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

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
No you misunderstand. This works on the lines of Wittgensteins distinction of what can be said and what can be shown (the "fault line" between subjective and objective).

Does belief in that respect depend upon empirical stimulii? I should say no with a but, or yes with an if. But what others see is irrelevant, since a single person is perfectly capable of empirical study... one must make extra assumptions in order for communication to occur, all layered rather like an onion, with different levels at which certain things such as "consciousness" or "communication" can occur.

You can not tell me whether I do charity out of my own self interest or not. You can not tell me how my brain works. Philosophy is stupid and useless.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


Kid, you just do not use the word slave. You admit that people in a communist society have no right to choose anything. They are told what to do in virtually everything: They are told what jobs they can take, how much they are paid, where they have to live, the children they can have, etc. etc. etc. Communism is totalitarianism. The people in a totalitarian society are slaves.

Totalistarianism is more than that. The subjects have no rights whatsoever. Many people have no problem with being assigned jobs and places to live so long as the decision is rational and fair.

[Whaleboy]

You can not tell me whether I do charity out of my own self interest or not. You can not tell me how my brain works. Philosophy is stupid and useless.

You'll do whatever I tell you to!
(And yes, I can)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


You'll do whatever I tell you to!
(And yes, I can)

No you can't. You can't study it, because you have no knowledge of it except what I tell you. A person can only study themselves.
But he can never get true knowledge of others unless he listens to them. Any study of humans must rely on what people see in themselves, not what philosophers see in them. Philosophers see nothing.

[Whaleboy]

What's with your prejudice against philosophers? Were you beaten around the head with a rolled-up copy of Hobbes Leviathan as punishment for soiling yourself when Agathon started advocating iPods?

You consistently fail to address my distinction between the conscious and the subconcious. I am not making inferences about your consciousness or yourself as a person. I am describing human nature, not prescribing you. Why must any study of huamns rely on what people see in themselves? Surely the flaw in such a study is self-evident? If philosophers see nothing, why is it a field that has survived for 2700 years?

[chequita guevara]

Whaleboy, please explain to me how a soldier sacrificing himself for his unit is in his own self interest. He does not gain from it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
What's with your prejudice against philosophers? Were you beaten around the head with a rolled-up copy of Hobbes Leviathan as punishment for soiling yourself when Agathon started advocating iPods?

You consistently fail to address my distinction between the conscious and the subconcious. I am not making inferences about your consciousness or yourself as a person. I am describing human nature, not prescribing you. Why must any study of huamns rely on what people see in themselves? Surely the flaw in such a study is self-evident? If philosophers see nothing, why is it a field that has survived for 2700 years?

Do you call becoming a bartender, discussing silly things on the internet, and teaching the useless discipline surviving. Well maybe, but barely. The only reason it survives is because it is public funded and required in school.

And you said it yourself. Any study that only examines one person is flawed. And all a person can do is examine his own mind, because to study something you have to examine it, and you can only indirectly examine a person's mind. To do so you have to depend on what that person tells you that he or she sees.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious



Totalistarianism is more than that. The subjects have no rights whatsoever. Many people have no problem with being assigned jobs and places to live so long as the decision is rational and fair.

No doubt.

This reminds me of that Star Trek show where a supercomputer "rationally" controlled everything in society. The supercomputer was named "Landrieu," if I recall correctly. It thought it was doing the right thing; but the people were not free. Of course, Kirk destroyed the supercomputer; and then the people asked Kirk what would they do now? Kirk smiled knowingly, and said that they would soon find out.

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy, please explain to me how a soldier sacrificing himself for his unit is in his own self interest. He does not gain from it.

Read my posts and then ask.

The only reason it survives is because it is public funded and required in school.

Where? Cos I need to emmigrate!

And all a person can do is examine his own mind, because to study something you have to examine it, and you can only indirectly examine a person's mind. To do so you have to depend on what that person tells you that he or she sees.

And you would argue that nothing can be seen beneath that? What of inferences being made from the properties of the brain, or the head, or even the nature of sensory experience (if not the subjective essense), and used to look deeper, behind what people say? By your logic, I could claim to possess the amalgamated personalities of every famous person from the 20th century, or claim that I act for the sole reason of urinating in space... and one cannot disprove that. My argument is that we can do so, and that we can describe human nature, beyond what any individual case holds it as.

It is conceivable after all, that someone could claim their cells do not contain DNA, yet it can be shown otherwise. How is this situation any different, where my assertions can be verified by neurology?

[Kidlicious]

Ned,

SciFi put aside for the moment, making collective decisions and obligating individuals to create a rational society is what all govts aim to do.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Ned,

SciFi put aside for the moment, making collective decisions and obligating individuals to create a rational society is what all govts aim to do.

There is a difference between providing law so that private parties have rules to follow in their private transactions, and providing no law, but instead placing all decisions in the hands of a committee or party member which in former times may have been denoted as a King or a King's legate. One of the more critical advances in civilization is the rule of law. Communism dispenses with that in favor of a more primitive form of government.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
And you would argue that nothing can be seen beneath that? What of inferences being made from the properties of the brain, or the head, or even the nature of sensory experience (if not the subjective essense), and used to look deeper, behind what people say? By your logic, I could claim to possess the amalgamated personalities of every famous person from the 20th century, or claim that I act for the sole reason of urinating in space... and one cannot disprove that. My argument is that we can do so, and that we can describe human nature, beyond what any individual case holds it as.

It is conceivable after all, that someone could claim their cells do not contain DNA, yet it can be shown otherwise. How is this situation any different, where my assertions can be verified by neurology?

Claiming that you are altruistic is not the same thing as claiming that you possesss someone elses personality. If you are to believe that altruism does not exist then you have to bring more to the table than mere speuculation about how another persons mind works, becuase no one in their right 'mind' whould take your word for something that you have no real first hand knowledge about against the only person who really knows the mind - the subject.

[Patroklos]

Whaleboy, please explain to me how a soldier sacrificing himself for his unit is in his own self interest. He does not gain from it.

He does not gain anything from it materially, which I suppose is all that matters to commies, but to him personally obviously he considers his own survival less important than his whole unit. It makes him happy/content/whatever he is feeling to do that action.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
che
Exporting food was British policy, not free peoples exchanging goods.

It wasn't British policy. It was Irish landlords, who owned the land, selling the crops produced on their land where they could make more money, rather than feeding the people of Ireland who were starving to death or fleeing the country. There are, of course, notable exceptions, where landlords instead tried to aid their tenants. This is the same thing that happened in Somolia just a decade ago. Profit over people.

The Brits ordered American colonists to produce and "sell" certain things too, one of the reasons for the Revolution.

Yes, almost 100 years before the famine. Even so, that was still capitalism. The means of production were privately owned and they were exchanged for a profit. The fact that state coersion was involved doesn't change that. It may not be the most "efficient" way to manage a capitalist society, but that doesn't change the fact that it was capitalism. Adam Smith didn't invent a new system, he desribed the society in which he lived and suggested policies for making it better.

Ireland (and India) was a caste system, and caste systems are typically employed or manipulated to govern. Not surprisingly, Britain was still suffering from a caste system imposed by earlier invaders.

Irrelevent. Capitalism doesn't require social mobility. It may work better with social mobility, but it doesn't require it.

Sheesh! You mean socialism or communism requires I use what I make?

No, you fool. The primary purpose of production in capitalist society is to produce goods for sale. Selling commodities is the means by which surplus value is extracted in capitalism, as oppsed to feudalism or slave societies, in which surplus value is extracted directly by appropriation of the labor or goods produced themselves. It was more susinctly put by a US Steel exect who said, "U.S. Steel is not in the business of making steel. We're in the business of making money."

In socialism, the market will still exist, goods will still be sold, but not as a means for realizing surplus value. It will simply be a means of exchange. The primary purpose of production in socialism will be to meet the needs of the populace, not to make a profit.

Forget it, che, that massive state interference is called "central planning", not capitalism.

One does not preclude the other. Capitalism does not require a free market, only a market. Numberous capitalist states have had central planning, only during periods of extreme crisis, however.

Capitalism isn't a policy, which you can switch on or off. It is a whole economic system, with people who have entrenched interests and a system of property ownership. This doesn't change simply because of the whim of one person, but requires the overthrow of a whole system of relations. You don't cease being capitalist simply because a political party imposes a tax or a leader imposes regulations. You cease being capitalist when the whole means of production are taken from the capitalists, either by bureaucrats, aristocrats, or the proletariat.

Even now India is near the bottom of the economic freedom index,

Irrelevent.

Just because India isn't communist doesn't mean its capitalist...

No, the fact that its economy is primarily driven by privately owned means of production where goods are produced to be sold for a profit means it is capitalist.

It ain't capitalism when politicians or royalty are deciding if you can have land, what you can do with it, and what happens to your labor and production.

Says you, two hundred years after capitalism was a fact. You don't get to change definitions a postieri just because you don't like the society you have. Capitalism evolves, just like every social system. It would be like me claiming you aren't Berzerker, because you aren't the same person you were at the age of five.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
There is a difference between providing law so that private parties have rules to follow in their private transactions, and providing no law, but instead placing all decisions in the hands of a committee or party member which in former times may have been denoted as a King or a King's legate. One of the more critical advances in civilization is the rule of law. Communism dispenses with that in favor of a more primitive form of government.

Capitalism is no advancement in the rule of law. It is legalized exploitation. It's defended by force, and disobedience is punished by death. Communism is rational, and is the only true advancement to civilization.