Democratic Libertarian Party HQ

[Voltaire]

The Free Market doesn't "randomly deprive" people. If it deprives anyone, it deprives those people who don't put in any effort, who don't work for their share. To each his due under a Free Market. Yes, you have inheritance, but what is the problem with making a better life for your decendants? You got your due, you're just sharing it with your children instead of using it all up yourself.

Capitalism doesn’t randomly deprive people, you’re absolutely right, it selectively deprives people based on wealth. At the start, perhaps capitalism does have some meritocratic tendencies in the sense that if there is no established free market system one has to work from the very bottom to climb up the social ladder, but this changes over a few generations. Are you honestly claiming that if one works hard enough they can climb to the top of the social ladder, even when there is already an established elite based on wealth? Those who are already prosperous in a capitalist system are the ones that prosper more, given the fact that they are the ones that posses the capital to invest and hence earn even more money. You cannot meet everyone’s desires, you cannot have an unlimited number of elite; therefore even those who put in effort cannot ever hope to achieve the status of the established elite (once it is established of course). The meritocratic tendency of capitalism degrades because of inheritance, given that persons who have not worked for the wealth gain it, and this continues for generations. There is nothing inherently wrong with inherence (no pun intended), since all organisms live to ensure the survival of their offspring, and to ensure the wellbeing of those offspring; nevertheless, inheritance degrades the concept of meritocracy that initial exists in capitalism since, over time, you get an established elite and no matter the effort, the vast majority of hard working individuals will never achieve the same status as the elite.

Agreed. IN THE SHORT TERM. In the long term, human nature can be changed, as evidenced by the impact of Christanity on western civilization over the last couple of thousand years.

I do not wish to commit a straw man fallacy here, so could you please state the changes that Christianity has brought about in human nature. Since I find it doubtful that any social phenomenon can change human nature, IMO anything short of genetic engineering cannot change human nature.

[Voltaire]

Just a note on something that has been [repeatedly] mentioned in this debate.

I think both sides have agreed that people are not equal (point it out to me if I’m wrong), the disagreement comes in regards to whether people should all be treated equally, or perhaps more accurately to what extent should people be treated equally.

If the two sides would be kind enough to clear up this issue since I’m not certain what each persons position in this regard it. To both Archaic and Pandemoniak, to what extent should people be treated equally?

[Drogue]

I think Pande argued that people are equal. I would agree aswell. Who is to say which person will have a better effect ont he world 10, 50 or 100 years down the line?

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Drogue
I think Pande argued that people are equal. I would agree aswell. Who is to say which person will have a better effect ont he world 10, 50 or 100 years down the line?

To say people are equal, IMO, is going too far. They should be treated equally, all given equal opportunity to succeed, but I think that it is more difficult to defend the position that people are equal. Given that people are obviously different, and there are those who are better than others (be it in academics, physical activity, art, etc.). By making the statement that people are all equal, we are also technically in my mind ignoring these fundamental differences between people.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
* Pandemoniak reads quickly all the bull****s stated above and is definetly convinced that, once again, Archaic has proven his uncapacity to have a decent language and general construction of argument.

I'm not gonna take all your points once again because it will only lead to repetition, but if you're hegelian enough to sum this up, I'd be glad to make myself more understandable.

Newsflash Pan. When someone runs away with their hands over their ears screaming "I'm right, you're wrong.", even though they've clearly been given a through beatdown.,(I'm still waiting for responses on the rather painful to you points of Thought Police and child Labour)....well.....I shouldn't need to finish the story, should I?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Just a few points though, that are quite off the debate :
Obscurantism : a policy of opposition to the spread of knowledge. Breaking a whole system of ideology instead of trying to enhance it because it is partly wrong is an opposition to the spread of knowledge, because it is an opposition to research itself. No new knowledge, no spread of knowledge. Happily scientists and thinkers never did anything like that.

\

Partly wrong? It's got FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS Pan. You can't enhance it before it's fixed, and you can't fix it unless you dump the parts of the philosophy that are fundamentally flawed.
See Pan, there *IS* a reason most modern economists (Read - All but the kook fringe) support Capitalism over Communism. Capitalism works. Communism at any scale above a household, or perhaps a small collective (Eg. A group of farmers for instance), doesn't.
When you take that into consideration, what you've just said is basically to accuse most economists of being in some sort of conspiricy to "conceal the truth". There's nothing wrong with the spread of knowledge Pan. But the spread of flawed knowledge presented as unflawed...that's a different story.

Originally posted by Drogue
Well, in breaking up posts, both you and GT seem to argue against every single point, but miss the point of the whole. I have before said that something is wrong, but means fo example, only to be told that that thing is wrong. Because the person answering took what I said as my belief, and argued it was wrong, rather than look at the whole post in which I had already said it was wrong, and used it to make a point.

Now this is obscurantism. Well....it would be if it were intentional, and I won't make that assumption. Please clarify exactly what you're trying to say, and take the following into consideration.

Looking at a system of 50 parts - "It's flawed"
Looking at each part of the system - "These parts are flawed"
See which is more precise?

Originally posted by Drogue
I have never seen Marxism 'proven' false. The nature of being a social science makes it almost impossible to 'prove' anything. Your continuing requests for proof are not necessary, since the whole of economic theory is based upon often contradictory evidence and virtual thinking. It is impossible to do an experment in real world economics, therefore one has to think about the effects of something. It is not possible to prove that those are the effects.

Perhaps I should've stated that differently. Instead of "proven false.", "proven to be invalid or flawed.". Marxism has time and time again shown to be fundamentally flawed to the level where any attempt to fix it would radically change it to the point where you could no longer call it Marxism. If you don't believe it's flawed, read....well......that SD.net link I posted above is good, but really any basic economic textbook should see you through.

And I don't need to do an experiment. We have the past data. We know what the effects will be because we've already seen them.

Originally posted by Drogue
It stands up to some evidence, just as Capitalist theory does.

Some. Not all. And certainly not at the scale that Pan proposes.

Originally posted by Drogue
Neithe have been proven, indeed, John Nash went a long way towards disproving Adam Smith and Pure Capitalist behavior. What is so bad about appealing to authority. You yourself have said you trust some people's judgement more than others. You cannot prove if it is against human nature, as you cannot define human nature, since we are all different. Why is Marxism against human nature. Is our human nature to provide only for ourselves, or for our family, or for humanity? No one can answer, since some humans belong to each. You are attacking his logic, and in doing so making the fallacy that "if his logic is wrong, his assumption is too". That is not the case. Indeed, just because he does not believe in your 'locial fallacies', does not mean his logic is false. Your logic, that if he has not proved it, it is not correct is false. He has stated his beliefs, why doe she have to prove them? Why should people not look at them, think and read about it, and come up with their own opinions about them?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

Pan is unqualified, and therefore any appeal to his own authority is bunk. Engels theories have been rebutted, and therefore appealing to his authority on the subject of those theories is bunk.

Why is Marxism against Human Nature? Refer to the Wong Rebuttal.

What is this? Sophistry? If your logic is wrong, the conclusions you came to with that logic are wrong. Don't you understand this simple fact?

"Your logic, that if he has not proved it, it is not correct is false."
STRAWMAN!
My logic is that if he has not presented any evidence whatsoever, then it's reasonable to assume that he's wrong until such evidence is presented.
(Note - Evidence is necessary to create proof, but I'm not asking for complete proof here. When I've said "PROVE IT!" to him before, I'm asking for proof of something he's stated as a fact with no backing, and used that "fact" as evidence in his arguements.)

He stated his beliefs as if they were FACTS. His entire arguement was based around his own beliefs and assumptions of human nature, not actual facts. You're asking people to come up with a proper opinion of the whole situation when all he's presented is his unbacked viewpoint. Does anyone else see a problem here?

Originally posted by Drogue
No, but you could say Nazi's were evil, because Hitler was evil. Once agan you attack his logic and not his statement. His statement was intended to highlight the thinking that some people are better than others is not a good thing. Why should he prove it, youn have not shown why some people are better than others. How would you measure a person's worth? If you possess such an ability then you must be akin to a God.

Hitler was evil. Nazis served Hitler. Therefore all Nazis must have been evil.

Nope. Sorry. Still a Guilt by Association logical fallacy. Because your leader was evil doesn't make you automatically evil. There were many Nazis who were just there following orders, caught up in something bigger than them.

Flawed Logic = Flawed Arguement. By attacking his logic, I attack his arguement.

As for your statements...
"His statement was intended to highlight the thinking that some people are better than others is not a good thing."
It was a Guilt by Association fallacy. There was nothing in there to show that thinking that some people are better than others (Oh, you're really going to deny that's true?) is a bad thing.
As for me "showing why some people are better than others.", what do you mean by "why"? People are more talented/intelligent at certain things then others. How much society values these people is easily measured, if only by their paycheck.

Originally posted by Drogue
You have not shown otherwise, and he is entitled to his belief. I do not believe there is a God, but I cannot prove it. He believes we are all equal, and you have not given a shred of evidence to the contrary, neither have you said how you would define 'better', as in someone is better than someone else. Stop attacking his logic, and actually say why he is wrong. He has given you a hypothesis he believes, that people are equal, and while you can say all you want that it's just his opinion, he never stated it was anything more. Like you have not stated why someone is better than someone else, nor given and example.

You don't need to prove there is a god. Burden of Proof is on those who believe there is a god, or don't you understand Burden of Proof and the fallacy associated with it?

That some people are better than others is something you can see in your own workplace or school. He wishes to attack the status quo and say it's not. In short......I don't need to show otherwise. Burden of Proof is on him.

Why is he wrong? Because his logic and assumptions are flawed.

Originally posted by Drogue
No, Free Market does not give according to effort. It does not give 'each his due'. Free Market gives whatever the customer is willing to pay, and that bears little relation, in many cases, to either effort or worth. A cure for Aids will reap little benefit for a pharmaceutical (sp?) company, and as such, has not been thought of yet. Whereas Viagra will reap many financial rewards. Is Viagra worth more than an Aids cure? Even being the advocate of free love that I am, I do not believe so.

What the customer is willing to pay = Worth of whatever it is to the customer
Basis tenent of Free Market. How can you not understand that?

A cure for AIDS would probably reap a large benifit, because they could charge through the roof for it, and people would be willing to pay. But anyway.....

Is Viagra worth more than an Aids cure? What would society be willing to pay for them (Society's value of them), and which would make the most profit to a pharmaceutical company (The firms value of them)?

Originally posted by Drogue
Well yes, under Free Market, the market decides what is fair. I believe a human, or rather, a collection of humans, can do it better. Under FM, the Invisible Hand is Big Brother.

Unbacked statements. How does what you "believe" make any difference to this discussion if you have no evidence? How is the "Invisible Hand" a Big Brother?

Originally posted by Drogue
SO, he has answered the post as a whole, why should he attack every statement you make? He made no mention of thought police, you brought that up, and he may think it had nothing to do witht he argument, as I do. He was talking about human nature changing, you started talking about enforcing a nature upon humans. Who is to say that human nature will not evolve, and change on it's own accord. There are increasingly many eminent economists who believe that co-operation is better for society than competition. If people believe they do better by sharing, why is it so hard to believe that human nature will change so that people share, of their own free will, and that we have a society not based upon what is good for the individual, but on what is best for all individuals as a whole. Hence we move from Capitalism to Marxism.

Because the statements are valid points and rebuttals of his arguements. He is avoiding the subject.

"it is we can change our base nature -- empath can prove it"
Sounds like enforcing a nature upon humans to me.

I'm not saying that human nature can't change, but it is NOT a change that can happen overnight. It is a gradual change over many, many generations. And even then, you're not changing instinct, only the "base morals".

"There are increasingly many eminent economists who believe that co-operation is better for society than competition."
How many and are they any more than the cook fringe, like the 1% of scientists who believe in creationism?

Originally posted by Drogue
And please, we all know each others points. I know it's Archaic's thread, but can we draw this to a close somtime soon. It's not getting anywhere, other then you two insulting each other.

It's not getting anywhere with people like you thinking that someone can have a valid arguement if it is completly and utterly illogical.

Originally posted by Maniac
Two quotes from Archaic.

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. Already did this with Drouge. I'm not saying that human nature can't change, but it is NOT a change that can happen overnight as Pan seems to think. It is a gradual change over many, many generations. And even then, you're not changing instinct, only the "base morals".

Originally posted by Voltaire
Capitalism doesn’t randomly deprive people, you’re absolutely right, it selectively deprives people based on wealth. At the start, perhaps capitalism does have some meritocratic tendencies in the sense that if there is no established free market system one has to work from the very bottom to climb up the social ladder, but this changes over a few generations. Are you honestly claiming that if one works hard enough they can climb to the top of the social ladder, even when there is already an established elite based on wealth? Those who are already prosperous in a capitalist system are the ones that prosper more, given the fact that they are the ones that posses the capital to invest and hence earn even more money. You cannot meet everyone’s desires, you cannot have an unlimited number of elite; therefore even those who put in effort cannot ever hope to achieve the status of the established elite (once it is established of course). The meritocratic tendency of capitalism degrades because of inheritance, given that persons who have not worked for the wealth gain it, and this continues for generations. There is nothing inherently wrong with inherence (no pun intended), since all organisms live to ensure the survival of their offspring, and to ensure the wellbeing of those offspring; nevertheless, inheritance degrades the concept of meritocracy that initial exists in capitalism since, over time, you get an established elite and no matter the effort, the vast majority of hard working individuals will never achieve the same status as the elite.

I'm not saying that it's always possible within one generation to climb from the bottom to the top, though as it's certainly happened before it *IS* certainly possible. (In one area, very prominently so. ACTORS. Also, POLITICIANS.)

"no matter the effort, the vast majority of hard working individuals will never achieve the same status as the elite"
What's the problem with this? Society doesn't value what they did as much as they value whatever it is the people on top have done through their investments, or what their ancestors did to put their families on top. Effort is rewarded, yes, but through how much society values your effort in whatever you do. You can be the best damn dung hauler there is, but if society doesn't value it much, then perhaps you should find something to do that they will.

Originally posted by Voltaire
I do not wish to commit a straw man fallacy here, so could you please state the changes that Christianity has brought about in human nature. Since I find it doubtful that any social phenomenon can change human nature, IMO anything short of genetic engineering cannot change human nature.

While our instincts have not changed, what is taken as the base moral system in Western Nations now is the Moral System imposed upon western culture by Christanity. There's your change in nature.

Originally posted by Voltaire


To say people are equal, IMO, is going too far. They should be treated equally, all given equal opportunity to succeed, but I think that it is more difficult to defend the position that people are equal. Given that people are obviously different, and there are those who are better than others (be it in academics, physical activity, art, etc.). By making the statement that people are all equal, we are also technically in my mind ignoring these fundamental differences between people.

Exactly my perspective. I could not say it better myself.
Though.....you perhaps go too far as well. Yes, people should be treated equally.....but if someone is willing to give up something of value (Say, money) such that they might be treated better than someone else (The person who didn't want to pay anything for whatever reason), then why can't they be treated better?
How can I best give an example of this so my position isn't distorted out of context..........ah. First Class Vs. Economy Class Airline tickets.

[Pandemoniak]

and +1

[Archaic]

Yet another "quality" post from Pan.

[Pandemoniak]

And I don't need to do an experiment. We have the past data. We know what the effects will be because we've already seen them.

Oh, and sorry if you consider USSR the past data, you'd better have a look at other systems (especially the commune and the north american indians)

See Pan, there *IS* a reason most modern economists (Read - All but the kook fringe) support Capitalism over Communism. Capitalism works. Communism at any scale above a household, or perhaps a small collective (Eg. A group of farmers for instance), doesn't.

Sorry, I dont think the "invisible hand" has ever existed. Taken worldwide, capitalism hasnt work neither. And remember the commune and the north american indians.

There's nothing wrong with the spread of knowledge Pan. But the spread of flawed knowledge presented as unflawed...that's a different story.

All knowledge is flawed when you look at them enough time after they have been thought. Newton's theory is flawed.

And please be more hegelian and sum up what you mean.
And one more thing with all your fallacies : it is not because something is not proved correctly that it is false, and it is not because something is proved coreectly that it is true. Thoughts are not mathematics, and debates are not demonstrations.

-----------------------------
About people being equal, I dont know. 1+1=2, thats for sure, thats mathematics. About one person being equal to someone else, thats uncertain. I consider that all human are equally a part of humankind, meaning all are worth one part of the whole.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak

Oh, and sorry if you consider USSR the past data, you'd better have a look at other systems (especially the commune and the north american indians)

While *SOME* North Americian Indian Tribal Nations may have had a Planned economy to some small extent, a Planned Economy within a primitive tribal nation (The trade between the small tribal nations was certainly a Free Market.) is not at the same scale as a Planned Economy in a industrialized developed nation spanning almost a continent.

And what is the "Commune" exactly?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Sorry, I dont think the "invisible hand" has ever existed. Taken worldwide, capitalism hasnt work neither. And remember the commune and the north american indians.

Of course it doesn't "exist". It's a metaphor for consumer choice and market forces.
Remember things on much smaller scales than we're talking about, and therefore irrelevant?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
All knowledge is flawed when you look at them enough time after they have been thought. Newton's theory is flawed.

Bull****. 1+1=2. Is this flawed? Stop making up sophistry and actually make an arguement.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
And please be more hegelian and sum up what you mean.

Please actually have an arguement supported by actual facts.

QUOTE] Originally posted by Pandemoniak
And one more thing with all your fallacies : it is not because something is not proved correctly that it is false, and it is not because something is proved coreectly that it is true. Thoughts are not mathematics, and debates are not demonstrations.
[/quote]

You can come to the correct conclusion through incorrect logic, however you certainly cannot assume this is the case. Make a fault in logic, and your arguement is almost certainly faulty. Perhaps if you're so sure your conclusions are right, you'll stop being so sloppy and actually come up with some logical arguements for them?

"Thoughts are not mathematics, and debates are not demonstrations."

Irrelevant Red Herring and Obscurantism.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
About people being equal, I dont know. 1+1=2, thats for sure, thats mathematics. About one person being equal to someone else, thats uncertain. I consider that all human are equally a part of humankind, meaning all are worth one part of the whole.

Some parts of the whole are more of the whole than others.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Archaic


While *SOME* North Americian Indian Tribal Nations may have had a Planned economy to some small extent, a Planned Economy within a primitive tribal nation (The trade between the small tribal nations was certainly a Free Market.) is not at the same scale as a Planned Economy in a industrialized developed nation spanning almost a continent.

Well, actually, it was at the scale of the whole indian territory -- thus a whole world, with no links yet with the rest of it.
I dont recall any of them not having an economy precisely "from each to his ability, to each according to his need".
The only difference is indeed industrialisation, though I dont really see what it changes, see they already had manufactured work and products that they trade, they werent just "hunters and fruit gatherers".

And what is the "Commune" exactly?

The Commune of Paris, 1870-71.

Of course it doesn't "exist". It's a metaphor for consumer choice and market forces.

Well, the consumer choice is not as important as the force of the company in the applied free market. Its rather a "bail market" than a free market.

Please actually have an arguement supported by actual facts.

Fact : you dont sum up ideas, you take them point after point. Be more Hegelian, sum up. (Hegel being the thinker of intellectual dialectism, that Im sure you dont ignore).

Some parts of the whole are more of the whole than others.

I prefer not to comment, I would get rude.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak

Well, actually, it was at the scale of the whole indian territory -- thus a whole world, with no links yet with the rest of it.

If you mean in terms of singular Indian Nation States, then they most certainly had links to the other Indian Nations.

If you actually *DID* mean in terms of every Indian Nation State together.....not every Indian Nation had what could be called a Planned Economy.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
I dont recall any of them not having an economy precisely "from each to his ability, to each according to his need".

And I didn't recall your "Commune of Paris" either. Your point? Just because you don't remember it or know about it doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
The only difference is indeed industrialisation, though I dont really see what it changes, see they already had manufactured work and products that they trade, they werent just "hunters and fruit gatherers".

....you can't see the difference between a Tool Age society and a fully industrialized and urbanized one? Do you have any idea of the meanings of scope and scale?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
The Commune of Paris, 1870-71.

Somehow I'm not suprised it only lasted for a year then. Tell me, was the commune the entire of France, or was it the singular city state of Paris?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Well, the consumer choice is not as important as the force of the company in the applied free market. Its rather a "bail market" than a free market.

Your strawman version of Free Market. Not reality.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Fact : you dont sum up ideas, you take them point after point. Be more Hegelian, sum up. (Hegel being the thinker of intellectual dialectism, that Im sure you dont ignore).

This isn't an essay Pan. I'm not required to sum up my points. It's not as if I have an essay of your positon to rebut in the first place.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
I prefer not to comment, I would get rude.

*Yawn*


Is anyone else besides me noticing how Pan is evading the topic and trying to turn this from a discussion of the fundamental flaws of Marxism to a discussion about how he doesn't like the method with which I debate?

[Drogue]

No I see the opposite. How you are arguing about how his debating style, which is in contradiction to some of you 'logical fallacies', is wrong, without attacking his fundemental points. Why is Marxism against human nature? Why are people not equal? Why is Pande's idea of a Free Market a Strawman? Do you deny that "consumer choice is not as important as the force of the company in the applied free market"?

Pande's point about the Indian economy

I dont recall any of them not having an economy precisely "from each to his ability, to each according to his need

means that he is arguing that they did have an economy, rather than that he doesn't recall. They did have an economy, at least as much of an economy as Adam Smith lived in when he wrote "The Wealth of Nations". Maybe Marxism does work best on a small scale, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. People have written about having many small economies, such as "Small is Beautiful" by Schumacher, which highlights nicely how Marxism is possible and practical in the modern world. And before you say that isn't Marxism, it's a new theory, as you claimed of derivatives earlier, it is based on Marxist principles, which are as relevant today as they were when Marx and Engels wrote them.

[Pandemoniak]

I concur with Drogue, but just woish to add a few lines about the Commune of Paris and the Indians :

It was only applied to Paris - a microcosmos, deprived at this time of any contact with the rest of the France because of the military blockade around Paris, and even in some parts of Paris, that impeached any relation between two neighboorhood inside Paris itself. But at this time, Paris being a microcosmos, it can be considered as a unique world, on a theory of economics point of view.
It length only one year because the army slaughtered all the Partisans during a meeting, at La Butte Rouge, presently a wineyard at Montmartre -- not such a romantic place, to me...

About the Indians, now, I indeed dont know any tribe that didnt have an economy precisely "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If you can quote me one I ignored so far, go ahead. I doubt you will, seeing you obviously ignore many things about Indians -- ie, dont call them Nation States, there were no State for them.

[GeneralTacticus]

I see I have a lot of catching up to do here - expect some replies tommorow.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Drogue
No I see the opposite. How you are arguing about how his debating style, which is in contradiction to some of you 'logical fallacies', is wrong, without attacking his fundemental points.

Your logic is not a part of your debating style (Unless you'd like to argue that the demonstration or not of logic is a part of style, but that's beside the point.), it's a part of your arguements. Faulty logic gives faulty arguements.

Originally posted by Drogue
Why is Marxism against human nature?

Refer to the Wong Rebuttal.

Originally posted by Drogue
Why are people not equal?

Burden of proof is on you. Prove how they are equal. I'm not required to demonstrate something that patently obvious.

Originally posted by Drogue
Why is Pande's idea of a Free Market a Strawman?

Because his idea of a Free Market is not what a Free Market actually is. It is a distorted version of a Free Market which he presents to further his arguements, hence, a Strawman.

Originally posted by Drogue
Do you deny that "consumer choice is not as important as the force of the company in the applied free market"?

Do you deny that you're engaging in red herring nitpicks?

Originally posted by Drogue
Pande's point about the Indian economy means that he is arguing that they did have an economy, rather than that he doesn't recall. They did have an economy, at least as much of an economy as Adam Smith lived in when he wrote "The Wealth of Nations". Maybe Marxism does work best on a small scale, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. People have written about having many small economies, such as "Small is Beautiful" by Schumacher, which highlights nicely how Marxism is possible and practical in the modern world. And before you say that isn't Marxism, it's a new theory, as you claimed of derivatives earlier, it is based on Marxist principles, which are as relevant today as they were when Marx and Engels wrote them.

So a few of them had an economy like that? What's the point? The fact of the matter still stands that a small indian nation state (And yes Pan, that's the correct technical term for it. Just like the Vatican is a City State.) is nowhere near on the same scale as a fully modern industrialized colony on a far flung planet. "at least as much of an economy as Adam Smith lived in when he wrote "The Wealth of Nations"" my arse. In the time when Adam Smith wrote his book, the world was *more* globalized than it is today.

*HOW* does Schumacher highlight Marxism being possible and practical in the modern world? Considering that Marxism *is* a derivitive of Socialism practised on a national scale. No one is denying that isn't applicable on family or collective scales afterall.
And the new theory isn't based on Marxism. It's just based on plain socialism. Hell, it isn't even a new theory to begin with.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
I concur with Drogue, but just woish to add a few lines about the Commune of Paris and the Indians :

It was only applied to Paris - a microcosmos, deprived at this time of any contact with the rest of the France because of the military blockade around Paris, and even in some parts of Paris, that impeached any relation between two neighboorhood inside Paris itself. But at this time, Paris being a microcosmos, it can be considered as a unique world, on a theory of economics point of view.

It length only one year because the army slaughtered all the Partisans during a meeting, at La Butte Rouge, presently a wineyard at Montmartre -- not such a romantic place, to me...

About the Indians, now, I indeed dont know any tribe that didnt have an economy precisely "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If you can quote me one I ignored so far, go ahead. I doubt you will, seeing you obviously ignore many things about Indians -- ie, dont call them Nation States, there were no State for them.

Error in your reasoning. You presume we need to be self sufficient, as both the Commune of Paris and Native American Indian Nation states would have needed to be. Get this, we don't.

Secondly......you're the one presenting the Native Indians as evidence. Instead of making a blanket, Hasty Generalization statement unbacked by evidence like your earlier one, why don't *YOU* go and do the research and find out just which nation states had what economies and present it to us? I'm not going to do your research for you.

Oh, and the last bit would seem to be an Ad Hominem and Appeal to Ridicule, would it not? Not to mention a Red Herring from the actual arguement. The fact that I *do* have the correct term for it is only the ironic topping to the cake.