In case you think Communism works

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: charrison
who is more broke?

wow, I'd think the Japanese wouldn't be in as much debt as we are, but I guess I'm wrong.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: MAW1082

Originally posted by: Vic
No, I have every idea about Marxism. If you think that freedom, democracy, and peace have any place in Marxism, then it is you who doesn't have the least idea.
The so-called utopian ideal of communism isn't a myth or an unattainable reality kept from us by human greed or weakness. It's just a blatant lie to keep the masses distracted while the rulers exploit them. That's all it ever was. That's why Marx put it there.

Yeah that's exactly why Marx wrote the communist manifesto and the incredibly detailed follow up in das kapital.

If you refer to the famous debate between Mark and Bakunin then you will realize that Marx had not anticipated the way in which communism would manifest itself in the twentieth century.

Marx thought that the social structure that he was supporting, i.e. dictatorship of the proletariat, would benefit society as a whole. Bakunin argued that this dictatorial structure would serve the same purpose as the beourgeoise does within a capitalist system.

So, when you claim that Marx was designing a system to exploit workers, you are exactly wrong. Marx thought he was designing a system to free workers from the exploits of capitalism.

In reference to your "Now I'm glad we know where you stand statement," I do think the economic analysis that Marx performed is almost undoubtedly correct. There are devices within a capitalist system that mandates a large portion of the population of the world is exploiuted by a 'ruling class.' I do not, however, support his assumption that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary.

I support equality and free association without coercion for the purpose of production.

Please don't post thing about which you have no knowledge in the future. You are only contributing to the further corruption of many of the impressionable minds on this forum.

:thumbsup:

The sad thing about America is that people talk about freedom. But politically there is no freedom. If you even mention Communism or Socialism people automatically go off the deep end.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
You are not a sheep or cow right now?

This my friends is a prime example of what Ayn Rand can do to you. Keep dreaming Vic.

Ayn Rand was one of the most manipulative, evil women alive. There is in fact an entire film on f***ed up her life was, and how she f***ed the people around her.

Capitalism is what many countries have to use to compete because of historical factors. American capitalists ruthlessly assassinated and killed millions in their quest to stamp out global communism/socialism. Many countries which felt the effects of older European capitalism and modern American capitalism had to adopt the very practices of their enemy in order to compete because their economies fed other nations for so long and were so behind.

:roll:

First, attack my argument, not me. Oh, oops, you have no argument. Except lies, which is all that communism is.

Second, Rand is not one of my primary political-economic inspirations. You've said before that you think she is, and you are wrong. My primary inspirations are Jefferson, Heinlein, and McWilliams. In that order. Quit pretending that you know me. You obviously don't.

Third, your entire pro-communist argument reflects the flaw that is seen in every pro-communist argument. You cannot tell the difference between choice and coercion. You see no difference in a person being a sheep by choice, or at gunpoint. Your morals, like those of all communists, are that whacked. Doing unto others what you would never want done to yourself is not, I imagine, something that would make you pause for one second.

Fourth, (and I'll it again) capitalism != imperialism. Capitalism is a free market controlled solely by private interests. Imperialism, by very definition, requires a level of government control, intervention, and regulation. Try another argument.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
The sad thing about America is that people talk about freedom. But politically there is no freedom. If you even mention Communism or Socialism people automatically go off the deep end.

Yes, we've heard it all before.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

I have no doubt that you believe that.


Now go worship your political inspiration, Che the murderer.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Proletariat
The sad thing about America is that people talk about freedom. But politically there is no freedom. If you even mention Communism or Socialism people automatically go off the deep end.

Yes, we've heard it all before.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

I have no doubt that you believe that.


Now go worship your political inspiration, Che the murderer.

ironic....

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Proletariat
The sad thing about America is that people talk about freedom. But politically there is no freedom. If you even mention Communism or Socialism people automatically go off the deep end.

Yes, we've heard it all before.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

I have no doubt that you believe that.


Now go worship your political inspiration, Che the murderer.

Vic, you're not presenting an argument. All that you're saying is 'Marx is a liar, period,' and spewing out Orwellian slogans.

If you're really interested in having an intelligent debate, let's address some real arguments.

I would argue that Marx was correct in his economic analysis because he wrote that a strictly capitalist system with a strong basis in classical liberalism is only possible on the basis of poverty and despair.

I think you'll find this true in America especially. Look at the percentage of Americans living in poverty. Look at how much of the total wealth in our country is owned by the top 1% of the population.

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Vic
Fourth, (and I'll it again) capitalism != imperialism. Capitalism is a free market controlled solely by private interests. Imperialism, by very definition, requires a level of government control, intervention, and regulation. Try another argument.

This seems to be your sole argument in this post, even though you claim it is your fourth.

According to Merriam-Webster, imperialism is:

"the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>"

I would argue that the influence of American corporations in places like Indonesia and IndoChina is a form of inderect economic control. Through trade agreements, U.S. manufacturing corporations have bought a large portion of the land in these coutries. The people are forced to work in these factories or have their children starve. Or, if they are children, starve themselves.

Furthermore, in places like Jamiaca, entire agriculture industries like the dairy industry has been destroyed by 'dumping' excess goods from the U.S. on these markets. So, the U.S. destroys markets which are not profitable and forces the population into a form of production which is profitable for the U.S. corporate manufacturers based in these areas.

This is the the industrial revolution in full effect. This isn't imperialism in the seventeenth century. This is economic warfare.

So, when you say imperialism requires a level of government control, you are exactly wrong again.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
Vic, you're not presenting an argument. All that you're saying is 'Marx is a liar, period,' and spewing out Orwellian slogans.

If you're really interested in having an intelligent debate, let's address some real arguments.

I would argue that Marx was correct in his economic analysis because he wrote that a strictly capitalist system with a strong basis in classical liberalism is only possible on the basis of poverty and despair.

I think you'll find this true in America especially. Look at the percentage of Americans living in poverty. Look at how much of the total wealth in our country is owned by the top 1% of the population.

Yes, it's the lowest percentage of poverty in the history of mankind. Our poor today live better than kings just a few centuries ago. Periodic famines and plagues no longer kill large percentages of the population. What is your point? Marx was a liar. Period.

If the weakness of capitalism is greed, then the weakness of communism is (without question) envy. No one may have more or better than any other. All must be kept equal. By force as necessary. As such, all incentive to work, produce, be efficient, or even sparing in consumption is eliminated. With no one producing and everyone consuming, the system rapidly falls apart. Desperate leaders switch to coercion, and incentive now comes from gunpoint. That is communism. It's documented historical fact.

You ask for intelligent debate. I tell you this, it is impossible to have an intelligent debate with a person who throws aside all documented historical fact in favor of the opinions of one long-dead and discredited man. That person btw is you.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
This seems to be your sole argument in this post, even though you claim it is your fourth.

According to Merriam-Webster, imperialism is:

"the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>"

I would argue that the influence of American corporations in places like Indonesia and IndoChina is a form of inderect economic control. Through trade agreements, U.S. manufacturing corporations have bought a large portion of the land in these coutries. The people are forced to work in these factories or have their children starve. Or, if they are children, starve themselves.

Furthermore, in places like Jamiaca, entire agriculture industries like the dairy industry has been destroyed by 'dumping' excess goods from the U.S. on these markets. So, the U.S. destroys markets which are not profitable and forces the population into a form of production which is profitable for the U.S. corporate manufacturers based in these areas.

This is the the industrial revolution in full effect. This isn't imperialism in the seventeenth century. This is economic warfare.

So, when you say imperialism requires a level of government control, you are exactly wrong again.

And those local economies had no governments?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Capitalism was invented 300 years ago? I don't exactly think capitalism was ever invented really. It really is just human nature when you think about it. If you have something I want and I have something you want, isn't it only natural to trade each other for what we want? If you are referring to Adam Smith, he only realized what was already happening around him.

Communism goes against human nature for the most part. That's why it's a utopian system that would never work because it goes against what humans generally would naturally do.

Actually no. Human nature is tribalism. Communism, as practiced, is nothing more than an advanced form of tribalism, just as a monarchy or dictatorship is. The communist ideal is not utopian, it is just a slick sales pitch. No more than. Capitalism, actually, is more contrary to human nature than any form of tribalism, which is why the world has never practiced a true form of it (always too distrusting or too envious of their fellow human to ever take the plunge). Do you think that money in your wallet is actually real?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
....
The sad thing about America is that people talk about freedom. But politically there is no freedom. If you even mention Communism or Socialism people automatically go off the deep end.

Whens the last time anyone got arrested for mentioning Communism or Socialism? People getting angry at your statements has nothing to do with freedom.

The reason is because said systems are by thier own definitions, the very enemy of freedom.

Socialism and Communism both REQUIRE extreme authoritarianism.

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Vic
Yes, it's the lowest percentage of poverty in the history of mankind. Our poor today live better than kings just a few centuries ago. Periodic famines and plagues no longer kill large percentages of the population. What is your point? Marx was a liar. Period.

If the weakness of capitalism is greed, then the weakness of communism is (without question) envy. No one may have more or better than any other. All must be kept equal. By force as necessary. As such, all incentive to work, produce, be efficient, or even sparing in consumption is eliminated. With no one producing and everyone consuming, the system rapidly falls apart. Desperate leaders switch to coercion, and incentive now comes from gunpoint. That is communism. It's documented historical fact.

You ask for intelligent debate. I tell you this, it is impossible to have an intelligent debate with a person who throws aside all documented historical fact in favor of the opinions of one long-dead and discredited man. That person btw is you.

The only way one can say today's poor in the United States are better off than kings in previous centuries is because of technological innovation.

When we're talking about the property and the consumables liek food that the poor own today in comparison to foprmer king's there is no comparison. Kings were much better off in that respect.

Technological innovation is exponential and inevitable. The fact that periodic famines and plagues no longer are of a immense consequence is not because of some economic system. If you look at the case of the Soviet Union, I think you'll see that these types of things were mostly eradicated there also.

About Marx: He may be long dead, but he is certainly not discredited. I don't understand which of his theories you are arguing against. You're simply making a sweeping statement about him. I think you'll find that many of the most influential writers and intellectuals of the twentieth century believed what Marx had attempted to prove. For instance, people who supported Marx's ideas include: George Orwell, Ennest Himingway, Jack London, Noam Chomsky, Vladimir Lenin, Albert Einstein, H.G. Well, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Che Guevara, etc.

You must learn to separate some of Marx's more controversial ideas from some of his more widely accepted. Marx did not design Soviet or Korean communism. Marx, in fact, would probably have been appalled to see his socialist revolution carried out in such unindustrailized countries.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Train
Whens the last time anyone got arrested for mentioning Communism or Socialism? People getting angry at your statements has nothing to do with freedom.

The reason is because said systems are by thier own definitions, the very enemy of freedom.

Socialism and Communism both REQUIRE extreme authoritarianism.

Exactly. For me, it is for that reason and no other.

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Train
Socialism and Communism both REQUIRE extreme authoritarianism.

Wow, that's interesting. I think the Spanish and Venezuelan people would be very interested to hear that

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
The only way one can say today's poor in the United States are better off than kings in previous centuries is because of technological innovation.

When we're talking about the property and the consumables liek food that the poor own today in comparison to foprmer king's there is no comparison. Kings were much better off in that respect.

Technological innovation is exponential and inevitable. The fact that periodic famines and plagues no longer are of a immense consequence is not because of some economic system. If you look at the case of the Soviet Union, I think you'll see that these types of things were mostly eradicated there also.

About Marx: He may be long dead, but he is certainly not discredited. I don't understand which of his theories you are arguing against. You're simply making a sweeping statement about him. I think you'll find that many of the most influential writers and intellectuals of the twentieth century believed what Marx had attempted to prove. For instance, people who supported Marx's ideas include: George Orwell, Ennest Himingway, Jack London, Noam Chomsky, Vladimir Lenin, Albert Einstein, H.G. Well, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Che Guevara, etc.

You must learn to separate some of Marx's more controversial ideas from some of his more widely accepted. Marx did not design Soviet or Korean communism. Marx, in fact, would probably have been appalled to see his socialist revolution carried out in such unindustrailized countries.

So... let's see... for 10,000+ years humans made very little progress in the way of technological development and then suddenly BAM! and you can't see the connection? :roll:
How do the Dark Ages figure in with your argument that "Technological innovation is exponential and inevitable"?
What about the fact that virtually all pro-communists are also anti-technologists? Hmm....

The Soviet Union had no famines? L O freakin' L.

Appalled like any man with a completely unrealistic dream, I suppose...

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Vic
So... let's see... for 10,000+ years humans made very little progress in the way of technological development and then suddenly BAM! and you can't see the connection? :roll:
How do the Dark Ages figure in with your argument that "Technological innovation is exponential and inevitable"?
What about the fact that virtually all pro-communists are also anti-technologists? Hmm....

The Soviet Union had no famines? L O freakin' L.

Appalled like any man with a completely unrealistic dream, I suppose...

Technological innovation is exponential. How an exponential function work is that it increases very slowly until it "explodes." The founder of Intel came up with this theory, it's called Moore's Law and is taught to nearly every EE/CS/CE/ME university student.

Pro-Communists are certainly not anti-technologist. I think you'll discover this by either reading Marx or Lenin. Marx was obsessed with industrialization. Lenin was obsessed with electricity. So, in that sense, you're exactly wrong.

Just out of curiosity, what is you education level? I'm beginning to think I'm arguing with someone who still has a lot to learn.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: MAW1082

Originally posted by: Vic
So... let's see... for 10,000+ years humans made very little progress in the way of technological development and then suddenly BAM! and you can't see the connection? :roll:
How do the Dark Ages figure in with your argument that "Technological innovation is exponential and inevitable"?
What about the fact that virtually all pro-communists are also anti-technologists? Hmm....

The Soviet Union had no famines? L O freakin' L.

Appalled like any man with a completely unrealistic dream, I suppose...

Technological innovation is exponential. How an exponential function work is that it increases very slowly until it "explodes." The founder of Intel came up with this theory, it's called Moore's Law and is taught to nearly every EE/CS/CE/ME university student.

Pro-Communists are certainly not anti-technologist. I think you'll discover this by either reading Marx or Lenin. Marx was obsessed with industrialization. Lenin was obsessed with electricity. So, in that sense, you're exactly wrong.

Just out of curiosity, what is you education level? I'm beginning to think I'm arguing with someone who still has a lot to learn.

speaking of electricity..... Wasn't that kind fo the basis of this thread? And what exactly was the difference in electricity in North and South Korea?

 

[MAW1082]

Here's an example of an exponential function (y=x^2), starting with x=1.

x=0, y=0
x=1, y=1
x=2, y=4
x=3, y=9
x=4, y=16
. . .
x=10, y=100
x=11, y=121

Do you see you the difference between every x(n) and x(n+1) is alot greater than the differnce btwn the two previous x(n-1) and x(n).

I'm not saying Moore's Law is infalliable, but so far it has proved pretty accurate in predicting trends in one of the most technologically advanced processes, semiconductor fabrication.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
Wow, that's interesting. I think the Spanish and Venezuelan people would be very interested to hear that

Spain and Venezuela are no more truly communist than the US is truly capitalist.

Originally posted by: MAW1082
Just out of curiosity, what is you (sic) education level? I'm beginning to think I'm arguing with someone who still has a lot to learn.

:roll:

Just out of your curiousity, what is your age? I'm beginning to think I'm arguing with a delusional teenager.


edit: I would hope that everyone here understands basic mathematical functions. Thanks for the high school trig lesson.
Here's an exercise for you: take away any production incentive for Intel, and let's see just how long they would even give a rat's ass about Moore's Law.

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Vic
Just out of your curiousity, what is your age? I'm beginning to think I'm arguing with a delusional teenager.

I first want you to acknowledge you didn't know what exponential meant.

On second thought, I don't have a problem with disclosing my background. I recently got my undergrad in EE with a history minor.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MAW1082

Originally posted by: Vic
Just out of your curiousity, what is your age? I'm beginning to think I'm arguing with a delusional teenager.

I first want you to acknowledge you didn't know what exponential meant.

:roll: Can't you read? I knew exactly what it meant. That was not what I argued. What I argued was your assertion that it was "inevitable." As I said, "How do the Dark Ages figure in with your argument?"

 

[MAW1082]

Technological innovation is inevitable. There was certainly a good deal of innovation in the dark ages, however, much of it was repressed by the church and other forces of nature.

I have told you my background to develop my ethos, now let's hear yours.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
Technological innovation is inevitable. There was certainly a good deal of innovation in the dark ages, however, much of it was repressed by the church and other forces of nature.

I have told you my background to develop my ethos, now let's hear yours.

Just as communism is proven to be repressive.

This is an internet forum. And as such, about arguments, not individuals. Stick to that. Just because you can't make the argument you want to make does not mean it's time for you to whip out your fictional e-penis, nor will I join you in such an absurdity.

 

[Train]

Actually the church is responsible for PRESERVING and PROTECTING most pre-dark age knowledge, which otherwise would have been lost.

your comment is based on what?

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Vic
Just as communism is proven to be repressive.

This is an internet forum. And as such, about arguments, not individuals. Stick to that. Just because you can't make the argument you want to make does not mean it's time for you to whip out your fictional e-penis, nor will I join you in such an absurdity.

Weel, even though my degree is not fictional, I have this to say.

There are three parts to a rhetorical argument:
Ethos - Credibility of the writer.
Pathos - Emotional Appeals
Logos - Appeals based on logic or facts.

So, in fact, credibility is important.