My debate with a conservative...

[maverick]

For the past two days I've been debating with a conservative online. It's been a fairly good debate, and I feel I did a very good job of representing my anarcho-communist views. I though would like to have some help, in better expanding and talking about the more overall general communist line of thought and perhaps expand more into the socialistic/liberal line of thought and theories of economics, which have realitivly minimal experience in being I'm still fairly new on the ideology. I just need some guidance and perhaps a little help in this task. So far the debate has basically been about describing the positions, generalizations, and a few jabs here and there. It though is starting to get more technical. how would you counter this argument:


Let me show you some of mine.

Let's start with this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

I know, you're going to claim that China isn't "Troo Communist". Well, they're going to claim you're not a Troo Communist. You're both commies. Live with it. Let's move on to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...e_Soviet_Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Soviet_Union)

Here's a couple of interesting links. According to this book (http://books.google.com/books?id=J0WBRuv4vSAC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=GDP+Soviet+Union+1989&source=web&ots=xQeEsg8doY&sig=RtjX8TvyxLiwgkWAbvCW7LAMvTM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result), the Soviet Union's GDP was 27% of the US' GDP. This would be in line with the problems faced over the next 5-10 years by the former USSR as the free market established that about 25% of the people lived below the poverty line. Much of this was due to the simple fact that while, internally, the USSR had been communist, externally, it had to trade with other countries in order to keep alive.

The first 10 years were fairly tight as the transition from communism to a free-market economy worked its way through Russia during events like the Asian Financial Crisis of the late 90's and inflation rates over 80%. However, the free market has worked wonders in the past 9 years or so. Russia's GDP has been increasing an average of 7% a year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia#Putin_years) (compared to the the US's economic growth of 2%). The number of people living in poverty has dropped from 30% at the worst of the Asian Crisis to 15.8% this year - a number that continues to trend downward.

All thanks to capitalism. But let's get back to death, shall we?

According to this book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism), the number of direct deaths by communist countries (which we all know you will say aren't TROO communists, and they'll say the same thing about you and you should both just get over it and realize you're both commies) is around 94 million. These are direct deaths, and don't include decreases in population size due to lower birth rates. It also doesn't include things like that wonderful "1-child" policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy)which was implemented because the government could no longer afford to provide for all the needs of the people through its redistribution of wealth (aka "Communism"). Mass abortions (many forced, and many tageted against specific racial groups like the Uyghurs and the Han.

According to this site (http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/communistbodycount.php), the numbers of direct deaths are closer to 150,000,000.

If you add up the abortions, population reductions due to reduced birth rates in other countries (which is often due to poor prenatal health care and poor diet), and the deaths of people trying to escape communist countries (never hear of people trying to escape capitalist countries, do you?), and I believe the death rate could be as high as 300,000,000. Again - my estimate. I don't have numbers on how many forced abortions China performed on mothers that were 8 1/2 months pregnant last week.

But death is morbid, isn't it. Let's go back to your assertion that Cuba is a wonderful place to live while all those other, evil, capitalist countries around it are poor and destitute. I, for one, call bull.

Cuba's closest neighbors are Haiti, Dominican Republic, the Caymans, Jamaica, The Turks, the Bahamas, and the United States. Now, if we look at per capita GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita), here's what we discover:

USA: $45,800
Cayman Islands: $43,800
Bahamas: $25,000
Turks and Caicos Islands: $11,500
Jamaica: $7,700
Dominican Republic: $7,000
Cuba: $4,500
Haiti: $1,300

Notice where Cuba is? Second from the bottom, right behind Haiti, a self-subsisting agrarian economy that's widely regarded as one of the most corrupt in the world. All the other places that YOU claimed we in abject poverty when compared to the worker's paradise of Cuba all rank anywhere from 55% - 873% BETTER than Cuba's economy - and that doesn't include the United States, which would push the upper number to over 900%.

Ergo, you are wrong.

Could you provide me with some good sources to work with or some provide a bit of insight on this.

To give you an idea about what I'm working with he's quotes that "Reagen is seated very close to God in Heaven", a conservative of 30 years. Full believer in Reagnomics, very nationalistic, etc.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Quote bomb!


I know, you're going to claim that China isn't "Troo Communist". Well, they're going to claim you're not a Troo Communist. You're both commies. Live with it. Let's move on to:
Refer back to the this statement with a link to Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany), the Irish Potato Famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Irish_Famine), the banana republics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic), Pinochet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet), and the Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression). Maybe he will claim they're not "Troo Capitalism," but they are. Live with it. Move on.


According to this book (http://books.google.com/books?id=J0WBRuv4vSAC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=GDP+Soviet+Union+1989&source=web&ots=xQeEsg8doY&sig=RtjX8TvyxLiwgkWAbvCW7LAMvTM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result), the Soviet Union's GDP was 27% of the US' GDP. This would be in line with the problems faced over the next 5-10 years by the former USSR as the free market established that about 25% of the people lived below the poverty line. Much of this was due to the simple fact that while, internally, the USSR had been communist, externally, it had to trade with other countries in order to keep alive.So he knows you don't think the USSR was communist and yet he still goes on attacking it? What a complete idiot. Quote Haiti's GDP and have fun watching him describe the country as non-capitalist.

However the numbers he's using are flaky at best. Remember that the Soviet economy was stagnant - not in decline - until Gorbie initiated perestroika. Soviet GDP had been over 60% of the United State's (http://www.allbusiness.com/government/630097-1.html) by the 1960s. That is why our own politicians and investors were fucking themselves silly in the '50s. It was projected Soviet GDP was going to catch up with the USA by the 1980s - can you imagine?


However, the free market has worked wonders in the past 9 years or so. Russia's GDP has been increasing an average of 7% a year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia#Putin_years) (compared to the the US's economic growth of 2%). The number of people living in poverty has dropped from 30% at the worst of the Asian Crisis to 15.8% this year - a number that continues to trend downward.A number that still does not compare to the Soviet Union before its collapse. I'm so glad to see that a "free market" (Russia has an extensive welfare state - what is he trying to get at with the term "free market?") is returning the economy to its former self after thousands - possibly millions, if you count North Koreans - have died.


According to this book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism), the number of direct deaths by communist countries (which we all know you will say aren't TROO communists, and they'll say the same thing about you and you should both just get over it and realize you're both commies) is around 94 million. These are direct deaths, and don't include decreases in population size due to lower birth rates. It also doesn't include things like that wonderful "1-child" policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy)which was implemented because the government could no longer afford to provide for all the needs of the people through its redistribution of wealth (aka "Communism"). Mass abortions (many forced, and many tageted against specific racial groups like the Uyghurs and the Han.The Black Book of Communism is shit. Ask him why he's referring to a third hand source for information. That is a very uneducated move.

And the "1-child" policy was enacted within the same time period as market reforms. So yes, why do capitalists support forced abortion? :lol:



Cuba's closest neighbors are Haiti, Dominican Republic, the Caymans, Jamaica, The Turks, the Bahamas, and the United States. Now, if we look at per capita GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita), here's what we discover:

USA: $45,800
Cayman Islands: $43,800
Bahamas: $25,000
Turks and Caicos Islands: $11,500
Jamaica: $7,700
Dominican Republic: $7,000
Cuba: $4,500
Haiti: $1,300He's a fucking idiot. All he does is attack states that are reportedly communist in the media. Why don't you ask him to attack communism instead of his phantoms?

And for gawd sakes, GDP doesn't mean shit. In the United States we have a pretty high GDP per capita, but that's because we have very, very rich individuals at the top who move the pendulum in one direction. Ask how many people have basics like higher education and health care covered in countries like Jamaica or the USA versus Cuba. Or - since Cuba is reportedly so desolate and in need of markets - why do Cubans live almost as long as Americans?

[The Idler]

Markets allocate on the basis of profit rather than need for food, water, health or education.
Cuba's economy is artificially depressed by the US trade embargo since 1962.
As of 2007, almost half the world's population lives on less than a dollar a day.
Global inequality figures for 2000 show the personal wealth of the bottom 20 percent to be 0.12 percent, and that of the bottom 40 percent to be 0.62 percent in contrast to 39.9 percent being held by the top 1 percent of world population and 70.6 percent by the top 5 percent.
GDP does not take disparity in incomes between the rich and poor into account.
If he really can't get over GDP and thinks China is communist ask him about the GDP in China. No country in the history of the world has had such rapid growth sustained over 30 years (Weekly Worker 727 triumph of state capitalism). Since 1978 GDP has grown by almost 10% per annum. The economy has doubled three times over.
The Black Book of Capitalism by Gilles Perrault estimates the number of deaths due to capitalism to be at least 100 million.
The Anarchist FAQ has a section on "What are the myths of capitalist economics?" particularly section C10.4 Does growth automatically mean people are better off?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Yeah, in terms of growth state planned markets have always been preferred for developing regions. Look at Japan, South Korea, China, Germany...

[revolution inaction]

To give you an idea about what I'm working with he's quotes that "Reagen is seated very close to God in Heaven", a conservative of 30 years. Full believer in Reagnomics, very nationalistic, etc.

There's no point arguing with him, he's and idiot, just go and talk to some sane people :)

[revolution inaction]

But if you really must the first thing to do is establish what you mean by communism, (no money, equality, the means of production under workers control and the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need" applyed)
and capitalism, (the means of production owned by a minority, the majority forced to work for a wage)
and make sure it is clear that the ussr and other so called communist countries where/are state capitalist, (the means of production where owned by the state, the workers worked for wages)

If you can't get this far there's no point arguing, nothing you say will change his mind.

there is no point arguing about how good or bad the "communist" countries are since you oppose them anyway

[Os Cangaceiros]

Quote bomb!

Refer back to the this statement with a link to Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany), the Irish Potato Famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Irish_Famine), the banana republics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic), Pinochet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet), and the Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression). Maybe he will claim they're not "Troo Capitalism," but they are. Live with it. Move on.


Colonial resource plundering in areas like India and the Congo, as well.

[maverick]

But if you really must the first thing to do is establish what you mean by communism, (no money, equality, the means of production under workers control and the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need" applyed)
and capitalism, (the means of production owned by a minority, the majority forced to work for a wage)
and make sure it is clear that the ussr and other so called communist countries where/are state capitalist, (the means of production where owned by the state, the workers worked for wages)

If you can't get this far there's no point arguing, nothing you say will change his mind.

there is no point arguing about how good or bad the "communist" countries are since you oppose them anyway

I have established this and have been arguing all that for the past two days, the position of anarcho-communism. I've been talking about the differences between the supposed communist countries and what actual communism is and have talked about lots of theory, the ideas of Kropotkin, etc. I pointed out that it was obvious that China, Vietnam, etc. are state capitalists and practically giant factories. He though keeps dismissing this saying that the general way of communistic ideals and way of thinking is destructive and generally caused this. He calims that the degenrations are still communism. Hell he even ranked Marx as someone who is apparently worse than Hitler and Pol Pot. :rolleyes:

His arguments are all brash generalizations and/or smart ass remarks, and he continually forces me to repeat myself. His arguments basically comes down to I don't like it so it's wrong. So you are correct it is probably pointless to continue the arguing, etc. I though do want to make at least one final post to defeat this post. I'd also like to get more into the more non-anarchist economic variations and some more mainstream liberal and general socialistic economic info to battle his rabid conservatism which he constantly trolls on the board. I want to stregthen more of a left base of support and challenge the dominating conservatism of the board I'm posting on. That's why I ask perhaps some more experienced leftists with perhaps different perspectives ideas, along with knowledge I may not have for help.

So far you guys have given me some good material to start with. So I thank you for that. Can anybody point me to a basic pro left/collectivist economic theory sites or articles?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Whats the fourm?

[maverick]

Whats the fourm?

As wierd as this may sound its actually a christian metal forum (I won't issue the name publically at the current moment) (I am not a christian). This is because 1.) I don't want to be linked with one of the anti-theist nazis, that reside here, that would just come there to troll and yell out insults (as opposed to having intellectual debate and discussion) 2.) It would more than likely be of no interest to people on this forum. If your asking why I'm at such a forum, being I'm not religious, its because I have some friends on there and like to professoinally debate in the theology thread the have there. I use the forum everynow and again. Its mainly occupied by the boregious-esque ideals very much so. There though are a couple of people there that are sympathetic to my positions, and those who get where I'm coming from with my arguments, which is why I'm making an attempt to get some form of leftism breathing in the forum. (call it spreading the gospel of the left :lol:) I just don't feel like letting up my debating until I break some misconceptions on more mainstream forms of leftism, and discuss about communism outside of my view, etc. so I can argue in more practual political debates. As much as I support my current anarchist-communist view, I feel my weakness is that I lack understanding on economics and technical theories of other variations of communism/collectivism or related ideologies. If people are interested in the debate I could probably post the entire debate out. If you insist on knowing the site, and will use the info with care, just PM me.

[Raúl Duke]

1.) I don't want to be linked with one of the anti-theist nazis, that reside here, that would just come there to troll and yell out insults (as opposed to having intellectual debate and discussion)

:rolleyes:

I don't think the "anti-theist nazis" (:glare:) here would just troll...they will basically have an "intellectual convo" with them (although maybe in a more critical fashion/tone) or just leave them alone.

[Abluegreen7]

So hows the debate going with him?

[gla22]

HDI is more important than GDP and GDP per capita. HDI reflects true progress and standard of living increases. This will put Cuba higher than many capitalist countries.

[maverick]

So hows the debate going with him?

*UPDATE*

For those who are interested in how the debate is going, nothing much has changed. I still have not finished forming my rebuttal for the my response to the first post I presented (I'm trying to make it as in-depth as possible)

Notably, 'whatshisname' just left me another present. :lol:



Nothing like a condescending attitude to make your point, Mav.

Keep complaining about generalizations all you want, Mav. You know why they're called "generalizations"? It's because, generally, they're correct.

Let's be honest: you're a 16-year-old child. You've had everything in your life given to you. You've never had to work a single day to provide for your family or any of your basic needs. If you've had a job that made you work more than 20 hours a week, I'd be a little surprised.

Here's your shocking revelation for the day: that's not real life. Real life means that you have to take responsibility for yourself and your family. While you marinate in the magnificence of your claims of the moral superiority of enforced government slavery (aka "communism"), the reality is that when you are responsible for your family's welfare, your desire to be responsible for everyone else's welfare tends to sink to near zero.

You've got a lot of "data", but you don't have a lot of either experience or actual study. You're parroting the party line rather than actually paying attention to what you say. So, let's take a moment and take apart your anarcho-communist framework from the foundation.

The foundation of anarcho-communism is the belief that people are not human. Humans are naturally possessive, territorial, and self-concerned. If I have bartered for an item, then I believe that item is mine and you have no right to it. If I purchase a home and land, then I believe that home and land are mine, and you have no right to set foot in my home or even on my land. I believe that my family is part of my "pack", for lack of a better term, and if you present a danger to them, then I will act to protect them.

The reason I will do these things is because I am a human being with a brain, and I know that other human beings are not to be trusted without proof. If I do so, then my family, my life, and my possessions are in danger of being taken away by people who could not possibly care less about your anarcho-communist ideal.

This is why humans, from the earliest societies, set up governments. They recognized that anarchy was a disaster waiting to happen. They recognized the need for laws and rules and a government to enforce those rules.

They also set up barter systems, where individuals would gather their own resources and trade those resources. If you didn't gather enough, then you could possibly trade to take care of your needs, but you were still required to take care of your own needs, because if you relied on others, then THEY would be facing the same situation you'd put yourself in.

Some people were able to take advantage of these systems. They'd work hard by using elbow grease or using a new technology or looking for a source for a resource and that work would pay off in dividends. These people became "the rich". The people who did not work would become "the poor".

Now, let's fast-foreward to the 21st century and put your theory to the test. Your theory is that evil, capitalist corporations all walk on the little guy to get themselves richer while the poor little guy gets poorer. The problem with this assumption is that it doesn't jive with reality. In reality, if a company abuses its workers, then those workers go elsewhere - lowering the available experience to produce quality products. Worse yet, those workers tell others people that the company treats its workers like crap. If the accusation is proven to be true, then people don't buy from the company, and the company goes bankrupt.

On the other hand, companies that treat their workers well tend to do well. Those companies get richer. The people at the top get richer. The people at the bottom get richer. This is EXACTLY what has happened in the US. Those evil corporations you and your ilk keep whining about have provided people with jobs, goods, and lifestyles that are above the fold.

Again - let's do a comparison of average GDP's, comparing the United States and a couple of other key capitalist countries with the current communist (*) and socialist (#) nations of the world (I'm leaving out nominally socialist and communist countries that merely have some stuff in their constitutions that say "we're socialist", despite not actually being socialist):

US: $45,800
Japan: $33,600
#Libya: $12,300
#Venezuela: $12,200
*China: $5,300
*Cuba: $4,500
*Vietnam: $2,600
*Laos: $2,100
*North Korea: $1,900

The 2 socialist countries, in case you haven't noticed, are oil-rich nations. The rest - not so much. They're "communist", and collectively, their people live in abject poverty. The sad part is that this is EXACTLY what communism guarantees: that basic needs, and only basic needs, are taken care of by the nanny state. Try to rise above it and you're put down (often the same way you put a sick dog "down").

This is the reality and practice of your belief system.


Bascially he talks more about GDPs ( in supporting his statements) and critizes anarcho-communism and the ideas of collective rationalizing against human nature ( in favor for the survival of the fittest, individual lone competitor claw your way for scraps, and to hell with anybody but me attitude). Takes a stab at my age (claiming that I can't possibly know anything about society because I'm 16, even if he's been living longer with more experience in certain areas.), and is still claiming that his generalizations are correct. He though seems to be less hostile than he usually and is making an attempt of having some sort of debate with his last two posts. I though am not sure if he'd ever take what I say seriously and think he is too deluded with the capitalist lifestyle. I could handle most of the post above pretty easily. All I have to do is get myself educated on the concepts of GDP and HDI more, and reinforce the good points you guys gave me. I though am still open to any contributions if you guys have anything else to point out. Then I will respond to both points with one shot, or kill two birds with one stone.

[#FF0000]

The foundation of anarcho-communism is the belief that people are not human. Humans are naturally possessive, territorial, and self-concerned. If I have bartered for an item, then I believe that item is mine and you have no right to it. If I purchase a home and land, then I believe that home and land are mine, and you have no right to set foot in my home or even on my land. I believe that my family is part of my "pack", for lack of a better term, and if you present a danger to them, then I will act to protect them.Okay, this shit about some innate human nature needs to fucking stop. Let me take a shot in the dark here and assume this idiot knows fuck-all about anthropology, psychology, sociology, or, really, anything involving human behavior or human fucking history beyond the 2nd half of the 20th century and the American Revolution.

There is no such thing as human nature. Humans are not naturally greedy, selfish, or territorial. They are naturally self-interested. This is different than selfish. Humans are not naturally inclined to "look out for #1". Evidence for this? Look aallll the way back to the beginning of human history, when we lived in hunter-gatherer societies. Those societies were largely egalitarian to the point that if one who is ignorant of what communism/socialism is would be able to look at them and say "oh wow that is communism".

Now, that doesn't mean humans are naturally geared towards egalitarian and communal societies. Some were strictly hierarchical. Some had matriarchs. Some had patriarchs. Some had councils of elders. I mean, fuck. Some of these societies didn't even have a division of labor according to gender. It's popular myth that all hunter-gather societies had hard-and-fast gender roles of men being hunters and women gatherers, but that wasn't true in many places. Hell, one prominent group from what is now the Philippines was just the opposite, with women hunting and men gathering.

This effectively destroys the notion of "human nature", because if it existed beyond the will to survive and reproduce, then wouldn't these societies, which were formed when humanity was at its most basic, be uniformly egalitarian, or uniformly hierarchical and authoritarian?

And that's just it. Beyond the need to mate and survive, humans have no innate nature. They will survive according to how they perceive what they learn in the society they exist in, as they will do everything else. A human raised in a Fascist society will act and think differently than one who was raised in an Anarcho-Syndicalist commune.

Humans are, however, naturally self-interested. It's simply how we are wired. That does not mean, however, that they are driven by the urge to accumulate a large sum of trinkets like a raccoon eying something shiny. If that were true, people wouldn't do anything that didn't reward them financially, such as gift-giving, or donating to charity. Self-interest deals with fulfillment, something capitalist blowhards leave out of their definition. People do things because they make them feel good, whether it be a warm feeling in their stomach, a sense of fulfillment after accomplishing something or completing a personal project, or a general sense of doing right after helping another.

You tell him all this, and then you tell him Rorschach suggests he read a couple of books before commenting on human behavior, to save him some embarrassment should he run into someone who knows what the fuck they're talking about.

EDIT: Also tell him that GDP means fuck-all because one person could have all the goddamn money in the entire nation and the GDP wouldn't reflect it a bit. It doesn't say anything about the wealth, relative or otherwise, of the average person in that country.

[maverick]

Okay, this shit about some innate human nature needs to fucking stop. Let me take a shot in the dark here and assume this idiot knows fuck-all about anthropology, psychology, sociology, or, really, anything involving human behavior or human fucking history beyond the 2nd half of the 20th century and the American Revolution.

There is no such thing as human nature. Humans are not naturally greedy, selfish, or territorial. They are naturally self-interested. This is different than selfish. Humans are not naturally inclined to "look out for #1". Evidence for this? Look aallll the way back to the beginning of human history, when we lived in hunter-gatherer societies. Those societies were largely egalitarian to the point that if one who is ignorant of what communism/socialism is would be able to look at them and say "oh wow that is communism".

Now, that doesn't mean humans are naturally geared towards egalitarian and communal societies. Some were strictly hierarchical. Some had matriarchs. Some had patriarchs. Some had councils of elders. I mean, fuck. Some of these societies didn't even have a division of labor according to gender. It's popular myth that all hunter-gather societies had hard-and-fast gender roles of men being hunters and women gatherers, but that wasn't true in many places. Hell, one prominent group from what is now the Philippines was just the opposite, with women hunting and men gathering.

This effectively destroys the notion of "human nature", because if it existed beyond the will to survive and reproduce, then wouldn't these societies, which were formed when humanity was at its most basic, be uniformly egalitarian, or uniformly hierarchical and authoritarian?

And that's just it. Beyond the need to mate and survive, humans have no innate nature. They will survive according to how they perceive what they learn in the society they exist in, as they will do everything else. A human raised in a Fascist society will act and think differently than one who was raised in an Anarcho-Syndicalist commune.

Humans are, however, naturally self-interested. It's simply how we are wired. That does not mean, however, that they are driven by the urge to accumulate a large sum of trinkets like a raccoon eying something shiny. If that were true, people wouldn't do anything that didn't reward them financially, such as gift-giving, or donating to charity. Self-interest deals with fulfillment, something capitalist blowhards leave out of their definition. People do things because they make them feel good, whether it be a warm feeling in their stomach, a sense of fulfillment after accomplishing something or completing a personal project, or a general sense of doing right after helping another.

You tell him all this, and then you tell him Rorschach suggests he read a couple of books before commenting on human behavior, to save him some embarrassment should he run into someone who knows what the fuck they're talking about.

EDIT: Also tell him that GDP means fuck-all because one person could have all the goddamn money in the entire nation and the GDP wouldn't reflect it a bit. It doesn't say anything about the wealth, relative or otherwise, of the average person in that country.

I agree 110%. I was talking about this with another conservative who was also involved in the debate, not nearly as much as the one I'm debating currently. Communism and Capitalism are both based on self-interest and generally are founded and run on the same goal. (the elitists simply exploit this to their advantage for their system) People fight for their self interest above all else, the systems simply have differences in excuting this. Communism, to me is a much more natuarl expression of looking out for your self-interest while rationalizing directly with others within a social system and working for the same goal. The goal is fullfilling your personal needs for survival. Different material conditions though do have a profound effect on how one thinks or how one acts in his/her self-interest. I though will be sure to touch up on this again and pass the word on the GDP.

[Concept]

ask him y everything to do with how a country is doing is measured by the almighty (might i add most fucked up invention of humankind) dollar, or just money in general

from what i've read and heard from ppl (i work with a cuban who left at 25 i believe), socially they r way ahead of alot of countries
true freedom of speech is limited, but in some cases i think this is justified as some ppl can't seem to grasp the idea of not needing so many things to be happy in life

also without us "slaves" working for the capitalist system it would crumble...in either system we are slaves in one way or another but at least in basically every form of leftist ideology i've read, we are looked after for taking part in the economy

personally i believe if the left was in power in the countries that are currently capitalist we'd be arguing the other way around, but i highly doubt that :)
for the level of advancement we have a global economy is needed to sustain it...and whichever side of the political spectrum has control over majority of earth that side will be in power of the rest

[Kal98]

Why even bother arguing with a conservative? No point.

[maverick]

My response...



@ 5minutes

I notice a trend in your posts. You tend to love to critcize nations who may have at once used communism as a means to an end, when in reality they have failed to uphold the most vital ideas of the actual ideology. So answer me this what do you have to say in regard to lets say Nazi Germany, the Irish Potato Famine, the banana republics, Pinochet, and the Great Depression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Irish_Famine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

All of these events were brought about by the capitalist method of thinking and governing, all to different extents, despite some of the ideological differences and such you may want to nitpick on. All involved the individual competition philosophy (survival of the fittest), exploitation of the worker by a small few that have monolopies over the resources, nationalistic philosophy, and show the ultimate effects of the capitalist system on the worker and the ultimate chaos such a system can create. So do you consider this tr00 capitalism. I doubt you will.

The capitalist system is best described as a machine for the sole purpose of procuding profit and maintaing a cycle of never ending production. People work in their best self-interest (as people do in all governments), which the top class of individuals exploit, and work for what they earn making an empty profit (as opposed to allocating goods by the need of food, water, or education) . This profit merely allows the system of profit and competition above all else to continue. Capitalism doesn't care about the individuals involved, or the resources they exploit and deprive for others.

Profit and continuing the never-ending beuracracy comes above all else. The existence of the gear (in other words the individual) changes based on the material needs for production and you well being is dependent on how production is doing. So you may have profit and be able to buy what some of what you need, but the only way you can possibly win is by playing by the system and stepping on others to get part of the table scraps while the top 1-2% hoard these recources to continue this endless cycle. True communism believes in allocating resources to the people and stop this exploitation once and for all. Yay go cry about it.

The numbers you use, in regard to the Soviet Union (which is not a tr00 communist government whether you want to believe it or not) seem to be pretty flaky at best. The Soviet Union was never in decline merely a stagnant state. Being you love to throw GDPs out in your arguments, are you aware that the Soviet Union's GDP was well over 60% of the United State's well into the 1960's http://www.allbusiness.com/government/630097-1.html . Why do you think the politicans and investors throughout the 50s were going wild. it was estimated that the Soviet Union would catch up to the US GDP by the 1980s. The numbers of post-Soviet Union Russia still do not compare with the numbers the Soviet Union were posting before its collapse. You realize Russia has an extensive welfare state, and that the term free market just doesn't quite fit. Also I'm glad that the economy is returning to it's former self in Asia after the countless thousands of dead, millions counting North Korea.

The Black Book Communism is a horrible book. Why are you refering to a third hand source for infomation? Note that the 1-child policy was put in effect during the market reforms in China. So what you should be asking is why do capitalists support forced abortion? Actually the book states that the 100 million deaths are because of capitalism

Also do you think that throwing GDPs at me stregethens your case somehow? It doesn't, by any means. You do realize that GDP really has nothing to do or measures that living conditions in a country. Hell one person could have the entire wealth in the entire country (or at least a small minority). You can't seriously measure living conditions merely by throwing GDPs out and expecting me to believe in the shallow concept that somehow proves that capitalists are better.

From wikipedia...

Quote:
The major disadvantage of using GDP as an indicator of standard of living is that it is not, strictly speaking, a measure of standard of living. GDP is intended to be a measure of particular types of economic activity within a country. Nothing about the definition of GDP suggests that it is necessarily a measure of standard of living. For instance, in an extreme example, a country which exported 100 per cent of its production and imported nothing would still have a high GDP, but a very poor standard of living.
So again that was not a good move to bring up GDPs. if you want a standard for measuring state of living. Try HDI. This would put Cuba higher than a good ammount of capitalist countries. Not meaning to dwell on Cuba, but it should also be noted that Cuba's economy has been depressed since the 1962 trade embargo. Also being that half the world, as of 2007, lives on a dollar a day, it must be proof that capitalism is working wonders for society. Lets not forget that Global inequality figures for 2000 show the personal wealth of the bottom 20 percent to be 0.12 percent, and that of the bottom 40 percent to be 0.62 percent in contrast to 39.9 percent being held by the top 1 percent of world population and 70.6 percent by the top 5 percent.

Speaking of GDP and China (again), you do realize that no nation in history has sustained such a rapid growth in over 30 years, since China. Since 1978 GDP has grown by almost 10% per annum. The economy has doubled three times over. So do you think China really is communist? No they are capitalist and have adopted the position of producing profit and capital above all else, believe it or not over living conditions. The only thing that makes them different than say the United States, is that its much more beraucratic, paranoid, and censored with a limit on civil rights.

Does growth mean people are automatically better off?

An obvious no.



Also the human nature you speak of or the assumptions you see made supposedly by anarcho-communism are false. Sruvival in itself is based soley on self-interest. Communism and Capitalism are both based on self-interest and generally are founded and run on the same goal. (the elitists simply exploit this to their advantage for their system) People fight for their self interest above all else, the systems simply have differences in excuting this. Communism, to me is a much more natuarl expression of looking out for your self-interest while rationalizing directly with others within a social system and working for the same goal. The goal is fullfilling your personal needs for survival. Different material conditions though do have a profound effect on how one thinks or how one acts in his/her self-interest.

Also don't talk to me about me not knowing anything about the real world. i may not be experienced in certain areas as you are, but that doesn't mean you automatically know more than I do. I don't have a job, but my Dad does. I understand that, and I respect people who go out there and work for their families. My system simply believes in making living conditions better and cutting out all the uneeded crap to reach the goal of acheiving your interests. Just because private property doesn't exist doesn't mean you don't have personal property or reap the fruits of your labor.

Any further concerns, please refer to this FAQ before arguing or making criticisms. http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html

Additional reading on anarcho-communist theory.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist...quest/toc.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html)


EDIT: I made a quick edit of the FAQ section, and switch the links to the main page, being I mistakenly had only section one there...

Here is the change...


Any further concerns, please refer to this FAQ before arguing or making criticisms. http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html (originally had link to only section 1 there, I reposted new link of main page) It would be wise to see section C in particular related to Capitalist economic theories.

[rednordman]

That conservative has fucked up seriously for one simple argument that he/she has made. That is that they accuse you of 1) not 'living in the real world' because you are sixteen and do not work 100 hours a week (sounds like a parting shot to me) and more importantly 2) they state that the most successful companies are successful because they treat their workers well. I can tell you first had that unless you are working in finance or a lawyer of something, 90% of companies are very shit to work for. The best example of this is Tescos in UK. They have what most people on here might describe as a monopoly over the market which includes shops and shopping centres and warehouses. I work for the distribution warehouse in Lichfield, and for what many in UK consider to be a capitalist 'success' story, they are total bastards to work for. I could go on forever describing to you what is wrong with the place, but i'll keep it short and simple. What they are in the process of doing right now is shutting down all the older 'unionised' warehouses that workers hard work has help get their success, and building new 'flagship' ones in place (sometimes, in Livingstone’s case, only a mile away), Forcing the staff to apply in some cases for their jobs back, but at a much lower wage and no bonuses, a poor union (that Tescos have chosen) and virtually zero job security. In fact since I’ve been working there (1 year, 3months) Its estimated that over 1000 people have left. All tescos have done is replaced them with agency who they can get rid when they please and decide the times that they work for them. On top of that, its hard work, and when workers have complained, all they say is 'go somewhere else' like there is 'millions' of jobs out there (load of rubbish).
To cut to the chase, do you think that tescos are going to all of a sudden die a death because of this? (They deserve to) Simply they will keep on cutting costs and making working conditions worse so they can make profit. This isn’t some nightmare that Karl Marx and others predicted, its actually logical for a capitalist to behave this way, and worst of all, to most conservatives, who obviously don’t ‘live in the real world’ this, is a good thing. I just wonder how THEY would like to me in my shoes?

[RadioRaheem84]

Two things I want to add:

If a capitalist likes to go on and on about how selfish and greedy we are, and because of this communism will never work and capitalism will always be strong, then what would they say about a nation who's self interest is to adopt a welfare state?

I was talking to a pro-capitalist friend of mine about this one town in Sweden I saw that was extraordinary and picturesque for a socialsist state. All he has pictured of democratic socialist states is Soviet Russia and Havana so he couldn't believe me that the people were very accepting of social democratic ideals and wanted to keep their town (and nation) like this. He kept insisting that there was no way this town could operate like that and be that beautiful. The lack of greed or lack of greedy morals and the promotion of solidarity seemed like a farce to him and that there was probably something propping up the town besides good morale.
The point is that, if he believes so much in the self interest motive for human activity, then why was it so hard for him to believe that promoting solidarity with your fellow citizen couldn't be a reflection of self interest too? Why does the self interest always have to entail greed, envy and manipulation?

Couldn't solidarity and equality be achieved (and sustained) if the motives are wanting to be the best town that promotes equality? National pride? Self interest in not wanting to be unemployed with no benefits? Wanting your kids to grow up in a better environment? People realizing the socio-economical hazards of wealth accumulation and unregulated capitalism?

[maverick]

***UPDATE***

He responded to my last post with this. He still refuses to really drop the whole Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, etc. are tr000 communist crap, and has pretty much focused a good ammount of his response attacking my age. Being I'm 16, my arguments seem to have no weight to him :rolleyes: I think this particular post by him is one of his most shallow yet. I already have lots of ideas on counter his criticisms and see some definte flaws (I already gave him a quick little taste with a response I made regarding his flawed way of thinking, attitude, and the like). I though will give you guys an opportunity to contribute whatever you like, or give any additional insight. So have fun guys. :lol:




Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick http://forums.firestream.net/images/firestream/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.firestream.net/showthread.php?p=652776#post652776)
@ 5minutes

I notice a trend in your posts. You tend to love to critcize nations who may have at once used communism as a means to an end, when in reality they have failed to uphold the most vital ideas of the actual ideology

As I stated earlier - you claim they're not TROOOOOOOOOO Communists. They'd claim you're not a TROOOOOOOOOO Communist. You're both commies. You both identify with socialist and communist thought. Get over it.

Quote:
So answer me this what do you have to say in regard to lets say Nazi Germany, the Irish Potato Famine, the banana republics, Pinochet, and the Great Depression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany
Paging Mr. Godwin... By the way, ever wonder what "Nazi" stood for? National SOCIALISTS. I know... they aren't... they would say... get over it.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Irish_Famine
Are you seriously trying to blame a biological disease on capitalism? Are you seriously telling us that late blight wouldn't have appeared on the potatoes in Ireland if only... if ONLY they'd been communists?

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
This is a legitimate complaint... until you realize that capitalism is often restrained by law. The Banana Republics of the early 20th century were set up because of a lack of law enforcement (specifically, laws related to bribery).

And, let us also be honest about the improved lives that these republics were often able to give their people. Higher wages, better medical care, improved overall living conditions, etc. And, to top it off, yes, the people of those countries lived under strong-arm rulers. Well, they did beforehand as well. Welcome to the reality of life in the third world.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet
Pinochet was a weener. He also implemented policies that allowed Chile to economically recover from the poverty of communist and socialist policies. Proof? The article you linked had this graph comparing the economic growth of Chile to the economic growth of the rest of South America:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Chile_GDP.jpg

In other words: Pinochet's economic policies actually helped Chile to survive the early 80's recession that caused major problems throughout Cental America.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
Nice try. According to the article you linked (did you actually read them before you posted them?), to this day, economists aren't sure what caused the Great Depression. Causes range from a misbalance between wealth and income, an increase in debt, a lack of deficit spending, trade protectionism, etc. They are all complex issues, and screaming that capitalism caused it all just doesn't wash.

Indeed, two of the countries to do well during the depression were socialist / communist. The Soviet Union fared well, not because of communism, but because they walled their country's economy off from the rest of the world. Ditto with Germany. They weren't trading with other countries - they were too focused on building their own industries (mostly defense).

And lest we forget - both of these countries used slave labor to make their economies work.

Quote:
The capitalist system is best described as a machine for the sole purpose of procuding profit and maintaing a cycle of never ending production. People work in their best self-interest (as people do in all governments), which the top class of individuals exploit
If by "exploit", you mean "provide jobs, pay, goods, and resources for people to buy", then yet.

Quote:
and work for what they earn making an empty profit (as opposed to allocating goods by the need of food, water, or education)
Uh... are you saying that people with money won't spend it on food? And is education a good?

Quote:
This profit merely allows the system of profit and competition above all else to continue.
Yay! I can profit!

Quote:
Capitalism doesn't care about the individuals involved, or the resources they exploit and deprive for others.
Nor does communism. Communism's goal isn't "caring about people". It's about enforcing a balanced level of misery upon all. You want an extra roll of toilet paper? Sorry. The government has determined you only require 2 rolls a month, and so you've reached your allotment. And don't even think about working harder to earn more rolls... hard work isn't rewarded, it's penalized.

Quote:
The numbers you use, in regard to the Soviet Union (which is not a tr00 communist government whether you want to believe it or not) seem to be pretty flaky at best.
Yes. Darn those numbers that prove my point.

Quote:
The Soviet Union was never in decline merely a stagnant state. Being you love to throw GDPs out in your arguments, are you aware that the Soviet Union's GDP was well over 60% of the United State's well into the 1960's http://www.allbusiness.com/government/630097-1.html .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...nion#1930-1970 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union#1930-1970)

Actually, you need to read your numbers more carefully. The Soviet GDP wasn't 60% bigger than the US economy - it was 60% OF the US Economy. Tha's 40% smaller than the US economy, which especially sucks when you consider that the Soviet Union had roughly 20% more people than the US.

Quote:
The Black Book Communism is a horrible book.
Of course it is. How dare I break out a book that proves my point.

Quote:
Why are you refering to a third hand source for infomation?
Says the guy who links to Wikipedia.

Quote:
Note that the 1-child policy was put in effect during the market reforms in China. So what you should be asking is why do capitalists support forced abortion?
You... they... TROOOOOOOOOOO!

Quote:
Also do you think that throwing GDPs at me stregethens your case somehow? It doesn't, by any means. You do realize that GDP really has nothing to do or measures that living conditions in a country. Hell one person could have the entire wealth in the entire country (or at least a small minority). You can't seriously measure living conditions merely by throwing GDPs out and expecting me to believe in the shallow concept that somehow proves that capitalists are better.
Especially since they keep showing that the communist countries are so far below everyone else?

Here's why I use the average GDP: human nature. Yes, a single person can provide the GDP for an entire country - in theory. Problem is that this theory really doesn't work out in practice. In practice, every country on earth has those who have and those who do not. That's why we use the average GDP as a measuring stick. It accounts for all levels of a country.

Besides, do you really think that Fidel and Raul Castro live in the same hovels the rest of the people in their glorious workers' paradise work in?

Quote:
Try HDI. This would put Cuba higher than a good ammount of capitalist countries.
And well below quite a few others. And lest we forget, the HDI uses the GDP.

Let's also take a closer look at the formula for the HDI... you know - the one that sets a top limit on the GDP that's well below the GDP of the top 20 countries - and a bottom limit that's half of the lowest GPD on the planet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index).

Almost as if the formula is... how do I put this? Slanted? Biased? Bullplop?

Quote:
Not meaning to dwell on Cuba, but it should also be noted that Cuba's economy has been depressed since the 1962 trade embargo.
You mean the trade embargo that only one nation on earth is participating in? Yes. It's all about one nation's trade embargo against Cuba. It couldn't possibly be that their economy has been depressed since 1962 because that was about the time the internal wars within Cuba were finally quelled by Castro, allowing him to consolidate his power and enforce his brand of Communism on his country thereby running the economy of Cuba into the ground, making it second only to Haiti in its nearby neighbors' race for "poorest country"

Quote:
Also being that half the world, as of 2007, lives on a dollar a day,
Not according to the numbers. According to the numbers, the average world dweller averages between $20 and $25 a day, and, in much of the world, this is enough to live on.

The only 2 nations on earth where the average person lives on anywhere close to $1 a day are Zimbabwe and The Congo, if you go by purchasing power. If you go by nominal values, the list grows to about 15-20 African countries, Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Nepal.

Quote:
Speaking of GDP and China (again), you do realize that no nation in history has sustained such a rapid growth in over 30 years since China. Since 1978 GDP has grown by almost 10% per annum. The economy has doubled three times over. So do you think China really is communist?
Not according to you, they aren't.

China's doing well because their leaders were faced with massive rebellion because of harsh communist rules. Relaxing the rules helped. Acquiring Hong Kong back from the British REALLY helped. In fact, if one were to remove Hong Kong from the mix, China's speedup is much slower.

Quote:
Does growth mean people are automatically better off?

An obvious no.
Obvious to who? You?

Quote:
Also the human nature you speak of or the assumptions you see made supposedly by anarcho-communism are false. Sruvival in itself is based soley on self-interest. Communism and Capitalism are both based on self-interest and generally are founded and run on the same goal.
How is a government stealing money from people who work hard for it and giving it to people who do not work hard for it "the same goal" of "self-interest"?

Quote:
(the elitists simply exploit this to their advantage for their system)
You keep using the word "elitist". You do realize that you're using a computer build by elitists. You eat food provided by elitists. You go to school provided by elitists. The books about communism you've been reading are published... wait for it... by elitists.

Perhaps you need to stop slapping "elitist" labels on people who are successful business people and start dealing with the fact that much of your comfortable life is provided by these same people.

Quote:
Communism, to me is a much more natuarl expression of looking out for your self-interest while rationalizing directly with others within a social system and working for the same goal. The goal is fullfilling your personal needs for survival. Different material conditions though do have a profound effect on how one thinks or how one acts in his/her self-interest.
Why should I only be focused on "just enough for survival"? More importantly - why should I give one whit about your survival?

And again - how is forcing people at gunpoint to provide for everyone else "self-interest"?

Quote:
Also don't talk to me about me not knowing anything about the real world. i may not be experienced in certain areas as you are, but that doesn't mean you automatically know more than I do. I don't have a job, but my Dad does.
In other words: you know squat. Let's be honest for a moment: you're 16 years old. You haven't even graduated from high school, and despite the eternal whine of the American teenager, yeah - I DO know more than you do. I've lived more than twice as long as you (giving me what I like to call "actual life experience"), I've got 7-8 years of more organized education than you have. I've got infinitely more work experience than you do (as I've been working since I was 14 and you've been working at getting your license. I've been providing for my own needs for 14 years.

So yes, I do know more than you. So does your dad, who's told you that your ideas are silly. Perhaps you should start listening.

Oh - and can I point out that not once in this entire discussion have you answered the following challenge:

Why should I be forced to work hard to earn my money only to have that money given away to someone who refuses to work hard to earn the same money?


My response...


@ 5minutes

I will not fully respond to your entire post yet, but I do feel that I must promptly make a few things clear to you. Yes you may have I guess what you'd call "actual life experience". You are 19-20 years older than I am, and I even said that its natural that you'd be more experienced on a number of levels. I though most point out that despite of this, again does not make you automatically right or your arguments or ideology any stronger. You don't even know who I am, and I don't know what gives you the right to think you can judge me. If you had a job at the age of 14 good for you, seriously. I'm glad that you are able to provide for yourself at such a young age. How does that make your argument stronger?

I have a very good work ethic, just ask my parents. I long to have a job, my parents simply don't allow me. They want me to focus on keeping up my 4.00 grade average and focus on keeping my report card at all As, like I have been for the past 10 years straight. I study many different views of life, I do lots of reading, observing, and I'm by no means whatsoever naive about what goes on in society. Just because I'm younger, doesn't give you the right to assume that you are superior than me. I couldn't care a less if you agree with me or not. If you don't agree or have problems and thus need me to explain them out to you, not a problem at all. I though don't think that you need to be as sarcastic or, as Jeff quotes, snipe at me constantly. I know that may just be your style or only way you can express yourself, but can you at least show me a bit of respect 5? Maybe try to simply focus on the topic at hand. I know that you already have your mind made up and will probably refuse to take anything I say seriously or with value, but at least ease up on the personal attacks while this debate holds together. Not too much too ask 5, well at least I hope not. Also despite my Dad, not agreeing with me completely, he thinks my ideas are very creative and really cool. he just believes that they aren't realistic. He's not big on capitalism either, he just chooses to accept things as they are as opposed to trying to take the more idealistic stance I hold. I also respect my Dad's opinion as well, and if he doesn't ever agree with me I wouldn't care.

Also being you think that every nation or form of government with related characteristics must be communism. That must mean that fundalmentalist Christians are the same as hippy liberal Christians and that all Christians are the same as Ak-47 waving Muslim extremists. I mean hell they all have a lot of the same principles and committed atrocities in the name of thier beliefs. So I guess that they are the same as you and you advocate waging a holy war against everything rational and sane in our society. So as I see it Jesus = Fred Phelps, you can't argue or criticze it either because they ARE the same thing, cause I said so. I doubt you think that way of thinking is reasonable, but its the same exact thing you are doing with Communism. All I have to say to you 5minutes is please restrain yourself, and maybe grow up a little bit yourself.

If you keep up with your attitude 5 its only a matter of time before the thread gets shut down by Jeff or any mod that happens to be passing by. I wouldn't necessarily blame them at this point being we because of you instigating to get me into an offtopic debate, in a thread that is a far cry from what it was based on. I know you feel threatened somehow by my ideas, but don't be so emotional when your posting. Seriously.

As far as your criticisms go on some of the linked events I had, I will answer when I'm able along with your other remarks and assertions. I though will say however that I have good reasoning for putting all those there and will fully explain them in a bit, I have a thing called school right now. I though will point out it is pretty laughable to put Nazism on the same frequency as Communism. That really is a big folly, by you.

__________________

[#FF0000]

You're arguing anarcho-communism and he's ranting about Government.

He's attacking countries you do not claim to support. Strawmen, and not your arguments. Call him on it.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I will reply to this moron's points as if they were addressed to me. You are more than welcome to copy my reply and post it as your own if you want. In fact I strongly encourage you to at least use my points. :)


As I stated earlier - you claim they're not TROOOOOOOOOO Communists. They'd claim you're not a TROOOOOOOOOO Communist. You're both commies. You both identify with socialist and communist thought. Get over it.Actually, no. Either they are right, or I am right - but we can't both be right. We can't both be communists, because we believe in different things and advocate different social systems.

Ultimately, "communism" is just a word. You can define it however you like. You can say that Stalin was a communist, but then I'm not a communist. Or you can say that I'm a communist, but then Stalin wasn't a communist. Choose.

And while we're at it, would you please define what exactly you mean by the word "communism", just so we know that we're both talking about the same thing?


Paging Mr. Godwin... By the way, ever wonder what "Nazi" stood for? National SOCIALISTS. I know... they aren't... they would say... get over it.Do you know the official name of North Korea? The DEMOCRATIC People's Republic of Korea.
Do you know the official name of East Germany? The German DEMOCRATIC Republic.
Do you know the country of Turkmenistan? It is a one-party state, ruled by the DEMOCRATIC Party of Turkmenistan.
Do you know the name of the largest neo-Nazi party in Germany today? The National DEMOCRATIC Party of Germany (www.npd.de (http://www.npd.de)); I guess they make up their names by taking something that sounds good and sticking the word "National" in front.

So everyone who supports democracy must also support North Korea, East Germany, Turkmenistan, and neo-Nazism. Right? Or maybe all these people are not TROOOOOOO champions of democracy?

But here's another idea: Maybe - just maybe - politicians sometimes lie about their views and policies in order to attract more popular support. Yeah, I know it sounds far-fetched. Don't think about it too much.


This is a legitimate complaint... until you realize that capitalism is often restrained by law. The Banana Republics of the early 20th century were set up because of a lack of law enforcement (specifically, laws related to bribery).So they weren't TROOOOOOO capitalists?


Pinochet was a weener. He also implemented policies that allowed Chile to economically recover from the poverty of communist and socialist policies. Proof? The article you linked had this graph comparing the economic growth of Chile to the economic growth of the rest of South America:Wait, are we looking at the same chart here? The blue line represents Chile. Pinochet ruled Chile from 1973 to 1990. For most of that period, the blue line is below the orange line - Chile had slower economic growth than the Latin American average. Of course, growth did skyrocket after Pinochet left office... so let me guess, everything bad that happened to the economy during Pinochet's rule was not his fault, and everything good that happened after he left office was thanks to him?

Yeah. Right.


And lest we forget - both of these countries used slave labor to make their economies work.Well, let's see. The Soviet Union used slave labor for about 20 years. The United States used it for about 80 years.


Nor does communism. Communism's goal isn't "caring about people". It's about enforcing a balanced level of misery upon all. You want an extra roll of toilet paper? Sorry. The government has determined you only require 2 rolls a month, and so you've reached your allotment. And don't even think about working harder to earn more rolls... hard work isn't rewarded, it's penalized.Ok, so now you're going to decide what communism means, and anyone who disagrees with you just isn't a TROOOOO communist. Right?


Actually, you need to read your numbers more carefully. The Soviet GDP wasn't 60% bigger than the US economy - it was 60% OF the US Economy. Tha's 40% smaller than the US economy, which especially sucks when you consider that the Soviet Union had roughly 20% more people than the US.The United States had a massive head start, but the Soviet Union was catching up very quickly. From 1928 to 1985, the economy of the Soviet Union grew by a factor of 10, and per capita GDP grew more than fivefold. The Soviet economy started out at roughly 25% the size of the economy of the United States. By 1955, it climbed to 40%. In 1965 the Soviet economy reached 50% of the contemporary US economy, and in 1977 it passed the 60% threshold. (source: Ofer, Gur. ''Soviet Economic Growth: 1928-1985'', RAND/UCLA Center for the Study of Soviet International Behavior, 1988. ISBN 0833008943.)


Especially since they keep showing that the communist countries are so far below everyone else?
Below who, exactly? Here's a link to a list of countries ordered by their GDP per capita (as measured by the CIA World Factbook) in 1990. This is pretty much the last year when a significant number of communist countries still existed, and they were going through a major crisis, so their numbers are actually much lower than they would have been in a normal year:

http://www.theodora.com/wfb/1990/rankings/gdp_per_capita_1.html

Notice where all the communist countries are. Not at the very top of the list, true, but in the first half. There are 175 rankings in total (#176 is "N/A"). East Germany is #26. The Soviet Union is #28. Czechoslovakia is #34. Hungary is #41. Bulgaria is #46. Yugoslavia is #51. Poland is #59. Romania is #65. Even Cuba, which wasn't doing well at all - thanks to the embargo - is #83. Still in the first half.


Let's also take a closer look at the formula for the HDI... you know - the one that sets a top limit on the GDP that's well below the GDP of the top 20 countries - and a bottom limit that's half of the lowest GPD on the planet.

Almost as if the formula is... how do I put this? Slanted? Biased? Bullplop?Are you familiar with the concept of a logarithm? If you can't understand the formula, don't blame me for your ignorance in mathematics.

And speaking of bias - do you know how GDP per capita is calculated? Are you aware of the fact that anything which causes people to buy more things will increase GDP, even if everyone agrees that it's a bad phenomenon? Like an increased crime rate for example. More crime stimulates people to buy more security devices, which helps increase GDP.


According to the numbers, the average world dweller averages between $20 and $25 a day, and, in much of the world, this is enough to live on.The problem is that the average, by itself, tells you nothing. If you have a village of 500 people where one guy lives on $12,001 a day and everyone else lives on $1 a day, then the "average village dweller" lives on $25 a day - even though there isn't actually anyone in the village who earns that exact sum or anything near it.

Send Bill Gates to some town in Africa for a few months and all of a sudden the "average income" of the town will skyrocket, even if most people make exactly as much money as before. Averages can be deceptive.


More importantly - why should I give one whit about your survival?Yes, that's the real problem with capitalism.


Why should I be forced to work hard to earn my money only to have that money given away to someone who refuses to work hard to earn the same money?You shouldn't. And guess what? Communism DOESN'T make you do that, since communism doesn't even use money.

[Demogorgon]

I do not wish to commit the atrocities against my mind that going through that entire argument would entail, but I just have to point something out regarding that graph of Chile he cites. Look at the dates on it. What it shows is that before Pinochet came to power, Chile had a higher growth rate than the rest of Latin America, once he ceased [power it fell sharply below the rest of Latin America and rose against sharply upon him leaving office.

Point that out.

Edit: ah damn, Edric beat me to it. Still well worth pointing out though

[maverick]

I will reply to this moron's points as if they were addressed to me. You are more than welcome to copy my reply and post it as your own if you want. In fact I strongly encourage you to at least use my points. :)


I actually copied and pasted your response exactly as it was. It was perfect and described many of my thoughts. Excellent job. :)

I notice your a christian communist. I am currently in a bit of a side debate with another poster. He isn't a fan of capitalism but the religion thing is really what's holding him back for giving communism/socialism a chance. He critizes that religion isn't really compatibable with the materialist and systematic views of the belief system, and he feels adding religion would to communism is just a faux form of communism. I can see a bit of what he says, but I would be interested if you could perhaps let me know what your views are on what he says?


Mav (and 5, to an extent),
Put me on oyur dad's side re: your ideas (actually, I may agree with you more than him re: your critique of capitalism, though I have "reservations" more than critique per se). I think there's a good chance 5 and I could have a grand old time watching the campaign stuff and bashing media liberals while drinking a brewski, and if I knew him personally I'd probably seek him out for such activities as my wife has a hard time dealing with my shouting at the TV
these days. :o However, I think it's very beneficial for you to explore dieas, "try out" different concepts, etc. Churchill is reported to say (I think it was he), "A young person who is a conservative has no heart; an old person who is a liberal has no brain." I sort of agree with that.
Granted, it's much easier to critique a system we're by and large no part of. There is a tendency, generally, to suppose the way we grew up is best. I don't think Christianity demands representative democracy, etc. However, while I am disinclined culutrally to reject socialism, I still appreciat much of its critique of capitalism. I do think, however, it's underlying metaphysic is inadeqaute. People often defend socialism by looking at wehat they perceive to be the promising potential outcomes, but they overlook the systematic demands of the worldview. As I said, the classic modern forms of socialism (and even ancient forms, i.e. plato) realize that socialism requires downplaying family, religion, etc. In fact, modern socialism really requires banning religion--not just for practicality's sake, but because the metaphysical system deduces "a priori" that religion is incompatible with the goals of socialism. The most rigorous proponents realize that trying to paste a veneer of liberal Christianity over it is folly in the long run.
I'll address one of your recent posts more specifically later--i think the crux is that you accept the socialist premise that human nature is nothing more than survival mechanisms. To a large extent, this also captures the assumptions of radical capitalism. With JP II, I think both a flawed because both are materialistic. (Hobbes is a good historical soruce to see capitalism, rather thabn socialism ,emerging from materialsitic assumptions. While Marx addresses the wrong-headendess of the "social contract" individualusts, I think Hobnbes raise a point that shows his materialism to trump Marx's--but still lead to problems linked to materialism. All this will be discussed later).
More to come, (and keep up the reading/discussion, Mav),

I could counter this, but perhaps you could give your insight on this issue more being you share a common belief system with him, but are still a communist. So be free to give your opinion on this as well and I'll mention it in one of my future posts.

---

As far as the debate is going, for those who have been following this, there's been a couple post exchanges (that I didn't mention) and a few new people actively joining the debate. Nothing major is happening yet, or has changed.

[RedHal]

However, I think it's very beneficial for you to explore dieas, "try out" different concepts, etc. Churchill is reported to say (I think it was he), "A young person who is a conservative has no heart; an old person who is a liberal has no brain." I sort of agree with that.the more familiar quote is "He who is not a socialist at 19, has no heart. He who is still a socialist at 30, has no brain." I've seen this quote attributed to Bismarck and Churchill.

I guess Einstein had no brain :laugh:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.php

[RadioRaheem84]

Conservatives twist that remark around to, "he who is not a liberal before 18 has no heart, but he who is not a conservative by 30, has no brain". They attribute the comment to Churchill.

Well then given the time that it was said, FDR was a moron!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I actually copied and pasted your response exactly as it was. It was perfect and described many of my thoughts. Excellent job. :)
Always a pleasure. :)


I notice your a christian communist. I am currently in a bit of a side debate with another poster. He isn't a fan of capitalism but the religion thing is really what's holding him back for giving communism/socialism a chance. He critizes that religion isn't really compatibable with the materialist and systematic views of the belief system, and he feels adding religion would to communism is just a faux form of communism. I can see a bit of what he says, but I would be interested if you could perhaps let me know what your views are on what he says?
Sure thing. This is my reply to his post:

You should know that Churchill had ulterior motives for saying that quote - he had been a member of the Liberal Party in his youth and then switched to the Conservatives when the Liberal Party plummeted into oblivion. So he put himself in the unique position of having both a heart and a brain; most people are not that lucky, since most people decide on a political affiliation before the age of 25 and keep it for the rest of their lives (I remember once seeing some statistics to this effect).

Now, on the topic of religion, first of all I have to point out that even the most totalitarian Stalinist regimes did not go so far as to ban religion. Most of them were hostile to religion, but this hostility manifested itself in such things as refusing to authorize the building of new churches, making it difficult for people to get formal training as priests, and allowing only atheists to rise to the highest offices of government. In other words, they discouraged religion, but if you really wanted to be religious they would not stop you. Only a single country ever banned religion outright, but this was Albania, which had been a majority-Muslim country before the ban.

The point is, if someone as ruthless as Stalin, leading the most authoritarian brand of "socialism" (if you can call it "socialism") didn't ban religion, it seems extremely far-fetched to claim that any other socialists might ever want to do that. You would probably have more luck finding someone who thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth than someone who wants to ban religion.

Whether socialism requires downplaying things like the family or religion is, of course, another question entirely. But my answer to this question is still "no." First, let's talk about the family. For several millennia, the family has served an economic function. In most cases, people married not out of love, but out of material necessity. And families were kept together not by love, but by this same necessity - the husband needed the wife to act as a domestic servant, and the wife needed the husband to provide income. This is not the Christian model of family, but it was the dominant model of family in the West until very recently (and it still is dominant in many parts of the world). This is the type of family that socialism is indeed opposed to - a family made up of people who don't love each other, kept together by the threat of poverty. And as a Christian, you should be opposed to it too. Socialists want to eliminate the threat of poverty and turn the family into a purely personal relationship rather than an economic one. We believe that people should marry out of love alone, and they should be kept together by love alone. That is why we insist that the economic system should not give special treatment (tax breaks etc) to married couples; not because we're somehow opposed to marriage, but because we think it is wrong to bribe people into getting married. Love should be enough reason for marriage. If it's not enough, don't get married.

So that is the socialist stance on the family. As for religion - well, there is no single socialist stance on religion. There are staunchly religious socialists just as there are staunchly atheistic socialists. The modern socialist movement was actually born as a Christian political movement in the early 19th century, though the early Christian socialists aren't very well known today because their political views were utopian. Karl Marx was of course an atheist, and Marxism - which has become the foundation of all serious socialism - takes a materialistic approach to the study of human society. But keep in mind that all social sciences take the same materialistic approach. Economics in general, not Marxism in particular, is materialistic. And it has to be materialistic, because economics is by definition the science that studies the production and distribution of material goods. There is no incompatibility between Marxism and religion (just ask the many supporters of Liberation Theology in Latin America). In fact, socialism and communism are more compatible with Christianity than any other economic systems.

Yes, there has been a lot of historical hostility between Marxism and religion, but this is mostly due to the fact that each side thinks the other wants to destroy all freedom. Many Marxists think that religion inherently supports oppression. Many religious people think that Marxism inherently supports oppression. In reality, of course, they are both wrong.

On the issue of philosophy or metaphysics, there is nothing anywhere near a single philosophical or metaphysical outlook shared by all socialists. On the contrary, we argue amongst ourselves on philosophical questions all the time. There are some among us who loudly and repeatedly proclaim that their particular philosophy is the One True Philosophical Foundation of socialism, but for the most part they get ignored. Socialists are united by a common purpose, but our reasons for supporting that purpose are very diverse.

[maverick]

Hey all its been awhile since I posted in this thread, but I assure you the debate continues. I will post on particular post in general that I found to be interesting. It critices some of the metaphysical assumption or ideas in socialism as being flawed or not always absolute. This was response of me bringing up the concept of social solidarity, and describing the absence of a set human nature, from the secular perspective. What do you think of what he says regarding this and how would you respond to his claim of flawed assumptions that socialism as a system is based on?

As far as the religious perspective goes, he seems to critize socialism for not being compatible based on it being meant to be a utopian system (which is impossible without Christ) and is a flawed human ideal or perfection, along with the metaphysical aplications that directly as he sees it violate Christianity. I'm interested in your views on the religious part Kwisatz Haderach.



Hi, Mav, you have responded to 5's references to human nature by saying, consistent with socialism, that there is no fixed human nature, etc. I have wanted to touch on this for awhile, so I will do so now.

On my view, both strict capitalism and socialism relegate humans to determinism within a materialist system. Marxism in particular strictly understands "nature" in terms of the dialectic of the socioeconomic condition. In this case, if there is such a thing as "freedom" in a genuine sense, both systems miss something fundamental to human existence. In fact, I would argue that the reality of human freedom makes any purely systematic account of society flawed, since one cannot guarantee particular outcomes by incorporating particular systems (though these can significantly influence human existence). My ultimate response to this has more to do with religion, so I'll leave that aside for now.

To return to "no nature"--this is true, but misleading, in socialism. In the sense that socioeconomic conditions change (and are bound to do so, according to the principles of dialectical materialism), the human "nature" which is a product of these changes as well. But this very account of "nature" as a product of material forces holds to a particular view of such nature--namely, human nature at any period of history is a product of
socioeconomic conditions. This in itself is an account of human nature, though it fixes the principles determining nature rather than the nature itself. However, on this model, once the final stage of the dialectic is reached, an absolute equilibrium is achieved through absolute economic equality, and in this case, human nature would finally be fixed. In this case, the final nature of human existence is that of the classless social being--in fact, of the collective individual. Ironically, while this dialectic proceeds largely in denial of a pre-established telos (apparently in distinction to Hegel's idealism), there is a final, albeit unintended, telos to this process--purely mindless material forces produce the "last man" (a term I am borrowing from Nietzsche--not that Nietzsche is socialist!)

Now, the question is, is such a position tenable? I am inclined to say "no" for several reasons. First of all, the declaration that there is "no human nature" is subject to the same logically self-referencing problems confronting any deterministic system. Namely, if all perspectives are determined by particular circumstances and thus flexible, then even the judgment that there is no fixed nature would itself be a temporary determined perspective. To assert this as a universally binding fact is to appeal to something transcendent--that is, reason (consciousness) must be able to transcend the limits of its particular socioeconomic circumstances to make this judgment! But if the final stage of dialectical development has not arisen, how can any judgement about the nature of the dialectical process itself be reliable? Thus, for all the materialism of these socialist models, there is the need to appeal to some kind of trans-material consciousness to make judgments about the materialist process itself--indeed, even to surmise that some form of materialism is supposedly true!

Put differently, if dialectical materialist accounts f human nature are true, they have great difficulty in explaining how this judgment can be rendered without violating the very principles to which they appeal.

Now, to shift geears for a minute. If one is to believe various studies in sociobiology, we may infer that humans, like many animals, have hardwired in to them a tendency to to look to particular leaders, etc. (the "alpha male" model). Such seems to be borne out throughout much of the animal kingdom--and is, ironically, an aspect of evolutionary theory which socialism itself is influenced by. At the same time, socialism seems to be warranted by another trait observed in studies--the desire for equality. Now, of course, one can argue whether these studies reveal a "hardwired" condition, or a socially-defined one-but the trait is this: apparently on average, humans prefer a lower condition of existence where there is economic equality to one where they are better off absolutely, but there is more inequality.
For example, studies have shown that more people would rather receive $3 along with another person than divide $20 by giving $15 to one person and keeping $5 for themselves. This is interesting--and if it holds consistently enough, it may indicate that capitalism is unrealistic about the extent to which "resentment" drives human activity. Of course, the capitalist could respond that this drive could still be accommodated by the system allowing the person to work harder to achieve an improvement in his or her condition. But this [presupposes, of course, that such improvement is realistically attainable.

Then again, it could be pointed out that people would rather receive $15 and the other $5 than both receive $3--in other words, they don't mind ineqaulity per se so much, as they mind ineqaulity when they are on the lower end of the equation. In this case, capitalism appeals to human behavior more closely than socialism, which essentially assumes people will be willing to settle for less in the name of "equality."

This in itself, I believe, indicates a problem with the dialectical basis of socialism. To the point, where equality is valued as a good in-itself, then presumably wherever it is attained, at least to the point of maintaining minimum quality of life, the idea is people will be more satisfied than they will be in a case where they have a better, but more unequal, quality of life.
(The whole "absolute" vs. "relative" notion of poverty debate). I am not convinced that people would be less alienated by equality and minimized existence than by one that facilitates absolute improvement but more ineqaulity. For example, would I rather have a system where everyone received equal health care, but no one could receive the most advanced treatments? Of course, we'd prefer that everyone could receive the most advanced treatments, but this is likely to not be possible in a socialist state--for exampl,e, how many people will volunatrily become doctors or medical researchers, etc. where there is little additional financial gain to result. In fact, on a pure socialist system, there would be no absolute division of labor (as difference breeds class), so that everyone would operate partly as a doctor, partly as a farmer, etc. But this REALLY presupposes that all human differences are purely dialectically determined, which seems prima facie wrong to me. That is, are we really going to hold that some people have greater aptitudes for, say, math and science ONLY because of their socioeconomic condition? I don';t doubt that this plays a role--but reducing it to this seems to defy what is empirically observable.

Along these same lines, IF we assume that people possess reason, creative alents, etc. which are not purely dialectically determined, it seems to me they will be acknowledged as being capable of developing new goals, ideals, etc. toward which to strive, even in their material and economic attainments. That is, humans will be capable of forging ideas beyond a current material equilibrium--and this creative insight would itself shatter the equilibrium. Thus, for dialectical equality to be maintained, as 5 says, individually would constantly have to be pounded down wherever it arises--unless it was assured that this new vision could be carried out without ushering in inequality. But this seems most unlikely to me. Indeed, if equilibrium qua equilibrium is the goal, then it seems to me the very forces which produce creativity themselves would cease to operate, except perhaps in response to threats to minimum existence. In a way, this may not be bad---perhaps in capitalism we are vicitims of a never-ending frustration which ensues from always wanting things to be "better" than they are,e ven when they are pretty good. However, I am not sure that guarding against this is best accomplished by the forces of the social order. That is, if utopia is in fact not realizable, then attempts to squelch "new visions" of what could be might oppress motivation to genuine betterment, etc. Indeed, this is but one way that socialism is inherently anti-religious--religion (or at least Christianity) is committed to the view that our highest accomplishment can only be accomplished by supernatural diivne assistance--the perfection of our likeness with Christ. Thus, any vision driven by this as its ideal would be a threat to the equilibrium sought by the dialectical process, and would have to be squelched, as it could not be produced for all by the social strcuture itself. But this gets me into the topic of religion, which I'll save for another post.
Once again, Mav, it's not clear to me that you fully grasp the extent to which socialism is derived from very particular, and problematic, metaphysical assumptions. I will be glad to read your response.



Also I was given a challenge by another poster to list anarcho social structure consiting of more than 10,000 people that were sucessful. One in particular I'm thinking of is the Anarcho-Syncidalist societies during WW2. Any other thoughts on that subject in particular.