I'lll remind you until you remember - dumbasses.

[uth1984]

THE SOVIET UNION WAS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF TRUE COMMUNISM. NEITHER WAS NAZI GERMANY. OR CHINA. SO STOP THINKING THAT THEY WERE.

Okay?

[Brian]

I never said National Socialist Germany was Communism, National Socialism and Communism are two differnet things dimwit.

[Stormin Norman]

They are all slightly different variations of a clearly similar worldview. This type of repressive regime is the trademark of communism and socialism alike. Show me one communist-party state that failed to result in mass murder and starvation? Don't such disasterous results logically speak to the built in flaws within Marxist theory? I simpy do not believe communism to be the 'noble precept' that you claim. To me, it is evident that such failures are intended. Marxism is meant to dominate the souls of men, and strip them of their personal property. When taking men's right to property, that includes the right of man to rule his own life. In effect, the people living under such a system become wards of the state. Great theory! Something every lamb should practice when being led away to the slaughter.

[Anonymous]

sorming moron: your stupidity beats you in points, you morons just keep saying socialism is repressive! yet you dont have nor shall you ever have any proofs regarding to that! so i would shut ma big mouth if i was you!

[Stormin Norman]

Your consistency never ceases to amaze me Anarchist. In the thread where somebody claims to have a video that proves Bush knew of 9-11 before the fact, you take such a weak argument as fact. I present a point that is backed with logical thoughts and has history to support my claim and you throw it out, because it doesn't fit into your simple view of the world. You are the true moron. Of course, that is implicit in your name. Anarchy, only a real dumb shit publically admit to supporting such a idiotic idea.

[Kunkelz]

Stormin' Norman,

You claim that your pionts are backed be logic thought, but you seem to forget one thing....

Ask yourself "Has a real communist state ever existed?"
If your thought are as logical as you claim you would find the awnser NO.
Most of them were autherian of nature, so stop making false statements and educate yourself.

P.s your annoying as hell!
We'll hear of you soon.....

(Edited by Kunkelz at 10:21 pm on Sep. 19, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

I have addressed that point many of times. If you weren't here or it went over your head, I suggest you go back and read some of my work. It appears that you are the one who is deficient of proper education. What grade are you in anyway?

[El Che]

SN, how can you say you just presented a "logical argument" and keep a straight face?

Are you THAT far to the right?? wow thats fucked up. You mistake your own populist newspeak for logic now? Scary.

[Stormin Norman]

All right, enough with the ankle biting. Why don't you tell me exactly where I went wrong, instead of using fancy buzzwords like 'newspeak'?


(Edited by Stormin Norman at 10:22 am on Sep. 20, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

All right, why don't you people put your money where your mouth is? Let's see just how capable of logic you truly are. Here is a simple problem. Solve it.

Strawberries contain about 15 wt% solids and 85% water. To make strawberry jam, crushed strawberries and sugar are mixed in a 45:55 mass ratio, and the mixture is heated to evaporate water until the residue contains 1/3 water by mass.

How many pounds of strawberries are needed to produce a pound of jam?

[Kunkelz]

storming norman,
why should i go read your previous post's?
Do you really think i can learn something from it?
Your posts are irrelivant and lack arguments.

Why should i tell you what grade i'm in?
Isn't live not school, our greatest source of learning?

And what the fuck does your scientific jam-problem has to do with logic?
If i could give the correct awnser, does that make me capable of logical thinking?

You've set a bad example to yourself here,
maybe you're just a dumb person...

[Stormin Norman]

It's a logic problem. Solve it or shut up. I doubt that you can. Therefore, you will simply tell me that I am a dumb person and go away. Enough with you poodle. I have had enough nips at my ankles. Perhaps a more formidable opponent would like to take a crack at the problem.

[El Che]

If I must... But I hope that unlike other right-wingers here you dont chicken out when the fun is just getting started.

"They are all slightly different variations of a clearly similar worldview."

This is simply wrong. Not that you care, I`m convinced its actualy your intention to say false things just for shoke value. Its atention you`re really after.

The Marxist spectrum ranges from stalinism to libertarian socialism. Things that are as different as night and day. Whilst one is fachist and ultra-reactionary the other is democratic to extremes that defy comprehension. Their understanding was to what socialist progress entails also vary in the same qualitative degree.

"This type of repressive regime is the trademark of communism and socialism alike. Show me one communist-party state that failed to result in mass murder and starvation? Don't such disasterous results logically speak to the built in flaws within Marxist theory?"

This is just one of those things that is very easy to say and has a sort of "self-evident" ring to it. So, you will continue to say it, even though you know it is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty. It sounds good, and it takes alot more effort to deny it then it does to claim it, plus people are so used to it that no-one will take it the wrong way really. But of course, you know and I know that its rubbish. If there are "built in flaws" in marxism then you should address the theory comprehesively and explain, using logic and argument in the true sense of the word, what those flaws are. Of course I know thats too much to ask but this whole paragraph is merely a ritual formality of Marxist / Aint-Marxist discussions, its repeated every single time so might as well get it out of the way.

"I simpy do not believe communism to be the 'noble precept' that you claim."

Thats great, but I think the point is to explain why.

"Marxism is meant to dominate the souls of men, and strip them of their personal property."

Dominate the soulds of men? indeed. Your right about the second part though. Marxists consider that private property is a nefarious element that preverts and corrupts society, and unlike you they explain why.

"In effect, the people living under such a system become wards of the state."

This is probably news to you but mass nationalisation is not socialism. That is merely Leninst stupidity at work. Also, most socialists want less state and more democracy in all areas of society. We are talking about the left here...

[Stormin Norman]

Since, you desire to hear my critique of Marxism. I refer you to a thread under "My odd description of capitalism". The Guest post is me before I joined. Read it and respond. I have yet to get a descent rebuttal. Have at it. For now, I must go to work and earn an honest living.

[El Che]

Sorry but it takes two to tango. If you want to take you have to give. I`ve repeated my self here more times then you ever will. And i`ll do it again, just for you.

[Kunkelz]

Storming norman,

A formidable opponent wouldn't solve your jam-problem.

Instead of that he will ask you "Why do you insist me on solving your little puzzle, and if i fail to do that, would that prove your previous statements right?"

Even in the face of defeat you cling to your irrelevance and your lack of insight in politics.

And to El Che: you had him running with his tail between his legs! Good post!

[Moskitto]

I had a go at that logic problem, the problem I encountered was I'd done something wrong to the calculation. I'll work on it tommorow.

[Stormin Norman]

Solution to Puzzle

1.) M1+M2=M3+M4
2.) Xw1(M1)=Xw3(M3)+Xw4(M4)
3.) Xs1(M1)=Xs4(M4)
4.) Xg2(M2)+Xg4(M4)

Where M1=45g - mass of strawberries
M2=55g - mass of glucose
M3=? - mass of water evaporating
M4=? - mass of jam produced
Xw1=0.85 - fraction of water in strawberries
Xw3=1 - fraction of water evaporating
Xw4=0.33 - fraction of water in product
Xs1=0.15 - fraction of solids in strawberries
Xs4=? - fraction of solids in product
Xg2=1 - fraction of glucose in sugar added
Xg4=? - fraction of glucose in product

There are 4 equations and four unknowns. Therefore you have zero degrees of freedom and the problem can be solved.

Plugging in the known values and using substitution.

45g+55g-M4=M3

0.85(45g)=45g+55g-M4+(0.33(M4))

38.25=100g-M4+0.33(M4)

-61.75/-.67=M4

92.16g = M4

therefore

7.84g = M3

We have the masses needed to obtain the fractions

55g=Xg4(92.16g)

0.597=Xg4

0.15(45g)=Xs4(92.16g)

6.75g/92.16g=0.0732=Xs4

Since we have the unknowns needed, we can solve for the desired amount. Assume 1 lb of Jam.

Plugging the values into equation 3 and solving:

0.15(M1)=0.0732(1 lb)

0.732 lb/0.15 = 0.488 lbs of strawberries needed.

Let's also calculate the mass of sugar needed and water evaporated to see if it adds up.

0.597(1 lb)=0.597 lbs of sugar needed

0.488 lb+0.597 lb-1.000 lb=0.085 lbs

Plugging into equation 2

Xw1(M1)
0.85(.488 lb)=0.4148 lb

Should equal:

Xw3(M3)+Xw4(M4)
1(0.085 lb)+0.33(1 lb)=0.415

Close enough for my purposes. The Slight variation of results is probably due to rounding errors.

[Stormin Norman]

From kunkelz:
If i could give the correct awnser, does that make me capable of logical thinking?

The answer to your question is yes. However, you are right. This is neither the time nor place for this sort of discourse. We are here to discuss politics, specifically the failures of the communist system of rule. This is something that you failed to do. I made a clear suggestion, but you come at me with your ankle biting. You failed to address a single point that I made. I would have settled for an honest attempt at debating the points that I made, like El Che did, but you attack my ability to think logically. You failed on both accounts and should not attempt to swim with the big fish. I suggest a tadpole such as you grow lungs prior to leaving the safety of your mud puddle. I had been looking at this problem earlier today. Since you offered the challenge, I wished to see if you were all bark and no bite. My initial assessments of you were correct.

P.S. Moskitto at least attempted the problem. Thank you. At least someone has a desire to expand his knowledge base. Which is more than I can say for those who simply regurgitate the perversions that their third grade teacher taught them. Moskitto's desire to better himself puts him in a different class than most. That is why he will succeed where others fail. He has the spirit of an entrepreneur.

[Moskitto]

That doesn't look like the way I was trying to do it, I was trying to work out what % of the total weight was boiled off then i'd be able to find the total of ingredients used then use the 45:55 ratio to find the weight of strawberrys worked, But I ended up with 18 as a number which didn't look right.

[Stormin Norman]

"If I must... But I hope that unlike other right-wingers here you dont chicken out when the fun is just getting started."

Sorry, I had to go to work. I hope that you understand. Since you provided a coherent response you deserve an answer. It seems that I don't have the kind of time that I would like. In fact, I am sure I owe a couple people thought out responses, but have not found the time to revisit certain arguments.

"This is simply wrong. Not that you care, I`m convinced its actualy your intention to say false things just for shoke value. Its atention you`re really after."

Then it appears that you have the wrong idea about me. I do not come on Che-lives in order to present ideas that have a degree of shock value. I simply call things the way that I see them. I represent my ideas in a truthful fashion. Those holding diametrically opposed world-views might find my words shocking, but believe me this is not my intent. I will admit sometimes I am feistier than others times. There are only so many encounters with the likes of Kunkelz that a person can take before he becomes jaded.

"The Marxist spectrum ranges from Stalinism to libertarian socialism. Things that are as different as night and day. Whilst one is fachist and ultra-reactionary the other is democratic to extremes that defy comprehension. Their understanding was to what socialist progress entails also vary in the same qualitative degree."

I would agree that there are different degrees of evil. I have noted the differences before in other posts. Sometimes I actually acknowledged the need for liberal thought, if for nothing else but to bring balance to the debate. Intelligent thought and discussion is most always a good thing.

Socialism is in itself an evil ideology, although the desires of the various actors may vary in their intent. Never the less, all involved have their own fault in the inevitable outcome, whether it maliciousness, ignorance, or laziness. Socialism will stagnate economies and fails to foster the kind of discussion necessary for innovation. The mass mind present in such a society can only lead to devastation. This is true on either side of the political spectrum. Again I refer you to the idea of balance in discourse. It is possible to go so far right that you appear left.

Keeping things sane in a large society takes delicate maneuvering, when left to the devices of a political machine. That is why I think it happens to work better with the smallest amount of intervention. Natural cycles and processes have an incredible ability of balancing themselves. That is why I feel manipulation is dangerous.

The need for government is obvious, but I think that you and I would disagree on what role it should actually play. That is expected. After all you are a communists. I do not expect you to agree. I heard some other commies on this site claim that their mother read Marx to them in the womb. Clearly, the level of indoctrination and warped minds varies considerably. Some people hold to their beliefs rigorously, no matter how flawed. The kinds of distortions that have been imbedded will take time to weather away. Never was I under the misconception that I would change a mind over night.


This is just one of those things that is very easy to say and has a sort of "self-evident" ring to it. So, you will continue to say it, even though you know it is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty. It sounds good, and it takes a lot more effort to deny it then it does to claim it, plus people are so used to it that no-one will take it the wrong way really. But of course, you know and I know that its rubbish. If there are "built in flaws" in Marxism then you should address the theory comprehesively and explain, using logic and argument in the true sense of the word, what those flaws are. Of course I know thats too much to ask but this whole paragraph is merely a ritual formality of Marxist / Aint-Marxist discussions, its repeated every single time so might as well get it out of the way.

Maybe it has the ring of self-evidence because it is true. Socialism has always failed. Most societies have toyed with the idea, only to be faced with economic crisis. History is marked with many reactionary/revolutionary cycles. This is especially true with regards to the public’s view of how the government should regulate the economy. When things are doing well, people think that there is room for more social programs. When the heavy hand of government gets too over-bearing and the economy is facing impending doom caused by liberal measures, a cultural shift occurs. People begin to demand less government interference. This phenomenon is the reason for Thatcher and Reagan in the late 70's and 80's.
If you look closely, we are nearing the end of one of the cycles. After the Reagan years people were sitting pretty and thought it was a good idea to toy with Democratic measures. Sure enough we end with in a state of disarray, and are in the process of reconfiguring our views of government. The real danger exists at the beginning or end of these cycles. The revolutionary movement can go too far, or the reactionary period can overcompensate. That is why I think those of us in the middle are the glue that holds our society together. Again I present the idea of balance.

These ideas deserve more discussion than I can cover on a message board, but I have faith in your ability to recognize the truth in my statements. Surely, someone like you is intelligent enough not to get hung up on the fact that I am making generalizations when discussing politics. In politics these kinds of generalizations are due to the difficulty of summing everything up into a grand theory or equation that describes all situations. This remains an impossibility, for the variables are infinite and the possibilities are endless.

Regardless of what many of you might think, politics fails to be an exact science. Perhaps that is why I find it so intriguing. There is nothing more fascinating than that which is unpredictable. The real challenge is refining your ability in being able predict with a relatively high degree of accuracy. This could mean the difference between life and death in the political game.

Here I have presented you with some idea where I sit in all of this madness. If you find my views to be interesting in the least, and have a genuine desire to hear my critique of Marxist philosophy, take a look at it. It is too lengthy to reproduce with the amount of time I am afforded. You know where to look. As I stated earlier under the dictates of socialism/communism men become subservient to the state as a result of the lack of freedom to own that which is theirs. It should be considered a design flaw when studying the workings of communism. How anyone can support such a monstrosity is beyond me, for I am not a psychologist. I have no idea what makes a sick mind.









(Edited by Stormin Norman at 6:58 am on Sep. 21, 2002)

[El Che]

"Then it appears that you have the wrong idea about me. I do not come on Che-lives in order to present ideas that have a degree of shock value. I simply call things the way that I see them. I represent my ideas in a truthful fashion. Those holding diametrically opposed world-views might find my words shocking, but believe me this is not my intent. I will admit sometimes I am feistier than others times. There are only so many encounters with the likes of Kunkelz that a person can take before he becomes jaded."

It`s your in-your-face-right-wingness atitude that leads me to my conclusions earlier expresssed. The convictions remain despite your protests, however it is pointless to waste time on this issue since this is merely a personal opinion. I can`t try you on your intentions because, unlike some, when I open my mind to say something I consider the possibility of error. This (error) is an important point because it is the only recipe for meaningful debate.

"I would agree that there are different degrees of evil. I have noted the differences before in other posts. Sometimes I actually acknowledged the need for liberal thought, if for nothing else but to bring balance to the debate. Intelligent thought and discussion is most always a good thing.

Socialism is in itself an evil ideology, although the desires of the various actors may vary in their intent. Never the less, all involved have their own fault in the inevitable outcome, whether it maliciousness, ignorance, or laziness. Socialism will stagnate economies and fails to foster the kind of discussion necessary for innovation. (...) This is true on either side of the political spectrum. Again I refer you to the idea of balance in discourse. It is possible to go so far right that you appear left."

Listen, this really isn`t an informal discussion thing, at least not on this end. The only thing you say in the two paragraphs above is that Socialism is evil. This is unacceptable. If you can`t do any better than this your wasting my time.

First, because you can not demonstrate "evil" and are therefore using a subjective concept which has no place in a logical argument. I`ve read somewhere that you oppose moral relativism. Such a view is, to me, the pinacle of stupidity. If you want to go there we can, but I doubt that you are up to the challenge. Such things belong in the darkness, much like religious dogma, they belong in places where they knowledge is "recieved on authority" not in places where all "knowledge" or pressumed knowledge is questioned continualy and must conform to standarts before it is assume (not absolutly) as true. Especificaly the standarts of logical reasoning, scientific thinking. Now there are only two options here normon, either you don`t accept/share my standarts, in which case you`re an irrationalist, a flat earther, newspeaker and no dialog is possible OR you accept and share my standarts, in which case you should procede to right a few books on how that which is moral can objectivly and empiricaly determined.

Oh and other thing, even if there was such a thing as universal evil, you still dont explain why socialism is evil... All you do is write worthless stuff man. All these calls for substanciated claims might seem like a little too much to ask for you, but either you do it or you shut your mouth because thats the only way that what comes out of your mouth/fingers/brain will have any meaning and its the only way to confront opposing views.

Note that I consider Capitalism imoral, but I assume that as a personal position based on my own ethos. Which, in turn, I assume as a subject fabrication that does not exist externaly to my self but that is none the less a part of being human and essential to human existence and coexistence.

"The mass mind present in such a society can only lead to devastation."

Please explain delineate your arguments clearly so I dont have to fish them out. What I precieve from "mass mind" is the brainwashing, taken to incredible extremes, that is caracteristic of totalitarian regimes. So, this is merely a repitition of prejudice, propaganda and slander. Socialism is not totalitarian in nature, it is the opposite. Since you do not fundament your argument then nither will I, we´ll just keep this "dialog between def people".

"Keeping things sane in a large society takes delicate maneuvering, when left to the devices of a political machine. That is why I think it happens to work better with the smallest amount of intervention. Natural cycles and processes have an incredible ability of balancing themselves. That is why I feel manipulation is dangerous."

I would agree that managing society, or changing it a delicate and sensible issue. Things can de-rail and then its hell to pay. This is one of the reasons why democracy is essential, not that things can`t go wrong in democratic societies but at least the worst kinds of state oppression are no longer a possibility if the people have power over the state. At least the majority is safe, thats something. And its also more likely that sanity endures for longer in the minds of the majority than in the mind of "iluminated minorities".

"Maybe it has the ring of self-evidence because it is true."

And maybe I am a turnip.

"Socialism has always failed."

Correction: Some individuals have tried to bring about "Socialist" progress, based on their understanding of what the same constitutes, and failed.

^See the difference between truthful representation of a historical fact and mystification, intellectual dishonesty and rubbish?

"Most societies have toyed with the idea, only to be faced with economic crisis."

Quite true, economic agents fight back when they see their interests atacked. There are many examples of this. The more grafic ones are those that occur in third world nations. If a leftist goverment, that happens to make it into office, passes laws that harm the exploitative interests of the corporations at work there, capital strikes back by feeling, causing massive economic problems. If that doesn`t work or if matters get too out of hand then its time for big borther to intervene either millitarily or using cripling sactions that isolate the uncoperative state, but either way making sure that people do not make it on them selves. Because if someone made it, if someone lived through the economic crises and started to build a society without corporations, then you would have a real problem. In western nations things are a bit different but capital still fights back when you try to limit it`s corrosive influence on society, and most importantly on real fleash and blood people.

As for the rest of your post concerning peoples reactions too different economic situations... You should remember who you`re talking too. I want dont capitalist progress or economic growth of capitalist economy. Not that I want the contrary, but simply that, that is not my agenda. So I really don`t give a shinitz if we would produce less in just system than we do now. Patriotic wishings of sucess for one`s country or economic sucess for the capitalist world in general, is something that totaly bypasses socialists. Our job is to make everyone a socialist.

(Edited by El Che at 4:49 am on Sep. 21, 2002)


(Edited by El Che at 4:53 am on Sep. 21, 2002)


(Edited by El Che at 4:56 am on Sep. 21, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

"Our job is to make everyone a socialist."

Now this is the type of evil to which I speak. You are not the first socialist who has held this belief. You say that evil does not exist, that it is purely in the eye of the beholder, but you try to use morality as justification for your arguments. I am aware that you tried to address this point by clearly stating that your ideas of morality are a matter of your personal opinion. Would you not agree that murder is immoral? Doesn't your aversion to this murder and oppression speak to the fact that you do not think these acts can be morally justified? Why not? Why do many different cultures that have been isolated from each other for centuries have the same views regarding lying, cheating, stealing, and killing? Why do most of the world's religions also agree on these ideas? Does a serial killer's personal views of murder justify his acts regardless of popular thinking?

You tell me that I am the one committing a logical fallacy by believing in the notion of absolutes. However, your argument for relativism fails to address most of the questions that I ask. I also ask you what is more likely, that morality is a whimsical notion based on personal opinion, or that people's behavior can be classified into two distinct categories, right and wrong. Is the cold-blooded murder of a family of six wrong? Is helping a stranded motorist right? Are acts of rape wrong? Is love a righteous and beautiful experience? Those who can not recognize the difference between right and wrong are considered sociopaths that do not worry about the underlying consequences that their actions have on other people. They are only worried about themselves and what ramifications their actions will have on them. Isn't this the kind of pure selfishness that you pretend to be against? How can you justify equality without some sort of a moral compass for a guide? One could answer this question by claiming that you are a sociopath that doesn't care to increase the standards of the population at large. With no moral clarity, you would have no concept by which to say that wealth accumulation is wrong and represents an injustice caused by man.

That being said, perhaps your true motives are indeed selfish. Maybe you take the position that you do because you believe that it will somehow better your own economic and social standing. Is it possible that socialists use altruism as a mask for the inhumane acts that they wish to impose on the entire race as a whole? Why is it that most leftist are relativist that believe that man's perceptions of right and wrong can be molded to fit their vision for the world? How can human kindness be used as justification for theft and the brute force needed to sustain your type of economic system? I suppose the answers to these questions hold the key as to why socialism and communism results in repressive regimes and large death tolls.

Fact remains; forcing your will onto other people is an act of evil. Claiming that you wish to make all men socialist falls right in line with what happened in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, South America during the Spanish conquest, the Middle East during the Crusades, and most of the other hideous events that have occurred throughout history. The most disgraceful historical events have mainly been caused by the desire of one group to force its will onto another. Would you not agree such events resulted in atrocities? Aren't atrocities by definition abominable acts of evil? All men with the ability to reason would admit the existence of evil. Those who claim that such evil is subjective are the sociopaths and megalomaniacs that commit, or allow such wicked acts to be committed.

This topic is also one of the reasons why I hate Marxism the most. He also held the relativist perspective. My favorite quote from your idol, "The charges of communism made from a religious, a philosophical and generally, from a ideological standpoint are not deserving a serious examination", represents Marx's view that man's perceptions are pliable and should be manipulated to conform to his views. He believed that the ruling class have always rewrote history and communists can make their ideas prominent after the violent overthrowing of the bourgeoisie. Marx claimed that communism must throw out all truth in order to defy historical patterns. In essence, he was a firm believer in the notion that the winner should write the history books. This meant covering up the truth. Would a Marxist like you, El Che, also agree with this notion? Is truth, like morality subject to change? Would you also make the claim that truth is subjective? Isn't this what you are talking about when you state that your intent is to make all men socialists? Your claim that true communism has never existed is another example of communists trying to cover up the truth and rewrite history.

The guidelines of Marxist communism can never result in anything but human suffering and devastation. Communism is the antithesis of freedom and the type of human rights that Locke and Jefferson outlined. When comparing the theories, they must be evaluated on the basis of right and wrong. Freedom to determine one’s own destiny is good, where repression of man’s thought is evil. If you fail to see this then I can not help you. As I stated before, I am no psychologist and have no idea how to deal with a sociopathic individual.

[Stormin Norman]

In another post I described the groupthink phenomenon that occurs within ideologies that hold the collective to be more important than the individual. Since you may not of seen it the first time, I will post it here again. Tell me where I am wrong.

Groupthink Among Communist/Socialists

Groupthink is a term that I have been exposed to because of the nature of my academic major. My field often requires teamwork to accomplish a given task. However the connotation was less Orwellian, for our purposes. We failed to discuss the political and economic implications of groupthink. Groupthink is a danger posed by teamwork. It slows the brainstorming stages of development, as people fear straying from popular opinions and ideas, and will upset the group dynamic. Since we failed to discuss groupthink on the scale of an entire society and how it fits into the communist agenda, I would be happy to address it here.

Although the concept of groupthink can be applied to large-scale political movements, I don’t believe the illusion of invulnerability manifests in such groups. Take communism as an example. One common feature of communist and socialist governments remains their desire to remove dissenting opinion from their ranks. Banning people from this website is a good case in point. Reasons for such behavior lie in the vulnerability of such systems. When people are exposed to the alternative, they will naturally choose the better option, unless they enjoy human suffering. Leaders of such groups recognize this vulnerability as an inevitable threat to their lifestyle, and seek to remove it at all costs. Aside from the first symptom, communists exhibit all of the other handicaps associated with groupthink.


Shared Stereotypes

Clearly, shared stereotyping occurs and remains the reason communists depict capitalists as filthy rich hogs in top hats that smoke cigars and exploit the work of their ‘slaves’. Marx classified this stereotypical character as the bourgeoisie. The proletariat represented the false stereotype of the whip driven slave, which broke his back working in a mine or factory to feed his family, only to die a lonely, miserable death. It is interesting to note that many who challenged the Bolsheviks were labeled as dirty capitalists and killed, their bodies mutilated. Stereotyping of this sort was essential for the dehumanizing effect needed to decimate the opposition, and is a feature communists share with the Nazis. Throughout the history of communism outsiders have been stereotyped to generate opposition to outside influences, while political favorites and military leaders were depicted as heroes, and made into icons.


Rationalization

The kinds of atrocities that communism creates can only be justified through group rationalization. When a society conspires to kill millions of people for the purpose of perpetuating a great fraud, they must create excuses to justify their behavior. Specifically, they use an egalitarian line to create support for a system that contradicts that very premise. The type of repression communists engage in can only be viewed as a hypocritical action that counters the egalitarian worldview, they claim to support. That being said, communism is a self-defeating political theory.


Illusions of Morality

Along with the previously noted rationalization comes the sense of morality it creates. Communists view their misdeeds as a way to make the world a better place, free of the dirty capitalists who, they claim usurp the labor of others through underhanded means. Communism and socialism then becomes a utilitarian movement with the purpose of creating the greatest good for the largest number of people. The communist variety of utilitarianism demands that the individual's rights be suppressed and replaced with the tyranny of the collective. The false sense of morality becomes, yet another for of form of rationalization.


Censorship, Unanimity, Direct Pressure, and Mind Guarding

All of these symptoms of groupthink must be looked at together, for they are designed to serve the same purpose in communism, and are inter-related. Self-censorship is done through the control of the media, and by way of laws that prevent political activism. The purpose for such action is to create the dangerous illusion of unanimity. In order to prevent the decay of the public’s support, this type of consensus is necessary. Preventing outside influence on behavior can be viewed as a type of mind guarding that also exists to build a sense of unanimous consent. Citizens are forced to attend political rallies designed to reinforce the enthusiasm felt by the individual components of the society. Another method includes the use of citizens to document and profile one another. The profiles can be based on the behavior of others. In order to assess such things, one can ask seemingly innocent questions, for the purposes of evaluating the person’s level of loyalty to the system. Weak supporters, or those with poor attitudes, can then be isolated from those who do not equivocate in their support for the cause, or the leaders. This protective measure is seen to strengthen the vitality of the population’s ferocious support. By far the most effective method of securing unanimous opinion includes the use of direct pressure. Terrorism is the most notorious manifestation of this symptom of groupthink. It instills fear in the minds of the citizenry. Fear of execution or work camps will effectively motivate the population base to present the illusion of undying public support.

One thing is for certain. Any group that demonstrates the symptoms of groupthink; cult, religious, military, or political should be scrutinized by critical minds. They present a danger to the minority and the capacity of the individual. This kind of group dynamic is an unhealthy one, as it stifles freethinking and creativity. A society that bases its operation on the concept of groupthink will destroy invention, innovation, and the basic willingness to make decisions. Such a society is doomed to fail because it goes against the very nature of man.

In response to the original question posed, I think it is clear that communism is more likely to succumb to groupthink than a free-market system. However, the corporate world is not immune. Many design failures have been attributed to a general failure to stray from popular ideas caused by groupthink. When any group comes together for a common purpose the dangers of teamwork exist.

The goal is to attain synergy and develop a group dynamic that will ensure success. Creating an open environment with a willingness to accept the original ideas of others is the best way to achieve this state. Somehow I think communism fails to do these things. The corporate world tends to view people who think outside of the box as assets that generate new ideas and increase productivity, where as, communism seeks to destroy them, since they threaten the power structure.

[El Che]

Since SN clearly has no argument he now resorts to a personal atack. This is unfortunate, but not unexpected. It is something that we, as socialists and communists, must expect from the champions of human misery. We must remember that communism is the unspeakable, it is that which they have been thought to fear above all else and therefore not only should it be descredited by any and all arguments available (even those who are clearly recognised as false) but also communists, as people, must be destroyed and atacked on a personal level. The best example of this is perhaps McCarthyism.

It should be stated that I consider, due to the nature of the attacks, this a victory and I invite all to read the argument from the begining and draw their own conclusions.

SN,

I do wish to make everyone a socialist. The irony is the fact that you fail to realise that this statement is in its self a testament to my democratic stand point, and in fact use it to accuse me of the contrary...

I want everyone to be a socialist firstly because I think, since I reject vanguardism, this is the only way to effectivate socialist progress and secondly because, like anyone who has a political agenda, I want to convince others of the causes I defend.

In what concerns morality I have said what I have to say and am fully confident in my position. I do not believe that I am contradicting my self and I believe I can show this.
If you think about it Socialism is ultimately a moral position, one I subscribe too. We can explain, as indeed we do, that Capitalism exploits and devides mankind but to consider that exploitation imoral is ultimately a personal position that can not be imposed or established externaly and independantly from man as ethical being. As you can see, what I`ve just said does not strengthen my case since what follows from that is that your position that exploitation is not imoral is no wronger than my contrary position. So why then would I say it? Simply because I believe it to be true.

We can only go so far as to demonstrate all that which is inherent to Capitalist. It is for each and everyone to judge if Capitalism is moraly defensible or not.

Your position on the other hand is medival obscurantism that you couldn`t defend if you tried too. But this has little to do with Socialism so lets move on.

We are not selfish, we want social justice for our selves and for all others. You are the selfish one, you care nothing for others. I will not express fully express my deslike for you, for the sake meaningful debate and in order not to make my post akin to yours.
In essence, Socialists seek social justice for all. Though it could be argued that this demand is motivated by "selfish" motives, that is like saying that jews who were against going to concentration camps did so because of "selfish" motives... We defend justice because it is our interests to do so, but these are legitimate interests.
The same can not be said for you. You also defend injustice in the name of certain "freedoms". The "freedom" you defend is analogous to the freedom to commit crimes of the worst nature. Moreso because this crime affects the overwhelming majority of the population of the planet. And like other crimes, freedom to commit it should be denied, based on notions of human and juridical rights and the subsequent notions of right and wrong in them contained.

You say I wish to force others to conform to my views, much like your claims that socialism is totalitarian in nature, this statement is merely abuse and stupidity. It can not be backed up consistently by any sort of argument and even more offensive than that is the fact that you don`t even try to subtanciate it. I`m getting bored with you SN.

As for your quotes of Marx, while it should be said that they are a misreprestation of his beliefs, I am my own man and I think for my self. If there is something I do not agree with, which is not the case here, I will not sacrifice it for the sake of orthodoxies.

I also say that if the bourgeoisie subvert democracy then they forfit their right to exist. Therefore, before accusing socialists of resorting to violence, see if this violence is not justified.

You ask: Is truth subjective?

Interesting question, though I doubt you understand where that interest lies. I would say that truth is ultimately unknown and unobtainable and therefore could be subjective. I can not say something isn`t black if I dont know its true color. Though, while it might be "subjective", I dont think it is. The thought strikes me as odd and contrary to a scientific understand of the world, and "truth", in general.

So, if I where to make a wager I`d say truth isn`t subjective. However, your faith that it isnt so is just simplistic nonsense. I bet you believe in God too.

Locke and Jefferson can kiss my ass, Communism is the antithesis of "freedoms" that go against human rights.

(Edited by El Che at 3:44 pm on Sep. 22, 2002)


(Edited by El Che at 3:45 pm on Sep. 22, 2002)


(Edited by El Che at 3:47 pm on Sep. 22, 2002)

[canikickit]

The truth is neither subjective nor objective. There is no truth. Everyone has their own version of the truth, some are more similar than others.
Like what do you think the last words uttered by the pilots of the planes (you know the ones I mean)? I'd be willing to bet my life that it was "Allah u akbar". To those guys, that is the truth, they thought they were doing a great thing.
I think they were wrong, but I'm not in the position to make that judgement. Nobody is, unless there's a god.
Just because you are brought up all your life believing in Jesus christ (or whoever), there is always someone living their life who believes just as passionately in Allah.

And that's the truth, ruth (Yes, I am aware of the irony, you fools).
None of that is probably that relevant to most of the above but I don't care.

[new democracy]

Quote: from uth1984 on 5:54 pm on Sep. 19, 2002
THE SOVIET UNION WAS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF TRUE COMMUNISM. NEITHER WAS NAZI GERMANY. OR CHINA. SO STOP THINKING THAT THEY WERE.

Okay?

listen, maybe countries like cuba, ussr, china never reached communism(a classless money less societies), but the leaders that make the revolutions were communists(or at least the first generation of leaders, the next generation of leaders usually just using communism to justify himself. sometimes the first generation of leaders is true communist but after the revolution they don't care about it anymore and they become dictatorial.). the people that made the revolution tried to build communism and to reach it. communism is a nobel idea, and i sure the society that marx wanted was not supposed to be like the ussr, but that is what happened. if a communism is so great, why does the fruits of this tree are only rotten? if i am not mistaken, the only communist government that didin't killed so many people was in grenada between 1,979-1,983(i am refering to maurice bishop, not the people that overthrow him). i don't think that government have killed anybody, but i am might be mistaken(if someone gives a statistic, note that i only refer to maurice bishop and not the people that overthrow him). when you say that there were no communist countries, do you think lenin, mao, the revolutionary people's party of laos, fidel and others were not communists? all those people killed thousands(if not millions in some cases), but how does that means they were not communist? all those leaders had good intentions, but as they say "the road to hell is full with good intentions". so maybe the ussr ahs never reached communism, but that doesn't mean that arguments against her are not arguments against communism. and to all the guys that say lenin was an angel check this and say it:

V.I. Lenin was the founding father of the Soviet Union and its dictator during the Russian Civil War that followed. A series of strokes after the Civil War, and his early death in 1924, gave him a mere five years to reign. The brevity of his tenure led many to assume that subsequent human rights abuses in the Soviet Union were not Lenin's fault. Oppression did intensify after Stalin replaced Lenin as the absolute ruler of the USSR. But Lenin did everything that Stalin would later do, except execute fellow Communists. As Richard Pipes notes, this "is not as significant as it may appear at first sight. Towards outsiders, people not belonging to his order of the elect - and that included 99.7 percent of his compatriots - Lenin showed no human feelings whatever..." (Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime)

Lenin repeatedly indicated that large-scale killing would be necessary to bring in his utopia, and did not shrink from this realization. His speeches and writings overflow with calls for blood: "Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them." "We'll ask the man, where do you stand on the question of the revolution? Are you for it or against it? If he's against it, we'll stand him up against a wall." As Pipes sums up, "Lenin hated what he perceived to be the 'bourgeoisie' with a destructive passion that fully equaled Hitler's hatred of the Jews: nothing short of physical annihilation would satisfy him." Moreover, "The term 'bourgeoisie' the Bolsheviks applied loosely to two groups: those who by virtue of their background or position in the economy functioned as 'exploiters,' be they a millionaire industrialist or a peasant with an extra acre of land, and those who, regardless of their economic or social status, opposed Bolshevik policies." (Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime) Lenin used all three of the tools of mass murder that his successors and imitators would later perfect.


Deaths due to extreme hardship conditions in slave labor camps
Lenin's secret police, the Cheka, pioneered the development of the modern slave labor (or "concentration") camp. Inmates were generally frankly treated as government-owned slaves, and used for the most demanding work - such as digging arctic canals - while receiving pitifully small rations. As Pipes explains, "Soviet concentration camps, as instituted in 1919, were meant to be a place of confinement for all kinds of undesirables, whether sentenced by courts or by administrative organs. Liable to confinement in them were not only individuals but also 'categories of individuals' - that is, entire classes: Dzerzhinskii at one point proposed that special concentration camps be erected for the 'bourgeoisie.' Living in forced isolation, the inmates formed a pool of slave labor on which Soviet administrative and economic institutions could draw at no cost." (The Russian Revolution) The number of people in these camps according to Pipes was about 50,000 prisoners in 1920 and 70,000 in 1923; many of these did not survive the inhuman conditions. The inmates might be bourgeoisie, or peasants, or members of other socialist factors such as the Mensheviks or the Social Revolutionaries, or members of ethnicities thought to be hostile to the Bolsheviks, such as the Don Cossacks. The death rates in these camps appear to have been in the extreme hardship range of 10-30%. While the number thus killed was only a small percentage of the total exterminated under Lenin's regime, it laid the foundation for Stalin's slave labor empire.


Deaths due to man-made famine
By far the largest number of unnatural deaths for which Lenin and his cohorts were responsible resulted from famine. Lenin and his regime tried to depict the famine as simply bad luck, but the truth is rather different. To feed his troops and keep the cities producing munitions, Lenin needed food. He got it by "requisitioning" it from the peasantry - demanding delivery of large sums of food for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation, Lenin often ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence, sometimes ordering the confiscation of their seed grain as a further sanction. The Cheka and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the recalcitrant peasantry.

The ultimate results of this war against the peasantry were devastating. Official Soviet reports admitted that fully 30 million Soviet citizens were in danger of death by starvation. The White forces shared little of the blame: as Pipes notes, the Civil War was essentially over by the beginning of 1920, but Lenin continued his harsh exploitation of the peasantry for yet another year. Moreover, the areas under White control had actually built up a food surplus. The horrific famine of 1921 was thus much less severe in 1920, because after the reconquest of the Ukraine and other White territories, the Reds shipped the Whites' grain reserves to Petrograd, Moscow, and other cities with less hunger but more political clout. Low estimates on the deaths from this famine are about 3 million; high estimates go up to 10 million - which would probably have been much higher if not for foreign relief efforts which Lenin had the good sense to permit. For perspective, the last severe famine in Russia hit in 1891-92, and cost about 400,000 lives.


The famine ended soon after Lenin relaxed his choke-hold on the peasantry, but he showed no sign of remorse for what his policies had done. Other Bolsheviks were shaken by the events, but Lenin's successor, Joseph Stalin, learned only to husband his strength until the peasantry could be utterly broken.


Executions
Under Lenin's rule - unlike that of his successors - executions played a far more important role than deaths in forced labor camps. The primary function of Lenin's secret police, the Cheka, was carrying out summary executions of "class enemies" in what came to be known as the Red Terror. The exact number murdered is usually estimated at between 100,000 and 500,000, but the chaotic wartime conditions make the accounting especially difficult. Large-scale executions of hostages began after a failed effort of the Social Revolutionaries to seize power in mid-1918. (The hundreds of hostages shot in "retaliation," however, not only did not participate in the failed coup, but almost invariably had no affiliation of any kind with the SRs). From then on the Red Terror turned in every conceivable direction: execution of the bourgeoisie and Czarist sympathizers; execution of White POWs and friendly civilian populations; and finally execution of Lenin's socialist opponents.
this is from museum of communism( http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/b...um/musframe.htm (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/musframe.htm) ). now i know this website is not really about exposing communist horrors but it is actually about promoting libertarianism(if you check closely you will see). if you want to see the information there check faq number 4.

(Edited by new democracy at 12:27 pm on Sep. 25, 2002)