Pandemoniak to Bloody Baro Continued

[Nubclear]

It belongs in OT, so let it be in OT.

More details can be found here.

[DeathByTheSword]

[Pandemoniak]

I dont think this is OT, but Ill go on here since I dont like to make trouble.

Originally posted by FlameFlash

If you recall, Adam Smith never envisioned Bill Gates when he explained capitalism, but rather more something if all the different UNIX distributions were in competition with each other (to put it into the computer world terms.) So capitalism isn't in its original, pure form either.

Flame Flash, you definetelty got a point, and to prove I totally agree with you, just look one of my books quoted "Why Adam Smith and Marx would have been friends". Both capitalism and communism (i know these words are labels, but ill use them anyway) havent been applied, and they both want to succeed to mankind's happiness. They had different views on what happiness is, and on how to reach it.
The CCCP and the P4 have a similar relation.

Archaic, my answer will be very simple and very short. The Communist Manifesto is a political theory, that I do not support. There has been 4 internationals working on the same theories, and I dont support them either. Anarchist such as Proudhon, Baboeuf and especially Bakounine had great lucidity about these theories, and improved them a lot. More modern thinkers such as Elizabeth Highleyman of the Boston Black Roses or Noam Chosky, bostonian as well, emphazised on far better theories.
I only agree with Marx with his economical theories, not his political ideas. Read the Capital.

DBTS, the "us against them" is funny, so I wont let it go. And despite I dont think its offtopic, Ill post in OT.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Archaic, my answer will be very simple and very short. The Communist Manifesto is a political theory, that I do not support. There has been 4 internationals working on the same theories, and I dont support them either. Anarchist such as Proudhon, Baboeuf and especially Bakounine had great lucidity about these theories, and improved them a lot. More modern thinkers such as Elizabeth Highleyman of the Boston Black Roses or Noam Chosky, bostonian as well, emphazised on far better theories.
I only agree with Marx with his economical theories, not his political ideas. Read the Capital.

I knew you were going to say something like that

And I have another quote for the next paper! (Archaic.... Famous last words)

[Pandemoniak]

Counter attack to Michael Wong will soon arrive...

[Archaic]

Posted this in the other thread as well, but I may as well post it here as well.

*Yawns* So? I hit you primarily on the economics of Marx's views, which you yourself there said you supported. Did you even read Wongs essay?

If you want, I can pull up many, many rebuttals of Marx's works, and those of his successors, from PhD economists from around the world. In short, in a protracted debate on the subject, you aren't going to win. Feel free to try me though. I could use the extra research. Though you can hardly call yourself a Marxist if you don't follow his original teachings, can you?

Perhaps I should send a copy of it to Wong when you're finished. He's a far less kind debator than myself. Not to mention a better one.


EDIT: Oh, and BTW, if you're going to respond to everything, don't continue to sidestep the issue. claiming that the essay I quoted from Wong doesn't address your beliefs of Marxism, that it addressed only the Political beliefs, not the economic ones, is simply foolish. Marx's political and economic beliefs were intertwined to the extent that they could be considered one and the same. You cannot have one without the other.

EDIT 2: Oh, and I'll be throwing more than just the Free Market Vs. Centrally Planned arguement at you. You'd better read this first, because if you violate any of them, I'm going to call you out.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[Pandemoniak]

Perhaps I should send a copy of it to Wong when you're finished. He's a far less kind debator than myself. Not to mention a better one.

Archaic, you do what you want, but this discussion shouldnt be extended to too many people. Let's be clear : if you invite Wong to discuss it, I'll invite some other people who are as well nastier and better debators than me. I think this is not constructive, so lets stay gentlemen.

[Archaic]

Why? I'm more than well aware of my shortcomings. I'm still in University, Wong's certainly well out of it. Are you afraid to have to stand up to someone who's both an experienced debator and highly knowledgeable on the subject? Besides, it's his essay, not mine. He's entitled to see any responses someone might come up with for it.

[lucky22]

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

Wong wrote: 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?"

In the US during the depression we had something called the WPA, or Works Projects Administration- millions of individuals were able to find employment where otherwise there was none. Situations of mass privation can't be mitigated by increased numbers of little rubber "Pissing Joey" keychain dolls, or any other such vital source of IPOs. Wong and his mouthpiece Archaic live in that shiny fantasy world under the industrial super-dome where liberal individualism has offered a minority of individuals the option to do one useless abstract thing or another to keep the resources burning. ("Wait, I'm a corporate accountant- that's not useless or abstract!") They are blind to the realities most of the world's population faces.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Archaic
Why? I'm more than well aware of my shortcomings. I'm still in University, Wong's certainly well out of it. Are you afraid to have to stand up to someone who's both an experienced debator and highly knowledgeable on the subject? Besides, it's his essay, not mine. He's entitled to see any responses someone might come up with for it.

Its just i dont want to call some other friends of mine who are as well really NASTY and very knowledgeable. But this is not because I corrected bloody baro's mistakes about communism that I want to be at war with everyone. You're atotally wrong in your conceptions of communalism, USSR's and russian culture as well as socialists theories. But dont worry, I will explain you all these things. It will just take time because this w(R)ong essay is quite long.

Oh, and by the way, I'm still at university at the moment. And I do film studies, so nothing really related to politic philosophy. But as you can see, it doesnt mean I am not curious of other things.

And please stop personnal attacks, this is just a debate.

[Archaic]

What personal attacks? I've named legitimate doubts about your ability to debate on the topic. You've shown no academic grounding in either economics or politics, and you have drawn false conclusion after false conclusion from statements made against you in rather blantant strawmans.

If you want to make this "mano-a-mano", fine. But I'll still bring in outside essays and outside knowledge.

I'll reply to both your "rebuttal" (Which I fully expect to be able to counter with a first year economics textbook, such is the knowledge of economics you've thusfar displayed), and lucky22's post once you've finished writing up yours.

[FlameFlash]

Flame Flash, you definetelty got a point, and to prove I totally agree with you, just look one of my books quoted "Why Adam Smith and Marx would have been friends". Both capitalism and communism (i know these words are labels, but ill use them anyway) havent been applied, and they both want to succeed to mankind's happiness. They had different views on what happiness is, and on how to reach it.
The CCCP and the P4 have a similar relation.

Heh... now there'd be something interesting to see... though that quote is probably right.

Still don't agree with Marx's theory (can't remember the exact name for it) where every theory has an opposite theory and that they two then merge to create something better...

Moving on...

I think I pointed out why this isn't OT, but if you're all going to continue to debate it here then I guess that's where I get stuck too.

Its just i dont want to call some other friends of mine who are as well really NASTY and very knowledgeable.

Some friends...

What other nice things do you have to say about them

What personal attacks?

I don't know... but this sounded personal...

I'll reply to both your "rebuttal" (Which I fully expect to be able to counter with a first year economics textbook, such is the knowledge of economics you've thusfar displayed),

In other words... "hey Pandemoniak, a first year econ student understands this stuff better or just as much as you do, you don't know what you're talking about!"

As I said before, neither system is in its pure state... before I can really start in on it I kind of need to know if we're talking pure or current.

[lucky22]

Wong's work is not a scholarly essay- it is a defense of the status quo presented by an intelligent amateur. As a refutation of The Communist Manifesto, it is fairly weak. There is no hard data or research evident, just "common sense" and naive observation. Further, Wong has no theoretical framework other than recieved wisdom- he may be in John Stuart Mill's pocket but does he even know the man's name? It has a quality similar to many religious tracts I've read.
Further... "www.stardestroyer.net"...? LOL

[lucky22]

Flame Flash wrote: Still don't agree with Marx's theory >>(can't remember the exact name for it) where every >>theory has an opposite theory and that they two >>then merge to create something better...

"Dialectical Reasoning" which you describe here is from Hegel, the inventor of the method. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. Marx extended the notion to the historical movement of paradigms, ultimately winding up with "Historical Materialism".

[FlameFlash]

Many thanks on the clarification, Lucky.

Was just trying to make sure everyone knew I was on the fence on this issue.

Especially since Marx uses Dialectical Reasoning all the way up to "Historical Materialism" yet once he actually hits his version of utopia the Dialectical Reasoning is suppose to peter out and not be used any more. heh.