communism

DadaKopf

Anyway, I thought 'left-wing' political theory and practise had moved well beyond Marxist stereotyping by now?

Get with the times Eomer, and Smiles.

I mean, it's not really accepted that there are "two ways to read" something (in-keeping with dialectical materialism), there are infinite ways. Any reading is dependent on context, which moves the engine of social change into a systems theory mode, rather than simplistic Marxism. Abstraction is bad.

If you take a brief glance at progressive 'left-wing' politics around the world, you'll see how it's moved well beyond classical Marxism, for the better.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Wasn't it J.K. Galbraith who said something like: "Socialism saved capitalism from itself"?

As we can see with the adoption of many capitalist principles in that modern spin-off of socialism, social democracy, the reverse is also true. All ideologies appear to take from each other as they evolve into new forms.

gom

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Communitarianism is even deadlier. Not so much a political philosophy/ideology as a way of doing things.

Check our Charles Taylor's writings (no not the Liberian dictator, but a world standard Canadian political philosopher).

Just a small community working to better itself by pooling resources is what i meant.

DadaKopf

I was just sayin' is all.

Yeah Corinthian, the left-right divide is completely meaningless these days. Everything comes to resemble everything else.

Éomer of Rohan

*takes long slow deep breathes*

Smiles, kindly don't ever paraphrase me in such a way. Secondly, at least have the common courtesy to spell my name correctly. Or use my given name.

Dadakopf

Quoted from Dadakopf
If you take a brief glance at progressive 'left-wing' politics around the world, you'll see how it's moved well beyond classical Marxism, for the better

The point is, it hasn't moved beyond Marxism at all. The Zapatistas and the anti-globalisation movement are not communists but they have no answer, no long term solution to the problems they see in capitalism.

It is Socialists who propose to re-introduce the workers to trade unions as means of fighting back against the corrupt plutocratic government (as opposed to the oligarchic democracy we faced in C19). These organisations, scorned and taken over by careerists are the only alternative, and like it or not, with the trade unions, the ultimate end to logical reasoning is a democratic system whereby the workers are directly in charge, teaching them to govern themselves, paving the way for decentralised direct democracy - the ultimate goal of socialism.

Smiles

Quoted from Smiles
I was just trying to get you to make your point fit the discussion.

It isn't listed so I will look back over it and make a seperate post telling you precisely how my point was related to the discussion.

Quoted from Turnip
I'm not saying that there are no exploitations, I am very aware of the fact that there are, it's just you throw around phrases with strong words without even attempting to validate them in the context of the discussion.

I am sick and tired of validating them - and anyway I just re-validated them with my comment on TRIPS. If you are so concerned with validation, look up previous discussions on exactly this subject and there is reams (all properly linked and referenced).

But apparently, you KNOW there are abuses of the system - never mind that it is the system itself which is the abuse.

Quoted from Smiles
Well as well as the reasons you kindly listed and refuse to see as opression, the new communist system was forced on people. Religion was abolished. These drastic changes could have been done only under a dictator - and indeed they were. In 1937 under Stalin, millions of people were shot or died in labor camps sometimes just for questioning the Communist Party's authority or stealing as little as a potato of "state property" during starvation. Many were working days and nights, sacrificing themselves for the "better future" of next generations.

The reasons I kindly listed, you kindly dismissed beforehand as, and I quote "Sheer oppression was the downfall, not the lack of democracy!" and you then proceed to say above that the lack of democracy WAS part of the oppression. See the contradiction?

Post-Stalinist times, when Russia's industrial revolution had largely come to an end and it was settling in to the modern era (say around 1956) - there were no more purges among the Russian people, the Committee for State Security monitored anti-party propaganda but tolerated anti-communists so long as they weren't trying to sow the seeds to revolution, people were free with the exception of the electoral process and the parts related to it which you have described as "not being the downfall" - so if lack of democracy was not the downfall and the Soviets survived for 38 years after the death of Stalin and the Siberian mass death camps, what was the downfall???

Quoted from Smiles
Right, so you argee with the idea that it's better to have a system that is totally corrupt and blatently so than to have one in which there are problems and issues, but is fundamentally open. I must remember that one, I wonder why I didn't think of it....

You see you excuse the capitalist system it's faults out of hand without actually stopping to think which system, since we are comparing a specific pair of examples, are better. Now, in Russia, before communism collapsed, as we have Victor kindly reminded me, state enterprise ensured everyone a job, the state ensured free health care, free education (which despite pro-party insertions was for the larger part a first class education), free mass transit, the restrictions on religion was relatively small outside of rounding up firebrand anti-Soviet ministers - even Stalin feared that to outlaw the Eastern Orthodox Church would create a backlash such as the NKVD (as it was at the time I am talking of) could not control, there was state assured housing, state holidays - now, in a correct communist state. As I called it, stability for the average worker.

Under capitalism, personal freedom is enhanced though in real terms, in the political process, it is technocrats and those demagogues bought by big business who succeed in politics - so in real terms, the political freedoms of the average Russian worker are little different - the Russians now simply get to choose what face they want on the posters proclaiming their exploitation. There is mass unemployment, the world's former third largest grain producer has an agriculture industry in a state of collapse, the price of oil has rocketed, there are homeless people who move like refugees in the Moscow Oblast, come to seek shelter and food from a government who opens enough soup kitchens to feed about half of them in Winter, the value of the Rouble is decreasing annually, the once powerful Russian army has fallen to pieces - we have seen what the navy has become, the Space program to keep itself alive has sold launch pads in Kazachstan to the ESA, government R&D except in economic think tanks is virtually zero. Elected representatives (bad though they are) have no control of Russian water and electricity, both privatised, Gazprom, one of the wealthiest Gas and Oil companies in the world in terms of sheer reserves has been privatised and this made not a dent in the Russian need for hard foreign currency....this list goes on - and if anyone is wondering, Gregory L. Freeze's "Russia" is the source.

So yes, I think the lot of the Russian worker was better under the stalinist model of a planned economy - because at least then there were opportunities for it to get better whereas now, the ****hole that is Russia will stay that way until the world system changes or until the nuclear deterrent rusts and China invades.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Bloggs
Nearly every weekend, there seems to be a communist/marxist rally out side the GPO in Dublin. Every time, they use the same old reteric 'down with capitalism, support the unions' etc. First of all don't these people ever read a history book and find out what communism was like? Just talk a look at the old USSR, where there was no decomracy, where you had varity, as long as it was what the government gave, you would say what you like, as long as it agreed with the communist government, and god forbid if you didn't you would be arrested by the secret police and never seen again.

I said...
Bloggs, I do not mean offence when I say that we socialists (I am a member of the Socialist Party and a representative of the Committee that is elected to run our activities in Northern Ireland) read a lot more history than the average person - myself more so since I am a historian.

But more importantly, open your ears and listen to what these people say (well maybe not the socialist workers party, but the SP) - Marx' Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are all about true democracy, which the western capitalist nations do not have - in fact, what they have is called a plutocracy in my opinion, a government of wealth. Someone once satirised this by saying 'European elections are rigged; the government always wins' - that is to say that partisan politics coupled with a dependence on corporate support remove the freedom of any government and that the government generally consists of the Debsian ruling class doesn't help matters.

Now, and this is addressed to Smiles, please point out where the three reasons I gave for the lack of democracy don't in some way apply to Ireland, which is obviously what you are getting at. And since the reference to Europe was to paraphrase what someone else said, I personally include the USA in that little mix.

smiles

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Anyway, I thought 'left-wing' political theory and practise had moved well beyond Marxist stereotyping by now?

Get with the times Eomer, and Smiles.

DadaKopf, don't worry I know this, I was just responding to his points based on the subject he was arguing (Marx at that point).

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Secondly, at least have the common courtesy to spell my name correctly. Or use my given name.

I'm sorry for mispelling your name, Éomer of Rohan, I was writing my reply offline and I hadn't got your posts in front of me, just a copy of the text which hadn't included your name, I appologise for any offense that I may have caused for the incorrect abbreviation of your online name.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I am sick and tired of validating them - and anyway I just re-validated them with my comment on TRIPS. If you are so concerned with validation, look up previous discussions on exactly this subject and there is reams (all properly linked and referenced).

But apparently, you KNOW there are abuses of the system - never mind that it is the system itself which is the abuse.

I'm sorry that I was asking you to repeat some things which you posted on another thread, I like to keep discussions as informative as possible and I had incorrectly assumed that you would like to do so also, I just would have liked to possibly argue some of your points but then I would be cutting from thread to thread and I don't think it would be helpful for this discussion. I'm sure I'll be able to discuss them with you at some other point.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The reasons I kindly listed, you kindly dismissed beforehand as, and I quote "Sheer oppression was the downfall, not the lack of democracy!" and you then proceed to say above that the lack of democracy WAS part of the oppression. See the contradiction?

I'm sure if you are being pedantic and in the strictest sense of the word then yes it is a contradiction, allow me to rephrase and explain since you can't seem to understand or accept what I was saying, the oppression suffered by the people was the cause of the downfall of the communist society, the lack of democracy wasn't the main cause. However, since lack of democracy was one of the properties of the opressive situation then it contributed to the downfall.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Post-Stalinist times, when Russia's industrial revolution had largely come to an end and it was settling in to the modern era (say around 1956) - there were no more purges among the Russian people, the Committee for State Security monitored anti-party propaganda but tolerated anti-communists so long as they weren't trying to sow the seeds to revolution, people were free with the exception of the electoral process and the parts related to it which you have described as "not being the downfall" - so if lack of democracy was not the downfall and the Soviets survived for 38 years after the death of Stalin and the Siberian mass death camps, what was the downfall???

Hmmm... well for one example (after 1956), the people were free apart from when Nikita Krushchev came to power in the 1950s. Krushchev unleashed a vicious attack against the Church which lasted until his fall from power in 1964. Half the Orthodox churches in the country were closed during this time and Baptist and Pentecostal churches suffered as well. Communist policy toward the Church swung between violent persecution and subtle propaganda, but at no time had the Soviet Union officially abandoned its declared aim of destroying Christianity. But I take it you don't consider that opression....

As for lack of democracy not being the cause of the fall, I have already explained how my words mislead you, lack of democracy was part of the problem.

Gorbachev (sp?) actually spent the last years of the Soviet Union trying to introduce perestroika - economic and political restructuring, as well as glasnost - openness... effectively he tried to introduce the good elements of capitalism and democracy into the society.

The entire thing was corrupt, the state was in ruin, he even introduced the Law of State Enterprises which gave businesses much more independence from the governement or state ministries that controlled them in the past and workers were also encouraged to be more open, which was part of glasnost, and speak out against corruption or give suggestions but this was opposed by the people because they didn't see this as communism, it was new and it was harking back to capitalism and so the people in the economy fought against good changes which could have allowed some semblence of communism to thrive.

I see the downfall being because most of the smaller states in Eastern Europe, through the influence of glasnost and it's encouraged openness, became more open in their demands of freedom from communist governance in their republics. Many revolutions happened and most of them involved overthrowing the communist government and replacing it with republics. Thus, the hold the Communists had over Eastern Europe aka the Iron Curtain had become very weak. So because of the reforms introduced, perestroika and glasnost, Communism collapsed, not only in Russia but also in Eastern Europe.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
[...Discussion on how the Russians were better off under Communism...]

I'm not saying that the Russians are better off under capitalism now. As far as I can see the problems that exist in Russia today are almost entirely a direct result of the destruction of the country under the Communist regime. Perhaps if they had of been able to salvage the good parts of communism together with the good parts of capitalism like Gorbachev had tried to do then... well I think it could have worked out to have a far better system in place.

You seem to have assumed that I am 100% pro-capitalism, which I am not. I think that if the good parts of each were implemented properly together then the world would and could be a far better place.

100% of anything is never a good thing, and to be honest capitalism makes sense, the way it works and why it works makes definite sense to me in practical terms, communism however, which it appeals to me in so many ways, is not something which can be properly implemented in the way you seem to be suggesting.

<< Fio >>

smiles

Firstly Éomer of Rohan, you seem to be taking this incredibly personally, there's no need to.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
that is to say that partisan politics coupled with a dependence on corporate support remove the freedom of any government and that the government generally consists of the Debsian ruling class doesn't help matters.

Now, and this is addressed to Smiles, please point out where the three reasons I gave for the lack of democracy don't in some way apply to Ireland, which is obviously what you are getting at. And since the reference to Europe was to paraphrase what someone else said, I personally include the USA in that little mix.

'partisan politics' - I assume you mean having blind, passionate, or unreasonable adherence to a party -- I would disagree that in Ireland people have blind adherence to any party. In fact the change in the figures to Fine Gael would strongly support my point of view.

'dependence on corporate support' - as I already said, this was an issue, but the Irish government have now made this illegal and are working it out of the system and investigating where problems with this arose. Seems democratic to me.

'the government generally consists of the Debsian ruling class' - I'm not sure what you mean by this.

<< Fio >>

smiles

Originally posted by The Corinthian
All ideologies appear to take from each other as they evolve into new forms.

And that, dear sir, is what I think the materalism part of the Marxist ideas was all about, one which I fully agree with.

<< Fio >>

Turnip

Originally posted by smiles
As far as I can see the problems that exist in Russia today are almost entirely a direct result of the destruction of the country under the Communist regime.

No. Russia is in a mess because it liberalised its economy too quickly. Gorby wanted change to happen slowly and he was right but he was thrown aside. As in all revolutions, there was a power vacuum and it was filled by crooks and idiots like Yeltsin. Russia went from being a country with reasonably solid social foundations providing basic services to a complete social and economic basketcase. 2% poverty under the communists to 40% poverty now and armies of kids living in sewers. Hello? The presence of a few McDonalds and zillionaire football club owners does not justify that.

smiles

Originally posted by Turnip
No. Russia is in a mess because it liberalised its economy too quickly.

I agree, but it was the fact that they had so many problems to overcome that caused their liberalisation to be such a disaster.

<< Fio >>

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Smiles
Gorbachev (sp?) actually spent the last years of the Soviet Union trying to introduce perestroika - economic and political restructuring, as well as glasnost - openness... effectively he tried to introduce the good elements of capitalism and democracy into the society......I'm not saying that the Russians are better off under capitalism now. As far as I can see the problems that exist in Russia today are almost entirely a direct result of the destruction of the country under the Communist regime

I am well aware of the policies of glasnost and perestroika - however, the Soviet Union could have continued to make no profit and survive with all it's social institutions intact except that Gorbachev saw the way the world was going and more to the point, he was a nationalist, not a socialist.

He perceived that if he introduced market reform to the USSR, he could decentralise the economy while maintaining party supremacy and at the same time, the profits seen in the USA could also be seen in Russia and she could modernise her Armed Forces. With the freedom granted to business in Russia, the state began to fragment - the pull of capital on the government to introduce the necessary electory procedures for Free Market Capitalism to function as it does in the West caused a crisis.

Many politicians saw their own advantage in democratic reforms since already they were noted demagogues - eg Yeltsin and so come the failed rebellion, took the opportunity to emerge as heroes - just as Yeltsin did outside the Russian Duma when he climbed up on that Tank. With this prestige, they forced through the market reforms, and the USSR suddenly found itself without foreign currency reserves so necessary in liberal economics - this was because there was no real foreign business investment in Russia since Gorbachev had only recently legalised such private enterprise. The economy collapsed and with it went the most comprehensive social welfare system in the world.

It was a nationalist idea that brought down the USSR - democratic reforms could have been effected without resorting to market capitalism; true socialist (note, not SOCIAL) democracy demanded that the Soviets unilaterally withdraw from nuclear brinkmanship with the USA by ceasing the foreign aid that they couldn't afford but which was a prestige matter, by pulling the Red Army out of Eastern Europe and Afghanistan, by disarming the Armed Forces to restrict the 52% GNP that they consumed and that the USSR became another non-militarist and socialist democracy - it was not the good aspects of capitalism that people were after for there are none - it was democracy, and it was simply bad coincidence that there was a nationalist rather than a communist in power at the time that this came to a head. A more worthy statesman could have guided Russia through a change that would have led to democratic reform without the concurrent economic collapse as I have described, which enforces my point - the state of Russia presently was nothing to do with communism, it was to do with the fact that a nationalist was greedy at the wrong moment and that he was stupid since socialist planned economy and capitalist market economy are not compatible, ever.

Quoted from Smiles
Communist policy toward the Church swung between violent persecution and subtle propaganda, but at no time had the Soviet Union officially abandoned its declared aim of destroying Christianity. But I take it you don't consider that opression...

The aim was correct, the methods wrong but inescapable in a non-democratic system. Nevertheless, this was one instance of oppression which did not affect anyone and occurred infrequently - I'm not saying that the Russians were more free in thought and speech and expression as their western counterpoints, but certainly they were more free than any other totalitarian state and they had freedoms of the above that were comparable, though always up to scratch, to that of the West.

Quoted from Smiles
100% of anything is never a good thing, and to be honest capitalism makes sense, the way it works and why it works makes definite sense to me in practical terms, communism however, which it appeals to me in so many ways, is not something which can be properly implemented in the way you seem to be suggesting.

You have not picked any holes in the part of this discussion where I suggested how communism should have been implemented - in fact you ignored about 90% of what I wrote on how communism failed at the beginning in Russia - which was the part I was explaining what was meant to happen and gave generally accepted reasons why it didn't happen and how that unique to the weakest link in the capitalist chain as Russia then was.

smiles

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
it was not the good aspects of capitalism that people were after for there are none

:rolleyes: typical statement from you at this stage.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
it was simply bad coincidence that there was a nationalist rather than a communist in power at the time that this came to a head. A more worthy statesman could have guided Russia through a change that would have led to democratic reform without the concurrent economic collapse as I have described, which enforces my point - the state of Russia presently was nothing to do with communism, it was to do with the fact that a nationalist was greedy at the wrong moment and that he was stupid since socialist planned economy and capitalist market economy are not compatible, ever.

You have indeed outlined a good "solution" to the problems, however my original points of opression still stand, in my eyes at least.

I do not think that the reforms you are suggesting could have been implemented, the Russian society of the time seemed heavily dependant on the armies and I do not think their removal would have been accepted by the people, who were both employed in their service, or being protected / oppressed by them. But it's a nice idea in theory.

I disagree that capitalism and socially planned economies are completely incompatible, if they were not then every economy in the would would either be 100% capitalist or 100% centrally planned -- and in reality that's not true at all.

]Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan [/i]
The aim was correct, the methods wrong but inescapable in a non-democratic system. Nevertheless, this was one instance of oppression which did not affect anyone and occurred infrequently - I'm not saying that the Russians were more free in thought and speech and expression as their western counterpoints, but certainly they were more free than any other totalitarian state and they had freedoms of the above that were comparable, though always up to scratch, to that of the West.

I must admit this is one of the contenders for the most posposterious statement you have made so far! "The aim was correct" -- you agree that removing the right of people to practise their religion (something this some people consider the pantamount part of existance!) does not affect anyone ? That is utterly, utterly ridiculuous. Perhaps religion means nothing to you ("the aim was correct") but you cannot say that forcing that idea onto people is correct. (and now I see why communism suits you.)

The people of Russia lived with the memory of parents, children, etc. being dragged away to Siberia, being executed, etc. for saying what they thought.... you cannot expect them to be completely free with their thoughts just because the government says they've changed thier minds! People remember things like massacres.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
You have not picked any holes in the part of this discussion where I suggested how communism should have been implemented - in fact you ignored about 90% of what I wrote on how communism failed at the beginning in Russia - which was the part I was explaining what was meant to happen and gave generally accepted reasons why it didn't happen and how that unique to the weakest link in the capitalist chain as Russia then was.

Surprisingly I'm not here to "pick holes" in your discussion, I pick holes where holes exist and quite selfishly, I'm just trying to understand your point of view, I'm happy to listen and to absorb what you say because overall you gave a good explanation which I'm relatively happy to agree with the theory.

Now, (and feel free to carry on the historical discussion we're having) would you mind explaining how you would implement your socialist theories if (perhaps "when" is the word?) you come into power? Perhaps a new thread is needed because this has unfortunately (and yes I know it's partly my fault) degenerated into historical debate.

<< Fio >>

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Smiles
I must admit this is one of the contenders for the most posposterious statement you have made so far! "The aim was correct" -- you agree that removing the right of people to practise their religion (something this some people consider the pantamount part of existance!) does not affect anyone ? That is utterly, utterly ridiculuous. Perhaps religion means nothing to you ("the aim was correct") but you cannot say that forcing that idea onto people is correct. (and now I see why communism suits you.

Come now, this is unnecessarily childish and not in any way preposterous. Marx claimed that religion was the opium of the people and to a certain extent he was correct. An excellent basis for my arguments lies in Terry Pratchett's 'The Science of Discworld II,' and the concept of 'narrativium' as ridiculous as it may sound and to go into the debate (in actual fact the scientific parts of said part are written by two scientists) would require a seperate path altogether - but the book was fully endorsed by The New Scientist and I heartily recommend it.

The bottom line is that I absolutely agree with the need for strong debate on religion, where communists would lead the anti-religion argument - thus, the aim is correct, the destruction of religion, but the methods of the Soviets were wrong; because I believe in the fundamental rightness of my ideal (ie atheism and the adverse effects of religion) and I believe that oppression is wrong, it goes without saying that I believe that the matter could be settled by a sincere public debate (which can't happen in capitalism, I feel, due to the presence of tabloid newspapers amongst other truth-distorting factors).

As for saying 'now I see why communism suits you,' if you read this and feel like apologising, please do so. Your poor spelling indicates that you were angry and so I feel rather misunderstood, though I'm sure accidentally.

As for the implementation of socialist theories, there are better qualified people to answer them than I - I simply have a good working knowledge of the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union, how it failed, why it failed and why it in no way is an indicator that communism does not work. Excuse the italics but the number of idiots that I have had walk up to me while I am doing a stall in Belfast centre and say "ah Communism will never work, look at Russia (or other psuedo-communist country)."Do a search for socialism and you can find an absolute ream of things from various university economics professors on the institution of a centrally planned and democratic economy.

Éomer of Rohan

[/I]Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan[/I]
it was not the good aspects of capitalism that people were after for there are none

---

:rolleyes: typical statement from you at this stage.

I felt you were confusing the need to democratise and the desire for capitalism; these two are too easily confused since democracy is, in this modern world, to oft associated with the West and everything it symbolises. Few people associate socialism with a more comprehensive democracy - due to the USSR in part and due to capitalist propaganda (you have no idea how brainwashed many americans really are by that!) which dictates incorrectly that communism is totalitarian, the USSR was communist, the USSR failed ergo Communism will never work which is something that tends to reinforce my belief that the right wing can be divided up into two parts; the leader and the led, and the latter are idiots who repeat the above like a mantra.

Of course it is entirely reasonable to assume that the right wing think the equivalent of us socialists

smiles

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Come now, this is unnecessarily childish and not in any way preposterous. Marx claimed that religion was the opium of the people and to a certain extent he was correct. An excellent basis for my arguments lies in Terry Pratchett's 'The Science of Discworld II,' and the concept of 'narrativium' as ridiculous as it may sound and to go into the debate (in actual fact the scientific parts of said part are written by two scientists) would require a seperate path altogether - but the book was fully endorsed by The New Scientist and I heartily recommend it.

I've a slight acquaintance with the book, not so much so that I would base an argument about religion on it.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The bottom line is that I absolutely agree with the need for strong debate on religion, where communists would lead the anti-religion argument - thus, the aim is correct, the destruction of religion, but the methods of the Soviets were wrong; because I believe in the fundamental rightness of my ideal (ie atheism and the adverse effects of religion) and I believe that oppression is wrong, it goes without saying that I believe that the matter could be settled by a sincere public debate (which can't happen in capitalism, I feel, due to the presence of tabloid newspapers amongst other truth-distorting factors).

In summary of what you are saying it seems that you want to be able to dictate what is correct and incorrect, regardless of people's individual opinions. For me that is the factor which makes capitalism far more appealing, in it you have the choices which define the society, and society does not define what choices you have.

A public debate would be good - what if religion won? Then all people would be forced to go to mass, etc. I'm sure you can see how "wrong" that would be. But you cannot accept that forcing people _not_ to practise their religion is just as bad.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
As for saying 'now I see why communism suits you,' if you read this and feel like apologising, please do so. Your poor spelling indicates that you were angry and so I feel rather misunderstood, though I'm sure accidentally.

I can see what the ideas and notions suit you, you have made those points appear like stars in the night sky. I'm slightly confused about what I should be apologising for? Perhaps I should attempt to further my argument by picking on your spelling or your grammar, or perhaps telling you your ideas are childish would be within reason, but I actually find debating something without resorting to such obdurate methods much more successful.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
As for the implementation of socialist theories, there are better qualified people to answer them than I - I simply have a good working knowledge of the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union, how it failed, why it failed and why it in no way is an indicator that communism does not work. Excuse the italics but the number of idiots that I have had walk up to me while I am doing a stall in Belfast centre and say "ah Communism will never work, look at Russia (or other psuedo-communist country)."Do a search for socialism and you can find an absolute ream of things from various university economics professors on the institution of a centrally planned and democratic economy.

Ah, I'm sorry, I thought you were a politician, please forgive my ignorance.

<< Fio >>

smiles

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
quote:

---

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
it was not the good aspects of capitalism that people were after for there are none

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by smiles
typical statement from you at this stage.

---

I felt you were confusing the need to democratise and the desire for capitalism; these two are too easily confused since democracy is, in this modern world, to oft associated with the West and everything it symbolises.

Perhaps if you had read my exact quote you might have realised that the part to which I was referring (the part which is typical of you) is where you throw propaganda into a sentence which you then try and carry off in a long winded eloquently phrased paragraph, perhaps in the hope that if you say it enough times they it has to be true.

<< Fio >>

GuanYin

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
but the book was fully endorsed by The New Scientist and I heartily recommend it.

Thats the science equivilent to saying "I read it in the daily star"

That said, I liked the book myself.

I think you are confusing narrivitum (was this not referring to causality?) with memetics though.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Smiles
Ah, I'm sorry, I thought you were a politician, please forgive my ignorance

Not in any way an obdurate method? I am a politician, I am not an economist - and though I have a good knowledge of the economic side of the ideal, we communists like the idea of specialism to - from each according to his abilities. I feel that were I to give a breakdown of the implementation of socialist economic policies, it may very well be that I do so incorrectly and trip myself up. In vino veritas eh?

Quoted from Smiles
In summary of what you are saying it seems that you want to be able to dictate what is correct and incorrect, regardless of people's individual opinions. For me that is the factor which makes capitalism far more appealing, in it you have the choices which define the society, and society does not define what choices you have.

A public debate would be good - what if religion won? Then all people would be forced to go to mass, etc. I'm sure you can see how "wrong" that would be. But you cannot accept that forcing people _not_ to practise their religion is just as bad.

Once again you misinterpret what I say; if someone believes that they are right, that their argument is supreme, then they can submit that this argument will win out through debate - a rational assumption. Moreover, this conviction therefore will extend to include the rational notion that if indeed this view is vindicated, people will follow the newly proven path themselves via free will through logic and intelligence, rather than cling to the old notions - rather than having to be forced into doing what I believe is correct. The legislative process would not even need to become involved as it is a purely social process rather than one which would institute laws and so forth.

You seem to see things in black and white. I do not advocate the involving of ANY form of coercion - quite the opposite. I fully believe that people, if all the old notions are dealt with, through public argument by those who are concerned with the detrimental effects of religion, will see clearly that I am right. If they do not, then what odds? It will make no difference since Atheism/Agnosticism will no longer be a heretical cult (see Northern Ireland) and questioners will emerge more freely, further weakening religion.

If it does not, so what? People are free to believe as they will, but as communists, it is our duty to prove the lie in many things, religion included.

smiles

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Not in any way an obdurate method? I am a politician, I am not an economist - and though I have a good knowledge of the economic side of the ideal, we communists like the idea of specialism to - from each according to his abilities. I feel that were I to give a breakdown of the implementation of socialist economic policies, it may very well be that I do so incorrectly and trip myself up. In vino veritas eh?

obdurate - hard-heartedly wicked. dictionary.com might be helpful for you at this point.

Personally I think that anyone who wants to be a politician and especially one who wishes to change the current economic/social state should be both well read in economics and should have a good idea about the practicalities rather than the ideologies. But then again some people prefer fervour and ill-informed passion, rather than understanding and knowledge.

But I can understand that you don't want to say anything in case you are wrong. :shrug: I think it's a terrible thing when someone is afraid to throw out what they think is right to have it shaped by people and questioned and made into something valid.

-- "In vino veritas eh?" -- Are you a drunk?

Once again you misinterpret what I say; if someone believes that they are right, that their argument is supreme, then they can submit that this argument will win out through debate - a rational assumption. Moreover, this conviction therefore will extend to include the rational notion that if indeed this view is vindicated, people will follow the newly proven path themselves via free will through logic and intelligence, rather than cling to the old notions - rather than having to be forced into doing what I believe is correct. The legislative process would not even need to become involved as it is a purely social process rather than one which would institute laws and so forth.

You seem to see things in black and white. I do not advocate the involving of ANY form of coercion - quite the opposite. I fully believe that people, if all the old notions are dealt with, through public argument by those who are concerned with the detrimental effects of religion, will see clearly that I am right. If they do not, then what odds? It will make no difference since Atheism/Agnosticism will no longer be a heretical cult (see Northern Ireland) and questioners will emerge more freely, further weakening religion.

Actually no, what you said was that . Religion is an area where people can have a whole spectrum of views, you cannot "prove" or "disprove" the existence of a God/Gods. I like the idea that people are free to practice their religion and people are free not to practice it.

You say that a debate would decide it one way or the other -- you don't care about people who have opposing views, so long as you win out. The matter will not be settled by a public debate. Tell me again where I am misinterpreting you?

If it does not, so what? People are free to believe as they will, but as communists, it is our duty to prove the lie in many things, religion included.

Hah. You and your communist counterparts have already proved your "methods" in proving something false -- if you want to argue about it, fine. But the idea of deciding one way or the other with utter finality is totally and utterly wrong. Seems you are the one who sees in black and white.

<< Fio >>

bloggs

People say that communism can only occur properly if it takes place on a world scale. My question to the communists is, just say for example it did take place tomorrow, and the entire world was communist. If people didn't like it (which no doubt some whouldn't) who would they get rid of it? Would we still have democracy and we could vote in a capitalist party? If not, would all non-communist parties be illegal, and thus we would have counter revolutions against the communist state?

My idea of what a communist regime would be like the former USSR, where you only one party exists, anyone who disagrees with the regime is locked up, where freedom of speech or freedom of the press is supressed. Not something that sounds very appealing. Also if it isn't even as bad as that, surely democracy and communism are unable to co-exist? No matter who bad capitalisms faults are, a certain amout of decomracy does exist.

dsheehan

Since people here are being apologists for repressive, failed political/economic systems, I would like to join in and be an apologist for feudalism.

Sure it may have failed and collapsed, but that was because it wasn't don't properly and on a worldwide scale. Mercantilism existed and corrupted it, it didn't exist in a pure form, where the Monarch, anointed by God, had supreme power over every little thing.

In addition, it did not exist on a worldwide scale. at it's heights there were areas of the world not under the feudal system.


In conclusion, despite the fact it's been rejected as a failure, it's repressive and not conductive to high standards of living, that if proposed tomorrow it would be rejected outright by the population, that the only way to bring it in is to force it on people by violence, that the couple of states in the world today that still practice it are complete and utter holes, I would like, as a completely objective feudal historian, be an apologist for the feudal system.