the USSR.

You are mixing up economic and political terms as I sad! What about Venezuala? Would you call Hugo Chavez a dictator? I won't! Two states on the way to socialism, two states with a democratic system! So what? Are you saying that Kim Jong-Il is not a dictator? What are you trying to argue here?

And now, as a counter-example, the USA....would you call George W. Bush a democrat?Yes, I would. Wouldn't you?

Would you say that the United States act upon democratic principles, if they override decisions from the UN or the Security Council?It depends on what decisions you are talking about. The UN is hardly a consistent defender of democracy.

I beg you! Communism or socialism don't exclude democracy!
I never claimed that it did! But democracy is not an unlimited good.

pusher robot

24th March 2008, 19:46

Naturally not everyone will agree with the model presented there
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? I mean, even if I were to concede unreservedly that this model and this plan would certainly be better than the status quo, the question remains why anybody should support a revolutionary movement that doesn't agree upon this model.

The revolutionary movement is fundamentally incapable of broad-based support because while it has unifying visions it has no coherent, unifying policy, and when people vote, it tends to be policy that they care about.

Publius

24th March 2008, 19:46

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of the anti-communists I talk to aren't even fully capitalist.

I'm not a capitalist.

They argue on the historical basis of "wrongs" communism has created, but when confronted with historical arguments as per "wrongs" capitalism has created, they claim that they do not support that either.

That's because it would be stupid to support any sort of wrong, capitalist or otherwise.

It'd also be stupid to explain them away.

Communism has a bloody track record, and no amount of hand-wringing of the "Weeeelll, that wasn't REAAALLLLY Communism" isn't going to change that. Lenin sure as hell thought it was. Trotsky did, for a while. Stalin might have. Mao probably did.

And let's face it, if those countries were rousing successes today, you wouldn't be saying they have nothing to do with communism because they're "socialist" countries, would you?

There are already people who out of both sides of their mouth: the Soviet Union was horrible, repressive, terror state, etc... but it was SO effective!

I don't think "the left" even has a coherent position on "Communism" as it was tried in the 20th century, other than co-opting successes and denying its failures.

I sometimes feel as though they are really inclined to socialism but feel somehow morally averse to it.

I feel the opposite: I'm morally in support of socialism, but I can't force myself, intellectually, to be a socialist.

It just doesn't come together for me, even though I sort of want it to.

So what is this utopian system you support?

None. I don't believe in utopia.

Black Cross

24th March 2008, 19:51

I specificly was talking about the United States, where there is poverty, but nothing that couldn't be overcome with more education and hard work by all parties involved.

How narrow sighted of you.

People have to start taking responsibility for their own actions and own states in life, but also the government has to be more responsible for education.

Ya, those bums born into poverty and starvation need to take more responsibility for their actions that so obviously put them there. I think everyone on this site is on board with responsibility, since most of us believe in autonomy, a responsibility for yourself and no one else. However, as long as there are people suffering at the hands of this system of exploitation, I, and many others on this site, will take it upon ourselves to fight for equality.

Education and hard work is the way out of poverty--NOT handouts.

Who the hell said anything about handouts? Why don't you quote the one who made that comment about the handouts. Otherwise, keep your ignorant mouth shut. Communism isn't about handouts, and I doubt anyone on this site advocates giving money to those who don't deserve it (like the bourgoise who owns, but doesn't work his/her fair share). You're a catholic; doesn't it say somewhere in the bible something like, 'If a man will not work, he shall not eat?' For the most part, I believe that. But some aren't even given the opportunity to work, and yet they do not eat. But capitalism is a totally workable system, right (according to you)? So what's up?

In my opinion, the problem is that most capitalists or people who didn't/don't know exactly what communism and socialism want, tend to mix up the terms of economic and political systems. Because they never dealt with the ideas, goals or theories of communism and socialism, they believe that such systems have already been existing. They don't know, that systems like the former UdSSR, the GDR or now China are trials of socialistic systems and have nothing to do with the original defintion of a communist/socialist state or world. Thy can't differentiate between economic and politic, so they mostly associate communism with dictatorship and equate capitalism with democracy and a free world. They are fooled by their own inability to inform theirselves about coherences and the backround story.

Well put. I've often had these thoughts, but I couldn't have articulated it so well. I often come upon ignorant capitalists who can't determine the difference between what is, and what a small group of people say is. If they just read the manifesto, they would have a pretty good idea of communism; instead, though, they just assume they know what communism is (based on the media's [and the school books'], shallow definition of it) and attack what they believe to be principles of the system.

Too many so-called followers of Jesus merely celebrate Constantine's Roman cult of the Christ figure. Someone who can cure leprosy with magic but is unable to escape a crucifix. And then comes back as a ghost-zombie. Someone to be respected and loved, but most of all feared. That's the most important part, the fear. Too much love and you might start consorting with kindly Jews and other such heathens who want to destroy our American way of life. Like those god-damned Indians at AIM who want their way of life back. Or worse yet, you might develop compassion for poor people and prostitutes. Or you might challenge the capitalist nature of the Temple/Church. Or give women equal rights in priesthood. I shudder at the thought.

Whatever

hahaha. Blindly follow Tom. From an objective stand point, God seems like an egotistical prick. The only thing that matters to him is that we give glory to him. That is the reason he put us here, no? If that's the attitude it takes to get to heaven, I'll gladly swim laps in a lake of fire. At least i'll keep my morality.

Demogorgon

24th March 2008, 20:09

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? I mean, even if I were to concede unreservedly that this model and this plan would certainly be better than the status quo, the question remains why anybody should support a revolutionary movement that doesn't agree upon this model.

The revolutionary movement is fundamentally incapable of broad-based support because while it has unifying visions it has no coherent, unifying policy, and when people vote, it tends to be policy that they care about.
Did the Liberalism that swept Europe and America in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries have a particularly coherant vision besides vague aims?

You want us to move from abstract political philosophy to day to day policy prescriptions, but we can't do that without specifics. I could give you a list as long as my arm of the policies I would suggest in Scotland with the circumstances here but may well give you a quite different set of proposals as to what I would see in America because of the differing circumstances there.

Anyway read the book. It sets out policy in quite a lot of detail. It is not fair to say to me, well lots of Communists don't like that model. They don't. But most capitalists don't back your idealised model either, do they?

Black Cross

24th March 2008, 20:16

And now, as a counter-example, the USA....would you call George W. Bush a democrat?

Yes, I would. Wouldn't you?

No, that would mean I was brain-damaged. He is not an advocate of democratic principles, nor is he a member of the democratic party, thus he is not a democrat. I made this judgement based on his actions, not his words, unlike capitalists when refuting socialism.

Bud Struggle

24th March 2008, 20:52

How narrow sighted of you.

Nope--education is the key. It gives people the ability to do good work and thus become more "employable" in the workforce and make more money. Secondly it affords a person the ability to be of better service to the community at large.

Ya, those bums born into poverty and starvation need to take more responsibility for their actions that so obviously put them there. I think everyone on this site is on board with responsibility, since most of us believe in autonomy, a responsibility for yourself and no one else. However, as long as there are people suffering at the hands of this system of exploitation, I, and many others on this site, will take it upon ourselves to fight for equality.

Hey, I was born poor but I found it was a condition that I felt uncomfortable with I changed all that lickey split. In America we have the opportunity to change the conditions of our birth through education and hard work. I will grant you that there are other places in this world that bettering one's position isn't so easy. It is the job of a GOOD government to make sure the playing field for those willing to work hard get a fair shot.

The problem is ultimately we aren't all born equal. God gives some people greater and lesser gifts. We can only do as well as or gifts (or luck) allows.

Who the hell said anything about handouts? Why don't you quote the one who made that comment about the handouts. Otherwise, keep your ignorant mouth shut. Communism isn't about handouts, and I doubt anyone on this site advocates giving money to those who don't deserve it (like the bourgoise who owns, but doesn't work his/her fair share). You're a catholic; doesn't it say somewhere in the bible something like, 'If a man will not work, he shall not eat?' For the most part, I believe that. But some aren't even given the opportunity to work, and yet they do not eat. But capitalism is a totally workable system, right (according to you)? So what's up?

On a number of occasions I was "asked" to give equal ownership of my business to my employees. If you want me to find the quotes--I suppose I could. My employees--wonderful people all--didn't do a thing to start my business. They come in and do whatever task is assigned and are compensated for their time accordingly. They have no business in my enterprise.; As far as I go, I don't work anything like 40 hours, but on the other hand I was the guy that put it all together, I DID my work--and still do my work, I just work smarter and faster than the people who work for me.

BTW: There are lots of people that work smarter and faster than me--and make piles more money. Good for them!

As to owning stocks: there is nothing wrong with that. When you work your work is translated into dollars that can be used to buy into different businesses. The "work" is still there, it's just being managed differently.

hahaha. Blindly follow Tom. From an objective stand point, God seems like an egotistical prick. The only thing that matters to him is that we give glory to him. That is the reason he put us here, no? If that's the attitude it takes to get to heaven, I'll gladly swim laps in a lake of fire. At least i'll keep my morality.

Enjoy! :D:che:

La Zora

24th March 2008, 20:58

Only in the vaguest sense. They cannot even agree on such fundamental questions like whether or not religion should be outlawed!

The disaccord in such questions is a problem, I agree with you. In my opinion the whole religion debate is stupid and ridiculous, because religion has nothing to do with economic needs. It is a personal freedom which shouldn't hold up communists or socialists do reach the main goals of the movement.

Again, I think, you misunderstand most of us. None of us that I know of claim that the status quo is perfect, or even necessarily ideal! But for your call to revolution to be persuasive, it is not enough to point out the failures of the status quo, you must also convince that your proposals will turn out better.

Some things declare themselves by practice or human sense. My problem with your "stagnation" is the unwilling of trying another way of life. You often won't see, that the proposals ARE better!

Now, either we look at past attempts and make inferences based on their failure, or we disclaim those attempts and concede a complete lack of experience. Either way, where is the evidence, specifically the empirical evidence, that things would in fact be better?

When capitalistic systems started, where was the empirical evidence, that everything would be better? And what about all the experiences within capitalistic states and systems in the past and present? Capitalism doesn't work for the majority of the people. Minoritys press a majority to live in a determined deadlocked system, which is mostly beneficial for the minority. You can accept such structures or you try to find other ways which are more beneficial for most parts of the population. This means work and sometimes it means to step on a new way, where you surely do some mistakes. But without trying, you wouldn't change anything! Kafka said "Lanes arise by going them.".....and this is true.

This is something you need to work out within your own movement. As it is, there is no coherent point of view with regards to the USSR.

You are right, and such communities like RevLeft are the space for such discussions within the movement. But, I think you will agree that also libertarians aren't coherent in every issue they are concerned about. Differnt people with different opinions...

So what? Are you saying that Kim Jong-Il is not a dictator? What are you trying to argue here?

No, he is a dictator, I agree with you! Listing the other examples should show you, that you could not trivialize!

Yes, I would. Wouldn't you?

I won't!

It depends on what decisions you are talking about. The UN is hardly a consistent defender of democracy.

I am talking about the acclamation for the ending of an economic embargo against Cuba, for example. The absolute majority of the UN members voted against the embargo and the United States override this decision. What is this UN, a defender of democracy, worth, if only one member decides the final course?!

I never claimed that it did! But democracy is not an unlimited good.

We also agree. But does capitalism saves this unlimited good or are there too many limitations, what do you think!?

Dystisis

24th March 2008, 21:04

The Communist side is far worse IMO because the different branches of Communist ideology are all named after personalities of dictators and authoritarians such as Stalinists, Maoists, Leninists, Hoxhists, etc. The only non-dictator in the branches of Communism was Marx ( Marxism) but even Marx fancied a dictatorship as part of the revolution. Talk about cult of personalities, any movement which branches of it identify themselves with personalities of dictators has no grounds to talk about occult in other movements.
Why do you use the word occult here? Seems out of place. Occult means something which is hidden, or out of sight. Cult of personalities has nothing to do with the occult.

pusher robot

24th March 2008, 21:09

Did the Liberalism that swept Europe and America in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries have a particularly coherant vision besides vague aims?

What would you call, e.g., the Constitution of the U.S.?

You want us to move from abstract political philosophy to day to day policy prescriptions, but we can't do that without specifics. I could give you a list as long as my arm of the policies I would suggest in Scotland with the circumstances here but may well give you a quite different set of proposals as to what I would see in America because of the differing circumstances there.

If you can then why don't you? Contrary to your assertion, nobody expects you to work out every day-to-day law, but at least a general outline of policy principles like a constitution would certainly give some reassurance to people that you have worked out basic issues like freedom of speech and domestic security.

Anyway read the book. It sets out policy in quite a lot of detail. It is not fair to say to me, well lots of Communists don't like that model. They don't. But most capitalists don't back your idealised model either, do they?

Huh? First of all, there is no idealized model of capitalism. There are certain principles that demand due deference, but also a recognition that such a thing as utopia is impossible. And yes, most capitalists do back these principles.

Second of all, I am not arguing for dramatic social upheaval. You are. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that any blood, sweat, or treasure expended on your proposals would have a corresponding benefit over the status quo. How can you do this, if you don't even know what your proposals are?

pusher robot

24th March 2008, 21:30

No, that would mean I was brain-damaged. He is not an advocate of democratic principles, nor is he a member of the democratic party, thus he is not a democrat. I made this judgement based on his actions, not his words, unlike capitalists when refuting socialism.
http://www.law.duke.edu/images/magazine/2005spring/iraqiwoman.jpg

No, he is a dictator, I agree with you!

Well, if members of the revolutionary left defend dictators, why ought I not conclude that revolutionary leftists support dictators?

I am talking about the acclamation for the ending of an economic embargo against Cuba, for example. The absolute majority of the UN members voted against the embargo and the United States override this decision. What is this UN, a defender of democracy, worth, if only one member decides the final course?!
You are assuming that the UN is a "defender of democracy," a totally unwarranted assumption. I do not assume! Furthermore, by what right do the other citizens of the world deign to tell U.S. citizens whom they must trade with? Are not this citizens of the United States entitled to trade with whomever they wish or wish not? Why ought democracy trump autonomy?

Dejavu

24th March 2008, 21:33

There is much in both schools I agree with. By "soft" libertarian I mean that I recognize the value of both social and economic individualism, but I do see a state or quasi-state of some sort as a practical necessity.

Fair enough. I think its rather absurd to separate social freedom from economic freedom. I agree with you strongly on that point. About the state, of course I disagree with you but I understand your reasons.

Demogorgon

24th March 2008, 21:56

What would you call, e.g., the Constitution of the U.S.?A liberal constitution. I would also call the British Act Of Settlement, English Bill Of Rights, Scottish Claim of Right etc as Liberal Constitutional statutes. But in their specifics they differ quite remarkably from the US constitution.

If you can then why don't you? Contrary to your assertion, nobody expects you to work out every day-to-day law, but at least a general outline of policy principles like a constitution would certainly give some reassurance to people that you have worked out basic issues like freedom of speech and domestic security.Okay, that is a fair challenge. I am off ill just now anyway so I have time on my hands. Give me until, say Wednesday night and I will PM you a document containing what I would regard as being a good constitutional basis for a socialist society. Obviously I can not give you a final blueprint for Communism, any more than the authors of the US constitution could have described 21st century America, but I can and will within the next two days give you as detailed a description as I can possibly manage of how a socialist society should start itself off

Huh? First of all, there is no idealized model of capitalism. There are certain principles that demand due deference, but also a recognition that such a thing as utopia is impossible. And yes, most capitalists do back these principles.There are several idealised versions of capitalism on the go. Some of its nuttier advocates, Nozick or Rand for instance had very clear and in their view Utopian (though they look Dystopian to me) visions of how capitalism should look. And they look nothing like what sciety looks like now

Second of all, I am not arguing for dramatic social upheaval. You are. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that any blood, sweat, or treasure expended on your proposals would have a corresponding benefit over the status quo. How can you do this, if you don't even know what your proposals are?
I beg to differ. The Libertarian models I see paraded around here are as different from Western Capitalism as it is actually practiced as much of what is proposed here.

As for having no set proposals. As I will have shown by Wednesday, I most certainly do. Oh and read that book I recommended. There is some good stuff in there.

Demogorgon

24th March 2008, 22:01

Yes, I would. Wouldn't you?

Well does George Bush believe in the following things that are nowconsidered staples of Democracy in the Western World?

Proportional Representation
Equal Suffrage
Referenda for all constitutional change
Equal competition between all political parties at elections.

Almost uniquely in the Western World, America lacks these things and Bush has never made the slightest indication he would like to see them in America (though ironically they are all guaranteed on paper if not in practice in this new Iraqi constitution).

Given this, it would be dishonest to call him a supporter of democracy.

pusher robot

24th March 2008, 22:18

Well does George Bush believe in the following things that are nowconsidered staples of Democracy in the Western World?

Proportional Representation
Equal Suffrage
Referenda for all constitutional change
Equal competition between all political parties at elections.

Almost uniquely in the Western World, America lacks these things and Bush has never made the slightest indication he would like to see them in America (though ironically they are all guaranteed on paper if not in practice in this new Iraqi constitution).

Given this, it would be dishonest to call him a supporter of democracy.
That is both a ridiculously narrow definition of "democracy" and irrelevant to George W. Bush, who is absolutely powerless to change any of those things.

Nevertheless, I couldn't help but notice that the posited champion defender of democracy, the UN, also has none of those things.

La Zora

24th March 2008, 22:25

Well, if members of the revolutionary left defend dictators, why ought I not conclude that revolutionary leftists support dictators?

You trivialize and make a little percentage to the common rule! There are lot of leftists which don't support dictators!

You are [I]assuming that the UN is a "defender of democracy," a totally unwarranted assumption. I do not assume! Furthermore, by what right do the other citizens of the world deign to tell U.S. citizens whom they must trade with? Are not this citizens of the United States entitled to trade with whomever they wish or wish not? Why ought democracy trump autonomy?

You yourself called the U.N. a "defender of democracy" and I would like to believe this, but acting against a common decision because of being afraid of the reactions of the United States in the case of different countries concusses such hopes. You are right, the U.S. could decide with whom they want to trade or not, but it is another thing to influence the trading actions of other countries with U.S. "enemies" or "friends" by pressurizing other states with special contracts or the ending of existing collaborations. For example, the United States wanted to abolish the secret voting in the U.N. to enhance the effectivity of possible manipulation by systematic pressure against countries which depend on support or acceptance of the western world. Is this the democracy we are taking about and you are proud of?!

Demogorgon

24th March 2008, 22:29

That is both a ridiculously narrow definition of "democracy" and irrelevant to George W. Bush, who is absolutely powerless to change any of those things.

Nevertheless, I couldn't help but notice that the posited champion defender of democracy, the UN, also has none of those things.

I would hardly call it narrow. It seems to me that Universal equal suffrage is the absolute foundation of democracy.

By simply measuring America up to Western Europe (Britain and France shamefully excepted), America can not be considered a Democracy. Bush expouses the American system as the best in the world, and regards his own election in 2000 as legitimate despite gaining fewer votes than his rival. In short he supports a system where the candidate who wins the most votes does not necessarilly win. He can not be called a democrat.

As for the UN, I don't know where that comes into it. The UN is a forum for countries to interact, not a democratic body by any stretch of the imagination.

pusher robot

24th March 2008, 22:46

You yourself called the U.N. a "defender of democracy" and I would like to believe this, but acting against a common decision because of being afraid of the reactions of the United States in the case of different countries concusses such hopes.Ah, a simple misunderstanding. My saying that the UN is "hardly a defender of democracy" is just a way of me saying that the UN is NOT a defender of democracy. I don't believe it ever was or is at all a defender of democracy.

You are right, the U.S. could decide with whom they want to trade or not, but it is another thing to influence the trading actions of other countries with U.S. "enemies" or "friends" by pressurizing other states with special contracts or the ending of existing collaborations.
Indeed it is another thing, but that is not what the UN vote was about, was it?

For example, the United States wanted to abolish the secret voting in the U.N. to enhance the effectivity of possible manipulation by systematic pressure against countries which depend on support or acceptance of the western world. Is this the democracy we are taking about and you are proud of?!
Well than why not just make all government operations secret, that way nobody could possibly manipulate them! That campaign, which as may observe has been rather ineffective anyways, was based on the principle that governmental operations should always be as transparent as possible. Secrecy is for individuals, not state apparatchiks. This principle is widely accepted in the U.S., so it is entirely consistent with democratic principles that the representatives of the U.S. should promote it. And yes, I'm proud that my representatives have campaigned for openness and transparency in the UN.

pusher robot

24th March 2008, 22:53

[quote=Demogorgon;1106570]I would hardly call it narrow. It seems to me that Universal equal suffrage is the absolute foundation of democracy.

Well, it doesn't seem that way to me, so I suppose we are at an impasse.

By simply measuring America up to Western Europe (Britain and France shamefully excepted), America can not be considered a Democracy. Bush expouses the American system as the best in the world, and regards his own election in 2000 as legitimate despite gaining fewer votes than his rival. In short he supports a system where the candidate who wins the most votes does not necessarilly win. He can not be called a democrat.

He regards it as legitimate because the President is not now nor ever has been chosen by a popular vote. You apparently hold the opinion that one can only be a democrat if one favors direct, absolute plurality selection. I, along with many (a plurality?!? of others) disagree.
EDIT: Furthermore, his selection was under a set of rules that was agreed to by supermajorities. Are you suggesting that the democratic thing to do would be to disregard the law created by a supermajority for the convenience of a bare majority? How doesn't that turn democracy on its head?

As for the UN, I don't know where that comes into it. The UN is a forum for countries to interact, not a democratic body by any stretch of the imagination.
The UN entered into this debate because the United States' recalcitrance to abide by a nonbinding UN resolution was held to be undemocratic.

Demogorgon

24th March 2008, 23:32

[quote]

Well, it doesn't seem that way to me, so I suppose we are at an impasse.
Well what is democracy to you then? Rule by those who meet a property qualification?

He regards it as legitimate because the President is not now nor ever has been chosen by a popular vote. You apparently hold the opinion that one can only be a democrat if one favors direct, absolute plurality selection. I, along with many (a plurality?!? of others) disagree.Saying Bush was elected in accordance with the rules doe not make it a Democratic election. The President of China was elected in full accordance witht he rules there as well. Was that a democratic election? If the rules are undemocratic then the result itself can not be considered democratic.

EDIT: Furthermore, his selection was under a set of rules that was agreed to by supermajorities. Are you suggesting that the democratic thing to do would be to disregard the law created by a supermajority for the convenience of a bare majority? How doesn't that turn democracy on its head?

A supermajority from over two hundred years ago. The fact is that the US constitution is now badly out of date and can not, by modern definition of democracy be considered democratic. I am not saying this comparing it to some idealised socialist constitution, but to all the Constitutions across Western Europe that are providing for things like equal suffrage and multi-party contests rather than two-party monopoly. How can you claim that the US system can make a claim to be democratic next to them?

Note, I don't consider them to be truly democratic either, but they are far more so than the US.

careyprice31

25th March 2008, 00:28

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of the anti-communists I talk to aren't even fully capitalist. They argue on the historical basis of "wrongs" communism has created, but when confronted with historical arguments as per "wrongs" capitalism has created, they claim that they do not support that either.

I sometimes feel as though they are really inclined to socialism but feel somehow morally averse to it.

So what is this utopian system you support?

yea thats right. Most people arent fully one way or fully the other way. You question them and most will have a mix of left and right beliefs. My father, for example. Economically, he is capitalist. But socially, he is just as leftist as any one of us leftists on RL. with the exception that I do not know if he believes in a woman's right to have an abortion at any time throughout the period of gestation. I think he believes in a limit on that one.

La Zora

25th March 2008, 09:34

Ah, a simple misunderstanding. My saying that the UN is "hardly a defender of democracy" is just a way of me saying that the UN is NOT a defender of democracy. I don't believe it ever was or is at all a defender of democracy.

Ah, ok! Sorry, english is not my native language, so I definetely misunderstood your ironic. So, again we agree in this point!

Indeed it is another thing, but that is not what the UN vote was about, was it?

Come on! This is eyewash! The conditions and the accomplishment of a vote are important as well as the statistical result at the end of the vote. Such votes are getting totally useless, if the result doesn't count and the actions which should base on that are influenced afterwards!

Well than why not just make all government operations secret, that way nobody could possibly manipulate them! That campaign, which as may observe has been rather ineffective anyways, was based on the principle that governmental operations should always be as transparent as possible. Secrecy is for individuals, not state apparatchiks. This principle is widely accepted in the U.S., so it is entirely consistent with democratic principles that the representatives of the U.S. should promote it. And yes, I'm proud that my representatives have campaigned for openness and transparency in the UN.

You tell me, you are living in a nation which stands for transparency and openness in politics? :laugh: Sorry, but this is ridiculous! People telling you, the invasion of the Iraq is inevitable because of weapons for mass destruction, which have never been existing, tells another story. All the napless aid for different countries under the cloak of humanity, which sounds very good in peoples ears and just gives a good explanation and reasoning to invade other nations to exploit them, couldn't characterize transparent and open politics! The only reason the U.S. want an open voting in the U.N is to allow themselves a kind of "legal" pressure against states which depend on their good will!

Schrödinger's Cat

25th March 2008, 10:16

No, the "problem" is that the people making up a website that specifically calls for armed revolution don't know exactly what communism and socialism want. They all agree on certain extremely vague goals, but have no coherent plan or shared set of principles as to how to achieve those goals in a real world filled with real people pursuing their own interest, asking everybody else to disregard past epic failures and accept on faith and good intention that their aims will be achieved "somehow."A few points to rejoinder with:

1.) Revolutions are not foremost concerned with arms struggle. Many users here would probably spill acid from their stomachs at the sight of death.

2.) Capitalists are probably more divided on the question of principles than Leftists. I don't know of too many socialists who are opposed to a functional communist system. Even the small individualist branches of anarchism (mutualists) agree that anarcho-communism is an ideal. Conflicts of opinions before, during, and after said transition can be resolved through public debate. In contemporary society liberals, libertarians, Objectivists, Georgists, centralists, and right-libertarian constitutionalists are split on trivial issues like gay marriage - whereas Leftists acknowledge homosexuals into their community quite openly. On most hot-topic social issues like abortion, marriage, homosexuality, education, stem cells, the disparity of beliefs is quite less than what you would find by capitalists. Hell, people following Von Mises and Friedman sometimes can't even agree on uniting due to their difference on the business cycle.

You cannot possibly think that I will take this seriously, when members of your own movement are busily occupying themselves defending North Korea out of some misguided sense of solidarity.And anarcho-capitalists who defend Somalia as a stunning success? Boy, humans are a fickle bunch. I would stop cherry picking. The overwhelming majority of users in North Korean threads either 1.) disown the state completely or 2.) oppose its policies, but question the accuracy of Western reports. If you're taking this second crowd to be adamant North Korean defenders, you should really invest in some critical thought. It's common knowledge by anyone who cares to research that Western media and government exaggerate the truth, and sometimes lie outright. For example, no media station picks up the fact we bombed the hell out of Cambodia - instead of taking partial blame for something even Henry Kissinger admitted would kill hundreds of thousands, they pass it off as the work of a madman (whom 95% of Leftists do heavily critisize). Some other oddities capitalists play around with:

- Claiming Stalin was as bad (worse?) than Hitler, supposedly reinforced by the neo-con Robert Conquest's numbers, even though his work has consecutively been disproved by Getty, Wheatcroft, and other historians using more documentation and information. Everyone is taught about the gulags, but not the fact the death rate sank beneath 1% in the early 1950s, and the fact our own prison system carries more "human incubators" - most of which are in for non-harmful crimes.
- Claiming Cuba is some nightmarish anti-democratic police state, when the country is actually better than most Latin American counterparts in terms of living conditions - and in some cases the United States. The country also has a functional democratic process, albeit in need of reform.
- Claiming Chavez is just another dictator down South, despite him being an active democrat who worked to create some of the most democratic referendum and recall systems in the world.
- Claiming Mao was a brutal madman who did nothing for China, despite the country turning around from 1953-1976 to become a global player - with a population that increased nearly 40%, and life expectancies that doubled. How many Americans realize most of the participants in the Tiananmen Square protest were Maoists?
- Claiming North Vietnam as being an evil aggressor state, when it was the West who curtailed the democratic process out of fear a communist would win with over 70% of the vote.

Do I go on? I can even thrown in some material objectivity.

Only in the vaguest sense. They cannot even agree on such fundamental questions like whether or not religion should be outlawed!The polls in our religious forum consistently show a large opposition to outlawing religion - and some users who answered yes explained their position to be against organized, property-related religious institutions like the Catholic church. Again you cherry pick examples that actually disprove your own capitalist defense. How many American conservatives are interested in punishing secularism by abolishing the separation of church and state? I have a feeling the Religious Right makes up a larger constituency of capitalists than religious abolitionists make up of the Left. And unlike capitalists, many reactionary anti-religious individuals will probably change their minds later on, or fall out completely due to their being part of an idealist crowd which throws itself into what movement appears coolest at the time.

For example, the Ron Paul "revolutionaries" will probably vote for McCain or Obama in November and grow up to become part of the mainstream.

pusher robot

25th March 2008, 17:33

A few points to rejoinder with:

1.) Revolutions are not foremost concerned with arms struggle. Many users here would probably spill acid from their stomachs at the sight of death.
Sorry. I don't believe you; that is to say, I do believe that users here probably lack the fortitude to take such actions, but are actually quite hopeful about someone else doing it for them.

2.) Capitalists are probably more divided on the question of principles than Leftists.
If you are going to accept that the status quo is "capitalist" then it simply doesn't matter. The real contest is not between capitalist dogma and communist dogma, it is between communist dogma and the status quo. The capitalist-socialist ideological debates are just intellectual masterbation.

The polls in our religious forum consistently show a large opposition to outlawing religion - and some users who answered yes explained their position to be against organized, property-related religious institutions like the Catholic church.The mere fact that things like freedom of religion and freedom of speech are even up for debate in your movement is enough to make it undesirable over the status quo.

pusher robot

25th March 2008, 17:52

Well what is democracy to you then? "Democracy" is a general principle of "rule by the people," not a specific set of policies. "Rule by the people" can be accomplished in many different ways, with different strengths and weaknesses. It's definitely not a binary category.

Saying Bush was elected in accordance with the rules doe not make it a Democratic election. The President of China was elected in full accordance witht he rules there as well. Was that a democratic election?Doesn't it make a difference if the rules are democratically decided?
If the rules are undemocratic then the result itself can not be considered democratic.Even if the rules were adopted by a democratic majority? Again, your concept of "democracy" seems idiosyncratically narrow.
A supermajority from over two hundred years ago. The fact is that the US constitution is now badly out of date and can not, by modern definition of democracy be considered democratic.What if, hypothetically, we had a vote to re-ratify the Constitution as is, and it passed again?
How can you claim that the US system can make a claim to be democratic next to them? Because the goal of it is to provide a system whereby the people govern themselves, without some of the drawbacks of the narrow version of democracy you hold. The ultimate purpose is to allow for self-government by the people, therefore it is democratic. The mechanisms are just means to that end.

Note, I don't consider them to be truly democratic either, but they are far more so than the US.
There is no such thing as "true democracy." That's an oxymoron both conceptually and mathematically.

La Zora:

Such votes are getting totally useless, if the result doesn't count and the actions which should base on that are influenced afterwards! Well, then, we further agree: the UN is totally useless. The votes were nonbinding, and even if they weren't, who is going to enforce them? Why shouldn't the US operate in its own best interests? This is anarchy in action.

You tell me, you are living in a nation which stands for transparency and openness in politics?It is one of the principles that is widely held to be important. On the specific issue, it is a matter of public record how every official voted on almost every single bill or resolution. Virtually all lawmaking activity must be done in public and made available to the public.

People telling you, the invasion of the Iraq is inevitable because of weapons for mass destruction, which have never been existing, tells another story.
Never been existing? So I suppose those Kurds just gassed themselves then? Are you a Truther too? No doubt we were apparently wrong about what capabilities Iraq had, but that had much more to do with secrecy in the Iraqi government than the U.S. government.

Dejavu

25th March 2008, 18:30

What if, hypothetically, we had a vote to re-ratify the Constitution as is, and it passed again?

I like that idea.

Well, then, we further agree: the UN is totally useless. The votes were nonbinding, and even if they weren't, who is going to enforce them? Why shouldn't the US operate in its own best interests?

I agree about the UN being useless. But how was it ever in our best interest to be interventionists? The unintended blow back ( or perhaps intended) always made the situation worse and demanded more intervention.

This is anarchy in action.

Hell no.

It is one of the principles that is widely held to be important. On the specific issue, it is a matter of public record how every official voted on almost every single bill or resolution. Virtually all lawmaking activity must be done in public and made available to the public.

Thats the problem with relying on a state in the first place. Who checks the state if they can just lie to the people? How is it that a select group of 'officials' have more power over law , jurisprudence, making the law, and enforcing it, rather than everyone in society? Are we not ALL bound to natural law? Deception is the state.

Never been existing? So I suppose those Kurds just gassed themselves then? Are you a Truther too? No doubt we were apparently wrong about what capabilities Iraq had, but that had much more to do with secrecy in the Iraqi government than the U.S. government.

Yeah but I believe the administration was trying to demonstrate nuclear capabilities of Iraq. Now, I'm not only one sided on this since it is true that in Desert Storm the CIA totally missed a nuclear facility in Iraq and it was able to continue existing after DS. But the information wasn't sound this time around either from the CIA or the DoD. But the outright lie to the public about 'yellowcake' was going to far and was the catalyst that won popular support for a foolish war. Our administration was also divided, the State Dept on one side with Powell and Armitage, and the DoD and VP on the other side. The CIA was also in its own camp. The U.N. was also following its own agenda, I believe this complex network of BS allowed the administration to get its way. Plus, even before the war was given the go, the planning strategy for rebuilding Iraq was already in shambles.
Of course this is all trivial if you look at the real history of Imperialism and Iraq. Iraq was created after WW1 by the British as was Lebanon by the French which still continue to be problems to this day. The British had no idea what they were doing with Iraq and put together a dangerous mix of peoples that don't like each other and the authenticity of that imperial creation is still defended and now even is used when trying to talk about instituting democracy. Its a sham.

Demogorgon

25th March 2008, 19:11

"Democracy" is a general principle of "rule by the people," not a specific set of policies. "Rule by the people" can be accomplished in many different ways, with different strengths and weaknesses. It's definitely not a binary category. No, there are many variations. But Universal, Equal Suffrage must feature in all circumstances

Doesn't it make a difference if the rules are democratically decided?Well as I say, they weren't decided democratically. They were decided by aristocrats in the late eighteenth century
What if, hypothetically, we had a vote to re-ratify the Constitution as is, and it passed again?Depends on the specifics. If people were given a genuine chance to change the constitution to be more democratic and had the necessary information to make an informed choice it would be their own problem if they decided to retain the constitution. A democratic decision to have an undemocratic constitution would have to be respected. Though it could not be considered binding in perpetuity
Because the goal of it is to provide a system whereby the people govern themselves, without some of the drawbacks of the narrow version of democracy you hold. The ultimate purpose is to allow for self-government by the people, therefore it is democratic. The mechanisms are just means to that end.
If people are to enjoy self Government then plainly they need to be able to fairly decide how to govern themselves. The United States unfair and unbalanced elections simply do not provide that.

Demogorgon

25th March 2008, 19:14

If you are going to accept that the status quo is "capitalist" then it simply doesn't matter. The real contest is not between capitalist dogma and communist dogma, it is between communist dogma and the status quo. The capitalist-socialist ideological debates are just intellectual masterbation.

Naturally, but Libertarians like yourself need to remember than when you argue for the privatisation of this, that and the next thing, you are also arguing against the status quo and can not justify your arguments by attacks on Communism and socialism. That is a trick Libertarians are very fond of playing and I see you (plural) trying to employ it against social Liberals and Social Democrats and that is most unfair.

pusher robot

25th March 2008, 19:29

Naturally, but Libertarians like yourself need to remember than when you argue for the privatisation of this, that and the next thing, you are also arguing against the status quo and can not justify your arguments by attacks on Communism and socialism. That is a trick Libertarians are very fond of playing and I see you (plural) trying to employ it against social Liberals and Social Democrats and that is most unfair.

Well feel free to bring that up when I actually do so. I certainly haven't in this thread.

pusher robot

25th March 2008, 19:31

No, there are many variations. But Universal, Equal Suffrage must feature in all circumstances
Why? Who says? Was this democratically decided?

Demogorgon

25th March 2008, 21:51

Why? Who says? Was this democratically decided?
This is like trying to argue with a supporter of United Russia (Putin's party)

"Oh but the Russian people democratically desire not to have a democratic decision making process in this area" etc

If Democracy is going to be rule by the people, it is going to have to be rule by all people, each with an equal vote. If not then anything at all could be considered democracy.

Schrödinger's Cat

25th March 2008, 23:09

The mere fact that things like freedom of religion and freedom of speech are even up for debate in your movement is enough to make it undesirable over the status quo.Then you're just another helpless sectarian. I don't know what more proof I need to provide that shows the overwhelming majority of Leftists oppose the criminalization of religion. Furthermore, as I pointed out, a large percentage of capitalists would like to enforce their personal religious morality onto others. In 2001 up to 42% of the American public stated homosexual relations should be made illegal. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll3.htm

Leftists don't argue over the extent of free speech anymore than the average citizen. I know we as United States citizens take for granted the leniency on public speaking, but a lot of European states have a long-standing precedent of not tolerating hate speech/groups, and this forum is international. Hopefully we can both change their minds.

Here, I'll turn your argument around: Since capitalists even have to debate the subject of allowing homosexuals the right to be themselves, the status quo is automatically undesirable.

Sorry. I don't believe you; that is to say, I do believe that users here probably lack the fortitude to take such actions, but are actually quite hopeful about someone else doing it for them.Provide evidence then.

If you are going to accept that the status quo is "capitalist" then it simply doesn't matter. The real contest is not between capitalist dogma and communist dogma, it is between communist dogma and the status quo. The capitalist-socialist ideological debates are just intellectual masterbation.I haven't been masturbating enough, then!

Fine; if you insist on trying to draw a line of distinction between the status quo and capitalism, be my guess. Proponents of the status quo suffer from the very same problems you charge Leftists with - only on a much larger scale!

Bud Struggle

25th March 2008, 23:16

Black Cross

26th March 2008, 18:48

Nope--education is the key. It gives people the ability to do good work and thus become more "employable" in the workforce and make more money. Secondly it affords a person the ability to be of better service to the community at large.

Hmm, if you look at what I quoted from your post, I don't see what that has to do with education. I do believe that education is very important, but my response of "how narrow sighted of you" was directed towards the fact that you are only looking at the United States.

Hey, I was born poor but I found it was a condition that I felt uncomfortable with I changed all that lickey split. In America we have the opportunity to change the conditions of our birth through education and hard work. I will grant you that there are other places in this world that bettering one's position isn't so easy. It is the job of a GOOD government to make sure the playing field for those willing to work hard get a fair shot.
What good government? I don't see any good governments. All I see is a world running by the hands of corrupt men who handle guns with violence and coersion, and their people with disrespect and exploitation. And I don't like your tone; you say it's the responsibility of a GOOD government to provide, but what of the bad governments (I still don't concede that there are any good ones)? We just let them go on with their corrupted money games while people the world over suffer from starvation and disease?
And how is this a knock on communism, exactly? Again, I say, communism is not about hand-outs, but you refuse to engage me on that level.

The problem is ultimately we aren't all born equal. God gives some people greater and lesser gifts. We can only do as well as or gifts (or luck) allows.

And yet you allow that communists are dogmatic? god also says that the rich should provide for the poor, does he not? (I personally like these verses: Jeremiah 22: 13-17, Luke 3:11, Proverbs 14:31, 1st John 3:17.) So if our "gifts" provide many with little/no food, shouldn't you be condemning the rich for not doing their god-given duty to provide for the needy, rather than condemning the needy for not working hard enough or looking for an education? Go preach elsewhere. Or use your wasted time here to go help the needy, instead of trying to save our souls from eternal condemnation and hell-fire. We don't want your gospel.

On a number of occasions I was "asked" to give equal ownership of my business to my employees. If you want me to find the quotes--I suppose I could. My employees--wonderful people all--didn't do a thing to start my business. They come in and do whatever task is assigned and are compensated for their time accordingly. They have no business in my enterprise.; As far as I go, I don't work anything like 40 hours, but on the other hand I was the guy that put it all together, I DID my work--and still do my work, I just work smarter and faster than the people who work for me.

You're comparing your limited time working to prepare a business to their time running it? You just said you don't work 40 hour weeks. If they do, then eventually they will pass you on the amount of work done at this business. Yet still you will get much more compensation than them. And who are you to say you work smarter and faster? And why is your smart, fast work worth more than their hard work? Since I doubt you carry the load they do. Dont be a prick.

BTW: There are lots of people that work smarter and faster than me--and make piles more money. Good for them!

Yea! good for them! but not so good for those who have to suffer so they can have their wealth. Fuck them as well.

Maybe you are just ignorant to the fact that not everyone can achieve the same level of riches as a Trump, Gates, etc. Money doesn't just grow on trees. There is only a certain amount of it on this planet and when gobs and gobs of it go to select individuals, that leaves less and less for others. You see a trend here? Consolidation of wealth only leads to more poverty.