| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  APE Liquid Culture For Sale  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Alex123 writes:
If corporate directors are living according to the principle "To each according to his need" is this closer to communism or capitalism? Answer the question. Everyone lives according to his need. By itself it is a meaningless phrase because it is so obvious on the face of it. If one's needs are not met, one ceases to exist. But to answer your question, the way corporate directors live is closer to Capitalism than to Communism. Don't be childish. I said nothing of the sort. You first said: "Either the government cares for them or no-one does. That's reality." Clearly this is incorrect. Churches, secular charities, private individuals and privately-held corporations all help the poor. You may argue that aid from these sources is insufficient in your opinion. You may not argue that such aid is non-existent. After I had pointed this out, you then said: "I'm afraid charity doesn't go very far and it doesn't help everyone." How can this be interpreted as anything other than a concession that I was right -- private charity does exist and it does help some? would go round to your local neighbourhoods single mom and give her a cut of your wages every week? Do you do that, Alex? If not, why not? Whether I personally would or not is irrelevent to the point being discussed. But as I have repeatedly stated, I have donated cash, food, clothing and my time to charitable organizations and directly to individuals since I was twelve years old and I see no reason to stop. pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Alex123 writes:
You cannot simply "re-open" mines that have been closed for years. Yeah you can. Pump them out, replace some shoring, and start digging again. You don't even have to do THAT much if the mine in question is an "open pit" mine. As for the expense involved, socialist governments don't care if their mines are profitable or even if they paying their own way -- the mines were soaking up billions of pounds in taxpayer's money while they were open pre-Thatcher. That's why she wanted to close them (or sell them off) in the first place. Why not give jobs re-opening the mines to all those currently on the dole? At least there will be SOMETHING recouped from such a program... coal. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
 Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Everyone lives according to his need
Don't be stupid. A worker who fails at his job needs a million pound payoff just as much as the corporate director. He doesn't get it. The corporate director does. But to answer your question, the way corporate directors live is closer to Capitalism than to Communism In what way? Clearly this is incorrect No it's correct for the vast majority of people who don't have church assistance. private charity does exist and it does help some Sure it exists. But you can't use it as a system to live by. You might meet a millionaire woman one day and get rich but i wouldn't pin your daily hopes to it. Whether I personally would or not is irrelevent to the point being discussed It's sadly relevant. You yourself have stated you think welfare is wrong and should never be given to anyone. You now expect us to believe that you and others like you will support the very people you despise. It's a little too far-fetched for me. And donating a few clothes once every year isn't enough to feed anyone I'm afraid. People need regular help. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Alex123 writes:
Don't be stupid. Try for once to grasp an actual complete concept. Everyone "lives according to his needs". If one's needs aren't met, one dies. Once when is dead, one cannot continue to live according to his needs. A worker who fails at his job needs a million pound payoff just as much as the corporate director. He doesn't get it. The corporate director does. And the fact that this director gets a big severance package demonstrates the principles of Communism exactly how? In what way? A Corporate director is hired VOLUNTARILY by a group of individuals. They agree VOLUNTARILY to pay him X amount of money. The company he directs is PRIVATELY owned, it is not part of the holdings of the State. The goods and services produced at his direction are exchanged with others through VOLUNTARY transactions. Sure it exists. Then you admit that your original claim that "Either the government cares for them or no-one does. That's reality." was incorrect. Thank you. See, that wasn't hard, was it? You yourself have stated you think welfare is wrong and should never be given to anyone. Correct. There is a difference between welfare and charity. I oppose welfare, I support charity. You now expect us to believe that you and others like you will support the very people you despise. I don't despise the unfortunate, I despise those who initiate the use of force in human affairs. I have compassion for the unfortunate. That's why I voluntarily give them stuff. And donating a few clothes once every year isn't enough to feed anyone I'm afraid. People need regular help. And how often do you donate your time, money, clothing and food to the unfortunate, Alex? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
GazzBut Refraction  Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 1 year, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Yes I did assume we import more coal, based on the fact that coal use has gone up and coal mines have closed down - perhaps we are using magic to make coal appear from thin air.
How about your unbelievably wrong assumption that there is zero demand for coal in this country?? You just make things up to suit your arguement, which is a bit sad really. By the way, Its not as easy as just reopening mines. Im not sure but I seem to remember hearing that unkept mines can fill with water and methane making them practcally unusable. I dont know for sure though. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
People need regular help. Alex, you never did answer my question that I directed towards you. I asked what kind of economic and governmental system do you envision as working the best, in your opinion. Could you please answer this? I am interested in your reply. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
!!! LPF !!!  to answer your question see the subject line. Everything went well under the Clinton regime. To bad he couldn't keep his twinky in his pants and started poking his secratery with his cigar. Under his guidence we probably would've bin at the end of the Iraqi war by now and Bin Laden was in US custody. Bin is in Iraq in one of Sadams palaces and I hope Bush gets him within 3 weeks with a minimum of civilian casualties. I bet ya that he'll be cheered at and sudden voices of agreement of corners you would't expect would't be a surprise to me either. But what the hell am I writing. I'm not Alex. ...are there any spell o 's in this post?
| |||||||
|
Skikid16 fungus fan  Registered: 06/27/02 Posts: 5,666 Loc: In the middle of Last seen: 21 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
Your post made no sense whatsoever.
-------------------- Re-Defeat Bush in '04
| |||||||
|
spockdebacle Stranger Registered: 01/07/03 Posts: 3 Last seen: 23 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
I feel that it is a perfect system for ants and robots. Someday we may have entire workforces of robots on extra terrestrial work platforms and they will need an extremely sophisticated no bullshit operating system and I supposes cummunism would be perfect for them.
-------------------- "Every manual based on a complete teardown and rebuild." Haynes Publishing Group
| |||||||
|
Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Sorry for the late response, school just started......
Anyways, I wanted to start off by talking about human nature, since you seem to always bring that up somewhere. When you say marxism ignores human nature, then you imply that human nature is inherently greedy and selfish.... (correct me if im wrong, please). Marxists dont believe this, we think that human nature is a product of the existing social systems and conditions that one lives in. If you believe humans are inherently greedy and selfish, is that really how you see yourself? Do you not think that humans are very capable of self-sacrafice when its nessasary? How do you explain the heroic firefighters that entered the WTC buildings on Sept. 11 to rescue innocent people only to be buried under millions of tonnes of rubble? I think when people use that human nature line against marxism, it is intended for slanderous purposes, or simple misunderstanding. Because if that really is true, then i think that we as humans as a race are really all doomed if no one can co-operate with each other and everyone is only interested in their own selfishness. I did not say that i would stop bringing up the crimes of the imperialists, which are very important, and a damning critique of the existing system. Its actually something that happens all the time, such as the war on iraq right now. I think you are a hypocrite when you say that you are for democratic rights on one hand, but on the other think that capitalists are completely justified in using any and all means to protect their interests including through fascist terror like what happened in Chile.Your criticisms of communism is obviously not motivated by human rights, or any concern for individual rights if you honestly believe that. I actually find it surprising when you say that cops are justified in beating people up. You are on a drug website right now, and i assume that means you use drugs, which doesnt make the police your friend at all, though i could be wrong. Police are the front men for the bourgeosie, they are there to protect capitalism and property rights as well as keeping class peace. Who are the ones that arrest strikers, bust picket lines, deport immigrants? Its the cops. You obviously havent been to a demonstration before, and havent seen the unprovoked attacks that cops usually use against people trying to excesize their so-called democratic right. On the question of stalinism, I should make clear that I do know that deformed workers states have their problems, largely as a result of the imperialists, not because of their economic system. This is true when you consider the number of troops the imperialists had mobilized around the USSR, China, or the blockades on Cuba, North Korea, or war in Vietnam. But understand that these countries have gains that are in the interests of the workers of these respective countries to defend (are you gonna deny them that democratic right?) and that they would be far worse off with capitalism. Cuba is a perfect example, which a high literacy rate, and educated population. This would not be possible under the former Batista regime in which Cuba was subordinate to US imperialism. Same with the Russian revolution which transformed the former 80% peasant country into the second most powerful nation on earth. For myself, the question of struggle for a workers revolution is a question of life and death. I know that revolutions and possible civil wars are not good, and only happen in times of desperation, however would I really want to see the imperialists get into a third world war in the future with a certain possibity of nuclear arms? That is the more frightening alternative, that I dont think any of us wants to see, and these wars have happened two times this past century, the possibilty of another one with the counterrevolutionary destruction of the USSR (which has re-initiated imperialist competition amongst themselves) is very real. With that being said, I have many good reasons to want to overthrow the capitalist system, and it is in the interests of working people who create the wealth in this society to do so as well.
| |||||||
|
spockdebacle Stranger Registered: 01/07/03 Posts: 3 Last seen: 23 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
yawn.... trite 19th century philosohpies
capitalism and communism need eachother for now. if we can survive through the energy wars of the next 125 years then we will arrive in the fully realized tranhumanist age of the Ian M Banks cutlure based series of books. The new world order is a bit too acidic to the taste at this time but if we can somehow rise above all this silly ape logic then we will reap the benefits of Sir Arthur C Clarks concept of the inabilty to differentiate magic from technology. I for one would love to lounge around in a rainforest of nanotech based trees , sipping ayuhausca based teas and chatting with dilithium miners on tau ceti. -------------------- "Every manual based on a complete teardown and rebuild." Haynes Publishing Group
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
GazzBut writes:
Yes I did assume we import more coal, based on the fact that coal use has gone up and coal mines have closed down - perhaps we are using magic to make coal appear from thin air. I wasn't being facetious, I really wanted to know. There are still around 20,000 people employed in the coal industry in England, aren't there? I just figured that must mean SOME mines are still operating; presumably only the ones that are the most efficient producers. Perhaps employing 20,000 people at the ten most productive mines results in more output than employing 50,000 people in 100 marginal ones. I am not saying that this IS the case, just that it is one scenario that could explain the current situation without assuming that coal had to necessarily be imported. I am also presuming that in the last seventeen years there might have been some technological developments that would account for a higher output per employee. The other possibility is that imported coal is less expensive than domestically-produced coal. How about your unbelievably wrong assumption that there is zero demand for coal in this country? Sorry that I didn't make it plainer that I was speaking tongue in cheek when I asked how Thatcher "stopped the demand" for coal. Alex's claim was that Thatcher destroyed the coal industry. The only way an industry can be destroyed (in a non-socialist economy, anyway) is for the demand for the product it produces to decline to the point where there is no point continuing to produce it. If some customers want coal, then some producer somewhere will supply it, if and ONLY if he can do so without losing money. My point was that it wasn't Thatcher who destroyed the coal industry, it was the fact that environmentalists were protesting the pollution produced by coal-fired plants, the fact that natural gas and oil from the North Sea were less expensive, the fact that demand had dropped to the point where there were ever-increasing stockpiles of unsold coal (over a year's supply in 1985) on hand, and the fact that the cost per ton of coal extracted was (at that time) continuing to rise. And, even today, the coal industry hasn't been destroyed, it's just a heck of a lot smaller than it was before the above developments changed the economics of coal mining. Thatcher didn't destroy King Coal, she was merely acknowledging the reality that continuing to pour tax money into a losing venture made no sense. If the government hadn't been artificially propping up the industry for so long, the closing of some mines would have been spread over years or decades rather than all at once, and caused less hardship. It was a textbook case of corporate welfare, but applied to a Crown Corporation rather than to a privately-held one. In each case the taxpayer foots the bill. Im not sure but I seem to remember hearing that unkept mines can fill with water and methane making them practcally unusable. I dont know for sure though. Operating mines (except open pit mines, of course) must be constantly ventilated to avoid methane buildup, and constantly pumped out to avoid flooding. Even then, explosions and cave- ins occur; coal mining is a dangerous occupation. A mine that has been closed for a while must be pumped and flushed thoroughly before it can be worked again, and Alex is correct when he says it is not a trivial process. But neither is it all that complicated; it's just time-consuming. The amount of time it takes to reopen any given mine varies, but just because a mine has been abandoned does not mean it cannot be pumped and vented and re-shored. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Eric writes:
When you say marxism ignores human nature, then you imply that human nature is inherently greedy and selfish.... Loaded words. Most humans by nature strive to improve their circumstances. Does that mean they are "greedy" and "selfish"? Is a farmer who plants four acres rather than two so he can harvest enough to last him a year rather six months being "greedy"? No, he's showing foresight. When he trades some of his crop for a tractor rather than continuing to plow with an ox is he being "selfish"? No, he is doing so to increase his productivity so he can either produce more crops with the same effort, or the same amount of crops with less effort then use the time (effort) he has saved for pursuits other than mere subsistence. Marxists dont believe this, we think that human nature is a product of the existing social systems and conditions that one lives in. And that's the fundamental flaw in Marxism -- its misperception of (or contempt for) human nature. Marxists manage to get things exactly backwards. Rather than design a social system to fit human nature, they attempt to engineer human nature to fit their social system -- their idea of "how people should be", all the time ignoring how people are. Humans are not ants or bees or robots. Humans are at their best when they are left alone. Do you not think that humans are very capable of self-sacrafice when its nessasary? How do you explain the heroic firefighters that entered the WTC buildings on Sept. 11 to rescue innocent people only to be buried under millions of tonnes of rubble? Of course they are capable of self-sacrifice, VOLUNTARILY and in an EMERGENCY situation. An emergency is a temporary and unusual state of affairs in which the normal business of making a living is impossible (flood, fire, shipwreck, war) so the normal way of life must be suspended for the duration of that emergency, and ONLY for the duration of the emergency. Fix the problem immediately (even sometimes to the point of taking risks that may endanger your own life), then get back to normal. The problem with Marxism is that self-sacrifice is not just a temporary thing for the duration of an emergency, it is an essential part of everyday existence. There is ALWAYS an "emergency" requiring sacrifice, sacrifice, and more sacrifice, somewhere in MarxLand. Humans cannot exist in a constant state of emergency. Because if that really is true, then i think that we as humans as a race are really all doomed if no one can co-operate with each other... No one here is against voluntary co-operation. The objection is to ENFORCED "co-operation". That is the more frightening alternative, that I dont think any of us wants to see, and these wars have happened two times this past century.. Both of those wars were started by a Statist country, let's not forget. You can't possibly pretend that Germany (either in 1914 or in 1939) was a Capitalist country. With that being said, I have many good reasons to want to overthrow the capitalist system... Why bother? There hasn't been a capitalist country in existence since Hong Kong was returned to the Chinese. The USA is the closest thing left to a Capitalist country, and it becomes more Statist with each passing year. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Dilauded Sensability andr  Registered: 10/29/02 Posts: 682 Loc: Krunkville, FL Last seen: 23 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
HAHAAhahAhahahahhhahahahahhahahahaHAHahahaha, Ok everything went well b/c bias media didn't inform you the facts. Whenever Clinton fucked up, you wouldn't see it on CNN in the day or morning news, it'd be aired 2am at night when not as many viewers were watching, so they did report the news but treated it as if it weren't a big deal. But if Trent Lott says "the coutry would've been a better place is Strom were elected" its promoted to pose him as the ultimate racist and how he should step down and resign so the governor of the state can appoint a democratic senator, ballaning out the senate. But that's beside the matter of speaking. The reason for the troubled economy is not b/c of Bush, it was Clinton's treasurer who kept records of the audits of the businesses gave FALSE REPORTS. ENRON was doing bad well before everyone heard about it, as was the other companies. But since the Clinton Administration keeps this information from you, the ppl of the US think o look how good the economy is, and that's bullshit. How can you have a good economy if you form of government encourages you to be lazy(higher welfare), and how can there be a good economy when there's high taxes which would cause more unemployment, b/c the man who runs the business makes most of the money and the more money he makes the more jobs he can give out hence LESS taxes=more money for business owner=more jobs=more taxes as well as less unemployment and yet I fail to see what Clinton did exceptionally great for the country except prove to me how stupid a lot of ppl are and how much bias ass media affects ppl.
If we hadn't been under Clinton's guidance then we'd still have inspectors there and there'd be more pressure on Suddam. There's no proof of Iraq-Bin Laden are in cahoots and if they were then I wouldn't be surprised. History has it that Bin Laden doesn't like Suddam and this is tied in w/ the US then gulf war later on, kuwait, Bin Laden asking for US help and US denying, but there's been no terrorists incidents in Iraq, yet they're muslim too so why kill more of own religion when u just hate the dictator. And it is a communist country, media is controlled by the government like everything else so I wouldn't be surprised if there has been an attack and its just not been reported. asjdinsoaifunwboa873o5h82b2htljneg, Dilauded
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
When you say marxism ignores human nature, then you imply that human nature is inherently greedy and selfish .... (correct me if im wrong, please). No, I did not mean it in that way. Humans are capable of eliciting sympathy and empathy, but they are also capable of eliciting selfishness and greed as well. You will never be able to completely rid all people of self-interest and have them be altruistic 365 days a year for the duration of their lives. Marxists dont believe this, we think that human nature is a product of the existing social systems and conditions that one lives in. Human nature is human nature. It has nothing to do with society. The environment that one is immersed in can influence who they are, but there is an undoubtedly genetic bent to Man's behavior. For example, have you ever see studies of identical twins that were seperated at birth, lived completely different lives, and yet they acted the same, dressed the same, and had the same jobs? Or why is human history from all corners of the globe full of nothing but stories of war, conquest, and suffering? Why have even the most devout Christians sinned in their lives? Why have even the most devoted ideologues allowed their individual systems of thought to be corrupted? Men sometimes act out because of whim, personal gratification, natural ingrained proclivites, or possible profit. If it was Man's natural reaction to do nothing but care for his fellow Man, history would be quite different. Do you not think that humans are very capable of self-sacrafice when its nessasary? How do you explain the heroic firefighters that entered the WTC buildings on Sept. 11 to rescue innocent people only to be buried under millions of tonnes of rubble? People are capable of sacrificing personal interest during emergency situations. Nobody on Earth is capable of voluntarily sacrificing self-interest for their entire life-span. I think when people use that human nature line against marxism, it is intended for slanderous purposes, or simple misunderstanding. When I use it, I do not intend it to be slanderous at all. But, my observations of human history and human behavior tell me that it is not possible for every person on this Earth to sacrifice self-interest on a regular basis, in order to bring about equality with his fellow man. How can you deny the existence of envy, lust, greed, and aggression? I assure, they do exist. Marxism asks the impossible from a species that has never been able to even come close to what you want. It's the equivalent of asking a hamster to do calculus. It's just not going to happen. Because if that really is true, then i think that we as humans as a race are really all doomed if no one can co-operate with each other and everyone is only interested in their own selfishness. Humans can cooperate with each other, but not on the level that would be required to make communism work forever and to be tolerable. Hoorah! You finally acknowledge that Man's fate is not promising and it is probably doomed. Welcome to reality. I did not say that i would stop bringing up the crimes of the imperialists, which are very important, and a damning critique of the existing system. I could easily argue that the shortcomings and crimes against humanity that occurred(and still do occur) under communist rule are a damning critique of attempting communism. I think you are a hypocrite when you say that you are for democratic rights on one hand, but on the other think that capitalists are completely justified in using any and all means to protect their interests including through fascist terror like what happened in Chile. I NEVER SAID THAT. I never said that capitalists are completely justified in using any and all means to protect their interests. If you let people or corporations run amok, there will be abuses. I have REPEATEDLY said that capitalism without any controls is not desirable. There need to be laws that dictate what people and corporations aren't allowed to do. I have REPEATEDLY said that it is my opinion that American corporations should not be operating in countries where the population is not allowed to elect their own representatives. Your criticisms of communism is obviously not motivated by human rights, or any concern for individual rights if you honestly believe that. Some of my criticisms of communism ARE motivated by human rights. 1. All communism that has ever been attempted resulted in regimes that committed horrible human rights abuses. 2. I believe it is a human right to be able to engage in voluntary economic trade, and to be allowed to keep or be compensated for, the resources that you willingly produce. I actually find it surprising when you say that cops are justified in beating people up. When cops beat a person up, it is usually because the person was acting in a violent manner, therefore they deserved it. You are on a drug website right now, and i assume that means you use drugs. Ironically, I don't use drugs. I just come here because of the quality of the message boards. I don't post about anything drug-related. I usually hangout in the political and off-topic discussion forums. Police are the front men for the bourgeosie, they are there to protect capitalism and property rights as well as keeping class peace. The police are there to protect citizens, according to the laws that the majority of the citizens themselves are responsible for enacting. Who are the ones that arrest strikers bust picket lines, deport immigrants? You are allowed to strike in America if you want to. You are allowed to picket. America only deports immigrants if they are here illegaly. I think it is a tad bit hypocritical how you become enraged when a policeman beats someone up in a capitalist country, but at the same time you ignore the much more serious atrocities of past and present communist countries. China sent in troops who shot hundreds of demonstrators in Tianeman square. They didn't beat them up. They shot and killed them. Because this atrocity occurred in a "deformed worker state", does that make it ok? Was this cold-blooded murder of demonstrators in the best interest of the "workers"? You obviously havent been to a demonstration before, and havent seen the unprovoked attacks that cops usually use against people trying to excesize their so-called democratic right. If a police officer assaults you without proper justification, you are allowed to press charges. Do you think the Tianeman square survivors were allowed to press charges? On the question of stalinism, I should make clear that I do know that deformed workers states have their problems, largely as a result of the imperialists, not because of their economic system. Oh yeah....America forced Stalin to murder millions of his own people. America forced China to kill the Tianeman square protestors. This is true when you consider the number of troops the imperialists had mobilized around the USSR, China, or the blockades on Cuba, North Korea, or war in Vietnam. These troop buildups were in response to communist aggression. There is no point in arguing this...we have been over it a million times. But understand that these countries have gains that are in the interests of the workers of these respective countries to defend (are you gonna deny them that democratic right?) Um....They don't have democratic rights in these countries. Is it in the best interests of the North Korean "workers" to starve while their government(who is supposed to care for them) builds nuclear weapons? Is it in the best interests of the Chinese workers to have to endure severe repression and outright torture for dissention? I do not consider it in the best interest of anyone to give up personal and economic freedom, in exchange for minor material comfort and promises of a utopia. Same with the Russian revolution which transformed the former 80% peasant country into the second most powerful nation on earth. This powerful nation was ruled by an aggressive government that didn't give a shit about the rights of it's own people. Cuba is a perfect example, which a high literacy rate, and educated population. Yeah, it must be great living under an unelected dictator who refuses to relinquish power. You have still not answered the following Question(question 2a): Question 2a: In a controlled economy, all economic production is taken away from individuals and given to the community as a whole. How can you guarantee that workers will be able to work consistently well, given that the things that they produce will be taken away, and therefore there will be little personal incentive to accomplish and achieve? Do you recognize that there is a possibility that when a person's effort and action are not rewarded, that the incentive to achieve might diminish? You also did not address this statement: Describe how you envision the "post-state" communal economic system working. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Your post is full of hypocrisy and lies.
First of all, I believe that human nature is a product of existing social conditions. And I have seen this for myself (i.e a homeless person, or worker behaves differently then a rich business person). The excuse that marxism will never work because of human nature is intended for slanderous purposes, and nothing else. It was not human nature that created the stalinist beacrucrats. It was demoralization, and imperialist agression that lead up to the conditions for deformities. After the Bolsheviks took power, civil war broke out with the former ruling class, and Russia was invaded by various imperialist powers, most of the revolutionary workers were killed, and those who were left were demoralized because of the failed revolution in Germany. That being said, I think the lessons of the Russian Revolution prove that it is possible to set up a working democratic collectiviezed economy. Furthermore it has been proven that collectivzed economies are more superior then market economies. (Cuba, Russia, China, developed economically faster after their revolutions which would not have been possible under capitalism). I think you are the biggest hypocrite when you say you are for human rights, and "democracy" but at the same time say that the imperialists were perfectly justified in their murderous interventions. If the imperialists were all that friendly as you say they are, they would not have bombed vietnam, or attacked north korea, china, nor would they have so many nukes pointed at the USSR. Obviously the fact that most of the workers in the deformed workers state (namely China) dont want capitalist restoration despite the deformities of the stalinist beacurcacy means nothing to you.....some democratic ideas you have indeed. With that being said, I have nothing further to say about what happens after the working class takes power. As marxists we like to analyze the world currently and take into accounts historical lessons, we are not fortune tellers and cannot predict the future, we only know the law of class struggle, and any problems that come up in the future will have to be delt then. By trying to answer your question with things im not sure of, would sound utopian and unrealistic (the world and politics is contradictory, it is not a linear line that we can predict) . We do know however that if the capitalist imperialist system exists any longer the world is in grave danger, and no matter what kind of problems arise under a collectivized economy, under that system with more people participating in the political system, we will be better able to deal with such problems (i.e global warming) that we wouldnt be able to under capitalism. I also wanted to add since you dont seem to get this, that restoration of capitalism after permenant revolution (i.e world revolution) is impossible for the reasons ive stated before. Furthermore, the only conditions that are ripe for capitalist restoration are that of the stalinist bearcracy which becomes a breeding ground for a new ruling class as it did in Russia.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!?    Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
coughcoughbullshitcough Human nature will always have some people who will strive for more. More knowledge, more power, more goodies. Would you drug these people to keep them in line or simply kill them to ensure your fantasy? -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Eric writes:
First of all, I believe that human nature is a product of existing social conditions. As I said, Marxists get this relationship backwards. The reverse is true. a homeless person, or worker behaves differently then a rich business person It is the differences in their behavior which determine in large part whether or not they are homeless or rich or somewhere in between. The excuse that marxism will never work because of human nature is intended for slanderous purposes, and nothing else. It is not an "excuse", it is an explanation supported by observation. It was not human nature that created the stalinist beacrucrats. Correct. That's exactly my point. It was Marxism that created the Stalinist bureaucrats. It was demoralization... I guess if I had pinned all my hopes on a fundamentally flawed system that was disintegrating around my ears, I'd be pretty demoralized, too. ...and imperialist agression that lead up to the conditions for deformities. ...Russia was invaded by various imperialist powers... At various points in this thread you have accused England and the United States (among others) of imperialist aggression against Russia post-1917. Could you provide us with a few references which include dates and descriptions of the incidents? ...most of the revolutionary workers were killed, and those who were left were demoralized because of the failed revolution in Germany. So not only were they demoralized at the failure of Marxism in their own country, but at the failure of it to even get started in another? In other words, Marxism failed in Russia because the Russian Marxists were too sensitive? I think the lessons of the Russian Revolution prove that it is possible to set up a working democratic collectiviezed economy. OF COURSE it is possible to set one up -- by force. The point is that it is impossible to MAINTAIN it without force. Left to themselves, people will inevitably move away from collectivization and towards individual effort. This happened in Russia, Cuba, China, Viet Nam... the instant the dictators loosen their stranglehold a bit, black markets spring up. Furthermore it has been proven that collectivzed economies are more superior then market economies. Incorrect. No one has ever come close to proving such a thing. Provide us a source, please. Cuba, Russia, China, developed economically faster after their revolutions which would not have been possible under capitalism. All of those countries would have developed far more quickly had they been Capitalist. Compare the growth of the economy of Communist China to those of Taiwan or Hong Kong or South Korea. Compare the growth of the economy of Cuba to those of Costa Rica or the Dominican Republic. Compare the growth of the economy of Russia to that of the US. Obviously the fact that most of the workers in the deformed workers state (namely China) dont want capitalist restoration despite the deformities of the stalinist beacurcacy means nothing to you... So sorry, but the workers of China do indeed want capitalist restoration. That is why so many of them jammed into Hong Kong and Taiwan, and why literally hundreds of millions of them choose to work in the infamous foreign-owned "sweatshops" that the Chinese Politburo has allowed to open in ever-increasing numbers in the last decade or so. As marxists we like to analyze the world currently and take into accounts historical lessons... Not very successfully. ... we are not fortune tellers and cannot predict the future... Those who refuse to learn from historical evidence have no hope of even guessing what the future may hold, true. ...we only know the law of class struggle... That's the problem. Your "law" is bogus. ... and any problems that come up in the future will have to be delt then. By force, naturally. Heaven forbid that we change even a single word of the sacred Marxist dogma to adjust for the reality in front of our eyes! "Look, comrades, things aren't working the way they are supposed to." "That's because the masses have not yet been sufficiently indoctrinated. Toss some more into a re-education camp." We do know however that if the capitalist imperialist system exists any longer the world is in grave danger... Capitalism and imperialism are not synonymous. ...no matter what kind of problems arise under a collectivized economy, under that system with more people participating in the political system, we will be better able to deal with such problems (i.e global warming) that we wouldnt be able to under capitalism. Well, global warming certainly won't be much of a problem in a society unable to provide cars for more than one in fifty of its citizens, that's for sure. ...that restoration of capitalism after permenant revolution (i.e world revolution) is impossible for the reasons ive stated before. Then how do you explain the resurgence of free market activity in China, Cuba, Russia, Viet Nam et al the instant the government slackens its grip even a fraction? In the case of China, you certainly can't attribute it to "imperialist aggression" or "capitalist propaganda"... how many Chinese peasants have ever seen a Western movie or read a Western book? Furthermore, the only conditions that are ripe for capitalist restoration are that of the stalinist bearcracy which becomes a breeding ground for a new ruling class as it did in Russia. Tell that to the Viet Namese. pinky --------------------
Edited by pinksharkmark (01/09/03 09:36 PM)
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
It was Marxism that created the Stalinist bureaucrats
Nope. Surprisingly enough it was Stalin. Could you provide us with a few references which include dates and descriptions of the incidents? Maybe read a book? It's been well-documented in every book I've ever read about the russian revolution. All of those countries would have developed far more quickly had they been Capitalist. Not a chance in hell. Russia went from being the feaudal peasant system to a superpower able to fight off the most powerful army ever assembled inside 20 years. That's some serious economic growth. Compare the growth of the economy of Russia to that of the US. You really do have to try and compare like with like. America has had a completly different history with a whole host of advantages, not least not fighting out two of the most devastating war in history on it's own land. but the workers of China do indeed want capitalist restoration Evidence? Don't assume the growth in slave labour is at the behest of the workers. It could just be at the behest of the people making the profit. Chinese Politburo And those guys certainly proved their communist credentials at tianemen square. Not surprising they put up with sweatshops. Free-marketeers to the last. Then how do you explain the resurgence of free market activity in China, Cuba, Russia, Viet Nam et al the instant the government slackens its grip even a fraction? Backhanders to the ruling elite? Tell that to the Viet Namese. Yes, the vietnamese who tried to gain independence before america bombed them back into the stone age. Clearly democracy and a society based around providing slaves for the western business elite are mutally exclusive. Napalm comes in very handy when little brown people need to be taught that lesson. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic  Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
Russian WWII military casualities, 20,000,000, German WWII military casualties 7,000,000. The Russian really kicked ass didn't they?
Russia's economic performance was dismal under communism. If you want to be realistic about economic comparisons between countries which tend towards communism vs countries which allow more capitalism do some comparisons of people who come from the same cultural background. Take Hong Kong before it was taken back over by the Communist Chinese with mainland Communist China or you can compare East Germany vs. West Germany (East Germany had the most successful economy of the eastern block countries). -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: APE Liquid Culture For Sale Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Memorial Planned For Victims Of Communism (  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all ) |
 lonestar2004 |
6,230 | 132 | 11/18/05 07:09 PM by bukkake |
|
|
marxism. ( 1 2 all ) |
 Anonymous |
3,039 | 37 | 02/04/04 05:53 PM by Tao |
|
|
Communism / socialism ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 overgrower |
5,461 | 58 | 12/18/04 06:04 AM by vampirism |
|
 |
Artificial Desire ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 Sclorch |
3,628 | 48 | 01/08/04 08:56 PM by phreakyzen |
|
 |
Karl Marx was wrong ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all ) |
Sclorch |
8,545 | 122 | 08/17/03 03:43 PM by d33p |
|
|
Karl Marx's Anti-Semitism | lonestar2004 |
1,356 | 10 | 07/28/06 11:40 AM by Vvellum |
|
|
communism vs. socialism vs. the welfare state | Anonymous |
1,486 | 12 | 08/31/03 12:35 AM by Malachi |
|
|
Soviet Union/Downfall of Communism/Actions in the Middle Eas |  TrueBrode |
833 | 10 | 11/07/03 02:43 AM by zeronio |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 16,203 topic views. 4 members, 53 guests and 110 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
