Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

We would go back to bardering a cow for a bushel of wheat and some seeds. I like the idea of Communism in which everyone is equal, but that can never happen because in Communist countries they abuse their power and have tons of money. While the people are waiting in line for bread. Anyway it's a good idea, but flawed.

At 1/10/08 06:52 AM, Slizor wrote: Use of the scientific method in politics should be limited to the areas of politics where it is useful - those being mostly studies on voters and voting patterns. The scientific method is absolutely useless in most other areas of politics for two main reasons. Firstly, you can not do political experiments - you can not repeat procedures and remove variables. Secondly, human behaviour on the level of the individual is generally hard to predict. Human behaviour on the mass scale - the study of which is politics - is impossible to predict because of the huge number of interactions and variables.

1: You cannot repeat astronomical and tectonic phenomena either but astronomy and tectonics provide a large amount of facts for physicists back on earth to analyse, the same can be done with politics by using historical facts and statistics.
2: The only difference between humanities and sciences is in the level of mathematical complexity used which is a result of the accuracy of the facts available, they both use logic and scientific method in order to reach valid conclusions. As long as: the range of accuracy of the facts used and all the facts available are taken into account; whatever the political scientist induces from these facts is open to criticism, then political science will be accurate. The same applies to other humanities like history and sociology.

At 1/10/08 03:43 PM, PirateAnneBonny wrote:
I'd say there's a couple ways you could do it. First, you could do polls asking people things like, "Are you happerier this year then last? Do you feel more secure about your retirement than you felt last year? Do you feel safer? etc...

At 1/10/08 06:04 PM, PirateAnneBonny wrote: Slizor, you're absolutely righ about the variables. A person could say they're happy on a sunny day and miserable on a rainy one...

The thing I don't know about is how could you help people separate their feelings about their own personal situation from their feelings about the larger society, their country? One peculiar thing about Americans is that we think every personal problem should be a political one -- Prohibition and the War on Drugs are two examples.

A large sum of humanities revolves around fact finding and statistics and taking into account as much as possible exactly because you cannot produce accurate conclusions without first obtaining sufficient information which affects the phenomena you are investigating. This does not mean science does not apply here, it means the first stage of scientific method is more important, to obtain facts. As for personal and political problems, this is the result of the same logical fallacy, they took into account...

Drunk people are more likely to commit petty crime.

but not

It is difficult to prevent alcoholic beverages being produced and sold by illegal enterprises.

and

Illegal enterprises do not enjoy protection by the police and are likely to use violence to achieve it.

At 1/10/08 06:51 PM, PirateAnneBonny wrote:

:...

Basically, like post-apocalyptic "The Postman" movie.

Money is a tool used to represent value to facilitate transactions, what's wrong with transactions? Also the enforcement of justice is a whole different ball game to how the economy is managed, negative consequences are much more disasterous and often more permanent. We can be reasonable sure that national self-determination and representative government is the way to go but beyond that assertions become too inaccurate to draw practical conclusions.

=D

At 1/9/08 07:11 AM, enonymous420 wrote: Joseph McCarthy was a lying piece of shit. As was Truman, his administration, and J. Edgar Hoover.

Except for the first, these men were heroes.

Check out COINTELPRO, this was a real FBI program.

You're going to use something as irrelevant as this to rebut this person's argument? Utterly pathetic, considering I can give you multiple attrocities committed by those disgusting communists for everyone by the United States.

The only threat that communism posed was to wealthy motherfuckers intent on keeping their money.

Are you such a fucking dumbass that you do not realize you would be executed during a communist revolution for being an enemy of the people(i.e. middleclass known also as a kulak)?

So, they were going to do all they could to sway public opinion.

If you have such a distaste for capitalism why don't you get rid of your computer made at the expense of sweatshop workers, your internet provided by a private telecommunication company, and get off Newgrounds because it's owned by Tom Fulp? That's right, you're a vile little hypocrite that doesn't even practice the bullshit he spews!

Stalin didn't run a TRUE communist society, he exploited that shit for his own selfish needs. You can't blame that on communism. Fuck Stalin. Fuck Hitler.

True communism would never of yielded the powerhouse that was the USSR. He did a favor, working with a shitty idea like socialism/communism and turning it into a far cry of a monarchy, whilst maintaining the facade of marxism.

Lenin was a great leader. And no matter what you say, he was 1,000 times better than Bush ever was.

As I stated above, Lenin would of had you executed for being a member of the middleclass. I guess you're what Lenin calls a "Useful idiot."

The only people that support capitalism are greedy people.

And hypocritical fucktards like you that want to keep all their property while calling everyone else greedy.

Learn your shit before you speak.

I can't help but laugh at this statement because you know jackshit about economics, history, and government.

I spit upon everything you hold dear.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

They know scores more than you do, asshole.

At 1/8/08 09:26 PM, PirateAnneBonny wrote:

If that's utopia, then count me out.

the evolution of society into utopia would theoretically be a very gradual process. marxists would argue that our greedy self opportunistic actions are not 'human-nature' but in fact a product of the socio-economic circumstances braught about by capitalism. so called human nature is constantly evoliving and altering. take a look at european culture; in ancient times, the basis of daily behaviour would be centred around your ability to catch or grow enough food to support yourself and family, as well as in the survival of your tribe. in feudal times things were centred around your duty to god and king. In these capitalist times, self enrichment and self aggrandisment are the status quo.
the trouble of course is that this is just a theory. rather than evolving into selfless & benevolent people its possible we could reach the opposite extreme.

At 1/10/08 06:52 AM, Slizor wrote: SmilezRoyale, there are three main elements to Marx's understanding of exploitation - alienation, the labour theory of value and, by extension, the idea of "surplus value". To understand his position on exploitation (and thus be able to understand where trade unions fit into his views) you need to research these parts of Marxism instead of using a dictionary definition of exploitation.

You are gonna hate me for this, but i don't appreciate how while i elaborated on why my thesis was correct, you threw it aside by saying 'You need to understand that' I can't argue with somone who doesn't define key words in their argument, if you leave them to my interpretation i'll undoubtedly get the argument wrong because i'm 'plucking at the wrong strings' so to speak...

Explain;

Alienation
Labor Theory of Value
Surplus Value

in the eyes of Marx.

At 1/11/08 02:32 PM, mrdurgan wrote:

At 1/8/08 09:26 PM, PirateAnneBonny wrote:

If that's utopia, then count me out.

the evolution of society into utopia would theoretically be a very gradual process. marxists would argue that our greedy self opportunistic actions are not 'human-nature' but in fact a product of the socio-economic circumstances braught about by capitalism. so called human nature is constantly evoliving and altering. take a look at european culture; in ancient times, the basis of daily behaviour would be centred around your ability to catch or grow enough food to support yourself and family, as well as in the survival of your tribe. in feudal times things were centred around your duty to god and king. In these capitalist times, self enrichment and self aggrandisment are the status quo.
the trouble of course is that this is just a theory. rather than evolving into selfless & benevolent people its possible we could reach the opposite extreme.

Marxists would argue that but cannot prove it scientifically for reasons I've already mentionned. Catching food for your family, duty to a king and self enrichment are values based on the same abstract notions of survival, gaining pleasure and happiness, avoiding pain etc.. If people in those times did not attempt to feed their family or obey their king of self-enrich themselves they would miss out on pleasure and/or suffer for it. Of course there are people who go against the status quo for various reasons but most of them are either religious, a group marxists persecute, or are just doing it to make a point and in fact gain status by doing so.

At 1/12/08 05:07 AM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote:

At 1/11/08 02:32 PM, mrdurgan wrote:

At 1/8/08 09:26 PM, PirateAnneBonny wrote:

If that's utopia, then count me out.

the evolution of society into utopia would theoretically be a very gradual process. marxists would argue that our greedy self opportunistic actions are not 'human-nature' but in fact a product of the socio-economic circumstances braught about by capitalism. so called human nature is constantly evoliving and altering. take a look at european culture; in ancient times, the basis of daily behaviour would be centred around your ability to catch or grow enough food to support yourself and family, as well as in the survival of your tribe. in feudal times things were centred around your duty to god and king. In these capitalist times, self enrichment and self aggrandisment are the status quo.
the trouble of course is that this is just a theory. rather than evolving into selfless & benevolent people its possible we could reach the opposite extreme.

Marxists would argue that but cannot prove it scientifically for reasons I've already mentionned.

very true, but then there wouldnt be any debate if they could!

Catching food for your family, duty to a king and self enrichment are values based on the same abstract notions of survival, gaining pleasure and happiness, avoiding pain etc.. If people in those times did not attempt to feed their family or obey their king of self-enrich themselves they would miss out on pleasure and/or suffer for it.

exactly- people generally act in accordance to the socio-economic conditions of their time. so if we were to slowly evolve into true world socialism, helping each other and the greater good would eventually be our key daily motivations: the gain of pleasure being support from the community by means of goods, services and whatever else we might need in return for contributing to this community to the best of our abilities; the 'pain' being iscolation from the community and the lack of the privelidges it brings.

Of course there are people who go against the status quo for various reasons but most of them are either religious, a group marxists persecute, or are just doing it to make a point and in fact gain status by doing so.

in capitalist countries, true non conformists (rather than poser pseudo-anarchist teenagers) would be those who do eschew the benefits of the system usually because they find them and the ideals they represent to be worthless. someone ultimately unintereted in any of the trappings of wealth or status. for obvious reasons these people are few and far between these days, besides from a few hippy types living in communes. perhaps (PERHAPS) a rise in such people (due to changing socio-economic conditions) would lead to the emergance of 'socialist man'. there is as you pointed out a moral element within this amongst the religious, and even amongst secular groups like marxists who believe their dogma to be absolute truth.

"the gain of pleasure being support from the community by means of goods, services and whatever else we might need in return for contributing to this community to the best of our abilities; the 'pain' being iscolation from the community and the lack of the privelidges it brings."

This is nothing new. 100s of societies have attempted to achieve this and they all have one thing in common, those that did not have effective safeguards against infringements on people's economic, social and political freedoms degraded into tyranny. Economic freedom is not a code word for laissez faire capitalism, you can create a community without money or private property in a free market if you want as long as it is done with people's consent.

"(PERHAPS) a rise in such people (due to changing socio-economic conditions) would lead to the emergance of 'socialist man'."
Maybe we should try indoctrinating people from infancy to believe in moral values to create more such people? 400 religions have tried this already for 6000 years, worth another go?

At 1/13/08 12:52 AM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote:

This is nothing new. 100s of societies have attempted to achieve this and they all have one thing in common, those that did not have effective safeguards against infringements on people's economic, social and political freedoms degraded into tyranny. Economic freedom is not a code word for laissez faire capitalism, you can create a community without money or private property in a free market if you want as long as it is done with people's consent.

'with peoples consent' is the key thing here; it suggests that the only way to have this form of society widely accepted (and without descending into tyranny) is in this hypothetical alteration of peoples every day mind set which we have been discussing. which leads us on to the next point....

"(PERHAPS) a rise in such people (due to changing socio-economic conditions) would lead to the emergance of 'socialist man'."
Maybe we should try indoctrinating people from infancy to believe in moral values to create more such people? 400 religions have tried this already for 6000 years, worth another go?

obviously not. what i'm suggesting is evolution, not revolution. what is deemed acceptable or unnacceptable by society takes a long time to alter, and often does so at its own individual pace. its not good enough to just impose new laws or belief systems or governments. if we want a modern day example all we have to do is look at iraq; these people suddenly have democracy dumped in front of them and they have no idea what to do with it, the country cant cope with the power vacuum created. maybe i'll be proved wrong in the next few decades but until then...

my conclusion then is that society and the people within it may gradually reach true socialism, but they'd have to do it in sync with one another. there is the slight possiblity, but it is at the moment impossible to prove or predict.

At 1/13/08 10:32 AM, mrdurgan wrote:
'with peoples consent' is the key thing here; it suggests that the only way to have this form of society widely accepted (and without descending into tyranny) is in this hypothetical alteration of peoples every day mind set which we have been discussing. which leads us on to the next point....

my conclusion then is that society and the people within it may gradually reach true socialism, but they'd have to do it in sync with one another. there is the slight possiblity, but it is at the moment impossible to prove or predict.

True, you can't turn people with tribal loyalties who think the world is full of great tyrants into "LIBERTY OR DEATH" style idealists in a day, but the reasons why are not cultural. Differences between cultures are mostly mundane like whether you let men stick their sex organs into each other or not and what type of food you make, nothing to do with politics. The Aztecs and Mayans had kings, aristocrats, cities and polytheism even though they never had any contact with the rest of the world since prehistoric times. Succesful representative governments have formed in Africa and Asia, their cultural differences were irrelevant in the face of natural political forces. Iraq will go the same way if the region remains stable and the process can be accelerated if they observe the history of the formation of representative governments and use this to guide them, you mentionned earlier that socio-economic forces are responsible I believe that they are just one factor out of 100s of varying magnitudes many of which we are unaware of.

Whoa! Marxism states that communism is the final ideal step in the evolution of society. Consider that Marx was in a feudal-turning-capitalist era, and that he predicted communism. That's pretty amazing, but why have there been artificial revolutions to make communism before its time?

What was Mao thinking? If he was a true Marxist, he should have known that feudal China was not ready for communism. Same goes for Lenin, and then Stalin.

Problem is, communism is so appetizing to the proletariat because it means equal society. But it's not magic, and Marx stated that the proletariat revolution against the bourgeois would be a natural occurrence, just like the bourgeoisie revolution over the noble society.

The only real qualm I have is the fact that most people immediately link "communism" with evil, tyrannical leaders. Especially after the McCarthy era, I think this is especially true in America (Tell me if I'm wrong, I don't want to sound racist!)

Any way that's only what I think. People shouldn't even take Marxism too literally, it was just his prediction of things to come, and shouldn't be an active ideal.

still waiting slizor [you probably didn't see it or anything]

At 1/21/08 09:52 AM, GreyFlag wrote: Whoa! Marxism states that ... he predicted communism. That's pretty amazing,

I'm confused. First you say that Marx is stating something, then you talk as though it's fact. I don't think communism is desirable, possible or the equilibrium or end product of civilisation.

Problem is, communism is so appetizing to the proletariat because it means equal society. But it's not magic, and Marx stated that the proletariat revolution against the bourgeois would be a natural occurrence, just like the bourgeoisie revolution over the noble society.

The only real qualm I have is the fact that most people immediately link "communism" with evil, tyrannical leaders. Especially after the McCarthy era, I think this is especially true in America (Tell me if I'm wrong, I don't want to sound racist!)

I think the communists gave themselves that reputation. People are aware that technically they weren't communist, they believe that communism is a fraud used by yet another bunch of thugs and it's success is more due to the actions of soviet intelligence funding revolutionary activity rather than it being infallible logic. Also McCarthyism is not the only source of accusations of subversive activities, there is much historical evidence that many figures in America and across the globe had been to Moscow and/or joined communist groups and studied works by communist intellectuals. Despite this many communists like Martin Luther King rejected the communism they got tangled into in their youth and went on a more practical libertarian course. If you're looking for the idea of ordinary people standing up against social injustice you need to invert the whole idea of people looking to radical ideologies and realise instances where social justice was achieved in the 20th century involve people becomming moderate, supporting some kind of representative system of government and with the intent of enforcing justice and lessenning state intervention as time goes on.

Any way that's only what I think. People shouldn't even take Marxism too literally, it was just his prediction of things to come, and shouldn't be an active ideal.

Oh I see.

At 1/7/08 04:34 AM, enonymous420 wrote: capitalism is a system designed by the white man in order to keep themselves in power.
think about it..

Capitalism is designed by people that want to make the healthcare,schools ( everything government financed) better?

Capitalism is a diverse word, i would like to see a communist explain it better, not just scream it anytime someone has different thoughts and opinions.

At 1/21/08 01:53 PM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote:

At 1/21/08 09:52 AM, GreyFlag wrote: Whoa! Marxism states that ... he predicted communism. That's pretty amazing,

I'm confused. First you say that Marx is stating something, then you talk as though it's fact. I don't think communism is desirable, possible or the equilibrium or end product of civilisation.

Ok, I wasn't very clear was I? What I meant was Marx stated that communism would emerge through revolution. It's his prediction. I believe that he is right, I should have explained that. Of course, communism was seen very differently by many other people, and they strove to actively enforce it, instead of allowing political society to evolve into it as Marx stated. There's so much more to say, but life is short.

Problem is, communism is so appetizing to the proletariat because it means equal society. But it's not magic, and Marx stated that the proletariat revolution against the bourgeois would be a natural occurrence, just like the bourgeoisie revolution over the noble society.

The only real qualm I have is the fact that most people immediately link "communism" with evil, tyrannical leaders. Especially after the McCarthy era, I think this is especially true in America (Tell me if I'm wrong, I don't want to sound racist!)

I think the communists gave themselves that reputation. ...

Those were some awful long sentences... Ok well yes communists did. What I'm saying is that they aren't really Marxists if they believe in what they did. And McCarthyism was just one example... I'm not too hot on history anyway.

Any way that's only what I think. People shouldn't even take Marxism too literally, it was just his prediction of things to come, and shouldn't be an active ideal.

Oh I see.

Don't know if you're being sarcastic or not but I'll presume the latter! It's good that there's a proper forum on this topic. I was expecting a lot of people to be ALL CAPS shouting "Death to commies!" etc. I stand corrected!

PS have you seen Kenzu's Marxist, communist (etc) videos? They're really nice.

At 1/21/08 09:52 AM, GreyFlag wrote: Whoa! Marxism states that communism is the final ideal step in the evolution of society. Consider that Marx was in a feudal-turning-capitalist era, and that he predicted communism. That's pretty amazing, but why have there been artificial revolutions to make communism before its time?

What was Mao thinking? If he was a true Marxist, he should have known that feudal China was not ready for communism. Same goes for Lenin, and then Stalin.

thats easy to say in hindsight. if you read up on marxist-leninism you'd understand how he justified a backward country like russia attempting a socialist revolution without the hypothetically transitional borgeoise-democratic phase. (just wikipedia it or something, i cant really be bothered going into it, plus i dont really know any of the details.) it was well thought out and for the time made sense to many socialists. especially when coupled with the hope for an international proletariat revolution, where it was expected that the developed proletariat of industral countries like germany and britain would back up the largely peasant based russian population. trotskys theory of permanent revolution helped justify the october revolution too. the only trouble with all this is, well, they got it totally wrong by the looks of it!

Thanks I didn't know that! As I said I'm relatively new to marxism and definitely no expert! but that's really interesting.. But Marx did expect the communist revolution to start in Germany, where the bourgeoisie did exist as the major pillar of society? Even if he did allow for peasantry revolutions too...

At 1/22/08 12:05 PM, GreyFlag wrote:

:allowing political society to evolve into it as Marx stated. There's so much more to say, but life is short.

What I'm saying is that they aren't really Marxists if they believe in what they did.

it was just his prediction of things to come, and shouldn't be an active ideal.

PS have you seen Kenzu's Marxist, communist (etc) videos? They're really nice.

Think back to the fallacy that I said appears again and again in marxism. Coming up with theories and finding facts to prove them rather than accumulating as many facts as reasonably possible and formulating theories from the facts.

Marx left out too many facts to make a succesful prediction and his utopia is not particularly desirable either. There is little to suggest that communism failed in Russia because Russia was feudal when the revolution occurred and marx designed his theories around a bourgeoisie society. Communists during the revolution classified anyone who had owned "means of production" in the previous regime as bourgeoise, including peasants who owned tiny worthless plots of land and people with an education.

At 1/25/08 03:10 PM, mrdurgan wrote:
thats easy to say in hindsight. if you read up on marxist-leninism you'd understand how he justified a backward country like russia attempting a socialist revolution without the hypothetically transitional borgeoise-democratic phase.

Or maybe it was the lack of safeguards against tyranny. The American revolution did not result in a tyranny because they said form the beginning they weren't going to take away their small farms and weapons, so if the government ever tried to afterwards then they would simply get shot at. Communists said the opposite.

At 1/27/08 04:14 AM, GreyFlag wrote: Thanks I didn't know that! As I said I'm relatively new to marxism and definitely no expert! but that's really interesting.. But Marx did expect the communist revolution to start in Germany, where the bourgeoisie did exist as the major pillar of society? Even if he did allow for peasantry revolutions too...

He was right about the idea that if workers united they could use their negotiating power for higher wages, but this idea was not his and the rest of marxism is arbitrary and not based on fact. There is no need to get rid of money, forcing people to share their property might seem good in the short term but after 5 years the economy will collapse as no one can control their property efficiently enough to run a business etc..

Thanks I didn't know that! As I said I'm relatively new to marxism and definitely no expert! but that's really interesting.. But Marx did expect the communist revolution to start in Germany, where the bourgeoisie did exist as the major pillar of society? Even if he did allow for peasantry revolutions too...

yes, marx's basic idea was that the capitalist system would develop to its fullest extent before a socialist revolution could be successful. then, russian marxists and others came up with these new deviations from the main concept. its scarily similar to christianity; think of leninism as a denomination which shares the same core beliefs as the rest of marxism but interprits them in a slightly different way.

Or maybe it was the lack of safeguards against tyranny. The American revolution did not result in a tyranny because they said form the beginning they weren't going to take away their small farms and weapons, so if the government ever tried to afterwards then they would simply get shot at. Communists said the opposite.

depends which side of the historiographical debate you take. liberal historians would lable lenins theorys and means of taking over and ruling russia as purely pragmatic, only interested in justifying his own power. soviet historians would obviously argue the opposite that it was all for the greater good. then since glatnost and the break up of the USSR theres been all sorts of new schools of thought usually landing somwhere in the middle.
i think this is what you were meaning, sorry if i misunderstood.

Could I just thank everyone on this thread for teaching me so much and enabling debate on Marxism! I think its great that this is happening on NG. Cheers guys!

At 1/27/08 11:23 AM, mrdurgan wrote:
depends which side of the historiographical debate you take. liberal historians would lable lenins theorys and means of taking over and ruling russia as purely pragmatic, only interested in justifying his own power. soviet historians would obviously argue the opposite that it was all for the greater good. then since glatnost and the break up of the USSR theres been all sorts of new schools of thought usually landing somwhere in the middle.
i think this is what you were meaning, sorry if i misunderstood.

I was talking specifically about the effects of using communism as an ideal. If Lenin wanted to be a dictator from the beginning would he want his followers to scream "LIBERTY OR DEATH" and value the right to bear arms and free speech as sacred? An ideal which values eliminating the class system, caring for the poor and collective ownership might make it difficult for a despot to tax his subjects into the ground but it is unrelated to whether he should be despot or not, as long as he claims to be communist.

At 1/28/08 06:05 AM, GreyFlag wrote: Could I just thank everyone on this thread for teaching me so much and enabling debate on Marxism! I think its great that this is happening on NG. Cheers guys!

k ^-^

At 1/28/08 03:25 PM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote:

I was talking specifically about the effects of using communism as an ideal. If Lenin wanted to be a dictator from the beginning would he want his followers to scream "LIBERTY OR DEATH" and value the right to bear arms and free speech as sacred

even the dictatorship of the proletariat was meant to be only yet another temporary phase. the state apparatus was expected to wither away as soon as a world revolution was under way. this is why they even saw the mensheviks and the socialist revolutionary party as a threat to the success of socialism for their liberalist leanings. i suppose the bolsheviks saw the limit of personal freedom as only a temporary measure. or at least they did at first; as soon as the heavily beurocratic stalinist state was developed any hope of the government 'withering away' was impossible.

At 1/28/08 06:05 AM, GreyFlag wrote: Could I just thank everyone on this thread for teaching me so much and enabling debate on Marxism! I think its great that this is happening on NG. Cheers guys!

yer welcome =D

At 1/28/08 04:36 PM, mrdurgan wrote:

At 1/28/08 03:25 PM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote:

i suppose the bolsheviks saw the limit of personal freedom as only a temporary measure.

The Bolsheviks faced little resistance to their call for a dictatorship of the proletariat in part due to other factors such as the number of armed thugs who made up the revolutionary forces but also a significant element being communism's lack of safeguards against tyranny. If Russian revolutionaries had adopted a libertarian ideology things wouldn't have been perfect but at least there would be an authoritarian regime with at least a token system of representation instead of a military dictatorship that becomes increasingly totalitarian.

At 1/29/08 03:51 AM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote:

The Bolsheviks faced little resistance to their call for a dictatorship of the proletariat in part due to other factors such as the number of armed thugs who made up the revolutionary forces but also a significant element being communism's lack of safeguards against tyranny. If Russian revolutionaries had adopted a libertarian ideology things wouldn't have been perfect but at least there would be an authoritarian regime with at least a token system of representation instead of a military dictatorship that becomes increasingly totalitarian.

very true. this was the reality, despite the bolshevik theory of the inevitable withering away of the state. you can't expect to build a peaceful utopian state using violent and totalitarian measures. the paradox being that without these measures bolshevik success in the october revolution and the civil war simply would not have been possible.
would you say then that if lenin had gone along with his initial call of "all power to the soviets" then he could have saved true socialism in russia? just something i've considered myself. maybe a coalition by the bolsheviks with the social rev's and mensheviks through the congress of soviets could have created an alternate style of democracy? this idea was kinda sparked by reading orlando figes 'a peoples tragedy', a book i strongly reccomend to anyone interested in the russian revolution.

At 1/9/08 09:03 AM, Slizor wrote:

Name me one example of communism/socialism that has worked in history and improved people's lives.

The USSR, Cuba and China. Sure they may have been repressive regimes, but they improved the standard of living by a huge amount. Russia and China became superpowers for fuck's sake.

Please say that was sarcasm? The USSR was in a perpetual state of depression since the early 1900's. Remember reading about bread lines in our great depression? Russia had them too, for decades. Not to mention crappy state run hospitals. Russia didn't allow foriegn literature and world news into their country because they didn't want the citizens to know how good the rest of the world had it. Improved standard of living? China right now is a terrible place to live. Over-crowded and the most polluted country in the world, high-crime, corrupt police force. Ever wonder why China working so hard to clean up the country for the Olympics? The same reason the Nazis did in 1936, to make an impression on the world that maybe, the red chinese aren't that bad. Cuba, there is a reason why so many of them try and float over here. All the markets are state owned and don't allow the man who grow produce to make much money, keeping everyone (except the privlaged few) in a poverty status. Does that sound like an improved standard of living?
p.s. Any country can become a superpower by simply spending more on the military.

BTW, do you know what Nazi stood for? It was the Nation Socialist Party of Germany.

And do you know what economic system they promoted? Two -sided Corporatism, where the state and business co-operate....kinda the opposite of socialism.

No, the National Socialist Party advocated goverment price controls, this was one of their many talking points. They kept little mom&pop stores open and free so it seemed to the average person that nothing had changed. Our modern view of the Nazi party comes from Russian propaganda. They had to justify going to war with another marxist nation and thusly declared The Nazi Party fascists. I recommend that everyone watch the lecture series History of Hitler's Empire... very informative.

Smilez, I am not arguing on this matter. Instead, I am trying to point you in the right direction in understanding Marxist theory.

Alienation
Labour Theory of Value
Surplus Value

At 2/1/08 11:43 AM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 1/9/08 09:03 AM, Slizor wrote:

Name me one example of communism/socialism that has worked in history and improved people's lives.

The USSR, Cuba and China. Sure they may have been repressive regimes, but they improved the standard of living by a huge amount. Russia and China became superpowers for fuck's sake.

Please say that was sarcasm? The USSR was in a perpetual state of depression since the early 1900's. Remember reading about bread lines in our great depression? Russia had them too, for decades. Not to mention crappy state run hospitals.

You're not addressing my point. Did they, or did they not improve the standard of living? Were things the same or worse in the 1950s in Russia than they were in 1910s?

Russia didn't allow foriegn literature and world news into their country because they didn't want the citizens to know how good the rest of the world had it.

Yes....because the majority of the world had it soooo much better than the USSR. Have you forgotten that they are more continents than Europe and North America?

Improved standard of living? China right now is a terrible place to live. Over-crowded and the most polluted country in the world, high-crime, corrupt police force.

Please note - improved stndard of living. I did not say that life in China is the same as in the US, I said that it had improved for people under the years of Communist rule.

Ever wonder why China working so hard to clean up the country for the Olympics? The same reason the Nazis did in 1936, to make an impression on the world that maybe, the red chinese aren't that bad.

And also because the chinese realise the problems of severe environmental degredation.

Cuba, there is a reason why so many of them try and float over here. All the markets are state owned and don't allow the man who grow produce to make much money, keeping everyone (except the privlaged few) in a poverty status. Does that sound like an improved standard of living?

Cuba's never been a fair example considering that its been crippled by the US blockade. However, I do think that the standard of living has been improved in Cuba over the years, much more so than in other third world countries.

p.s. Any country can become a superpower by simply spending more on the military.

My god that's a stupid way of thinking. Where do they get the money from in the first place?

BTW, do you know what Nazi stood for? It was the Nation Socialist Party of Germany.

And do you know what economic system they promoted? Two -sided Corporatism, where the state and business co-operate....kinda the opposite of socialism.

No, the National Socialist Party advocated goverment price controls, this was one of their many talking points. They kept little mom&pop stores open and free so it seemed to the average person that nothing had changed. Our modern view of the Nazi party comes from Russian propaganda. They had to justify going to war with another marxist nation and thusly declared The Nazi Party fascists. I recommend that everyone watch the lecture series History of Hitler's Empire... very informative.

I recommend that you actually learn what Socialism is. Price controls are not the hallmark of a socialist system for two reasons. Firstly, they have been used in capitalist systems. Secondly, a socialist state would, in theory, not require the imposition of controls on private businesses because they would not have any private businesses.

In an ideal anarchist society, the trade is regulated by the people. For example: In anarcho-syndicalism (a form of anarchism that would most likely follow a Dictatorship of the proliteriat) in which trade unions democratically own the means of production. Most anarchists denounce capitalism.

Alright, As long as you don't actually think that i am wrong [in which case i want to know why so i can be smarter] on my understanding of why marx's ideas are ironic.