babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » communism, good? or bad?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: communism, good? or bad?
Ruzhyo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2654

posted 12 June 2002 03:55 PM      Profile for Ruzhyo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Communism? When you think of communism you think of the Soviet Union, you think about the economic ruin that was the Soviet Union and later Russia. But could true communism work? Could Marxism work?
From: USA | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 13 June 2002 03:19 AM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
IMHO, the economic problems were a product of:

1) World War II (the USSR suffered some of the worst damage and there was no Marshall plan for communist countries)
2) Subsequent trade sanctions by the industrialized world.
3) A ruinous arms race with the USA.
4) The people ultimately realized they were being lied to and lost faith in the system.
5) Problems with inefficient enterprises.

I think the Soviet experiment was doomed from the start. I don't think you can realistically expect to go straight from a primitive social/political structure to an advanced one like Socialism without some stops in between.

IMHO (still) the great problem with Marx was advocating or at least allowing for the use of violence. History seems to show that societies born of war and violence seem to have a tough time kicking the habit, so to speak. In order to mount a violent revolution, you need to bring in army types (who are almost always authoritarian types). Once you bring them in to the leadership, it's really tough to ask them to leave.

Peaceful revolutions are possible but they require much more patience, thought and self-sacrifice.


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
markhoffchaney
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 817

posted 13 June 2002 04:11 AM      Profile for markhoffchaney     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is there an example of a peaceful revolution in history?
From: winnipeg | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 13 June 2002 05:01 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, maybe not entirely peaceful, no. But there have been many social "revolutions" that did not require an army to depose the present government.

I agree about the Soviets. I don't support their economic structure but I don't think that their particular brand of communism was economically untenable as everyone seems to suggest. In other, less antagonistic, circumstances I doubt the country would have fallen apart. It would have just evolved, as China is doing.

Communism itself I don't think about often. I've never read Marx. Although in principle it sounds great (from the quick rundowns I've heard) we're a long way from such happy utopian visions. It's more important to ensure that people are able to get the governments that they want, so that if they ever want communism they can have it without the bloody conflicts that Marx predicted.

To me it's just as fascist to tell people what can't be private property as it is to tell them what can't be public property. All these -isms seem to reject the notion of people making up their own minds.

I'm not saying it's not a worthwhile topic of discussion, mind. These are just my thoughts on the matter.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 13 June 2002 05:12 AM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
Neither Communism nor Socialism can work.

Communism requires that no individual may own anything exclusively, privately. Not the product of his work (thus his mind), nor any personal material benefit he may achieve as a result of it. All material is centralised and distributed by legislators, the intention being to achieve equal utility (of material) by all. Freedom of expression tends also to be mediated by the state for the same reasons and to maintain the 'integrity' of the collective.
In practice communism fails dismally. The only way it can be achieved is if every single member of a communist society is in absolute agreement with the above arrangement - and that the legislators are not open to corruption in the form of personal acquisition or favour.

In fact Socialism cannot work at all unless it is based upon Capitalism and a freemarket society, how do you take from the wealthy unless there is a wealthy?

How does this group gain wealth without capitalism and a freemarket.

There is no perfect ideology, in fact they only exist on paper.

Democracy itself is not realistic.
There are two major modes of democracy. 1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people. 2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government.
The latter is the type of democracy we have.
It is possible (though unlikely) to achieve the same results as a vicious nazi state through democracy.
The problems with democracy are that a majority can 'vote away' the freedom of a minority.

This is what happens when one person votes for tax raises.

The whim of a majority is no more moral than the whim of a dictator, just less likely to result in an extreme atrocity. The other problem is that it pits one interest group against another. Where the government decides to use one persons' private property to pursue a goal with which he/she does not agree, the two parties oppose. Democracy can rapidly decline to a series of adversarial groups seeking to have the government favour them, at the necessary expense of another. Thus we have young v old, healthy v ill, employed v unemployed, road user v non-road user, county v county, race v race and so forth. where the government serves only as a policeman there can be no such adversarialty.


Hence the Liberal Social Democrat, something that most here are unable to grasp the concept of.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North ]


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ruzhyo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2654

posted 13 June 2002 11:32 AM      Profile for Ruzhyo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree that some of Marxs' ideas are unworkable but many of his general concepts could possibly work such as workers being paid with the fruit of their work, i.e. they get the profits from what they produce. Also you mentioned that in order to have a violent revolution you must bring in army types. But Marx calls for the proletariat(the working class or the lower class) to rise up and overthrow their bourgeois rulers. In this case the majority working class would not need to bring in help.
Also if you have not read Marx. I recomend trying the Communist Manifesto it'll get you thinking.

From: USA | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 13 June 2002 11:33 AM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hence the Liberal Social Democrat, something that most here are unable to grasp the concept of.

The degree of your sincerity in advocating a just and fair society is reflected in the tone of your supercilious posts, 'Nuckles. In fact, one would have to conclude from reading them that you're not really interested in this, or any topic; what your posts really communicate is a desire to prove--quite desperately, it would seem--by a combination of lectures and contemptuous asides, just exactly how much smarter you are than most everyone else. Since that's your intention--alas, ever unfulfilled--then you're obviously better suited to represent one of the more authoritarian political systems.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: bittersweet ]


From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 13 June 2002 12:32 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
More authoritarian than socialism and communism?
You're most right I am not interested in becoming a radical zombie unable to think for myself, or be allowed to think for myself rather.

I can't be King, I'm only a knight.

Saying that, if you cannot even grasp the most incomplex concept of right v. left ... .

As for the Proletariat overthrowing the Bourgeoisie, how this is possible without force I simply cannot see.

The ruling class will not {never has} simply lay down, they like their fine wine, furs, and crystal.

Empowering women will not solve the worlds ills, neither will it solve this so called population problem, there really is no problem of there being too many people, the problem is too much wealth in too few hands.

That said, taking that wealth away is hardly an answer.

Further even mentioning the spectre of population control to solve some set of percieved problems is in itself ethnocentric at best and racist at worst, the West does not have this so called problem. In fact we have the opposite problem,a real percieved problem unlike so called over population.

How else do you control population other than by either killing citisens or preventing them from being born.

As to my obvious superior intellect {thank you for noticing} should I smoke dope, like some advocate, to kill a few brain cells.

Instead of being so very jealous of my gift try to strive to be better yourself. Why should I hide behind folly and succumb to a poverty of intellect?
Why are those of the radical left so afraid of achievers, of those that can fend for themselves?
Why are they so afraid of success?

I cannot help that my IQ is 158 perhaps the more radical Socialist here can find a way to tax this and give it to the less intelligent {sic}.

At least I know the difference between the right and the left.

I wish I could say the same for most of the rest here.

I know that you are angry at my words, and I know why you are angry, it is because I am correct.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North ]

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North ]


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 13 June 2002 12:38 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
http://www.nature.com/nsu/010802/010802-10.html
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 13 June 2002 01:21 PM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hate to break the news like this folks, but the whole basis of socialist politics has its birthplace in Marxism. To not have read and studied Marxism, a totally non-utopian world view, is to miss the boat on understanding what socialism is all about. It is the same thing as reading the National Post and only the National Post to try and glean an understanding of neo-liberalism, globalization and the anti-capitalist fightback. To ignore Marx's writings is to leave an activist disarmed and without an understanding of the class enemy we are facing.

I suggest forgetting (for now) the role of the Soviet Union in 20th Century history, until you have first read some of the Marxist classics.

As a starting point, I suggest reading one relatively short document available on the Net, the Communist Manifesto. It is the program that launched the socialist movement. The other book I'd suggest one read, as it is an easy read that covers so much of what Marx developed is Engel's Anti-Duhring, that you should be able to find in left wing bookstores. Believe me, that after reading this one book, your understanding of the development, nature and ultimate direction of capitalism and socialism will be like looking through a pair of glasses that have had an inch of dirt removed. It is an eye opener that the ruling elite will wish you had never read!

Cheers,
Rene

PS. Edited becauase I found the complete Anti-Duhring on the net ;-)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/index.htm

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: rbil ]


From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 13 June 2002 02:32 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I cannot help that my IQ is 158

That statement demonstrates only that you are unwise.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: bittersweet ]


From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ruzhyo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2654

posted 13 June 2002 02:36 PM      Profile for Ruzhyo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rbil I agree that in order to understand socialist ideas you must read the communist manifesto or another marx book.

SIR, one of the many goals of communism is to spread the population out eliminating(mostly) the difference between rural and urban. When i mentioned the proletariat overthrowin the bourgeois i did not say they wouldnt do it by force i was simply answering a comment about bringing in foreign army types to fight.
Finally, everytime i have seen one of your posts it struck me as if all you were trying to do was pick a fight and if you are superior to everyone else why dont you contribute constructively rather than shooting down others ideas by trying to prove that they are stupid. If the only way that you can express yourself is by slandering everything that is even slightly different than what you believe then i dont believe there is anyone who would be jealous of you. I ask that you please stop disrupting constructive discussions with your ranting and raving about your superiority.


From: USA | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 13 June 2002 02:43 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To not have read and studied Marxism, a totally non-utopian world view, is to miss the boat on understanding what socialism is all about.

Well, missing the boat is okay in my book as I sometimes get seasick.

From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 13 June 2002 03:02 PM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fair enough Clockwork. I remember an old fisherman telling me ...

quote:
If you're so seasick you think you're going to die, you really aren't seasick. It's only when you hope that you'll die that you're truly seasick.

Cheers,
Rene


From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 13 June 2002 03:37 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
The subject of my superiority was not brought up by myself.

So as long as you do not bring outside military force it is perfectly fine?

Force is force, the Proletariat would not have the might to overthrow the Bourgeoisie it never did. At least not bloodlessly.

The point is moot afterall Communism cannot work it never has and it never will.
I can't believe people still think of it as a viable option, fascism is a better political option than communism.
Capitalism has won, like it or not, it won simply on merit.

Deurbaniation is the goal or a goal of Communism?
This is news to Marx I'm sure.

Communist Russia was dominated by militarisation and industrialisation.

The ideal of Communism/Socialism is "from each according to ability, to each according to need.1" In practice, the "need" is always decided by some central government. Other aspects of socialism include common ownership of the means of production, which in practice means ownership by the government.
Communism began to fail, beginning about 1989, partly because of the perpetual shortage of consumer goods. Socialism had proved to be a very poor economic system. It provided no incentive for higher productivity. Thus, the failure of Communism is the refutation of the ideal of socialism.

If I cannot explain it any more plainly I suggest you put down the failed Marx and Engels and read Orwell.

In fact the real major difference between Marx, Engels and other Sociailst ideas is that the former two advocate the use of violence as a means to an end. Marx and Engels believed that violent revolution was all but inevitable; in fact, they thought it was predicted by the scientific laws of history.

Certainly this is not Democracy, are you advocating an anti Democratic violent ideolgy as the new Canada?

Maybe this is why we see skinheads throwing bricks at G8 meetings?
They are emulating their heroes?

Communist regimes around the world have shared numerous things in common; a rejection of private property and capitalism, state domination of economic activity, and absolute control of the government by one party, the communist party. The party's influence in society was pervasive and often repressive. It controlled and censored the mass media, restricted religious worship, and silenced political dissent.

And they all failed fataly.

The ideology's fatal oversights partly have to do in most part to capitalism itself, the economic order communists despise and seek to obliterate. Experience has shown privately owned, market-coordinated economies to be incomparably more robust and dynamic than Marx and his contemporaries dreamt possible.

The most interesting failure of Marx and Engels is that they didn't have any idea what to do after the proletarian revolution on this matter Marx and Engels were almost silent about what would happen after.

What they did say was even more frightening; They made provision for a brief transitional period during which workers would form a socialist society with the means of production owned in common. In this period, the working-class majority of the population would need to enact a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat in order to seize the property of the bourgeois minority.
Afterall how else can you re distribute property if not by forcefully taking away?
This is what you want?
You see this as good and democratic?
Communist regimes have ruled many countries, so it is not surprising that the practice of communism has varied widely among them. The societies in which communists have exercised control have themselves been diverse, although none has been among the advanced industrial countries where Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed the workers' revolution would catch fire. Some communist officials have been revolutionaries, others reformers, and yet others dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. Some leaders, such as Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot, have been mass murderers; others, such as Mikhail Gorbachev, have eschewed force. Their differences notwithstanding, communist states have shared certain features: a Marxist-Leninist ideology, a centrally planned economy, single-party rule, and restrictions on individual freedom.

Modern "communist" parties have stopped advocating violent revolution and single-party rule. In many cases, they operate as part of multiparty liberal democracies and a freemarket society, seeking to achieve success and a share of power through free elections.

In the most technologically sophisticated countries, service industries have displaced manufacturing as the hub of the market economy, meaning that unskilled manual workers, the proletariat in its original guise, are less and less of a factor. Through mass access to credit, stock exchanges, and mutual funds, ownership of economic assets has become more widely dispersed. Perhaps most important, political realities—democracy, the welfare state, policies for prudent monetary management—have shielded capitalism from its own worst excesses.

Until the 1970s, analysts of communist states, and apologists for them, could point to some evidence of economic accomplishment, albeit at grave political and social cost. From then on, however, economic ills beset all the communist governments, necessitating hard choices about reform.

Communism as a coherent, centrally directed international movement is dead. There is no realistic chance that it will be resurrected. There has not been, and presumably there never will be, a proletarian revolution in any of the leading capitalist societies. Communist factions in virtually all of these places have either been reduced to esoteric left-wing sects or have reinvented themselves as reformist socialists content to live by the democratic rules of the game.


1.Louis Auguste Blanqui,

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North ]


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
mikedean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2696

posted 13 June 2002 05:10 PM      Profile for mikedean        Edit/Delete Post
I have read marx before and to me it has always been very different from communism. Marxism has been to me a kind of social commentary, a way to understand the nature of society and the process of modernization and modernism. these are important aspects of marx that are often ignored. its called marxist humanism by some. good books about it are "All that is Solid Melts into Air" and "Adventures in Marxism" both by Marshall Berman.
As far as communism goes it seems to me like it often took a similar form to state run capitalism. Japan has been called the only working communist country.
if you look in history many commie countries that have existed suffered major disadvantages, anyone knows that its not fair to compare USA to Russia look at those two countries at the time, USA hasd major advantages that had little of nothing to do with communism or capitalism. other communist countries have suffered from foreign attack, vietnam and cuba spring to mind.
i personally think there is another way, i have read descriptions of the forms of government that have been set up in Chiapas, Some areas in venezuela and particularly spain during their breif revolution in 1930(?)
they set up systems of democratic neighbourhood councils who elect representatives with limited power to deal with certain issues(its more complex but that is a cursory explanation)
i think this is sometimes called Anarcho-syndicalism. but reagardless it seem like its on something like the right track. although you can never be sure.
any new form of government / social change is in danger of being hijacked by authoritarian undemocratic strains. just like communism and capitalism.

From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 13 June 2002 06:29 PM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sir, you said ...

quote:
Force is force, the Proletariat would not have the might to overthrow the Bourgeoisie it never did. At least not bloodlessly.

This is incorrect. The Bourgeoisie only rules because the Proletariat lets them (for all their stupid and mislead reasons). You see, a society can quite easily function without the Bourgeoisie with the Proletariat in charge, because the Proletariat do not need the Bourgeoisie to create wealth. On the other hand, the Bourgeoisie needs the Proletariat, for without them, the Bourgeoisie is incapable of producing any wealth.

You see, the Bourgeoisie are simple blood suckers, who produce nothing, but simply appropriate the wealth created by exploiting the working class, the creators of all wealth (value) in a society.

Cheers,
Rene


From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rici
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2710

posted 13 June 2002 06:38 PM      Profile for rici     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn

But without our brains and muscle not a single wheel word turn

We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learn

That the union makes us strong


From: Lima, Perú | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 13 June 2002 06:42 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
Then can you explain the Russian Revolution and subsequent civil war? I'm sure someone shed a little blood, even if it was just a drop or three. No?
You know the one between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat, you know the one where the Proletariat cum Bolshevics ends up becoming the "Bourgeoisie".

Only worse.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North ]


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
rici
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2710

posted 13 June 2002 06:51 PM      Profile for rici     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pathetic though it be to enter this debate, I can't restrain myself from pointing out that the Russian Revolution was against the aristocracy, not the bourgeoisie. That's a different form of oppression.
From: Lima, Perú | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 June 2002 06:51 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Uh ... can you describe the Russian bourgeoisie in 1918?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 June 2002 06:53 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, Rici: that question was for Sir.

But since I'm here: how's about a description of, oh, let's say, the Cambodian bourgeoisie prior to the Khmer Rouge?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 13 June 2002 06:54 PM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sir,

I'm sure you know that the Russian Revolution was surprisingly blood free. It was the following "civil war" that caused the main bloodshed. A "civil war" instigated by the western capitalist countries. Canada itself sent troops to fight the socialist government.

So don't go blaming the bloodshed on the communists when indeed it was brought about by the counter revolution that followed.

Of course, I won't bother to get into all the bloodshed that existed prior to the Revolution in the trenchs of Europe in that imperialist war, that the communists succeeded in ending for the Russian people.

Cheers,
Rene


From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rici
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2710

posted 13 June 2002 06:57 PM      Profile for rici     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
how's about a description of, oh, let's say, the Cambodian bourgeoisie prior to the Khmer Rouge?

Alive?


From: Lima, Perú | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 13 June 2002 06:57 PM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rici,

You should have followed your own advice and not entered the discussion. Especially if you are going to prove you have no idea what you're talking about.

Cheers,
Rene


From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rici
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2710

posted 13 June 2002 07:06 PM      Profile for rici     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rene,

I admit that I know nothing about the Cambodian bourgeoisie before the Khmer Rouge.

The situation in Russia was a lot more complex, though -- describing it in terms of proletariat and bourgeoisie is probably no less inaccurate than my offhand description. But it is certainly inaccurate.

However, I loved your rant about the bourgeoisie -- I realised afterwards that quoting Solidarity Forever might have seem patronising, but it was sincere. I just thought it reinforced your message in a melodic way.

Have to go now... do have fun!

R.


From: Lima, Perú | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 June 2002 07:08 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, guys: my only point, a modest and small one, was that Communist regimes have so far taken power mainly in countries that had no commanding bourgeoisie as yet.

What is both historically interesting and practically limiting in the works of Marx and Engels, to me, is that they were pretty clearly, and understandably, thinking of revolutions in the contexts of C19 Germany, maybe England, and maybe, stretching even further, France.

Hard to have that kind of revolution in countries without hegemonic bourgeoisies.

Gee, but I'm sorry that that ref above to Louis Blanqui was truncated. I remember liking him.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 June 2002 07:17 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS: Rici, I think that, given Sir, singing is a great thing to do. Here's my favourite:

I've seen my brothers working
Throughout this mighty land
l prayed we'd get together
And together make a stand

Final Chorus
Then we'd own those banks of marble
With a guard at every door
And we'd share those vaults of silver
That we have sweated for

Gotta get the sisters in there some day.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 13 June 2002 07:42 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This has got to be one of the most moronic discussions of Marxism and Communism ever to grace the hallowed halls of Rabble.
From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 June 2002 07:45 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Boinker, you have hurt my feelings. I never thought that you would do that.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 390

posted 14 June 2002 12:05 AM      Profile for Jake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi Skdadl

quote:
I've seen my brothers working
Throughout this mighty land
l prayed we'd get together
And together make a stand

You could try
Brothers and Sisters are working
Through this mighy land

Great stuff!

Jake


From: the recycling bin | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
peter_J68
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2748

posted 14 June 2002 01:04 AM      Profile for peter_J68   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Communism? Absolute, total, miserable failure. Distorted relationships, established society of informers, totalitarian dictatorship, and unequal distribution of power and wealth. The creation of a wealth elite, the creation of a system of lies and deception. A system where a brutal tyrant like Stalin could kill millions and millions of people. I might add, communism deserved to fail.
From: Calgaru | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 14 June 2002 01:19 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gee Peter sounds a lot like capitalism your describing. And as far as I can tell, there has never been a true communist state, just many posing as ones. And also the US does great work in painting communism as the great evil.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 14 June 2002 05:09 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good point Skdadl. It's important to place Marx in his historical context, which people rarely seem to do but Marx himself certainly would have done.

It's all too easy to look back and pick him apart with the extra one hundred years of perspective that we have. The capitalism of today is not the capitalism that he lived under (although the elites are trying hard to turn back the clock but I don't think the genie is going back in the bottle).

A socialist revolution in this day and age would be a very different thing (or will be, dare I say). If Marx were still writing, his analysis of capitalist society would have evolved with the society itself, and so our analysis has evolved.

His detractors, of course, are content to punch holes in an outmoded theory or, even more foolishly, attack any old dictatorship that marches under the communist banner as if they were attacking the idea itself. Strange that they don't see the logic could be applied (just as unfairly) to capitalism or any-ism.

By the way rbil, when I used the word utopian I didn't mean in the sense of unrealistic. Just that it presupposes a social integrity that doesn't currently exist, and we have to take many steps before we reach that starting point. I should have chosen my words more carefully.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 14 June 2002 08:33 AM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
I really wonder if people {some people} bother to even read what I post of if they just see my nic and make a deragtory remark.

For example: aside from my views based upon historical fact and numerous poli sci classes, I am a History/Poli Sci double major.

"There is no perfect ideology, in fact they only exist on paper".

"Democracy itself is not realistic".


Any political ideology when presented upon paper as an idea can look great, the proof so to speak is in the pudding, the details of reality when said concepts are put into use, they are all open to abuse, and as history has seen the best models are those that take what is good and throws away what is bad.

Those people that rail at Capitalism, I simply laugh at, these are the same people that got into a testoterone {yes women have it too} contest in another forum about their HD's sizes and processor speeds.

As I pointed out Socialism even ideolgic pure socialism cannot function or even exist without the evil capitalism, even Marx today would have to surrender to capitalism in some form.

While we're on the subject of capitalism I love my Intel P4{b} 2.53 gig @ 533mhz FSB w/. 1.5 gig of PC 1066rambus, you have to love capitalism.

Without a freemarket and competition in the computer indusrty we'd still be using slide rules, if you want to see what a company becomes without capitalistic competition look at Apple, they haven't had any inovation there in some 8 years.

Blaming capitalism for the civil war in Russia is ludicrous, fact is the proletariat or cum Bolshevik simply wanted what the bourgeoisie
had, they wanted to be the bourgeoisie.
They had no higher ideals or ambition other than they wanted more, simple, they didn't redistribute land and wealth they kept it for themselves. They were nothing more than muderous greedy people whom ursurped Marx to their own ends.

I find it interesting that some claim we cannot deconstruct from history what happened to communism, how one can come to this deluded conclusion is beyond belief, they have no problem blaming historic capitalism say for the civil war in Russia, but to blame Marxism well...

The word hypocrite comes to mind.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North ]


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 June 2002 11:06 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hope you weren't calling me a hypocrite, SCOTN. I was the one who started that thread as a joke because I was excited about my new computer. As for the testosterone contest, I actually started that as a joke too, because I've always made fun of (mostly) guys who sit around and brag about their computers, and this is the first time I've had a computer that can "compete". I was mainly trolling for DrC whom I KNEW I could suck into it. That's why I called it a "penis extension" - that would be the first clue that I was being silly. Considering that this will be my computer long after it's obsolete (I don't throw away my computer every year and buy the latest slight upgrade), and I bought it used, I don't think it's overly consumerist of me to buy this.

In fact, most of the people who posted in that thread and participated in the "testosterone contest" (I think just me, DrConway and Slick) are not people who advocate communism anyhow. I think most of us are just after a mixed economy system - capitalism with a big dose of social programs and laws that regulate capitalism so that everyone can compete and there are either no monopolies or oligopolies, or so that natural monopolies cannot be used to set unreasonably high prices for the benefit of one small group of people.

Is that really so awful?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 14 June 2002 11:36 AM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Awful just awful, and as my IQ tests came out in a similar range to SCOTN you can take that as gospel.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 June 2002 11:42 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Awww...I've never taken an IQ test, so I guess I can't join the club. Sigh.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 14 June 2002 11:44 AM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
http://test.thespark.com/untest/

http://test3.thespark.com/iq2/


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mikedean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2696

posted 14 June 2002 12:20 PM      Profile for mikedean        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
While we're on the subject of capitalism I love my Intel P4{b} 2.53 gig @ 533mhz FSB w/. 1.5 gig of PC 1066rambus, you have to love capitalism.

Without a freemarket and competition in the computer indusrty we'd still be using slide rules, if you want to see what a company becomes without capitalistic competition look at Apple, they haven't had any inovation there in some 8 years.


Canuck,
shurely with you credentials you must know that for many many years computers were developed only through publicly funded military reaserch. early computer were virtually useless and would never have existed in a free market. it was only when they created uses for computer which were saleable that computers entered the privatse market. this is a pattern through capitalism. around nineteen thirty everyone realized that capitalism (as in freemarket, laizes faire) was dying so the governmet got involved and funded all sorts of reaserch for high tech and other things.
look at airplanes. only became profitable after exptensive government funding. same as atomic energy, computers, satellites all sorts of things would never exist without state funding. Look at the ancheint chinese, they had extensive technological development all government run. same as greece, egypt and many other civilizations.
I think this is the crux of the argument. the most important aspect of a society is who makes descisions about what is made and how.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 14 June 2002 12:26 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Apple isn't innovative?!
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 14 June 2002 12:34 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks VMB I found out I was 46% unintelligent.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 14 June 2002 12:40 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
aside from my views based upon historical fact and numerous poli sci classes, I am a History/Poli Sci double major.

Clearly you also dabbled in Economics, given your preoccupation with inflation.


From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 14 June 2002 12:41 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think the Soviet experiment was doomed from the start. I don't think you can realistically expect to go straight from a primitive social/political structure to an advanced one like Socialism without some stops in between.
The problem with the Socialist Soviet was that it DIDN'T change from an agrarian (I dislike the use of the word 'primitive') collectivist structure with an autocratic, paternalistic government. Very little changed from the perspective of the average Russian. The most significantly effected were the aristocracy (a tiny percentage of the populace) and those citizens of other states who were swallowed up by the Soviet hegemony in eastern Europe and Asia.

quote:
Hence the Liberal Social Democrat, something that most here are unable to grasp the concept of
What we really can't grasp the concept of is how right-wing Libertarian narcissists can call themselves liberal social democrats without being deafened by the roar of laughter such a claim elicits.

From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 14 June 2002 12:47 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
No Apple isn't innovative, they are using the g4 and g3 architechture that is almost ten years old.

Apple wouldn't exist today had microsoft not made an infusion of cash in the early 90's.

Those website IQ tests are not valid, an IQ test must be administered in person by a professional either a psychologist or an educational professional trained to administer all aspects of the tests.

I was calling those hypocritical whom blame capitalism for XYZ in history yet yell at me for deconstructing communism.
The first computer was the abbacus, this was not designed by big government.
Pascal invented a calulator in the 1600's he was a private citisen.
Charles Babbage invented the first modern computer he was a college professor.
Herman Hollerith a census worker invented a computer to speed up the counting, based on punch cards, he founded Tabulating Machine Company in 1896, later to become International Business Machines (IBM) in 1924 after a series of mergers. Other companies such as Remington Rand and Burroghs also manufactured punch readers for business use. Both business and government used punch cards for data processing until the 1960's.

As you can see private business and free enterprise led to the computer, not big government.

Government exploited the private freemarket for themselves. Mostly to use them for killing people by making trajectory calculations more speedy.


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 14 June 2002 12:48 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The website I.Q's might not be valid but they are fun.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 14 June 2002 12:49 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Those website IQ tests are not valid, an IQ test must be administered in person by a professional either a psychologist or an educational professional trained to administer all aspects of the tests.

You're a humourless coot, ya know that. thespark.com is hardly a serious site.


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mick
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2753

posted 14 June 2002 12:51 PM      Profile for Mick        Edit/Delete Post
First off, I think communism is good. I think authoritarian communism is bad, just like I think all forms of authoritarianism are. I advocate Libertarian Communism, also known as Anarchist-Communism.

I've read the communist manifesto, but to be quite honest I've gotten a lot more out of other books and magazines. To treat the manifestio or Das Kapital as some sort of bible that you "have" to read is creepy. They're just books, ones worth reading, but still only two books out of all the millions of books in the world. I could give a book list of my own, but this is the internet so here's some links:

http://www.struggle.ws/libcom.html
http://flag.blackened.net/nefac/theory.html

And since the Russian revolution was brought up, here's another viewpoint:

http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/russia.html


Information on the Spanish Revolution (the most famous libertarian communist revolution in history):

http://www.struggle.ws/spaindx.html

And finally some libertarian communist groups active today:

North Eastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists (USA & Canada) http://flag.blackened.net/nefac/

Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland)
http://www.struggle.ws/wsm.html

Anarchist Federation (UK) http://burn.ucsd.edu/~acf/

International Libertarian Solidairty (network)
http://www.ils-sil.org/eng.htm


From: Parkdale! | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 983

posted 14 June 2002 12:52 PM      Profile for dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I scored 55% on the untelligence test... and was chastised at the end for being too peaceful.
From: pleasant, unemotional conversation aids digestion | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 14 June 2002 01:00 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
I took the test for fun I scored 78% they said the following about me:

"The subject shows an astounding level of intelligence, and his sense of observation is one of his best qualitiies".

"Also, as much as we hate violence, an occasional mauling is one way to solve day-to-day problems like unpleasant coworkers or pesky door-to-door salesmen; he just isn't tough enough, sir, and he avoids any solution that involves violence.

{it appears I lost significant points for being a pacifist}

"Finally, the subject displayed a poor (and a little bit boring) sense of humor, a godlike (and annoying) sense of morality, and a barbaric self-confidence".

Apparently I am indeed a "humourless coot".

I could have read my horroscope and got that. Another thing I forgot to mention about proper IQ tests, they are time limited.

As to ecomomics, I have never taken a course in that subject area.
I have taken statistics courses as a part of my science minor in biology.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North ]


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
mikedean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2696

posted 14 June 2002 01:05 PM      Profile for mikedean        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Information on the Spanish Revolution (the most famous libertarian communist revolution in history):

correct me if im wrong but i was under the imression that it was mostly the communist elements of the spanish revolution who caused it to end, and that they were often quite counterrevolutionary in that particular instance.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 14 June 2002 01:05 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did ya cheat?
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
beproud2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2040

posted 14 June 2002 01:38 PM      Profile for beproud2        Edit/Delete Post
Sir Canuck or whatever... you make me roar!! I have never heard the likes of you in a long time! Who are you trying to convince us or yourself?

I would love to meet you in person I have a very nice little picture of you in my head. your one of those guys that are so self confident but people can't understand why!! But hey I maybe wrong on this!!

I wonder who you are trying to convince about your smartness and your intelligence? Someone else may have brought it up but lets just say your not very humble.

People of your sort bother me to no end!! "" I have an IQ of blah blah".. Really and what is your point?

Whenever you talk to a very smart person you can tell they are smart because of the way they talk. They have a way of speaking about things that no matter who they talk to they are not talking down to them but convey thier idea's in a very appropriate manner.

Then you can tell the people that maybe reasonably intelligent but like to think they are brilliant. They are usually the ones talking about thier IQ score or things along this line.

The smart ones are open to others idea's and usually don't feel threatned by what someone else has to say. You could say when you are talking to a really smart chap they have a funny kinda "subltle confidence" about them!

Which of these catergories do you fall in Sir Canuck?


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mick
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2753

posted 14 June 2002 01:49 PM      Profile for Mick        Edit/Delete Post
mikedean: click on the link.

The Communist Party were counter-revolutionary, but the millions of libertarian communists (AKA Anarchists) and even other communist groups like the POUM most certinly were not.

PS: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North, you do know George Orwell fought on the communist (note the small c) side of the spanish revolution, with the POUM don't you?


From: Parkdale! | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 14 June 2002 01:58 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As to ecomomics [sic], I have never taken a course in that subject area.
How about ballooning, then?
quote:
I have taken statistics courses as a part of my science minor in biology
All right smart guy, suppose you tell me what's the probability of a duck?

From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 14 June 2002 02:06 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
Ballooning?

Mallard or Wood?

I see we are still hung up on typos, the last resort of the losing side.

As to not being open to ideas.

I am open to realistic ideas, {communism is not realistic}.

Now according to your own hypothesis I am unintelligent due to this fact.

So what does that make you whom are not open to the ideas {mine} of a free market economy based upon capitalism and democracy?

By your own words this makes you somewhat less intelligent and it also makes you a hypocrite.

Must be my "godlike" morals that keeps me on the right or rather left path.

I could understand your criticisms and even possibly accept some of them if you were not such a hypocrite.

I simply ignore people whom are.

You mean the same POUM that as accused of being a fascist organisation secretly helping Franco?

The events in Spain enforced his beliefs that Socialism could never succeed.Especialy after he witnessed the street fighting between rival Socialist gangs during the war. Orwell was as much an anarchist {like} as anything else, he spoke or rather wrote about radicalism and how it was inherently flawed.
He criticised the doctrinaire socialists, who precisely because of their theories, had forgotten that socialism first and foremost is about liberty and justice and democracy.

Say not unlike I do of most people here.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North ]


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 14 June 2002 02:39 PM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Without a freemarket and competition in the computer indusrty we'd still be using slide rules, if you want to see what a company becomes without capitalistic competition look at Apple, they haven't had any inovation there in some 8 years.

Hilarious.

The fact that the "free" market chose Wintel over Apple shows just how stupid Capitalism can be. Not only was Apple OS overwhelmingly superior to Bill's DOS but the Motorola hardware architecture was also markedly superior to Intel machines with their stupid split memory architectures (who remembers the 640K barrier).

But never mind any quibbling details like which product was really any good. Between IBM's market muscle, Billy's shady dealings, Apples refusal to license technology, and an uneducated purchasing public, (and a plethora of other market factors) a grossly inferior product was accepted as the standard.

Eventually, some tens of billions of dollars and countless lost hours of productivity later, Microsoft manages to produce Win 95, the first moderately stable Wintel machine.

This is a textbook case of how the "free" market makes monumentally stupid decisions.

The Computer industry is jammed to the rafters with stories of companies with great technology not surviving and eventually being bought by competitors with great marketing.


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 14 June 2002 02:40 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mallard or Wood?
Odd.

From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 14 June 2002 02:49 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
You see the difference between you and me is I use facts when speaking about the topic of computers you use opinion.

OS's in point, that is your opinion, the only people that claim mac OS's et al are better than any other {you forgot the free enterprise and free market development of Beos, linux etc} are Maccadicts.

Even they realise these days they are biased.

Freemarkets may make mistakes no one denies that.
At least they are allowed to make mistakes.
And then learn from them.

Seeing as how you like textbook examples, this is the textbook example as to why communism/socialism fail.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North ]


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 14 June 2002 08:50 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You see the difference between you and me is I use facts
Then how come you still haven't figured out the answer to that trick duck question? You saying uncle?

From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 14 June 2002 09:36 PM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
SCOTN:
quote:
You see the difference between you and me is I use facts when speaking about the topic of computers you use opinion.

Following this SCOTN goes on to express a bunch of opinions with 0 facts.

Knuckles, are you sure you didn't forget a decimal point when you quoted your IQ?


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
frandroid_atreides
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2569

posted 14 June 2002 11:12 PM      Profile for frandroid_atreides   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
markhoff: Is there an example of a peaceful revolution in history?

People in Québec like to call the societal changes that happened there in the 60's "La Révolution tranquille"

quote:
Jacob two-two: To me it's just as fascist to tell people what can't be private property as it is to tell them what can't be public property. All these -isms seem to reject the notion of people making up their own minds.

Living in society implies that we have to submit to constraints so that we can maintain some sort of order. If you have 90% of society that believes in fair distribution of wealth, and then you have 10% that think they should have it all for themselves, do you think it is fascist of the 90% to impose their will on the 10%, instead of letting them "make their own minds?" That is what socialism is about. Today we have an anarchistic international capitalist system that creates chaos. Anarchists, socialists and communists, ironically, seek order.

quote:
Sir Canuck: In fact Socialism cannot work at all unless it is based upon Capitalism and a freemarket society, how do you take from the wealthy unless there is a wealthy?

The rich do not create wealth, they merely appropriate it. The wealth is inherent to the society. You take that wealth and make a socialist society.

quote:
Democracy itself is not realistic.

"Democracy: the worst system except for all others." Was that Churchill? (Wait, I've caught Jean Chrétien's virus...)

quote:
As for the Proletariat overthrowing the Bourgeoisie, how this is possible without force I simply cannot see.

The Communist regime in Eastern Europe was reversed without much bloodshed. While one could say that the Bourgeoisie did support that revolution, I will argue that the general population that rid itself of its dictators. Of course THEN they forgot to meaningfully take power, effectively leaving it between the hands of regional robber barons.

quote:
Empowering women will not solve the worlds ills

It will certainly help women solve their own ills...

quote:
I cannot help that my IQ is 158 perhaps the more radical Socialist here can find a way to tax this and give it to the less intelligent

If we had a socialist society, we'd make sure to shut you up so that you don't waste our time on this BBS regurgitating polisci 101 course matter from a mediocre university, and rather put your intellect to better use...

quote:
At least I know the difference between the right and the left.

Who cares?

quote:
rbil: To not have read and studied Marxism, a totally non-utopian world view, is to miss the boat on understanding what socialism is all about.

I have only read the Communist Manifesto once, while coming off an acid trip, and while it made of lot of sense, I had already learned most of its philosophical leanings through reading other people's works, none of them specifically marxist (a lot of anarchist stuff...) In particular, Chomsky is pretty good at Marxism without mentioning Marx too often So I just want to say that this knowledge can be absorbed without specifically setting out to study Marxism!

quote:
Ruzhyo: SIR, one of the many goals of communism is to spread the population out eliminating(mostly) the difference between rural and urban.

Why?! It seems to me that this would eliminate the advantages of both while retaining a lot of the problems. It would be like... Suburbia!
Please explain this concept a bit more.

quote:
Sir Canuck: The subject of my superiority was not brought up by myself.

You did, however, lap it up like a thirsty dog. You seem pretty taken by yourself. I challenge you to write on this board for a week without using the word "I"!

quote:
Experience has shown privately owned, market-coordinated economies to be incomparably more robust and dynamic than Marx and his contemporaries dreamt possible.

I would object to that. Unfettered capitalism lead to the Great Depression, and capitalism almost died then. It is only through the use of "socialist" laws (in a rather meek interpretation of the term) and regulations to frame corporations that capitalism managed to survive the growing unrest of the late 30s. It is not the market that has coordinated the robustness of the economies, but rather the governments that have implemented laws to protect the citizenry and investors alike. In particular, it is during the 50s and 60s, when North American governments were redistributing wealth the most fairly in their existence, that our economies have experienced the longest period of unbroken growth in history.

quote:
The most interesting failure of Marx and Engels is that they didn't have any idea what to do after the proletarian revolution on this matter Marx and Engels were almost silent about what would happen after.

That I agree with, which is why I oppose sudden revolution. Since we don't know what the hell a utopian society would be like, we have to proceed one step at a time. Just like biotech...

I think that most people on this board will agree with you that communist dictatorships are a bad thing. As does 97.4325167% of the population of the world... Thanks for stating the obvious. Now for the REAL topic of this thread, as stated by Ruzhyo: Could true communism work?

quote:
In the most technologically sophisticated countries, service industries have displaced manufacturing as the hub of the market economy, meaning that unskilled manual workers, the proletariat in its original guise, are less and less of a factor.

Well, I don't know about that. A big proportion of the biggest companies in the world still produce goods. The difference is that they have displaced their manufacturing, like you say, to South East Asia and the like. Within the service industries, there are a lot of underpaid workers that would consider themselves part of the proletariat. Maybe a richer proletariat than 100 years ago, but still underlings of a society that exploits them and treats them unjustly.

quote:
Through mass access to credit, stock exchanges, and mutual funds, ownership of economic assets has become more widely dispersed

Yes. However, despite that, there are countless reports that show that the rich keep getting richer, that the poor are getting poorer, that the proportion of "rich" people compared to the rest of society diminishes, and that the ranks of the poor keep growing.

Like, I've put money in mutual funds! Am I part of the owning class? Hardly so. And I still haven't made a frickin' cent of capital gain...

quote:
Perhaps most important, political realities—democracy, the welfare state, policies for prudent monetary management—have shielded capitalism from its own worst excesses.

True communism wouldn't seek to protect capitalism from its worst excesses; it would seek to protect society from all of these excesses.

quote:
Until the 1970s, analysts of communist states, and apologists for them, could point to some evidence of economic accomplishment, albeit at grave political and social cost.

And you think that the economic prowess of the West has not come at a grave cost? Have you looked at Latin America, under the thumb of United States? Africa? South East Asia today, and many places in Eastern Europe? Our wealth rests upon the work and lives of countless millions of people that we have colonized across the world, after destroying their traditional ways of living, and exploiting them without mercy. Capitalism is responsible for most of hunger in the world today. Capitalism has destroyed the agricultural markets across the world and we are facing a terrible tragedy that we ignore day in and day out. Actually we do more than ignore it, we actually support the regimes that have furthered the aims of capitalism in the Third World, we support this hunger! CAPITALISM FAILS!!


quote:
As I pointed out Socialism even ideolgic pure socialism cannot function or even exist without the evil capitalism, even Marx today would have to surrender to capitalism in some form.

While we're on the subject of capitalism I love my Intel P4{b} 2.53 gig @ 533mhz FSB w/. 1.5 gig of PC 1066rambus, you have to love capitalism.

Without a freemarket and competition in the computer indusrty we'd still be using slide rules, if you want to see what a company becomes without capitalistic competition look at Apple, they haven't had any inovation there in some 8 years.


Without capitalism, we would also not have the atomic bomb. FAILED AGAIN!!

This alone destroys any and all advantages of capitalism, and will destroy us all. (A year ago, somebody would probably have replied to this last comment and bitched about how I lived in the past...)

People seem to think that without capitalism, there would be no trade, no markets, and no technological progress. This is naive at the very least. The Chinese civilization has had all three, mostly trading with India. The Arab civilization, up to the 15th century, was very enlightened, much more than European society. Arabs were profient traders that also supported many centers of learning and culture. It is the Arabs that have unearthed the old Greek texts on which the European Renaissance and rise amongst civilizations was based upon. We're still not talking about capitalism, and that's only 4 centuries ago.

But if you want to get to capitalistic times, I think that the USSR itself serves as an example of non-capitalistic technological progress. The communists have taken what was a rural, agricultural society, and brought it to the level of world superpower. If you know your history right, Mr. Double-Major, you know that it is the Communists that have made the biggest efforts and sacrifices to fight off the capitalist, fascist Nazi enemy. A communist was in space before the Americans. How fucking cool is that? They did all that without a market economy.

quote:
Communism as a coherent, centrally directed international movement is dead. There is no realistic chance that it will be resurrected. There has not been, and presumably there never will be, a proletarian revolution in any of the leading capitalist societies.

Cuba before the Revolution was as communist as John D. Rockerfeller...

quote:
Communist factions in virtually all of these places have either been reduced to esoteric left-wing sects or have reinvented themselves as reformist socialists content to live by the democratic rules of the game.

Yes, the first wave of communism is dead. It died from its own defects and under intense pressure from capitalism. However, we have seen that we can indeed live without a market economy and still manage to achieve great things. Now we must learn from these lessons and come up with a better communism. Preferably one version with an anarcho- prefix.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: frandroid_atreides ]


From: Toronto, Arrakis | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 15 June 2002 12:04 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I really wonder if people {some people} bother to even read what I post of if they just see my nic and make a deragtory remark.

Um yeah, thats pretty much it. Time is short, and your posts generally aren't. Further, anyone who comes onto a board like this and makes a point of a high IQ doesn't have the social awareness God gave a tree stump. I'll bet a donut that within your IQ testing, there's at least a 20 point spread between verbal and performance sub-scores with verbal on top. Just a guess, but you fit the profile.

Anyhoo, that dispensed with, I must admit that I havn't read Marx in like 25 years, but I'll risk an observation or two anyway. How I see him, is that he was one of the great social observers of the later 19th century, certainly one of the founding pantheon of the study of sociology. He had some extaordinarily useful insights on social structure and function generally, and the problems emanating from the industrial revolution in particular.

What he really lacked was IMHO was the input of the sciences of social psychology and anthropology. He didn't consider that humans may stratiate themselves naturally into a hierarchy. He discussed a bit what he referred to as primitive communism, but I feel really missed what a rich area of observation this could provide. He also failed to appreciate the strength of nationalism. No way German and Polish workers are going to arise and join hands in a spirit of socialist fraternalism. They'd rather cut each others throats under the leadership of their respective feudal masters.

Interestingly, it's commerce that has brought the European nationalities together rather than the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie. But didn't Marx see such intervening steps as necessary and maybe we were just trying to rush him.

Communism has never really been tried anyway. Wherever it's been started it was strangled at birth by those pursuing their own interests. A wise woman once observed that Marx was a brilliant anylist, but a lousy therapist.

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: oldgoat ]


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Terry Johnson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1006

posted 15 June 2002 12:39 AM      Profile for Terry Johnson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Interestingly, it's commerce that has brought the European nationalities together rather than the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

Just as Marx predicted it would in 1848 in the Manifesto:

"The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature."

Marx, BTW, thought this aspect of capitalism was a good thing.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 15 June 2002 12:48 AM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There ya go. I've always thought goats had relatively high IQ's compared to your average bear. You have my vote, Old One.
From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 15 June 2002 01:32 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well thank you. Actually, mine's 159, but don't tell anyone, OK?
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 15 June 2002 05:53 AM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
Nuclear weapons are the result of what?

Germany was working on them far before the Americans even thought up the idea.

Nuclear weapons will not destroy us, radical unreasoned polarised non centrist thinking has that ability though.

"We will bury you", comes to mind.

Didn't the Soviet Union build them?
North Korea?
China?
France?
I suppose you will blame guns, bullets tanks, fighter planes and standing armies on capitalism too?

"If you have 90% of society that believes in fair distribution of wealth, and then you have 10% that think they should have it all for themselves, do you think it is fascist of the 90% to impose their will on the 10%, instead of letting them "make their own minds?" That is what socialism is about".

No that is what pure democracy is all about, it is well known that pure democracy is in fact fascist, so cudos to the person that realised this fact.

"You did, however, lap it up like a thirsty dog. You seem pretty taken by yourself. I challenge you to write on this board for a week without using the word "I"!

You then go on to use said word some eleven times.

"People seem to think that without capitalism, there would be no trade, no markets, and no technological progress. This is naive at the very least. The Chinese civilization has had all three, mostly trading with India. The Arab civilization, up to the 15th century, was very enlightened, much more than European society. Arabs were profient traders that also supported many centers of learning and culture".


Now just what do you think trade is, mercantalism, merchants created trade for wealth.
It is the accumulation of wealth.
Markets are capitalism.
Islam was the epitome of mercantalism during the 7th century.
The medieval Europeans essentially learned mercantilism from their Islamic neighbours, evidenced in large part by the number of economic terms in European languages that are derived from Arabic, such as tariff and traffic.

I have written a paper on this very subject.

The only true non capitalist socities that existed upon Earth were primitive and tribal.

The computer you use is proof that you are a consumer {built by "slave labour" in SE Asia somewhere} and thus an evil capitalist.

Wealth is not intrinsic in society it is created by members of a society through trade and services and yes exploitation.

A question, what do you call taking the eggs from the chickens in order to redistribute them.

The chickens are exploited for their abilty to lay eggs.

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North ]


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 15 June 2002 02:29 PM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sir wrote ...

quote:
Now just what do you think trade is, mercantalism, merchants created trade for wealth.
It is the accumulation of wealth.
Markets are capitalism.
Islam was the epitome of mercantalism during the 7th century.
The medieval Europeans essentially learned mercantilism from their Islamic neighbours, evidenced in large part by the number of economic terms in European languages that are derived from Arabic, such as tariff and traffic.

I have written a paper on this very subject.


"Markets" are not capitalism. Markets existed way prior to the rise of the capitalist system, which is a relatively new (and passing) economic system in the history of humankind.

And btw, all your postings sound like they've been copied and pasted from some university text books. Text books which exhalt the "market economy" and I'm sure don't cover the true nature of the exploitive system known as capitalism.

BTW, just wondering when you received your knighthood or is it a wishful title you dreamed up yourself?

Cheers,
Rene


From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 15 June 2002 10:18 PM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
BTW, just wondering when you received your knighthood or is it a wishful title you dreamed up yourself?

Apparently such titles are available to anyone who's weak-chinned inbred and arrogant.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 15 June 2002 11:22 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
To: audra estrones

"Apparently such titles are available to anyone who's weak-chinned inbred and arrogant".

Baiting?

"If we had a socialist society, we'd make sure to shut you up {...}"

This is just sad and a little frightening, the fact that no one commented or censored this is extremely so.

Markets are capitalism, you can pretend that they are not all you want, the concept of a market is to exchanged goods and services for profit, markets did not exist until there was a surplus, this surplus was sold or traded for profit, markets do not give product or services away.

In fact capitalism started far before when you claim thousands of years ago {1 500- 1 200 BC} shells, Cowrie shells, were used as money, what is money and it's use but evidence of capitalism.

Around 500 AD or so China invented paper money to support capitalism, metal coins had been used since at least 1000 bc.

Let's try to use facts in our arguments please.

I know that the reason most here are so hostile to my posts is for the simple fact that
I am correct, the facts are that you cannot discredit what I say in any other way than by making slanderous remarks in an attempt to "bait" {audra estrones} me.

It gives me great satisfaction knowing that this is all you have for an argument, it saddens me that this is all those that supposedly call themselves the left have as an argument.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North ]


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 16 June 2002 12:10 AM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
As I have been saying all along Marx did indeed support capitalism and a freemarket society, albiet regulated.

In fact with these words:

"In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature."


He proposed and predicted the founding of such world government regulatory bodies like GATT, IMF the G8 and others as a natural procession towards his utopia.

Why would you want to stop this?

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North ]


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 16 June 2002 01:36 AM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of hypocrisy.
Perhaps you missed this so I will re post:

To: audra estrones

"Apparently such titles are available to anyone who's weak-chinned inbred and arrogant".
Baiting?

"If we had a socialist society, we'd make sure to shut you up {...}"

This is just sad and a little frightening, the fact that no one commented or censored this is extremely so.


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
frandroid_atreides
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2569

posted 16 June 2002 05:26 AM      Profile for frandroid_atreides   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nuclear weapons are the result of what?
Germany was working on them far before the Americans even thought up the idea.

The research that lead to, and the production of nuclear weapons originally came from two capitalist states in order to further their world-control goals. The rest then followed suit in order to not be on the losing end of a power shift. I'm not saying that Communist Russia would never have come up with the atom bomb on its own, but rather that the historical conditions that have fostered nuclear proliferation are due to capitalism.

quote:
I suppose you will blame guns, bullets tanks, fighter planes and standing armies on capitalism too?

I'll certainly blame the current speed in development of tools of warfare on the pressure exerted by capitalism on it...

quote:
"If you have 90% of society that believes in fair distribution of wealth, and then you have 10% that think they should have it all for themselves, do you think it is fascist of the 90% to impose their will on the 10%, instead of letting them "make their own minds?" That is what socialism is about".

No that is what pure democracy is all about, it is well known that pure democracy is in fact fascist, so cudos to the person that realised this fact.


I think that there's semantic abuse in calling democracy fascism, or "dictatorship of the majority". I mean, the essence of fascism and dictatorship is absolute control in very few hands. You can argue that "pure" democracy would give absolute control to the majority. So first we lose the "very few hands" aspect of dictatorship. Secondly, in a "pure" democracy, new majorities would be constituted every time there would be a major decision to be taken. Thus, the "majority" is a fluid group that changes from time to time. I think this also runs counter to what dictatorship is about.

quote:
"You did, however, lap it up like a thirsty dog. You seem pretty taken by yourself. I challenge you to write on this board for a week without using the word "I"!

You then go on to use said word some eleven times.


I, contrary to you, don't try to impress people with the studies I am undertaking, the triple digits in my IQ or any other personal characteristic that has nothing to do with the argument that I push forth. I put arguments forward and make sure that these stand solidly on their own. I don't have problems with the use of the word "I" in particular; my challenge was to your professed self-importance.

quote:
Now just what do you think trade is, mercantalism, merchants created trade for wealth.
It is the accumulation of wealth.
Markets are capitalism.
Islam was the epitome of mercantalism during the 7th century.
The medieval Europeans essentially learned mercantilism from their Islamic neighbours, evidenced in large part by the number of economic terms in European languages that are derived from Arabic, such as tariff and traffic.

I have written a paper on this very subject.

The only true non capitalist socities that existed upon Earth were primitive and tribal.


Once again, you repeat the "all trade is capitalist" simplification. As an economic system, capitalism can be singled out from mercantlism and other systems from the proeminence of its corporations, which are entities semi-independent from individuals. Capitalism can also be recognized by its reliance on markets, rather than governments, to regulate itself. While markets and corporations predate capitalism, it is their importance that make the system what it is today.

That's just the first half of it... Capitalism isn't only an economic system. Capitalism is also a philosophical system that reduces every single thing on Earth to a dollar value, fluctuating constantly on the marketplace, making the most efforts to eliminate any other kind of values we might want to assign to Elements of Life.

So to get back to your original argument regarding this, you were saying that pure socialism cannot function nor exist without capitalism. I am at the point where I will argue that socialism would work without capitalist philosophy, working not to make a profit, but to promote the advancement of human beings and society as a whole. Secondly, I will argue that socialism would be able to operate without the unaccountable and privately-owned corporations that we have today. Philosophically, the aims would be very different, so different that it would not be capitalism.

quote:
The computer you use is proof that you are a consumer {built by "slave labour" in SE Asia somewhere} and thus an evil capitalist.

The computer is a proof that I live in a capitalistic society. Big news! It's not like any of us has much of a choice.

quote:
Wealth is not intrinsic in society it is created by members of a society through trade and services and yes exploitation.

I agree that wealth is not intrinsic to society. Trade, services and exploitation are the expression of the one feature of society that enables its wealth: organisation. Socialism and communism are two organizational systems that can also unleash this wealth from society, while doing without capitalism. Trade is inherently part of it, as long as resources are limited. That doesn't make socialism capitalist though.

quote:
A question, what do you call taking the eggs from the chickens in order to redistribute them.

The chickens are exploited for their abilty to lay eggs.


I'm vegan. Of course I call taking the eggs exploitation, since these chickens do not lay eggs out of informed consent.

quote:
"If we had a socialist society, we'd make sure to shut you up {...}"

This is just sad and a little frightening, the fact that no one commented or censored this is extremely so.


I was making a silly proposition to counter the silliness of your own silly "socialists tax IQ" comment. It was not meant as a personal insult, and actually was giving validity to the worth of your admitted IQ level, a gift I would not normally make in such an argument.

quote:
I know that the reason most here are so hostile to my posts is for the simple fact that
I am correct

If we knew you were correct, why would we waste our time debating on things we all agreed upon? You will have to recognize that we genuinely disagree with your beliefs.

quote:
It gives me great satisfaction knowing that this is all you have for an argument, it saddens me that this is all those that supposedly call themselves the left have as an argument.

Don't quit yet, I am not done arguing with you.

quote:
He proposed and predicted the founding of such world government regulatory bodies like GATT, IMF the G8 and others as a natural procession towards his utopia.

Why would you want to stop this?


I personally am not "anti-globalization." I am, however, against globalization that increases the gap between the rich and the poor around the world. John Kenneth Galbraith, in his book "The Humane Society", makes a very good case for a kind of globalization that would be fair for all, and all that even within capitalism. Read him up, he is very articulate and you might identify yourself more with such a liberal thinker than with us "communists"...


From: Toronto, Arrakis | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
frandroid_atreides
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2569

posted 16 June 2002 05:30 AM      Profile for frandroid_atreides   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is just sad and a little frightening, the fact that no one commented or censored this is extremely so.

Well, you commented and I replied to your comment. As for censorship, I actually think that Audra is trigger-happy. I'm sure that you've got thick skin and that you can overcome the emotional turmoil created in your mind at the mention of somebody suggesting that you shut up...


From: Toronto, Arrakis | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 16 June 2002 09:21 AM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would call Audra, Trigger Patience.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 June 2002 12:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A question, what do you call taking the eggs from the chickens in order to redistribute them.

The chickens are exploited for their abilty to lay eggs.


That's why some babblers are vegans, SCOTN...


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 16 June 2002 12:52 PM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
frandroid ... your reply when quoting me:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rbil: To not have read and studied Marxism, a totally non-utopian world view, is to miss the boat on understanding what socialism is all about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have only read the Communist Manifesto once, while coming off an acid trip, and while it made of lot of sense, I had already learned most of its philosophical leanings through reading other people's works, none of them specifically marxist (a lot of anarchist stuff...) In particular, Chomsky is pretty good at Marxism without mentioning Marx too often So I just want to say that this knowledge can be absorbed without specifically setting out to study Marxism!


Hmmm, maybe we were on the same acid trip??? In any case, like they say ... CUT OUT THE MIDDLE MAN ... (just kidding).

I find much of what Chomsky has to say quite interesting, however I haven't been able to understand what his alternative to capitalism is. But that is for a whole different topic.

The topic here is about "communism" and I maintain that if one is to investigate this question from any intelligent perspective, it doesn't hurt to go back to some of the source documents. ;-) I'd hardly think that a bourgeois synopsis of Marxism found in Political Science 101 is adequate.

Cheers,
Rene


From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 16 June 2002 12:55 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
frandroid_atreides: Play nice.

SCOTN: Maybe if you stopped being so insufferable about your IQ, people would be nicer to you.


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 16 June 2002 12:57 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
I mentioned it twice.
Initially and...

Once was to correct someone else's comments, comments about my IQ made by others outweigh mine about ten to one.


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 16 June 2002 12:58 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm far too modest to mention my Hi Q. Too bad that SCOTN is average.( At least on Babble.)
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 16 June 2002 01:14 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
I have no concern or problem with someone that can outperform me, in fact I wish everyone could, I wish that I was what people thought of as average.

Congratulations on being in top 99.997 6 percentile, you do know that means only 1 in some 40 000 people.

There is a group {like Mensa whom accepts the top 98 percentile} that only accept people in the top 99.999 {1 in 120 000} percentile called the mega society perhaps you should join.


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 16 June 2002 01:34 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Heavens no. Much too modest. Anyhow they are a boring bunch. All they talk about is how clever they are.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
mikedean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2696

posted 16 June 2002 01:57 PM      Profile for mikedean        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I find much of what Chomsky has to say quite interesting, however I haven't been able to understand what his alternative to capitalism is.

i think that chomsky advocates a form of anarcho-syndicalism, similar to the government that sprung up in spain aroung 1930(i think thats the time period at least)


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 16 June 2002 06:27 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Beijing cyber-cafe blaze kills 24

How many more must die simply because they lack the freedom of information.

Illegal internet cafe's only because of the countries fear that people will find out what goes on in the rest of the world. What a silly fear.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
frandroid_atreides
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2569

posted 17 June 2002 02:58 AM      Profile for frandroid_atreides   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I find much of what Chomsky has to say quite interesting, however I haven't been able to understand what his alternative to capitalism is. But that is for a whole different topic.

Chomsky rarely preaches for an alternative. When asked to label himself, he says he's a "social-libertarian", which is a linguistic cop-out for "anarcho-something", as far I know. When people ask Chomsky "What should we do?", Chomsky tells people to become active, to take their destinies in their hands and try to shape the public agenda in a democratic way. Chosmky says that nobody really has any concrete idea of how the world should run; we should set some values upon which to build the world, get involved in pursuing these values, and eventually we will have a world that reflects our ideas. Extremely pragmatic, and smartly non-committed.


From: Toronto, Arrakis | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ruzhyo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2654

posted 18 June 2002 08:50 PM      Profile for Ruzhyo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
atreides(sorry forgot how to spell it)

You asked for an explaination of my comment about spreading the population out. Well this is part of Marx's ideas about a communist state.

1.abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes
2.A heavy progresive or gradual income tax.
3.Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5.Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with the state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6.Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8.Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrioal armies, especiallt for agriculture.
9.Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.
10.Free education far all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.


Equal distribution of the population over the country would help to decentralize control of the state. Also i think that this is one of the steps to combining agriculture and industrial production. Im not sure if i have answered your question so if you have another question, feel free to ask.

Ruzhy


From: USA | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Terry Johnson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1006

posted 18 June 2002 10:22 PM      Profile for Terry Johnson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Equal distribution of the population over the country would help to decentralize control of the state.

I usually agree with Marx. But I always thought this was one of the more foolish demands in the Manifesto.

I also feel Marxism could do without all that Hegelian dialectics, but that's another story.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ruzhyo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2654

posted 19 June 2002 06:18 PM      Profile for Ruzhyo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes I agree that the idea of distribution of the population would be beneficial but it would almost be more of a hassle than its worth. I think that his ideas would have been fine without this. Refering to some of the people who just flat out don't think that communism can work. You may be right but i believe that in order to say something like that we need to see a true communism at work which so far we have not seen.
From: USA | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 19 June 2002 11:50 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Markbo: ...countries fear that people will find out what goes on in the rest of the world. What a silly fear
I wish somebody protected me from finding out "what goes on in the rest of the world" -- I would be a happier person. Ignorance is bliss!!!

(It is a joke, Markbo, it is a joke!!!)


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
frandroid_atreides
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2569

posted 21 June 2002 10:58 PM      Profile for frandroid_atreides   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Equal distribution of the population over the country would help to decentralize control of the state.

Okay, and what about Marxist geography? I bet that didn't exist back then (and still doesn't)... That's rather stupid. Let's populate the North Pole!


From: Toronto, Arrakis | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca