Socialist Party's policies

coolemon

alistair spuds wrote: »

Do you know what a practical real life example of it ever working as a system in any country is ?

I don't think you know what historical materialism is.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

ERG seems to be similar from what I can see.

I don't know what HR departments have anything to do with it.

Motivation is big money, companies are putting millions into the research of new motivational techniques.

ERG is an improvement of Maslow's theory but there are many others. Money plays a much bigger role in ERG and subsequent theories than it does in Maslow's theory, subsequent research seems to show money is far more important than Maslow originally believed.

How do you compensate your ideology to make up for this?

coolemon

Soldie wrote: »

Can you answer with an answer as opposed to a question?

An answer to a misinformed rant?

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Motivation is big money, companies are putting millions into the research of new motivational techniques.

ERG is an improvement of Maslow's theory but there are many others. Money plays a much bigger role in ERG and subsequent theories than it does in Maslow's theory, how do you compensate your ideology to make up for this?

Explain how money plays a bigger role in ERG.

I cant fathom how money, a relatively recent invention, is now an integral part of human nature.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

What you are engaging in there is nothing but an infantile mud slinging match.

For every example you pick I could pick an isolated case of something that happened or was perpetrated by a western state. But I wont make sweeping generalisations about the west because of it.

Not so , you listed the achievements of the communists states - I then took those specific examples and debunked them .

For example for you to list environmental protection as an achievement compared to western Europe is so risible as to make me doubt if you are even serious and this is just an elaborate piss take.

alistair spuds

coolemon wrote: »

I don't think you know what historical materialism is.

Can you answer the question you were asked

Do you know of one single practical real life example of Marxism ever working as a system in any country ?

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Do you know what historical materialism is?

Do you ?

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Explain how money plays a bigger role in ERG.

I cant fathom how money, a relatively recent invention, is now an integral part of human nature.

Well ERG theory states that as a higher need level is achieved it causes a desire to increase a lower need level.

So for example when a person gets a promotion with that promotion comes an increased desire for monetary compensation as the previous level of compensation is no longer satisfactory.

Maslow's theory is overly simplistic and that's why companies are moving away from using it but you're proposing that we should base our entire society around it.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Not so , you listed the achievements of the communists states - I then took those specific examples and debunked them.

I never mentioned any specific examples. they were broad examples.

You are the one who, very specifically, brought Chernobyl into it. You are also the one who, very specifically, brought the environment of Eastern Germany into it.

I think you are the piss taker.

For example for you to list environmental protection as an achievement compared to western Europe is so risible as to make me doubt if you are even serious and this is just an elaborate piss take.

Do you think North Korea produces the same car emissions as South Korea?

That is a specific example. But it proves or says not a whole lot by itself.

coolemon

alistair spuds wrote: »

Can you answer the question you were asked

Do you know of one single practical real life example of Marxism ever working as a system in any country ?

I will say it again. You do not seem to know what Historical Materialism or Marxism actually are.

If you knew then you would not ask such a stupid question.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Do you ?

I do, yes.

Soldie

coolemon wrote: »

An answer to a misinformed rant?

Clearly other posters agree with the phenomenon I've pointed out. You're free to dismiss it as a misinformed rant, of course, but I think that just further undermines your position.

coolemon

Soldie wrote: »

Clearly other posters agree with the phenomenon I've pointed out. You're free to dismiss it as a misinformed rant, of course, but I think that just further undermines your position.

Other posters have very little knowledge of what they are talking about. Evidently.

quadrifoglio verde

coolemon wrote: »

Explain how money plays a bigger role in ERG.

I cant fathom how money, a relatively recent invention, is now an integral part of human nature.

I can't fathom how the internet is now an integral part of human nature. Oh wait actually I can, because it works a lot better than carrier pigeon.
Just like money works a lot better than lugging around a Cow to swap for services.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

I never mentioned any specific examples. they were broad examples.

You are the one who, very specifically, brought Chernobyl into it. You are also the one who, very specifically, brought the environment of Eastern Germany into it.

I think you are the piss taker.



Do you think North Korea produces the same car emissions as South Korea?

That is a specific example. But it proves or says not a whole lot by itself.

No you mentioned the achievements of communism citing - large infrastructural development and environmental protection among others .

I gave you as counter arguments very specific cases of Chernobyl Lake Baikal and East Germany . I don't see how you can have a problem with that - I could have listed literally hundreds of examples and issues .

The East bloc is an environmental cesspit that will take decades to clean up- how you can list it as an achievement is beyond me.

coolemon

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

I can't fathom how the internet is now an integral part of human nature. Oh wait actually I can, because it works a lot better than carrier pigeon.
Just like money works a lot better than lugging around a Cow to swap for services.

The internet is not part of human nature. Its an external instrument developed from specific material conditions.

Thats like saying the specific incident of dropping the atomic bomb is an integral part of human nature.

Stupid, really.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

No you mentioned the achievements of communism citing - large infrastructural development and environmental protection among others .

Did I give you specific examples?

What I said sounded very broad to me.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So for example when a person gets a promotion with that promotion comes an increased desire for monetary compensation as the previous level of compensation is no longer satisfactory.

Why does the person seek (increased) monetary compensation, specifically?

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Why does the person seek (increased) monetary compensation, specifically?

You'd have to ask Clayton Alderfer, my point is modern psychological thoughts on motivation are moving away from Maslow, Maslow's over simplistic theory of money not being a motivational factor once basic needs are met is obviously wrong and companies are recognizing this causing the research and development of new theories that better suit human nature.

Essentially by using Maslow as an example you're suggesting we base our society around an outdated theory.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You'd have to ask Clayton Alderfer, my point is modern psychological thoughts on motivation are moving away from Maslow, Maslow's over simplistic theory of money not being a motivational factor once basic needs are met is obviously wrong and companies are recognizing this causing the research and development of new theories that better suit human nature.

Essentially by using Maslow as an example you're suggesting we base our society around an outdated theory.

I cited Maslow as an example. A very influential example.

What you seem to be talking about there is the actual utility of a simplified model like Maslows for the purposes of HR, advertsing and corporate purposes.

That is quite different than saying it is incorrect. Marxist class is very limited in its utility. That is why you don't get "Bourgeois", Petty Bourgeois" and "Proletarian" on the census. Rather, you get other class frameworks to explain other social phenomenon and patterns. But that does not mean Marxist class does not explain accurately important social and economic phenomenon. It just means it is not of much utility for certain purposes.

I doubt you fill find any credible human motivational theory that suggests money is an inherent human motivation. Or the motivation in and if itself.

It would be utterly stupid.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Did I give you specific examples?

What I said sounded very broad to me.

Now you are just being diversionary . Your examples were wrong on any metric, get over it.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Now you are just being diversionary . Your examples were wrong on any metric, get over it.

You said I gave specific examples. Where are they?

You must be delusional and confusing your own posts with my posts.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

I do, yes.

Not well enough to cite a working example apparently .

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Not well enough to cite a working example apparently .

A working example of "a methodological approach to the study of society, economics, and history first articulated by Karl Marx (1818–1883) as the materialist conception of history." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

:rolleyes:

Beaner1

I like the way in Germany that take church donations at source if you are of a particular faith.

I'd like to see a similar policy operating for those with socialist beliefs. They could have 10% of their income or welfare deducted to fund those policies.

coolemon

Beaner1 wrote: »

I like the way in Germany that take church donations at source if you are of a particular faith.

I'd like to see a similar policy operating for those with socialist beliefs. They could have 10% of their income or welfare deducted to fund those policies.

And should, say, those who are influenced by symbolic interactionism also get 10% of their income deducted?

Or Positivists? Social Constructionists?

Perhaps Atheists should get 10% deducted too?

Where does your mandatory deductions stop?

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

A working example of "a methodological approach to the study of society, economics, and history first articulated by Karl Marx (1818–1883) as the materialist conception of history." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

:rolleyes:

Yeah , as I thought , all hail wiki the fount of all knowledge and experience , not :rolleyes:

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Yeah , as I thought , all hail wiki the fount of all knowledge and experience , not :rolleyes:

But really.

How do I answer your question?

You want me to give you a working example of an historical materialist "methodological approach to the study of society, economics, and history"?

Here is one - http://www.academia.edu/1902536/PUTTING_HISTORICAL_MATERIALISM_INTO_TERRORISM_STUDIES

Does that answer your question?

A question posed, I suspect, by your complete ignorance of the subject at hand.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

You said I gave specific examples. Where are they?

You must be delusional and confusing your own posts with my posts.

You said ''Environmental preservation of fauna and forest and lower Co2 emissions might be a positive. ''

That is a specific an example if ever there was one , and I addressed that directly by citing the UN study from 1984 showing East Germany as the most polluted state in Europe .

And the rest of my reply was in a similar vein . Now if you don't accept that as specific then you are just arguing for the sake of it .

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

You said ''Environmental preservation of fauna and forest and lower Co2 emissions might be a positive. ''

That is a specific an example if ever there was one , and I addressed that directly by citing the UN study from 1984 showing East Germany as the most polluted state in Europe .

And the rest of my reply was in a similar vein . Now if you don't accept that as specific then you are just arguing for the sake of it .

I don't think that is specific. I never even mentioned which country.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

I don't think that is specific. I never even mentioned which country.

This is just hair splitting , good luck to you.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

This is just hair splitting , good luck to you.

Hair splitting?

You don't see the difference between the specificity of your examples and the broad sweeping statements I made?

I say large scale structural projects. You say Chernobyl.

Get a grip.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Hair splitting?

You don't see the difference between the specificity of your examples and the broad sweeping statements I made?

I say large scale structural projects. You say Chernobyl.

Get a grip.

You don't consider Chernobyl a large scale structural project ?

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

You don't consider Chernobyl a large scale structural project ?

I do. But its a specific large scale structural project.

One you brought up to try prove some sort of point.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

I do. But its a specific large scale structural project.

One you brought up to try prove some sort of point.

Your argument simply dos'nt make sense . I just used Chernobyl as shorthand to refute your large scale structural point and your environmental point.

I could have listed hundreds more , there is a massive industry built up of western expertise being used to decommission these large scale structural white elephants ,at a handsome profit I might add .

How you could cite large scale structural projects or the environment on a macro or micro level as a communist achievement is immaterial . They are wrong on every level -get over it.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Your argument simply dos'nt make sense . I just used Chernobyl as shorthand to refute your large scale structural point and your environmental point.

You use Chernobyl to "refute" things like the Moscow Underground?

How the **** do you do manage such mind bending zealotry.

alistair spuds

What's next comrade fukushima ?

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

You use Chernobyl to "refute" things like the Moscow Underground?

How the **** do you do manage such mind bending zealotry.

Undergrounds aren't exclusive to communist states.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Undergrounds aren't exclusive to communist states.

Do you know where the first undergrounds were made? - and what year?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Do you know where the first undergrounds were made? - and what year?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems

Yes, Britain. The London underground is the world's first and largest.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, Britain. The London underground was the world's first and largest.

Why in Britain? - and the USA, France, Germany?

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Why in Britain? - and the USA, France, Germany?

Britain was at the time the world's foremost scientific and economic superpower. They achieved this through a combination of free markets, protection of property rights, enforcing contract law, limiting the powers of government and free trade.

All of which is irrelevant however, Moscow Underground is not an achievement of communism.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Britain was at the time the world's foremost scientific and economic superpower. They achieved this through a combination of free markets, protection of property rights, enforcing contract law, limiting the powers of government and free trade.

From what year did it become the worlds scientific and economic superpower? - or as an industralised nation?

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

From what year did it become the worlds scientific and economic superpower? - or as an industralised nation?

Are you going to ask me a series of irrelevant questions are is this going somewhere?

Soldie

coolemon wrote: »

Other posters have very little knowledge of what they are talking about. Evidently.

You certainly don't appear to be prepared to consider the possibility that it's you who's wrong, at least. You talk about the "inherent logic" of capitalism in the same breath as you mention the "US butchery in Iraq and Afghanistan", "the arming of ISIS", the "metal slave economies of the Congo and Indonesia" plus the "[c]offee and fruit economies of South America". It's not like I'm putting two and two together and arriving at five. Despite your claims to be objective, it's quite clear that you're prepared to accept that capitalism is responsible for all the world's ills, even communism in practice, which you call "state capitalism". Remarkable! In reality, this is very far from being objective. You're merely doing a PR job, and a bad one at that.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

You use Chernobyl to "refute" things like the Moscow Underground?

How the **** do you do manage such mind bending zealotry.

Is everything simply black or white with you . Of course great things were achieved by the communist states from music to the arts to science to 'large environmental projects ' , but on balance the overall damage far outweighs the overall achievement in virtually every field .

So for every Moscow Underground we had a dozen Lake Baikals never mind Chernobyl

So for every Maxim Gorky you had dozens of Solzhenitsyns, Mandelstams and Akhmatovas .

And wherever we found a Stravinsky or a Shostakovich there was always a Zhdanov waiting around the corner .

Might I suggest you might be better off reading and listening to those people if you want a true appreciation of life in a police state.

coolemon

Soldie wrote: »

You certainly don't appear to be prepared to consider the possibility that it's you who's wrong, at least. You talk about the "inherent logic" of capitalism in the same breath as you mention the "US butchery in Iraq and Afghanistan", "the arming of ISIS", the "metal slave economies of the Congo and Indonesia" plus the "[c]offee and fruit economies of South America". It's not like I'm putting two and two together and arriving at five. Despite your claims to be objective, it's quite clear that you're prepared to accept that capitalism is responsible for all the world's ills, even communism in practice, which you call "state capitalism". Remarkable! In reality, this is very far from being objective. You're merely doing a PR job, and a bad one at that.

Wrong about what exactly?

The only ones I know are wrong are those wanting "real working examples" of Historical Materialism and Marxism.

I know they are wrong because its a ****ing stupid question to ask.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Wrong about what exactly?

The only ones I know are wrong are those wanting "real working examples" of Historical Materialism and Marxism.

I know they are wrong because its a ****ing stupid question to ask.

Why ?

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Is everything simply black or white with you . Of course great things were achieved by the communist states from music to the arts to science to 'large environmental projects ' , but on balance the overall damage far outweighs the overall achievement in virtually every field .

So for every Moscow Underground we had a dozen Lake Baikals never mind Chernobyl

So for every Maxim Gorky you had dozens of Solzhenitsyns, Mandelstams and Akhmatovas .

And wherever we found a Stravinsky or a Shostakovich there was always a Zhdanov waiting around the corner .

Might I suggest you might be better off reading and listening to those people if you want a true appreciation of life in a police state.

Your mind is more black and white than a Zebra. Get out of that you zealot.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Your mind is more black and white than a Zebra. Get out of that you zealot.

I take it you have no answer then so I see you are losing the cool, when the argument is lost the personal invective always comes out .