Nuclear War.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Well you are a Stalin fanboy.

mitchell, **** off. I am not a nazi. Don't even try to accuse me of being one. I hate Hitler, I hate his ideology and I think it is repulsive. As I hate Stalin.

I have never done anything to indicate that I support Stalin or his methods. Stalin is pretty much diametrically opposed to my view of socialism.

You, however, had until minutes ago a Waffen SS avatar, and have made many pro-fascist statements on these boards.

It seems to me that you are either a neoNazi or a Hitler fanboy. Which is it?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Agathon


Only because they are ripping off others.

Besides, you should know better than to use the tired old "human nature" argument. Communal living was the norm over most of the history of our species - if anything is natural it is that.

So, you're advocating a return to Hunter-Gatherism? Because that's Damn near the only way you'd be able to pull it off, and they fought and bickered with each other as much as the last guy. Remember your Hobbes (the Englishman, not the Tiger); Man is a beast without a society to help them out.

And any student of Marx could tell you that what counts as "human nature" at any one time is largely a social construct.

Save the bad arguments for somewhere else.

Wow, just, wow. So a student of Marx, who, by the way, complained in his Communist Manifesto that the reason for recessions were...

Originally written by a pompus jackass
Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce

Would somehow have a better grasp on human than everyone else? Gotcha. We better trust the guy who also thinks;

Marx said:
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists

As well they should. It is a disgusting concept! Karl Marx believed that the family structure was inherently exploitative, with capitalists treating their wives and children as property and bequeathing their accumulated assets to their children (he saw the concept of inheritance as a horrible evil). His solution? Children should be raised by the state, marriage and inheritance should be eliminated, and noncommital sex should be the only form of relationship.


The man was a lunatic, and most people don't even have any idea how extreme and unrealistic some of his views were, because they've never bothered to read his Manifesto.

[mrmitchell]

Claims to be a member of secret police. Has threatened to kill his political enemies, especially Communists. Has called for a military takeover in Spain. Used pro-Nazi propoganda as an avatar. Has only supported dictatorships.

Damn...

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Wrong. The press is still pretty much free. It is the free TV that he was shutting down.

On the other hand, TV as a blackmail tool in the hands of shameless oligarchs (as it was before) can hardly be considered 'free' either. I guess Russia has not yet had enough time to reach an American-style "understanding" between privately owned TV channels and the government.

Obviously, y'all have not yet aquired the well-loved tradition of flinging mud at each other through National Media.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by joncha


I have never done anything to indicate that I support Stalin or his methods. Stalin is pretty much diametrically opposed to my view of socialism.

You, however, had until minutes ago a Waffen SS avatar, and have made many pro-fascist statements on these boards.

It seems to me that you are either a neoNazi or a Hitler fanboy. Which is it?

I removed it because I was requested to by several respected posters. If you were the one demanding me to remove it I wouldn't because you are neither a decent poster or a respected poster. I do not make pro-fascist statements on these boards, in fact I said things about race that are quite the opposite.

You are a fool, I'm not a neo-nazi nor am I a Hitler fanboy. If you got over your brain damage, you would understand that me having that as my avatar was just recognizing what happened in history. I did not endorse it. You can scream your lungs out the opposite, but that was just not my intent. Go ahead and try to say the opposite.. how the hell do you know anyways? I do not like Nazis, fascists, Hitler, Stalin, commies, socialists.. I think they are all scum.

MitchBSer:

Claims to be a member of secret police. Has threatened to kill his political enemies, especially Communists. Has called for a military takeover in Spain. Used pro-Nazi propoganda as an avatar. Has only supported dictatorships.

I'm not a member of secret police, I was just joking around with the people here. I have not threatened to kill political enemies, again joking around (with plenty of smilies). The call for a military takeover was done at a time of extreme anger... I accept the results of the election and the fact that Zapatero is prime minister. I am not Nazi, I just recognize history... as I also happen to be an antiques collector.

"Has only supported dictatorships?" what are you braindead or something? So Aznar was a dictator even though he was elected? Berlusconi was a dictator even though he was elected?

[mrmitchell]

D'oh. Word slip there. I meant has "OFTEN" supported dictatorships.

I'm sure a brother can understand. Apologies.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
D'oh. Word slip there. I meant has "OFTEN" supported dictatorships.

I'm sure a brother can understand. Apologies.

Name which dictatorships I support. I would of not supported Franco anymore... nor would of I supported Pinochet. Name some please.

[mrmitchell]

anymore

Bam! Thank you very much.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
anymore

Bam! Thank you very much.

Stop acting idiotic. Now name some I would support.

[joncha]

Have it your way, Fez. You're a crypto-fascist. Just don't go whining to the mods the next time someone points out one of your fascistic comments. All any of us have to do is point to your "historical interests" and "propaganda as art" and your "I like Hitler j/k" posts.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by joncha
Have it your way, Fez. You're a crypto-fascist. Just don't go whining to the mods the next time someone points out one of your fascistic comments. All any of us have to do is point to your "historical interests" and "propaganda as art" and your "I like Hitler j/k" posts.

WRONG AGAIN. I am not a fascist at all. I am not anymore fascist, then you are capitalist. Point out any of my fascistic comments. Come on I will be waiting. I have historical interests. If we do not learn from history, we will be doomed to repeat it. I'm an antiques collector. I even have quite a collection of Russian Soviet medals from WWII and up until the 80s.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lonestar

So, you're advocating a return to Hunter-Gatherism? Because that's Damn near the only way you'd be able to pull it off, and they fought and bickered with each other as much as the last guy. Remember your Hobbes (the Englishman, not the Tiger); Man is a beast without a society to help them out.

Typically FOS - just like all the other AECCPs.

Where did I say that I endorsed a return to huntergathering, or even to small agrarian communities? Of course I didn't say that, you just set up a straw man because you don't have half a brain to argue with.

I said, that there was more evidence to support the idea that communal living was more "natural" than competitive systems. If you read anything more than Archie comics you would that people from more primitive societies have a great deal of trouble fitting into capitalist societies because they instinctively find the capitalist brand of selfishness to be objectionable.

Even people like us, who have been inculcated into capitalism still find the selfishness it requires objectionable. You see this all the time in people who will only accept a "fair price" when they could have earned more, or the widespread objections towards price gouging, even though the market would function more efficiently in these cases if we were more selfish.

Either come up with some real argument instead of an obvious straw man or stop wasting server space.

Wow, just, wow. So a student of Marx, who, by the way, complained in his Communist Manifesto that the reason for recessions were...

Yawn.... so we have to accept everything written by Adam Smith and David Hume at face value? Once it is written down, it remains forever the truth. Get off the grass.

As well they should. It is a disgusting concept! Karl Marx believed that the family structure was inherently exploitative, with capitalists treating their wives and children as property and bequeathing their accumulated assets to their children (he saw the concept of inheritance as a horrible evil). His solution? Children should be raised by the state, marriage and inheritance should be eliminated, and noncommital sex should be the only form of relationship.

So if someone is wrong about one thing, then he's wrong about everything. What an astonishing inference.

Besides, in Marx' time women were effectively chattels. Don't you object to that?

The man was a lunatic, and most people don't even have any idea how extreme and unrealistic some of his views were, because they've never bothered to read his Manifesto.

Obvious you didn't because most of Marx's worthwhile stuff is not in the Manifesto.

And calling him a lunatic is ridiculous. Loads of scholars disagree with Marx, but they don't stoop to calling him a lunatic. I disagree with Milton Friedman, but I don't think he's a lunatic.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Agathon


Typically FOS - just like all the other AECCPs.

Where did I say that I endorsed a return to huntergathering, or even to small agrarian communities? Of course I didn't say that, you just set up a straw man because you don't have half a brain to argue with.

I said, that there was more evidence to support the idea that communal living was more "natural" than competitive systems. If you read anything more than Archie comics you would that people from more primitive societies have a great deal of trouble fitting into capitalist societies because they instinctively find the capitalist brand of selfishness to be objectionable.

What do you have to base that by? Even Ishi, the "Last Indian" readily integrated into a industrial, capitalist culture. The Plains Indians had no trouble using industrial weapons against others.

Only the most primative cultures have trouble with capitalist societies, and even that is iffy. Go read Guns, germs, and Steel, the New Guina Highlanders had no trouble of grasping the concepts of free-market. Nor, I might add, did the Maori.

Even people like us, who have been inculcated into capitalism still find the selfishness it requires objectionable. You see this all the time in people who will only accept a "fair price" when they could have earned more, or the widespread objections towards price gouging, even though the market would function more efficiently in these cases if we were more selfish.

Either come up with some real argument instead of an obvious straw man or stop wasting server space.

Alright, how's this: Communism cannot work in the modern world. Not anywhere near "the ideal" sense. Marxism itself would fail utterly. Humans have been too affected by the past several thousand years or so of complex social organizations for it to work.

Humans won't work as hard without self-interest to motivate them. The collective self-interest of a nation of millions is much too remote and abstract to have the emotional immediacy necessary to strongly motivate most individuals. An economy of millions or hundreds of millions of people is not simple enough to predict and control from a central bureaucracy.

Yawn.... so we have to accept everything written by Adam Smith and David Hume at face value? Once it is written down, it remains forever the truth. Get off the grass.

Hell no. Didn't I say that there can be some regulation? Like, say, breaking apart monopolies to ensure fair buisness practices and fair treatment to consumers?

But wait! Marx was For monopolies!

Originally written by a person who never worked in a factory in his life
Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly

Monopoly and state control are the mantra of communism, but monopolies are always destructive. Without competitive forces to ensure quality and efficiency, monopolistic entities, whether they be corporations or government agencies, invariably descend into wastefulness and sloth. This is why Microsoft was brought up on charges by the Justice Department: competition is nature's way of ensuring the strength of the species, and it has proven to be a good way to ensure the strength of an economy as well. Furthermore, competition means choice, and choice means that the buying public has power.

So if someone is wrong about one thing, then he's wrong about everything. What an astonishing inference.

Yep. I guess I should be ashamed that when he also lays down stuff like this as how a communist society should be:

Originally written by a person who never worked in a factory in his life
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state

Why, that almost sounds like something a Dictatorship would do!

Marx said:
Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture

What sounds better to you? Being paid to work, or being forced to work? Choosing an employer based on pay and benefits, or being forcibly conscripted into an "industrial army?" The phrase "obligation to work" sounds better than "being forced to work by threat of punishment", but without the possibility of positive incentive, it means the same thing. Marx would take away your freedom to choose not to work. Suppose you decide that you would rather move to a small cabin up north, live largely off the land, and do just a little bit of occasional work for spending money? In a capitalist society, you would be forced to adopt an austere lifestyle, but no one would stop you. But Karl Marx would accuse you of not pulling your weight, and you would be forced to go work the same way as everyone else.

Originally posted by someone with a skewed view of the world
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

• Marx targeted emigrants (presumably with something stronger than the general confiscation of land; he probably meant that they should lose everything but their underwear), because the free movement of people, goods and services is anathema to Marxism. This is a reminder of a serious problem with communism- it can only exist in isolation. A communist society will be "contaminated" by contact with a capitalist society, due to the capitalist habit of broadcasting images of its wealth and materialism. Those images act as a magnet for the "best and brightest," who will be rewarded like princes under capitalism but treated no better than the ignorant and useless under communism. However, a society will not fare well if the "cream of the crop" leaves. So what can they do? They can restrict access to capitalist broadcasts and they can criminalize emigration. And of course, this is precisely what real communist states have done. I think we all recall the infamous Berlin wall.
• Marx wished to persecute rebels, but how does one specifically target rebels? In free societies, a rebel is only arrested if he commits an act which violates one of the general laws, such as shooting a police officer or bombing a government building. The fact that he is a rebel is not, in itself, considered illegal. There are no special laws designed to target rebels, and in fact, numerous forms of public protest, demonstration and civil disobedience are actually protected by law. So we return to the question of: "how do we specifically target rebels"? Well, one can hardly single them out by waiting for them to break a general law- this is what we do for all citizens. The only way to single out rebels is to target their political beliefs. This is exactly what real communist states have always done, and although some of you claim that this isn't what Marx intended, you can't explain how he planned to persecute "rebels" without resorting to such measures.

And the more famous tenets of communism....

More rambling
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes

In other words, seizure of all real estate. No more worrying about saving money to buy that house ... the government will take it away!

Yet more rambling
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

(emphasis mine)
After taking away your real estate, the government will take away most of your income too. Wonderful.

Even more rambling
Abolition of all rights of inheritance

How charming. It's one thing to tax inheritance, particularly for the wealthy, but to confiscate it entirely? That's simply unconscionable.

Besides, in Marx' time women were effectively chattels. Don't you object to that?

Sure I do. But if you would apply his ideology to any western country today, personal freedoms would go down the crapper real fast.

Obvious you didn't because most of Marx's worthwhile stuff is not in the Manifesto.

And calling him a lunatic is ridiculous. Loads of scholars disagree with Marx, but they don't stoop to calling him a lunatic. I disagree with Milton Friedman, but I don't think he's a lunatic.

So, closing argument is that Das Kapital somehow vindicates him?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lonestar

What do you have to base that by? Even Ishi, the "Last Indian" readily integrated into a industrial, capitalist culture. The Plains Indians had no trouble using industrial weapons against others.

I see. Using guns means that they had become capitalists.

Only the most primative cultures have trouble with capitalist societies, and even that is iffy. Go read Guns, germs, and Steel, the New Guina Highlanders had no trouble of grasping the concepts of free-market. Nor, I might add, did the Maori.

Really, I take it you have lived in New Zealand? I've read GGS and one example does not a general claim make. The Maori tended to buy and sell, but as communes not as individuals. The settler farmers were quite pissed about this as they couldn't compete effectively.

Alright, how's this: Communism cannot work in the modern world. Not anywhere near "the ideal" sense. Marxism itself would fail utterly. Humans have been too affected by the past several thousand years or so of complex social organizations for it to work.

That's a BAM.

Humans won't work as hard without self-interest to motivate them.

Sure they will. They just have to believe in what they are doing. Wars are the primary example of such behaviour.

You are presuming that our culture, which forces unnatural behaviours upon us (the like of which our ancestors would have found obscene) has no effect.

The collective self-interest of a nation of millions is much too remote and abstract to have the emotional immediacy necessary to strongly motivate most individuals. An economy of millions or hundreds of millions of people is not simple enough to predict and control from a central bureaucracy.

Again, wars disprove this first supposition quite effectively. Moreover one doesn't have to be committed to a planned economy to be a communist. Any communist worth the name is committed to outcomes, not means.

But that's hardly the point. The communists think that capitalism is inherently self destructive and looking at the environmental evidence it is hard to argue. The flipside of your assertion is of course that a decentralized economy finds it very hard to solve collective action problems such as those that cause pollution.

Of course the right wing solution is to sit around and pretend it isn't happening, all the while living a ridiculously unsustainable lifestyle and dooming our descendants to the inevitable reckoning.

Capitalism is like a wheel spinning freely without any friction with the real world. Unfortunately, that is not sustainable.

Hell no. Didn't I say that there can be some regulation? Like, say, breaking apart monopolies to ensure fair buisness practices and fair treatment to consumers?

But wait! Marx was For monopolies!

Oh yeah, of course it is the same thing. In one case you have a private company aiming to enrich itself, on the other a public service. But I guess you don't live in a civilized country with a public health care system - so you've never seen a public monopoly work.

Foreigners laugh at you guys because you can't for the life of yourselves provide health care for your people at a reasonable cost. Canada manages to provide world class health care for all its people at a fraction of the amount the US spends on health care because private markets simply cannot provide efficient health care.

Monopoly and state control are the mantra of communism, but monopolies are always destructive.

1. No they are not. The central concept is public control - people disagree over what that means . Some are statists, others would devolve to local communes.

2. Private monopolies are always destructive. Public monopolies can be if badly run, but are not necessarily so. Of course in the US you live under the perverse impression that government can't do anything right (except spend billions on weapons). But if I compare the state run primary school system and health care system I grew up with, with the joke that most of you guys call education, there's no comparison.

Without competitive forces to ensure quality and efficiency, monopolistic entities, whether they be corporations or government agencies, invariably descend into wastefulness and sloth.

This is total bull****. Our health care and education systems work just fine and have done for years. The only thing that has made them slightly worse is idiotic market fundies meddling with it. Any organization faces these problems. It behooves the shareholders to hire efficient management. In the case of public monopolies it's the government's job to make sure there is less waste - people will quickly biff them our if it isn't working properly.

This is why Microsoft was brought up on charges by the Justice Department: competition is nature's way of ensuring the strength of the species, and it has proven to be a good way to ensure the strength of an economy as well.

It also has perverse consequences by sometimes encouraging "races to the bottom". But I'm glad you brought up Microsoft because it shows up one of the problems with capitalism - people with enough money can simply subvert the system and will do so at every opportunity.

Furthermore, competition means choice, and choice means that the buying public has power.

I believe Che Guevara once said "competition is a means of increasing production" - it's not as if a communist system must completely abandon it.

The power remark is of course complete rubbish. Sure, in a capitalist economy, everyone with money has some degree of power to determine what gets produced, but of course in vastly unequal amounts.

What sounds better to you? Being paid to work, or being forced to work?

Unless I live off capital I must sell my labour or starve (or eke out a living on welfare, which would be abolished if your friends had their way) - you can quibble, but that sounds like being forced to work.

Choosing an employer based on pay and benefits, or being forcibly conscripted into an "industrial army?"

Who says you can't have some choice in a communist society? As I said, most people don't have any choice but to work and most people have to put up with jobs that they may not like but which are available.

The phrase "obligation to work" sounds better than "being forced to work by threat of punishment", but without the possibility of positive incentive, it means the same thing.

I don't see any real difference for the average working Joe. If I were rich it would make some difference, but most people aren't.

Marx would take away your freedom to choose not to work.

A freedom which does not exist for the vast majority of people other than the parasitic layabouts who live off investments.

Suppose you decide that you would rather move to a small cabin up north, live largely off the land, and do just a little bit of occasional work for spending money?

Phhhtt! Ever tried doing that? Rich people have bought up most of the nice places.

In a capitalist society, you would be forced to adopt an austere lifestyle, but no one would stop you. But Karl Marx would accuse you of not pulling your weight, and you would be forced to go work the same way as everyone else.

I don't see why. Where do you get this perverse idea from? If people don't want to work they won't get paid. If they want to work only a little, they will get paid a little.

[*]Marx targeted emigrants (presumably with something stronger than the general confiscation of land; he probably meant that they should lose everything but their underwear), because the free movement of people, goods and services is anathema to Marxism. This is a reminder of a serious problem with communism- it can only exist in isolation. A communist society will be "contaminated" by contact with a capitalist society, due to the capitalist habit of broadcasting images of its wealth and materialism. Those images act as a magnet for the "best and brightest," who will be rewarded like princes under capitalism but treated no better than the ignorant and useless under communism. However, a society will not fare well if the "cream of the crop" leaves. So what can they do? They can restrict access to capitalist broadcasts and they can criminalize emigration. And of course, this is precisely what real communist states have done. I think we all recall the infamous Berlin wall.

Oh blah blah. And of course we know how "true" those images are. Everyone in the west lives in a huge house and has all the latest clothes. But no one ever sees the 10 year old Indonesian children who make them.

Apart from a very few people, capitalism tends to reward the docile.

[*]Marx wished to persecute rebels, but how does one specifically target rebels? In free societies, a rebel is only arrested if he commits an act which violates one of the general laws, such as shooting a police officer or bombing a government building. The fact that he is a rebel is not, in itself, considered illegal. There are no special laws designed to target rebels, and in fact, numerous forms of public protest, demonstration and civil disobedience are actually protected by law. So we return to the question of: "how do we specifically target rebels"? Well, one can hardly single them out by waiting for them to break a general law- this is what we do for all citizens. The only way to single out rebels is to target their political beliefs. This is exactly what real communist states have always done, and although some of you claim that this isn't what Marx intended, you can't explain how he planned to persecute "rebels" without resorting to such measures.

Suits me. I couldn't give a **** about people whose only desire is to screw others over for their own benefit.

In other words, seizure of all real estate. No more worrying about saving money to buy that house ... the government will take it away!

Suits me. Although I really don't see anything terribly destructive about allowing people to own their own homes.

After taking away your real estate, the government will take away most of your income too. Wonderful.

You assume it's yours by right.

How charming. It's one thing to tax inheritance, particularly for the wealthy, but to confiscate it entirely? That's simply unconscionable.

Awwwwww........ boo hoo.

Sure I do. But if you would apply his ideology to any western country today, personal freedoms would go down the crapper real fast.

Yes the freedom to starve, the freedom to exploit others.... etc.

[gamenaught]

Irony: WWIII starts in Apolyton during a discussion of a hypothetical WWIII.

I wasn't referring to MAD, I was referring to a counterstrike.

Ok, I see what you're saying.

Taking it on a very personal level, if I was manning a silo or bomber and could push or not push the button..and if my pushing the button meant that, say, 95% of the Soviet population would die instead of 90%.. I probably wouldn't.

It would be very interesting to know how many people would or wouldn't.

What was that movie..War Games? ...where they replaced the silo missle men with a computer for that very reason.