I rule completely

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Odin
How is my view any less scientific than Marxism?

Because your view is based not on any actual observation, but simply repeat the assertions of others. It's obvious to anyone who has actually read Marx that you don't know what you are talking about whenever you discuss him.

It is the Marxists who are being religious by proclaiming themselves as the One True Socio-Economic Theory while proclaiming other prefectly reasonable left-wing theories as incorrect delusions of capitalist ideology.

Which perfectly reasonable left-wing theories? Which other socialist theoriticians analyzed capitalism?

The Marxists or some Marxists? Aren't you committing the exact same sin you accuse others of doing?

What is so unscientific with the hypothesis that some parts of the economy are done better by free enterprise via co-ops and other by central planning via the government?

Where does Marx write that central planning is how the economy should be run?

What is so unscientific in hypothesizing that the ballot box is better than revolution?

Better is a judgement. It is absolutely theoretically possible that socialism could be established electorally. All it would require is for the state to fail to do its job in preventing socialism from being established, either by refusing to follow the government or by overthrowing it. Once you remove that minor impediment, it becomes a simple matter. Marxist do not say that revolution is better than the ballot. We simply say that socialism will not be esablished by the ballot because the capitalists will not let it happen. They never have.

Read some Popper if you want a good ass-raping of the Marxist view of history (and 19th century historicism in general).

Because Popper is such an excellent philosopher?

[Spiffor]

Popper is pretty much the expert in scientific method.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
Yes, actually. Somehow I doubt you'd call John a tool.

That's because quite clearly you're being his tool, not the other way around

[chequita guevara]

He's not the expert. He is, however, hugely influential, which is not the same thing. I'm not a big fan of his theory of knowledge. It decries things as unscientific which are verified fact. The sun will come up tomorrow is not falsifiable, and thus in Popper's view, that would be an unscientific statement. That's bull****. On the other hand, Lysenko's theories would be considered scientific beause they are falsifiable, and that's also bull****.

It's interesting, however, that Popper understands Marx's theories far more than Odin does. It seems that Odin just takes his critique of the vulgar Marxists and applies them across the board, while Popper mostly gets it. When it comes to Marx's theories on politics, Popper kinda misses obvious though. He calims that Marx considers politics to be impotant, and at the same time recognizes that Marx called for the working class to seize the state. If politics is impotant, then why seize the state?

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That's because quite clearly you're being his tool, not the other way around

Interesting reasoning this time, Mr. Spam-toilet. In your world, maybe agreeing with someone makes you their tool, but not in the world in which everyone else lives in.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by vomitus
Vladimir Lenin:

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

It is true that liberty is precious - so precious that it must be rationed.

We need the real, nation-wide terror which reinvigorates the country and through which the Great French Revolution achieved glory.

Find the sources of the three preceding quotes. Pointing to websites that list quotes isn't good enough. I want specific books, articles, memos, or speeches. Ironically, the first quote is true in and of itself, as it is a lie that has been repeated so often it is believed to be true.

Use the following website to try and locate among Lenin's writings the previous quotes. You won't find them, because he never wrote them or said them. Repeating a lie is the same as lying. There are your lies.

http://search.marxists.org/

The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.

Literature must become party literature. Down with unpartisan litterateurs! Down with the superman of literature! Literature must become a part of the general cause of the proletariat.

These two quotes are taken horribly out of context. Tom Stoppard uses them in his play Travesties which is about an old man misremembing his youth. Apparently the chacter hung out with Lenin in Geneva.

Lenin did in deed write the proceding two quotes, but they are taken from an article written about the Bolshevik's own papers. Thus "the press" refers not to all news organizations, but specifically to the Bolsheviks' newspapers. Literature means party literature. I would also note the second quote here is horribly mangled to the point of being not his work, but there's enough there for me to accept it for argument' sake.

The specific situation was that Lenin was arguing that the time for secrecy and writing in code were past because the workers of Russia were revolting (in 1905). And I mean arguing, because contrary to the assertions of many, he was merely the leader of the Bolsheviks, and could not direct the party as he willed. He needed to get approval to make changes to party policy, and to get that approval he had to convince others, which he did.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/nov/13.htm

[DinoDoc]

Are there any juicy quotes about the ethnic cleansing Lenin and Dzerzhinsky engaged in with the "De-Cossackization" program?

Edit: I forgot about my old standby in the battle of the quotes and failed to mention Trotsky eloquent arguements in favor of state terrorism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by vomitus
chegitz, I'm honestly curious.

Okay, cool.

You live in the US so you're benefitting from capitalism.

The second part of that sentence does not logically follow from the first. Mere residence in the U.S. does not indicate benefitting from capitalism (although I do). There are millions of homeless, criminals, and desperately poor people in this country for whom capitalism has done no benefit.

Also, the fact that I benefit from a system doesn't mean I can oppose it. That's like asking why white people helped oppose Jim Crow and apartheid.

This country gives you the right to say whatever you want.

And I use it.

In every communist nation in history, you would have had no freedom to say what you want.

That's not really true. I could say what I liked in the Paris Commune of 1871. I could say what I liked in Soviet Russia until Stalin took over. I could say what I liked in Nicaragua.

Your standard of living would be lower (unless you're homeless now, which judging by your computer access, you're not).

How do you know I'm not posting from a library? Again, you make assumptions. It's also true my standard of living would be lower in most capitalist countries. Of course, if you live with a theif, you will probably live better than those from whom he steals.

So why hope for a society which would destroy the benefits you're enjoying now?

Several reasons. One, I think that there are only two possible futures for capitalism: socialism or barbarism. Even if socialism meant living in the USSR, it would be preferable to a lawless society where the strong were fully freed to prey on the weaker, or a society whose economy and or ecology had collapsed.

Two, I don't like being forced to sell my skills just to live (the "alternative" being death or homelessness). I would rather spend my time doing something actually useful or learning or playing. It is absurd I get paid a ridiculous amount of money to make things look pretty when the people who grow and pick the very food we need to eat live in poverty or worse.

Even more absurd is the fact that the more productive producers get, the poorer they become. Farmers, for example, aren't poor because they don't grow enough food, but because they grow too much. We're swimming in wealth and it makes us poor? That's just ****ing insane!

Finally, I think it's absurd that human beings are slaves to their own creations, rather than being their masters. The economy is nothing more than a set of relations between human beings, but we have little direct control over these relations, and they have very great control over us.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Are there any juicy quotes about the ethnic cleansing Lenin and Dzerzhinsky engaged in with the "De-Cossackization" program?

It's his collected works, so I'm sure you can find them if you go look.

Edit: I forgot about my old standby in the battle of the quotes and failed to mention Trotsky eloquent arguements in favor of state terrorism.

Too bad, so sad.

[DinoDoc]

awww, I was so hoping that you'd defend them.

[chequita guevara]

I can't defend what I haven't read or understood in context.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I can't defend what I haven't read or understood in context.

a) Under what context would you consider ethnic cleansing defensible?
b) I'm genuinely curious what you feel is stopping you from getting a job doing something you feel is more useful.

[chequita guevara]

a) if they were ethnicly cleansing you first, I think it would be rational to try and drive your attackers out.

b) I don't want to be poor.

[DinoDoc]

You already are poor. Or were those threads about someone else? Is there another reason?

[chequita guevara]

I can be poor and not want to be poor at the same time, you know.