Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[Whaleboy]

I'm detecting some unlove here....

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yup, typical DD post. Nothing of substance, sniping at minor flaws and declaring his strawman slain.

I saw nothing really worth taking seriously in that post for several reasons. The most important a) you never even bothered to show why "libertarian definitions" are BS (Given that you stated that multiple times and it isn't self evident that they are BS, it seems like it would be an important point to cover) b) It's hard to take posts seriously that start out being critical of typos/non-english speakers mistakes and finally c) your continued insistance that Nazi Germany was capitalist given the control the state had over the economy is laughable.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I'm detecting some unlove here....

Nah. Che's cool. Spiffor's OK too for a Frenchman.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
a) you never even bothered to show why "libertarian definitions" are BS

I don't need to. Theirs is a new definition created 200 years after capitalism was already a fact. They need to prove why their assertion that capitalism = the free market should be suprioer to the defintion of classical politcal economy.

b) It's hard to take posts seriously that start out being critical of typos/non-english speakers mistakes

India is an English speaking country.

c) your continued insistance that Nazi Germany was capitalist given the control the state had over the economy is laughable.

State control of the economy has little to do with capitalism. In any event, the control the Nazis excercized over the economy wasn't substatially greater than many other countries. Private property in the means of production was still the dominate form of property, especially when compared with modern capitalist countries like Scandinavia or Great Britain. The main mode of production was still commodities, i.e., items whose primary purpose in being produces is to be sold for a profit. Those are the wo hallmarks of a capitalist economy.

Despite the insistence of libertarians, capitalism does not require a free market of goods or labor. Indeed, neither has ever fully existed in any capitalist country. There has always been state interference or control, even in the most free market in the world, the U.S.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Hardly... a free market ideally has an equilibrium between the labour market and the supply market, slavery simply doesn't work. Quite simply, supply and demand prevents a situation from occuring whereby the only alternative to a given employ is death, and where that situation occurs it is indicative of a non-free market, a communist system (either by revolution or capitalism) that shouldn't be there (I speak of the condition of free market as opposed to the symptoms, i.e. the slavery of which you speak).

WTF are you talking about? Free market in a slave state?

[Whaleboy]

Arrgghh blame the drugs I was in a state and thought you referred to the capitalist system, sorry! .

And yes, slavery. I don't like it, but you can't justify wars and killing to change it on the grounds of freedom or choice as I have shown. Obviously it's economic viability is limited, so given the choice the free market will be better for the economy.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Free market in a slave state?

Sounds like Chile under Pinochet. Or China today.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Horizontal and vertical causes. To a given end, altruism and egoism are mutually exclusive, but out of context, a pretense of altruism can be predicated by egoism, which is my argument.

I think you were arguing that altruism only exists because of egoism. That's clearly wrong. People often act in a way that is not beneficial to themselves, and they also help people when they get something out of it personally.

[Whaleboy]

I think you were arguing that altruism only exists because of egoism. That's clearly wrong. People often act in a way that is not beneficial to themselves, and they also help people when they get something out of it personally.

Read my responses to UR which (repeatedly) answer your question, I can't be bothered to repeat myself

Hint: Conscious, subconscious, evolutionary and individual.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Read my responses to UR, I can't be bothered to repeat myself

Some people, often young men, are so absorbed in themselves that they can't imagine that others may be different from them, and actually care about other people like they do themselves.

[Whaleboy]

Some people, often young men, are so absorbed in themselves that they can't imagine that others may be different from them, and actually care about other people like they do themselves.

Well that's nice and pretty but how is that a) relevant, b) answering my question?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Well that's nice and pretty but how is that a) relevant, b) answering my question?

So you realize that some people are altruistic - that they help people when it will cost them for it beyond how much it will help themselves?

[Whaleboy]

So you realize that some people are altruistic - that they help people when it will cost them for it beyond how much it will help themselves?

Well firstly your argument supposes that I consciously act egoistically with no evidence to support that ad hominem supposition, secondly that what we might see in peoples intentions are those intentions in a categorical sense. Thirdly your whole piece ignores the thrust of my argument, with regard to how we perceive peoples is *always* premised in ourselves, as is any sensory experience (stimulus -> brain). Fourthly you continue to ignore my argument of the separation between conscious and subconscious in this case. We continually delude ourselves into thinking we are altruistic beings, and act with "the best of intentions", and those are seen by other people etc, I know I do. That is not what egoism is questioning here, it is addressing the nuts and bolts behind that. As for how we might perceive altruism or egoism in other people, I would suppose it's a case of depressing perception vs. gleeful shallowness.

[Kidlicious]

Whaleboy,

I don't pretend to know how the nuts and bolts work. You and Kuciwalker are too caught up in it if you ask me. It doens't get you very far. I know that altruism exists because I have myself been altruistic. I also know that others have. People give to charity even though they don't really have the time and money to do so. They help each other when they don't really feel like it. You and Kuciwalker are so caught up in that weird philosophy that you don't know anything about the real world.

[Whaleboy]

And you're so caught up in your prejudice that you make assumptions about what we do and don't know.

Extolling the virtues of altruism does not address the argument that it is a delusion... and the question of whether or not altruism is not a delusion has great importance in the issue of communism and capitalism, since both would depend upon human nature. It is that nature that we are attempting to describe. And we can, and do, get far .

Welcome to the Real World ©.