Removing Inefficencies

[MaxB]

Other reasons for Leftism, often combined with or related to the prime one given above, would appear to be:

Some Leftists just think themselves clever for being able to criticize.

Some are genuinely outraged by things that they do not understand and so want to change those things willy nilly.

Some are genuinely grieved by the unhappy experiences of others and want to fix that ASAP without being wise enough to seek for means of fixing it that are not self-defeating.

Some, particularly the young, are idealists who find the imperfect state of the real world unsatisfying.

Some are cynical opportunists who see opportunity for themselves in change.

Some are simply hiding their real hatred of their fellow man in a cloak of good intentions. They want to hurt their fellow man but need to change the system (a "revolution") to get the opportunity of doing so.

Some Leftists know that they themselves are weird so preach change towards greater tolerance for all weirdness out of sheer self-interest.

The Leftist may still be young and unaware of most of life’s complexities so that the drastically simple "solutions" and mantras proffered by the Left simply seem reasonable.

The more "revolutionary" and Trotskyite Left often use the word "smash" in their slogans (e.g. smash racism, smash capitalism, smash various political leaders) so it seems probable that some Leftists simply lust to smash things. They seek a socially acceptable excuse for their barely suppressed destructive urges. They presumably are the ones who are responsible for the violence and destruction that often accompanies Leftist street and campus demonstrations. Violent change is what they are interested in. Presumably, in another time and place, many of them would have joined Hitler’s Brownshirts.

Another reason that seems worth considering comes from biological theory. If there can be sociological and psychological explanations for Leftism, why not biological ones too? Martin & Jardine (1986) and Eaves, Heath, Martin, Meyer & Corey (1999) have reported strong genetic heritability for political orientation so the possibility of a biological explanation must be taken seriously. A possible biological or evolutionary explanation would be that Leftism is a remnant of the primitive hunter-gatherer in us. A liking for change might have been highly adaptive among hunter-gatherers because it caused them to wander around the landscape more and thus exposed them to a greater diversity of food-sources. Some support for this is the strong tradition, still occasionally observable today, for Australian Aborigines to want to "go walkabout" (leave their current environment) from time to time. Australian Aborigines were, of course, a purely hunter-gatherer people before the coming of the white man. Against this view, however, one must put the fact that hunter-gatherer societies in general seem to be characterized more by changelessness than anything else. In hunter-gatherer tribes the same things are done in the same way for generation after generation. It could be however that a changeless environment usually prevents significant change in practices regardless of any desire for change. The corollary of this explanation, of course, is that a conservative orientation has been selected for by the requirements of civilization: People who are psychologically settled are needed to make civilization work.

A final possibility is that the appeal of Leftism rests solely on its stress on equality. The French Leftist Todd (1985) has put forward anthropological evidence to suggest that Leftism has strong appeal only in countries where child-rearing practices stress equality of treatment between siblings. Thus Russia showed easy acceptance of Communism because Russian parents normally go to great length to treat all their children equally -- particularly by dividing up inheritances (property) equally. Whereas Britain has only ever had a tiny Communist party because of the traditional English practice of primogeniture -- where the eldest son gets almost all of the inherited property. English child-rearing practices have never had a devotion to treating siblings equally so the English do not usually expect or hope for equality of property distribution in later life. So your attraction to the dream of equality may reflect a childhood where parents imposed a rule of equality. Because of your childhood experiences, equality seems emotionally "right", regardless of its practicality. Note however, that the work by Martin & Jardine (1986) and Eaves, Heath, Martin, Meyer & Corey (1999) showing that Leftism is to a very considerable extent genetically transmitted rather than learnt militates against this as a general explanation for Leftism. Explanations of Leftism in terms of personality variables -- such as strong ego-need -- do not encounter this objection as the strong genetic transmission of personality characteristics has often been demonstrated (e.g. Lake, Eaves, Maes, Heath & Martin, 2000).

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...cle.asp?ID=1226 (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1226)

[Guest]

I wrote this up a couple years ago when I was considering what a perfect communist state WOULD be like.

Removing Inefficencies

The communist economy is designed to be as efficent as possible, so what happens when a wrench is thrown into the cogs of the new economy?

Well everything stops, well maybe not -stops- outright, but it slows things down, and enough of these wrenches will evantually stop the communist machine.

So what are these wrenches of inefficencies? Mostly they include criminals, what are criminals in my eyes? Enemies of the majority, if the majority of people LIKE a goverment, and someone has the nerve to speak out and cause trouble, he is an enemy of the majority AND a criminal. What else slow down the machine? Stupid people. Yes we all HATE stupid people, and maybe there are some things they are actually good for, but most people would rather that they don't exist, the MAJORITY would rather they don't exist, and so, the majority comes first, in communism, an individual doesn't matter, the people as a whole do. And what other groups? People who are parasites of the majority, eg. the elderly, the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, I mean certainly it is a shame they were born that way, it would be a shame if I were born that way wouldn't it? But still, no matter how bad we feel for them, they are simply sponging off the majority in order to live, and what do they give in return? Nothing apart from some corny bullshit answer like 'love', 'love' does NOTHING for the state, NOTHING for the majority, why should the people suffer because a few individuals have a special place in their being for 'love'. So what are these unfortunate people? Criminals! So you see, most EVERYONE who holds back society as a whole is a criminal, I mean, if one is able to reform his/her ways, they should be given another chance, if not, there's not point, an old person is not going to magically become young and useful, but a murderer from a bar brawl might, he needs a second chance for maximum efficency of the society, of course if he makes repeated errors, his is a permenant criminal and is removed.

Where do all these criminals get removed to? Hard to say, sending them to other countries is expensive, why should we let them feed even MORE from the majority? Of course killing them gets you frowned upon by other nations.

While I personally vote for killing them off, some people are more humanitarian (and I wish they were criminals too) and so what would the compromise be? I think giving them their own little community, if they're so self sufficent and useful as people think, let them try fending on their own.

With these problems gone the machine can move alot more succesfully, and this might seem brutal and unhuman, but surely as a communist you agree with darwinism? Why not social darwinism, survival of the fittest? Because we're people? Thats very close minded.

Look at the ant colony, one of the most efficent structures in existance, the ants NEVER put themselves first, and what happens to sick ants, well, they die, why should they be helped along when they hinder the other ants. Ants are the PERFECT communists, they lack identity and individuality, and considering that will be the evantual outcome of human evolution, why fight it? We should strive for this earlier, we can transcend what we are right now.

Now naturally some communists pass this off as being nazism, but its not, nazism focused on an INDIVIDUAL race transcending humanity, but in this form of communism, the MAJORITY transcend humanity, by carefully weeding out the problems of the majority, the CRIMINALS and the INEFFICENCIES.

Why is wanting the best for most of the people so wrong, improving things is RIGHT, and to improve things, sacrifices have to be made, the french revolution was full of it, and the french managed to take over most of europe in a decade! An amazing feat! Think what we could do today with the same instance, but better techology and oppertunities to improve!

Could we begin breeding people to work like animals, most of you eat food grown by animals breed for sowing fields, whether you're a vegetarian or meet eater. Is this so wrong? Are humans NOT animals? Humans should thusly be bread for certain things, big humans are for hard manual labour that is designed by intelligent humans, this might one day divide up the human race, but considering our ultimate form is being virtual clones of one another, this won't really be a problem. Now you think 'ahh! This will make classism between the different types of humans!' WRONG, if we eliminate the CRIMINALS who try to take advantage of this, and CREATE classes, there would be no classism.


Don't just assume things.

[GUTB]

Your spurious definition of communist economic systems might get under the skin of the most blatant Stalinist -- if there were any THAT naked around here.

If I pretend for a moment that you meant to pose a serious question for debate, I would just have to shrug my shoulders and tell you that the operations of industry should be left up to the democratic control of workers, trade councils, and Soviets -- or whatever democratic worker's system the proletariat finds is the best way of handling it.

Probably, a worker who is causing a problem for others in a workplace might get voted out.

[Guest]

This would bring a popularity contest into and put too much emphasis on the individual, go look at your local high school, hundreds of ineffecincies are there, and they would NEVER be voted out by their efficent peers, why? Because they LIKE the individual, they're putting an individual before the majority, and this is inherently capitalist.

Democracy is communist, but it WOULDN'T work and hasn't work, and never will. For democracy to be appropriate in a communist system, I think the people must be indoctrinated enough that the feeling of power that comes from voting won't effect anything too diversly.

[Guest]

Go read 'why the individual must be free' written by a capitalist, and then come back and re-read, you'll see why this is communist. You have the options of agreeing with an ultra-stalinist or a cappie, which is the lesser of two evils? Remember that Stalinists are communists too.

[Mazdak]

Individuality does not have to be wiped out, individualism does. There is a difference. However, as i stated at Moskitto's i agree with most of what you say, and I am not even a darwinist.

[Jaha]

communism isnt necessarily an efficient system. dictatorship is the most efficient system and i feel that a dictatorship should never be associated with communism (unfortunately, it frequently is). communism isnt about killing dissedents, killing old people, killing retards, or killing other "useless" people. communism is about people cooperating for everyones benefit. killing does not benefit the majority.

i just want the "communists" on this forum to be sure they arent actually fucking bastards trying to make a supreme race or anything. killing or "eliminating" is not a core part of communism.

[Solzhenitsyn]

killing or "eliminating" is not a core part of communism

Try explaining that to the millions of liquidated Kulaks. Anyhow, killing and eliminating dissenters is part-and-parcel to communism because by definition all who don't believe marxism are criminals.

[peaccenicked]

Try explaining non christians why burning witches
is not part of the christian tradition.
Solzy has all the logical powers of a right winger.
NONE.
Stalinism kills communists. Do you want a list?

[Solzhenitsyn]

"Stalinism kills communists. Do you want a list?"

Stalin killed other communists because he thought them non-communist. Sorry peaccenicked you're back to square one.

[peaccenicked]

What gave Stalin the right to decide who was communist and who was not, especially when he put the national interest and his own personal before communist interests. ie he broke from communism.
solzy. You are not even on the board.

[Solzhenitsyn]

What gave the outcast communists the power to decide that Stalin wasn't really communist? Who's to say that Trotsky would have been less murderous given his track record. It reminds me of some of the Nazis theorists arguing that Hitler wasn't Nazi enough after all during WWII.

[peaccenicked]

It is not really question. Any Bolshevik leader other than Stalin would have been better. You believe what you want to believe. Stalin proved that he broke from communism. Trotsky's political position was consistent
to some degree with marxism.
If anybody has Nazi tendencies here it is you, you want to bury the truth of communism in the evil of stalinism to carry on the barbarity of capitalist elitism.

[Mazdak]

LOL, the "evils" of stalinism. You make us sound like the "bad guys" in comic books.

Stalin did a pretty good job removing problematic people, but unfortunatly, he kept Khrushchev around too long and underestimated him.

[peaccenicked]

mazdak you are a moron. Stalin killed off all dissent and even imaginary threats. You live in Stalinist gold fish bowl. Many brilliant brave communists lost their lives for nothing and you dare gloat.
Solzy you are welcome to thrashing Mazdak's "arguments" because you are much brighter than him.

[peaccenicked]

http://www.newint.org/issue196/workers.htm

[Mazdak]

Come on solz, i am waiting for the thrashing. Peaccenicked, why can't you argue yourself. I think storming norman said it.... but do you always have to rely i links? I could see using links to back up your statements, but you HAVE NONE. You simply give us links to obviously biased sources and expect us to suddenly drop on our knees and denounce stalin.

Debate yourself. Your calling me ignorant, but at least i try to debate MYSELF, instead of relying on someone else to do it for me.

[Panamarisen]

"Guest":

Communism doesn´t mean to avoid the individual to express himself. It means to look for the colectivity, understanding that to do so you got to sacrifice yourself so everybody gets a similar degree of "welfare". It doesn´t mean, and, specially, it SHOULDN´T mean you got to shut up your mouth when you think something is not going as you think it should.
If you need the force to make people be silent, then something isn´t working the right way within your system...
And, please, try to differentiate between CRIMINALS, STUPID and INEFFICIENT people.

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[Mazdak]

"It means to look for the colectivity, understanding that to do so you got to sacrifice yourself so everybody gets a similar degree of "welfare". "

Ok, Is this not what i have been saying all along that everyone thought me mad for?

[Frosty]

"The communist economy is designed to be as efficent as possible"
To a degree, but the point is having a society being able to give all its inhabitants a good material living standard. There should be no waste; instead of a huge corporation (the state) exploiting the environment and the people, efficiency should give the opportunity for the people to do more of what they like.
And well, any cappie would say you are completely wrong too, i'm sure.

"People who are parasites of the majority, eg. the elderly, the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, I mean certainly it is a shame they were born that way, it would be a shame if I were born that way wouldn't it? But still, no matter how bad we feel for them, they are simply sponging off the majority in order to live, and what do they give in return? Nothing apart from some corny bullshit answer like 'love', 'love' does NOTHING for the state, NOTHING for the majority, why should the people suffer because a few individuals have a special place in their being for 'love'. So what are these unfortunate people? Criminals! So you see, most EVERYONE who holds back society as a whole is a criminal"

Shut the fuck up! This is complete fascist bullshit. And there is a thread, http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=286 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=286) , where this is being discussed thoroughly. And i repeat:

HUMAN SOCIETY IS NO FUCKING ANT COLONY!

You are not a fuck better than any capitalist selling designer babies, and your "in the interest of the majority" argument is nonsense.
Do you honestly believe anyone would stand living under such a fascist regime?!
Just to take one thing: why would anyone want to work for you, when what they get back is a bullet in their necks when they get old enough?

"people are more humanitarian (and I wish they were criminals too) "
So, being a human instead of some gigantic ant should be considered a crime?

"but surely as a communist you agree with darwinism? Why not social darwinism, survival of the fittest?"
I'm afraid you're in the wrong mess. That is the only real principle behind CAPITALISM.

"Ants are the PERFECT communists, they lack identity and individuality, and considering that will be the evantual outcome of human evolution, why fight it?"
Are you serious?
The argument that ants are perfect communists sounds like some illiterate cappie whining over how communism will oppress people.
"Eventual outcome of evolution-->why fight it" is a contradiction. If it is just "eventual", it is just one of many outcomes right?

"Now naturally some communists pass this off as being nazism, but its not"
Right.
We pass this off as FASCISM.

"Could we begin breeding people to work like animals
Humans should thusly be bread for certain things, big humans are for hard manual labour that is designed by intelligent humans, this might one day divide up the human race, but considering our ultimate form is being virtual clones of one another, this won't really be a problem"
You fucking idiot.

"CREATE classes, there would be no classism. "
What a contradict! It WOULD!


Well, i could conclude the post with something like "you are an idiot, you should be killed" etc..
But honestly, i feel sorry for you. You are seriously sick mentally. I share your pain.

And to any capitalist reading what this guest wrote: That is not communism.


(Edited by Frosty at 9:18 pm on Nov. 1, 2002)

[KickMcCann]

Would you like to see what happens to a population when a mentally-disturbed, fucked-up fascist like our guest takes power? Look at Cambodia and the Kymer Rouge, our guest must be Pol Pot reincarnated.
I would rather single-handedly fight to the death against a communal fascist regime than to surrender to it. And I hope most people are like that, because if they aren't, it just leaves the opportunity for pychotic people like our guest to take power.
I will not be an ant, I will not be a slave. I'd rather die.

[peaccenicked]

Mazdak you are fucking ignorant piece of shit. You are playing at Stalinism like a schoolyard prat. What argument would change your mind. You are too sick to see the blatant truth that Stalin was a monster. What evidence would you accept. You are just pissing about and being utter anti working class in the process. There is enough documentary evidence if you were interested in looking for it.
Even the slightest logic will tell you that those who made the revolution were killed, that would sound like a counter revolution to a 4 year old.
Stalinists dont deserve arguments.
Fascist scumbags.

[new democracy]

Quote: from Frosty on 8:13 pm on Nov. 1, 2002
"The communist economy is designed to be as efficent as possible"
To a degree, but the point is having a society being able to give all its inhabitants a good material living standard. There should be no waste; instead of a huge corporation (the state) exploiting the environment and the people, efficiency should give the opportunity for the people to do more of what they like.
And well, any cappie would say you are completely wrong too, i'm sure.

"People who are parasites of the majority, eg. the elderly, the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, I mean certainly it is a shame they were born that way, it would be a shame if I were born that way wouldn't it? But still, no matter how bad we feel for them, they are simply sponging off the majority in order to live, and what do they give in return? Nothing apart from some corny bullshit answer like 'love', 'love' does NOTHING for the state, NOTHING for the majority, why should the people suffer because a few individuals have a special place in their being for 'love'. So what are these unfortunate people? Criminals! So you see, most EVERYONE who holds back society as a whole is a criminal"

Shut the fuck up! This is complete fascist bullshit. And there is a thread, http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=286 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=286) , where this is being discussed thoroughly. And i repeat:

HUMAN SOCIETY IS NO FUCKING ANT COLONY!

You are not a fuck better than any capitalist selling designer babies, and your "in the interest of the majority" argument is nonsense.
Do you honestly believe anyone would stand living under such a fascist regime?!
Just to take one thing: why would anyone want to work for you, when what they get back is a bullet in their necks when they get old enough?

"people are more humanitarian (and I wish they were criminals too) "
So, being a human instead of some gigantic ant should be considered a crime?

"but surely as a communist you agree with darwinism? Why not social darwinism, survival of the fittest?"
I'm afraid you're in the wrong mess. That is the only real principle behind CAPITALISM.

"Ants are the PERFECT communists, they lack identity and individuality, and considering that will be the evantual outcome of human evolution, why fight it?"
Are you serious?
The argument that ants are perfect communists sounds like some illiterate cappie whining over how communism will oppress people.
"Eventual outcome of evolution-->why fight it" is a contradiction. If it is just "eventual", it is just one of many outcomes right?

"Now naturally some communists pass this off as being nazism, but its not"
Right.
We pass this off as FASCISM.

"Could we begin breeding people to work like animals
Humans should thusly be bread for certain things, big humans are for hard manual labour that is designed by intelligent humans, this might one day divide up the human race, but considering our ultimate form is being virtual clones of one another, this won't really be a problem"
You fucking idiot.

"CREATE classes, there would be no classism. "
What a contradict! It WOULD!


Well, i could conclude the post with something like "you are an idiot, you should be killed" etc..
But honestly, i feel sorry for you. You are seriously sick mentally. I share your pain.

And to any capitalist reading what this guest wrote: That is not communism.


(Edited by Frosty at 9:18 pm on Nov. 1, 2002)

great stuff Frosty. you need to know that the guest is no other than the guy who claimed to be both a communist and a nazi, thine stalin. thine posts scare me. it is obvious he have problems. i will like to say something about the ants. the ant queen is not doing anything. the working ants feed her and work very hard, while she is only laying eggs. definitely not a communist society.

(Edited by new democracy at 6:39 pm on Nov. 2, 2002)

[redstar2000]

It's kind of strange and curious how "efficiency" ever got to be claimed as one of, much less THE main strength of communism over capitalism.

It's true, of course, that Marx thought the final crisis of capitalism would result from a total contradiction between the means of production (continued technical innovation) and the relations of production (class society). But I don't think he even mentioned "efficiency"--though I could be wrong.

Efficiency, after all, is just a mechanical concept (X amount of work from Y amount of energy). It doesn't have ANYTHING directly to do with the human desire for a just and free society. (Auschwitz was very "efficient" if death is your most important product!)

It seems to me that we communists first decide WHAT we want to accomplish; after that, we can discuss the most "efficient" ways to reach our goals whatever they might be in particular circumstances.

I assume the "ant" analogy comes from E.O. Wilson--the "socio-biologist" and generally recognized racist pseudo-scientist (though he actually is recognized as one of the world's foremost authorities on...ANTS). The idea that social darwinism is progressive in ANY sense is absurd.

Insofar as I can detect any clear outlook in Guest's rant, I would agree that FASCISM is precisely the correct word. (And it's instructive to remember that neither Hitler nor Mussolini were above trying to cover up their shit sundae with a little leftie-rhetorical whipped cream.)

[new democracy]

redstar2000, the guest is thine stalin, that claimed to be both a communist and a nazi.

[Guest]

Quote: from KickMcCann on 7:10 am on Nov. 2, 2002

I would rather single-handedly fight to the death against a communal fascist regime than to surrender to it. And I hope most people are like that, because if they aren't, it just leaves the opportunity for pychotic people like our guest to take power.
I will not be an ant, I will not be a slave. I'd rather die.



Ohhh, you'd rather be a capitalist.

[Guest]

Quote: from Frosty on 8:13 pm on Nov. 1, 2002
"The communist economy is designed to be as efficent as possible"
To a degree, but the point is having a society being able to give all its inhabitants a good material living standard. There should be no waste; instead of a huge corporation (the state) exploiting the environment and the people, efficiency should give the opportunity for the people to do more of what they like.
And well, any cappie would say you are completely wrong too, i'm sure.

"People who are parasites of the majority, eg. the elderly, the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, I mean certainly it is a shame they were born that way, it would be a shame if I were born that way wouldn't it? But still, no matter how bad we feel for them, they are simply sponging off the majority in order to live, and what do they give in return? Nothing apart from some corny bullshit answer like 'love', 'love' does NOTHING for the state, NOTHING for the majority, why should the people suffer because a few individuals have a special place in their being for 'love'. So what are these unfortunate people? Criminals! So you see, most EVERYONE who holds back society as a whole is a criminal"

Shut the fuck up! This is complete fascist bullshit. And there is a thread, http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=286 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=286) , where this is being discussed thoroughly. And i repeat:

HUMAN SOCIETY IS NO FUCKING ANT COLONY!

You are not a fuck better than any capitalist selling designer babies, and your "in the interest of the majority" argument is nonsense.
Do you honestly believe anyone would stand living under such a fascist regime?!
Just to take one thing: why would anyone want to work for you, when what they get back is a bullet in their necks when they get old enough?

"people are more humanitarian (and I wish they were criminals too) "
So, being a human instead of some gigantic ant should be considered a crime?

"but surely as a communist you agree with darwinism? Why not social darwinism, survival of the fittest?"
I'm afraid you're in the wrong mess. That is the only real principle behind CAPITALISM.

"Ants are the PERFECT communists, they lack identity and individuality, and considering that will be the evantual outcome of human evolution, why fight it?"
Are you serious?
The argument that ants are perfect communists sounds like some illiterate cappie whining over how communism will oppress people.
"Eventual outcome of evolution-->why fight it" is a contradiction. If it is just "eventual", it is just one of many outcomes right?

"Now naturally some communists pass this off as being nazism, but its not"
Right.
We pass this off as FASCISM.

"Could we begin breeding people to work like animals
Humans should thusly be bread for certain things, big humans are for hard manual labour that is designed by intelligent humans, this might one day divide up the human race, but considering our ultimate form is being virtual clones of one another, this won't really be a problem"
You fucking idiot.

"CREATE classes, there would be no classism. "
What a contradict! It WOULD!


Well, i could conclude the post with something like "you are an idiot, you should be killed" etc..
But honestly, i feel sorry for you. You are seriously sick mentally. I share your pain.

And to any capitalist reading what this guest wrote: That is not communism.


(Edited by Frosty at 9:18 pm on Nov. 1, 2002)


Right, human society is not a ant colony, but it could be, what are you advocating? Our current society? Or perhaps your happy utopia liberal la la-land society that will never exist. You seem to support our current society, thats fine, it just makes you a capitalist.

"Do you honestly believe anyone would stand living under such a fascist regime?!"

Yes, Hitler and mussolini had people fighting and dying for it. So did Pol Pot, who you think is facist because he was totalitarian.

"Just to take one thing: why would anyone want to work for you, when what they get back is a bullet in their necks when they get old enough?"

That wouldn't happen if they remained useful firstly, and secondly, you're assuming this from a capitalists point of view, you're willing to die for your freedom or something right? Why shouldn't these people be willing to die for the good of the state? Why are you acting like everyone should think like you? Its VERY closed minded.

""Eventual outcome of evolution-->why fight it" is a contradiction. If it is just "eventual", it is just one of many outcomes right?"

Right, but we can make it come sooner, wouldn't you rather (assuming your commie liberal) the U.S became communist sooner rather than later? Stop having a biased attitude towards this and think about it.

"You fucking idiot. "

Wow, you certainly showed me with that spectacular arguement there.

"Well, i could conclude the post with something like "you are an idiot, you should be killed" etc..
But honestly, i feel sorry for you. You are seriously sick mentally. I share your pain."

Aww, thank you for being sorry for me, don't forget to pray for me, at your 'united' church of jesus christ or whatever next sunday.

[Guest]

Quote: from new democracy on 6:35 pm on Nov. 2, 2002

great stuff Frosty. you need to know that the guest is no other than the guy who claimed to be both a communist and a nazi, thine stalin. thine posts scare me. it is obvious he have problems. i will like to say something about the ants. the ant queen is not doing anything. the working ants feed her and work very hard, while she is only laying eggs. definitely not a communist society.

(Edited by new democracy at 6:39 pm on Nov. 2, 2002)


You are quite simply wrong, the queen is the most important part of the ant colony, if she doesn't lay eggs, the colony dies, what happens if the workers revolt, they might live their one generation, and then they die, the colony needs the queen to live.

My society needs the leader to live, because there is no individual, noone else to make decisions, the leader will make the decisions, without the leader, the society is lost and falls to pieces, the leader is like the queen, the most important part of the colony.

The leader would probably be raised from birth or have certain desirable genes, like charisma, great intelligence, and a leader-like look. The queen ants are born as queen ants, the leader is born as a leader.

[Guest]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 9:25 pm on Nov. 2, 2002
It's kind of strange and curious how "efficiency" ever got to be claimed as one of, much less THE main strength of communism over capitalism.

It's true, of course, that Marx thought the final crisis of capitalism would result from a total contradiction between the means of production (continued technical innovation) and the relations of production (class society). But I don't think he even mentioned "efficiency"--though I could be wrong.

Efficiency, after all, is just a mechanical concept (X amount of work from Y amount of energy). It doesn't have ANYTHING directly to do with the human desire for a just and free society. (Auschwitz was very "efficient" if death is your most important product!)

It seems to me that we communists first decide WHAT we want to accomplish; after that, we can discuss the most "efficient" ways to reach our goals whatever they might be in particular circumstances.

I assume the "ant" analogy comes from E.O. Wilson--the "socio-biologist" and generally recognized racist pseudo-scientist (though he actually is recognized as one of the world's foremost authorities on...ANTS). The idea that social darwinism is progressive in ANY sense is absurd.

Insofar as I can detect any clear outlook in Guest's rant, I would agree that FASCISM is precisely the correct word. (And it's instructive to remember that neither Hitler nor Mussolini were above trying to cover up their shit sundae with a little leftie-rhetorical whipped cream.)


I don't claim to be a marxist thusly.

But auschwitz isn't what we want, we don't want death, we want an efficent society over all. Noone would die, as long as they remained productive, this isn't a nazi death camp which exists purely to kill.

I didn't use the wilson idea, the ant analogy came to me when I was posting in a right winger forum and they said I wanted an ant colony, but I'm probably going to go read about him now because I've always been fascinated by ants.

Social darwinism is progress, hence, would you still like to live in the dark age? No, probably not, but if everyone had your mentality back then we would, the moors conqueored spain and introduced higher culture, right?

Facism is not the right term because facism is associated with elitist behaviour and remaining in a capitalist economy even if the goverment owns everything.

[Panamarisen]

"Guest":

Nazi camps didn´t exist purely to kill, but also to anihilate human individuality and self-consciousness. Camps specially tryied to avoid the INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY of the "prisoners".
Besides, ants are ants. Their society works as it SHOULD work. But it´s not ower´s, luckilly.
Maybe YOU enjoy having a "queen"/leader to worship, but not must of us. Must of us rather THINK and ACT by ourselves, for the well-being of each one of us and for all of us as a community.

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[Mazdak]

HAha, peaccenicked, io cant respond now to most of this thread, but i want to bring attention to

"Stalinists dont deserve arguments. "

This is because stalinists are right and you are wrong and you know it. You use this as an exuse to exit the debate with your faerie tale visions intact. I will post more on this later.

[peaccenicked]

Mazdak. There is no rational argument in favour of Stalinism. It has collapsed and you are finished. The reason you dont deserve an argument is because you are totally irrational twerp, even worse that the capi ideologues that come here. I have seen the Stalinist distortion of historical truth and every twist of logic they use. It is a complete farce beyond belief.
What sort of revolution kills the majority of its leaders of the revolution and suppresses dissent.?

Answer: A counter revolution.