NationStates Jolt Archive

I would contend, that all the rhetoric aside, the only two people who ever held public office in a nation claiming to be Communist who actually practised communism in deed would be Che Guevara, and Leo Trotsky.
Does anyone agree/disagree?

I would contend, that all the rhetoric aside, the only two people who ever held public office in a nation claiming to be Communist who actually practised communism in deed would be Che Guevara, and Leo Trotsky.
Does anyone agree/disagree?

Che Guevara help set the cuban revolution in motion and several other communist revolutions but i dont believe he held office. Leon Trotsky never gained the power that Lenin or Stalin had. If he did he would have turned out exactly the same as both of those bastards. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

The only true communists were Jesus and a few Native American tribes.

The only true communists were Jesus and a few Native American tribes.

Jesus wasnt a commie....he believed in God.

Jesus wasnt a commie....he believed in God.

and?

and?

commies dont believe in God in case you didnt know....

commies dont believe in God in case you didnt know....

Political views have nothing to do with one's religious views.

Just because the Soviet Union was officially an Atheist state means nothing.

And for the most part, I wouldn't necessarily say that Jesus was a communist, but at the very least, he was an uber-liberal.

Jesus wasnt a commie....he believed in God.
I thought Jesus was God, or some mix of the Holy Ghost. Twas always a confusing point to me.

Political views have nothing to do with one's religious views.

Just because the Soviet Union was officially an Atheist state means nothing.

And for the most part, I wouldn't necessarily say that Jesus was a communist, but at the very least, he was an uber-liberal.

Communism is atheist by definition.

com·mu·nism
n.

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
http://dictionary.reference.com/

Am I missing something?

commies dont believe in God in case you didnt know....

shit, somebody better tell the catholic worker movement (http://www.catholicworker.org/) that. and the people over at jesus radicals (http://www.jesusradicals.com/) too. i personally know several christian communists.

Communism is atheist by definition.
By your uninformed and Americanised definition.

Political views have nothing to do with one's religious views.

Just because the Soviet Union was officially an Atheist state means nothing.

And for the most part, I wouldn't necessarily say that Jesus was a communist, but at the very least, he was an uber-liberal.

Tell that to the 20 million innocent christian russians who were put to death by the commies running the ussr.....those bastards, I hope all communists who support this trash die a painful painful death :mad:

Tell that to the 20 million innocent christian russians who were put to death by the commies running the ussr.....those bastards, I hope all communists who support this trash die a painful painful death :mad:
You really know nothing about communism, do you? You're just bigoted by anti-communist propganda. Note that you mentioned the U.S.S.R. The Soviet Union was an atheist state, stating that communism could never exist if people also held loyalty to religion, and not just the state. This is but on of them. Communism, strictly speaking, is the radical left form of government, where the government has no civil power, per se, and complete control of industry and the economy. Marxist-Leninists chose to try to eliminate religion to accomplish this, but that is not requisite for communism. Hell, the Soviet Union was really a fascist government, not communist. I think you need to become a little more educated before you start making generalisations that all communists are "godless" and want to commit "genocide" against the Christians.

Tell that to the 20 million innocent christian russians who were put to death by the commies running the ussr.....those bastards, I hope all communists who support this trash die a painful painful death :mad:
Yes, yes, we all agree Stalin was a real prick.

But saying communists are atheists by definition is like saying Russians are murderers. You can't apply Stalinism to everything.

"i dont believe he held office"
Don't quote me but i do believe at one point he was the Treasurer and minister of industry of Cuba. Che Guevara that is.

"Leon Trotsky never gained the power that Lenin or Stalin had. If he did he would have turned out exactly the same as both of those bastards. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Nice quote, yet the question was whether or not he was a true communist. Wow, imagine a person with the name "right wing america" missing the point."

"commies dont believe in God in case you didnt know...."
Its true that Marx definatley did not like God, and most "Communists" of the USSR and China etc didn't like the oppressive symbols of institutionalised religion, but that doesn't mean they did not have faith.


"Tell that to the 20 million innocent christian russians who were put to death by the commies running the ussr.....those bastards, I hope all communists who support this trash die a painful painful death"
1. Innocent?
2. Get you sodding numbers right, nowhere near 20million 'innocent' christians died due to their faith under the Soviet regime.

Tell that to the 20 million innocent christian russians who were put to death by the commies running the ussr.....those bastards, I hope all communists who support this trash die a painful painful death :mad:

When I said "meant nothing," I meant that in respect to the first part of my post, that political views had nothing to do with religious views. Yes, they are often affected by one another, but saying that all communists are Atheists is like saying that all capitalists are Christians.

But in your post...are you implying that all communists are Atheists that want to kill Christians? Just for the record, there aren't a whole lot of communists/socialists (or people for that matter) in the present that support the Soviet Union. Using the USSR as the example of all Atheists is like saying all Christians are the same as the Europeans who massacred thousands of innocent people during the Crusades.

You really know nothing about communism, do you? You're just bigoted by anti-communist propganda. Note that you mentioned the U.S.S.R. The Soviet Union was an atheist state, stating that communism could never exist if people also held loyalty to religion, and not just the state. This is but on of them. Communism, strictly speaking, is the radical left form of government, where the government has no social power, and complete control of industry and the economy. Marxist-Leninists chose to try to eliminate religion to accomplish this, but that is not requisite for communism. Hell, the Soviet Union was really a fascist government, not communist. I think you need to become a little more educated before you start making generalisations that all communists are "godless" and want to commit "genocide" against the Christians.


I think i just fell in love with you

Communism is where all the people in the community work together for the good of all in a selfless manner. It has nothing to do with atheism, and is infact the perfect church society type put forth in the new testiment of the Bible, I have even read a book on the subject titled "Communism in the New Testiment" or something to that accord.

Marxism, is what most people think of when they they hear communism, because the nations that were influenced and raised under the Marxist philosophy, went under that name, when it could not be further from the truth.

The two, are in fact, the very opposite of each other. One is for the good of all, in another only a very select few gain, while the majority suffers.

Communism is where all the people in the community work together for the good of all in a selfless manner. It has nothing to do with atheism, and is infact the perfect church society type put forth in the new testiment of the Bible, I have even read a book on the subject titled "Communism in the New Testiment" or something to that accord.

Marxism, is what most people think of when they they hear communism, because the nations that were influenced and raised under the Marxist philosophy, went under that name, when it could not be further from the truth.

The two, are in fact, the very opposite of each other. One is for the good of all, in another only a very select few gain, while the majority suffers.

Although iu think your point of view is wrong it intrigues me, please continue

Communism is where all the people in the community work together for the good of all in a selfless manner.That sounds more like anarchy to me. Though on a small scale, sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference.
Marxism, is what most people think of when they they hear communism, because the nations that were influenced and raised under the Marxist philosophy, went under that name, when it could not be further from the truth.

The two, are in fact, the very opposite of each other. One is for the good of all, in another only a very select few gain, while the majority suffers.Well, Marxism in it's hypothetical form is indeed a form of communism. It's just that when practised on a national scale, it unerringly makes a beeline for fascism.

That sounds more like anarchy to me. Though on a small scale, sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference.

Yes, that's true. the "Marxist" states of the 20th century and now have been transitionary socialist states, and the end goal of Marxism when the world revolution is done is basically communal anarchism.

Comrade Trotsky was indeed a great man who created the Red Army and led the Bolsheviks to victory in the Russian Civil War. His "Revolution Betrayed" is the best analysis of the Soviet state ever written. It is one of history's greatest tragedies that Stalin and his clique took power in the USSR following Lenin's death which effectively doomed the Soviet Union by extension the communist movement itself.

Guerverra was another great man although his thinking was in many ways more anarchist than marxist. He thought that communism was more about changing our way of thinking than economic development but he was nevertheless truly a passionate and heroic fighter for the opressed.

Jesus wasnt a commie....he believed in God.
Actually, Jesus was a communalist. He believed in voluntary charity, not enforced. After all, he's the one who coined the phrase "Leave unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

edit: sorry, quoted the wrong post. I meant to get the other guys.

"Tell that to the 20 million innocent christian russians who were put to death by the commies running the ussr.....those bastards, I hope all communists who support this trash die a painful painful death"
1. Innocent?
2. Get you sodding numbers right, nowhere near 20million 'innocent' christians died due to their faith under the Soviet regime.
Not necessarily 20 million innocent Christians, but certainly 20 million political prisoners whose only crime was disagreeing with the all knowing Comrade Stalin.

Not necessarily 20 million innocent Christians, but certainly 20 million political prisoners whose only crime was disagreeing with the all knowing Comrade Stalin.

More like 30million, and that was not their 'only' crime, yet the vast majority of them were arrested out of paranoia and the need to fulfill a quota

More like 30million, and that was not their 'only' crime, yet the vast majority of them were arrested out of paranoia and the need to fulfill a quota
I don't think we need to argue the fact that Stalin killed countless individuals. Really, I don't think we'll ever really know just how many he killed, or condemned to death.

Edit:
Though we can guess...

Not necessarily 20 million innocent Christians, but certainly 20 million political prisoners whose only crime was disagreeing with the all knowing Comrade Stalin.

Yes, we know Stalin was very bad, mmkay? ;)

Although iu think your point of view is wrong it intrigues me, please continue

Just one example:

Acts 2: 42-47

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

or this one may be even better


Acts 4:32-35
The Believers Share Their Possessions

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

Those early pinko-Christians
;)

Yes, Communists are by definition atheist--or am I the only one here who has actually bothered to read anything written by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky?

Anyway, you are correct in your assertion that Guevara and Trotsky are the only real Communists to have ever held office. You know what that means? It means that they're even more evil than Stalin, Mao, Kim, and Castro. Those four only paid lip service to an ideology of collectivism, altruism, and sacrifice--the three most evil notions ever created. Guevara and Trotsky embraced it wholesale.

Yes, Communists are by definition atheist--or am I the only one here who has actually bothered to read anything written by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky?

Anyway, you are correct in your assertion that Guevara and Trotsky are the only real Communists to have ever held office. You know what that means? It means that they're even more evil than Stalin, Mao, Kim, and Castro. Those four only paid lip service to an ideology of collectivism, altruism, and sacrifice--the three most evil notions ever created. Guevara and Trotsky embraced it wholesale.

Those are codified notions of the communists philosophy, not the actual definition of communism itself. Communism is only athiestic to the point that one equates theism with _organized_ religion. Organized religon would be a government like hierarchal system and thus antithetical to the aims of Communism (and in fact at the time Communist doctrine was codified the government and religious government were mixed and nearly one).

Any who holds governmental office is not a "true" Communist as the definiton of communism calls for the state to be abolished. But yes, Trotsky and Guevara were the only (prominent at least) ones to hold office who were working towards the actual goals of communism.

That was actually a really important distinction i should have made that "Any who holds governmental office is not a "true" Communist as the definiton of communism calls for the state to be abolished. But yes, Trotsky and Guevara were the only (prominent at least) ones to hold office who were working towards the actual goals of communism" sorry

Reason and Reality (interesting name considering)
If your arguments are based upon 'my fundamentalist upbringing' without any real substance just sod off would you?

Che Guevara help set the cuban revolution in motion and several other communist revolutions but i dont believe he held office. Leon Trotsky never gained the power that Lenin or Stalin had. If he did he would have turned out exactly the same as both of those bastards. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Which is why if there is a god, he's a complete and utter asshole.

"Which is why if there is a god, he's a complete and utter asshole."

nice

Which is why if there is a god, he's a complete and utter asshole.

i like riddick's formulation in "pitch black":

you got it all wrong, holy man. i absolutely believe in god. and i absolutely hate the fucker.

Trotsky is generally not thought to be a communist except by what even communists call the "far left".

Trotsky and Guevara were the only two prominent ones to hold office, i'm sure there were others who arn't as famous. Although Jesus is a pretty famous one, although he never held office... While he was a socialist not a communist, i want to mention Tommy Douglas who came up with the government as the health provider, and made it a reality in Canada.

Reason and Reality - Ok, first, sorta a contradictory name, what with reality more often then not not being reasonable. "collectivism, altruism, and sacrifice--the three most evil notions ever created" Personally i think racisim, Fascism, and greed to be far worse evils. I mean, greed is even a SIN for crying out loud. Also, how the hell is Altruism an evil? best personification of altuism i can think of is Mother Teresa, and i really don't see how she's evil. Collectivism ok, if your a fantatical capitalist, i could see why you think it is, but Altruism?


Right-Wing America - ok, let's play a little comparison game
Jesus - a Jew, believed that you should not own anything individually but own as a group, Helping others for nothing in return, was persecuted by the powerfull, believed everyone is equal.
Communist - no set religion, believes that you should not own anything individually but own as a collective, helping others for nothing in return, is persecuted by the powerfull, believes everyone is equal.

If you need more RWA, let me know, i'll be glad to help.

Hehe, can't hear the name Trotsky without thinking of 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' episode 34 (or episode 8, series 3) "The Cycling Tour".

Pither: This is Clodagh Rogers, the Irish-born girl singer.

Mme. Brun: Mais oui (sings) Jack-in-a-box, I know whenever love knocks... (M. Brun joins in) Eh!! Genevieve, Gerard. C'est Clodagh Rogers la chanteuse Anglaise.

(Happy shouts from off as two small froggies in their teens appear in pyjamas with autograph books and run up to Gulliver. Gen. offers her book to Gulliver.)

Gulliver: They will never silence me. They will nev...

Gen.: Excusez-moi Mam'selle Clodagh. Ecrivez vous votre nom dans mon livre des celebrites. (Gulliver takes book.) S'il vous plait. La, au-dessous de Denis Compton. (Gulliver, having signed, hands the book back.) Merci... oh! Maman. Ce n'est pas la belle Clodagh.

Mme. Brun: Quoi?

Gen.: C'est Trotsky le revolutionaire.

Ah, the funniest thing he ever did. :D

Trotsky is generally not thought to be a communist except by what even communists call the "far left".

Uh. yes he was. What do you mean?

QUOTE]collectivism, altruism, and sacrifice--the three most evil notions ever created.[/QUOTE]

wow, it seems like we have an adherent to the pseudo-philosopher Ayn Rand in the house

I mean, were we to find the antonyms of altruism and sacrifice (I have ommited collectivism as it is a little more open to debate than the others)
we arrive at selfishness and greed; who can ever say they wouldn't gladly sacrifice something in some circumstances? Although, speaking of the antonym of collectivism, I always rather liked August Spies comparison of the capitalist to the little hamster that filled its pouches with more than it could ever eat. But I digress...

Leon Trotsky, Ernesto Rafael Guevara de la Serna (lets get che's full name here people :P) and possibly Castro himself were (in Castro's case is) the only true communists. Yes, Guevarra did hold numerous posts of office before he left for Bolivia.

Uh. yes he was. What do you mean?
I am making no comment on whether he is or not or on the validity or otherwise of his ideas. This is a point of historical accuracy. Since the 1930s mainstream communist parties throughout the world have not accepted the work of Trotsky as being part of the philosophical or political analysis that makes communism. They have regarded parties that follow them as having a separate but related philosophy and have called them extreme left or Trotskyist. These groups have been in the minority compared to mainstream communism and have not been seen as representing the communist movement by the wider left including socialist parties.

I would contend, that all the rhetoric aside, the only two people who ever held public office in a nation claiming to be Communist who actually practised communism in deed would be Che Guevara, and Leo Trotsky.
Does anyone agree/disagree?

I agree, but I would like to give credit to the Soviet leader Korchnekov, who denounced what Stalin did while he was in power and for Ho Chi Minh, who freed Vietnam from Imperial France and America.

I think i just fell in love with you


I think Mcarthy was right.....commies are homos :D

I would contend, that all the rhetoric aside, the only two people who ever held public office in a nation claiming to be Communist who actually practised communism in deed would be Che Guevara, and Leo Trotsky.
Does anyone agree/disagree?

There hasn't actually been a nation claiming to be communist. Many of the people in the countries were communist, but the countries have only said that they were socialist, working towards communism.

"I agree, but I would like to give credit to the Soviet leader Korchnekov, who denounced what Stalin did while he was in power and for Ho Chi Minh, who freed Vietnam from Imperial France and America."

Wasn't it Kruschev who denounced Stalin in 1956 and startted a period of de'Stalinisation. I actually really like Kruschev, who else would have banged hios shoe in the UN for attention? But still he was no Communist, but a brutal dictator who for instance put down a move for a more democratic Hungary with violent force in 1956.

"I think Mcarthy was right.....commies are homos"
Interesting how you just keep showing your prejudice and ignorance to s point that all your arguments become so ridiculous that no matter what you say, no matter how independently valid it may become, is totally irrelevant. I am actually a proud communist and homosexual, so if you don't like it why don't you go f**k yourself?

"There hasn't actually been a nation claiming to be communist. Many of the people in the countries were communist, but the countries have only said that they were socialist, working towards communism"
I think if you asked the Communist Parrty of Russia in 1924 if they considered themselves communists they might have said yes, as i am speaking of members of government of a country, not the actual country.

I think Mcarthy was right.....commies are homos :D
Nice to see you're taking the high-road.

"I agree, but I would like to give credit to the Soviet leader Korchnekov, who denounced what Stalin did while he was in power and for Ho Chi Minh, who freed Vietnam from Imperial France and America."

Wasn't it Kruschev who denounced Stalin in 1956 and startted a period of de'Stalinisation. I actually really like Kruschev, who else would have banged hios shoe in the UN for attention? But still he was no Communist, but a brutal dictator who for instance put down a move for a more democratic Hungary with violent force in 1956.

"I think Mcarthy was right.....commies are homos"
Interesting how you just keep showing your prejudice and ignorance to s point that all your arguments become so ridiculous that no matter what you say, no matter how independently valid it may become, is totally irrelevant. I am actually a proud communist and homosexual, so if you don't like it why don't you go f**k yourself?

"There hasn't actually been a nation claiming to be communist. Many of the people in the countries were communist, but the countries have only said that they were socialist, working towards communism"
I think if you asked the Communist Parrty of Russia in 1924 if they considered themselves communists they might have said yes, as i am speaking of members of government of a country, not the actual country.

If your a damn commie and gay how was my point not valid then??

I think if you asked the Communist Parrty of Russia in 1924 if they considered themselves communists they might have said yes, as i am speaking of members of government of a country, not the actual country.

I was referring to when you said "in a nation claiming to be communist". I was merely pointing out that there hasn't been a country that claimed it had reached communism. I'm a communist, after all, and I'm sure the members of the Communist Party of Russia in 1924 were also communists.

By the way, I feel that Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov(Lenin) was also a communist, and not just Guevera and Trotsky.

If your a damn commie and gay how was my point not valid then??

You're using the word "homo" in a demeaning manner. That would indicate that there is something wrong with homosexuality, which is a really offensive thing to say to him.

And no, I'm not gay, so don't go trying to say that I am too.

You're using the word "homo" in a demeaning manner. That would indicate that there is something wrong with homosexuality, which is a really offensive thing to say to him.

And no, I'm not gay, so don't go trying to say that I am too.

ooo I wasnt being "Politically Correct" boohoohoo..... I feel bad though no seriously I do ;)

COmmunism is abhorrent. It penalizes the strong, favors the collective will of the mindless mobocracy, allows no room for individual success and is an insult to the inalienable rights of Man.

I hope mankind prays for deliverance from the awfule gale of Marxism and never contemplates a return to fascism or communism (be it authoritarian or radical).

COmmunism is abhorrent. It penalizes the strong, favors the collective will of the mindless mobocracy, allows no room for individual success and is an insult to the inalienable rights of Man.

I hope mankind prays for deliverance from the awfule gale of Marxism and never contemplates a return to fascism or communism (be it authoritarian or radical).

Oh no! How could ANYONE favor equality for humanity, totally eliminating poverty? I mean, if there aren't any POOR people, then there can't be any obscenely rich people that sit around wasting vast amounts of money that could easily be spent eliminating world hunger! Oh, the humanity!






*Please note the *ahem* "light" sarcasm.

COmmunism is abhorrent. It penalizes the strong, favors the collective will of the mindless mobocracy, allows no room for individual success and is an insult to the inalienable rights of Man.

I hope mankind prays for deliverance from the awfule gale of Marxism and never contemplates a return to fascism or communism (be it authoritarian or radical).
Cool... so, uh, who were the true communists? I think you skipped that bit.

Oh no! How could ANYONE favor equality for humanity, totally eliminating poverty? I mean, if there aren't any POOR people, then there can't be any obscenely rich people that sit around wasting vast amounts of money that could easily be spent eliminating world hunger! Oh, the humanity!






*Please note the *ahem* "light" sarcasm.

The scary thing is some people believe what you said, and fervently so.

And no, I am not a fat, bourgeosie capitalist fat cat. I am a middle class Italian American teenager, the 3rd generation of enterprising Italian immigrants who pursued the capitalist system of hard work to garner success, and I am damn proud of my lineage.

You're using the word "homo" in a demeaning manner. That would indicate that there is something wrong with homosexuality, which is a really offensive thing to say to him.

And no, I'm not gay, so don't go trying to say that I am too.
Really? I thought it was because the comment had nothing to do with the topic and was merely a personal attack, adding nothing meaningful to the discussion.

Cool... so, uh, who were the true communists? I think you skipped that bit.

I did, sorry.

Does it matter though?

I did, sorry.

Does it matter though?
Well, it IS the topic of this thread. I'd just like to see one of these stay on topic and not turn into a series of insults or a debate between capitalism and communism... because frankly every other thread turns into one of those.

Really? I thought it was because the comment had nothing to do with the topic and was merely a personal attack, adding nothing meaningful to the discussion.

Well, it just doesn't seem like he would have responded so angrily if that was all it was.

Ok, I think Ghandi was a bit of a communist, but I could be wrong. I know next to nothing on the man :(

Well, it just doesn't seem like he would have responded so angrily if that was all it was.
It's a toss up, really. Anyhow, the flames are arising, so I'm done with this one.
Edit: Wait... What's this? Someone actually made a comment about the topic? There may be hope yet..

See the thing that gets me is how trendy it is nowadays to have Che Gueverra plastered on your T-shirts and hats. Capitalists are making a profit off of a communist's image, how bizarre. Never mind the fact that half of the people wearing them are teenagers who I truly suspect have no fucking idea what the man represented, I'm more interested in the implications of this.

Despite all the work Gueverra did, has his influence been so reduced that he's become merely a pop-culture icon? Does this at all diminish his status? I mean, I can't see anyone even being aware of Trotsky without knowing something about what he stood for.. he certainly never appeared on any T-shirts.

See the thing that gets me is how trendy it is nowadays to have Che Gueverra plastered on your T-shirts and hats. Capitalists are making a profit off of a communist's image, how bizarre. Never mind the fact that half of the people wearing them are teenagers who I truly suspect have no fucking idea what the man represented, I'm more interested in the implications of this.

Despite all the work Gueverra did, has his influence been so reduced that he's become merely a pop-culture icon? Does this at all diminish his status? I mean, I can't see anyone even being aware of Trotsky without knowing something about what he stood for.. he certainly never appeared on any T-shirts.

And just imagine if they started putting Karl Marx on T-Shirts, and somebody thought that it was trendy. Hate to say anything, because the man truly was a genius, but the beard doesn't exactly do wonders for his image.

But I think that the whole Che shirt thing came out of places like Hot Topic, and other places that want to be "unique" and "rebel against society" because they're so "punk". Che was a great leader and truly hated the oppression of the poor, which, of course, is completly taboo in our capitalist world. Which is why all the "punks" wear Che, and the trend took off. And then people ask the "punks" if they're communist, and they're all "Eww, hell no! I'm not a DIRTY COMMIE!" As a high-schooler and a communist, I must say that that truly annoys the hell out of me.

And just imagine if they started putting Karl Marx on T-Shirts, and somebody thought that it was trendy. Hate to say anything, because the man truly was a genius, but the beard doesn't exactly do wonders for his image.

But I think that the whole Che shirt thing came out of places like Hot Topic, and other places that want to be "unique" and "rebel against society" because they're so "punk". Che was a great leader and truly hated the oppression of the poor, which, of course, is completly taboo in our capitalist world. Which is why all the "punks" wear Che, and the trend took off. And then people ask the "punks" if they're communist, and they're all "Eww, hell no! I'm not a DIRTY COMMIE!" As a high-schooler and a communist, I must say that that truly annoys the hell out of me.

Clever though. What better way to fight against one of the most romantic and relevant opponents of Imperialism and Capitalism than to make him subservient to your own system. No better example than plastering his image on beer bottles when he didn't even drink.

COmmunism is abhorrent. It penalizes the strong, favors the collective will of the mindless mobocracy, allows no room for individual success and is an insult to the inalienable rights of Man.

I hope mankind prays for deliverance from the awfule gale of Marxism and never contemplates a return to fascism or communism (be it authoritarian or radical).

Ah. Money equals strength and success. Count yourself as one of the sheep who have been so full indoctrinated by capitalist propaganda that you have lost your human soul.

Maybe as an ideal communism has merits, but as a government it is an evil system. Consider, 5 of the 10 "greatest" mass murders of the 20th century have been communist.

Death Toll

Stalin - 43,675,000
Mao - 37,828,000
Lenin - 4,017,000
Pol Pot - 2,379,000
Joseph Tito - 1,172,000

I'm glad communism is being tossed on the ash heap of history. I will be just as happy when capitalism follows it.

Maybe as an ideal communism has merits, but as a government it is an evil system. Consider, 5 of the 10 "greatest" mass murders of the 20th century have been communist.

Death Toll

Stalin - 43,675,000
Mao - 37,828,000
Lenin - 4,017,000
Pol Pot - 2,379,000
Joseph Tito - 1,172,000

I'm glad communism is being tossed on the ash heap of history. I will be just as happy when capitalism follows it.

Thats interesting, I actually though Mao would have done more than Stalin. Where did you get your numbers, I'd be interested in a look over.
By the way, they claimed to be Communist, which was a very clever way of manipulating people into believeing your leading them into a better world, but in reality their spin-doctoring really doesn't cover their fascist tendencies.

There is a political science professor from the University of Hawaii named R.J. Rummel who has spent his academic career studying "Democide" - murder by government. I read his book, Death by Government, years ago when doing a graduate paper on lynchings in the American south from 1880-1930.

There is a pro-capitalism website, which I do not endorse for anything other than Rummel's statistics, called Freedom's Nest.

http://www.freedomsnest.com/rumrud.html

Rommel's website is a little more academic and difficult to surf, but also carries his information.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

Communism isn't a form of government. It is an economic system. All of those governments were totalitarian corruptions. A real communist system would have to evolve and the change would have to be based in idealogy rather than force of arms. Change would probably have to be gradual instead of revolutionary. Cooperation is something that must be accepted, not forced.

Communism isn't a form of government. It is an economic system. All of those governments were totalitarian corruptions. A real communist system would have to evolve and the change would have to be based in idealogy rather than force of arms. Change would probably have to be gradual instead of revolutionary. Cooperation is something that must be accepted, not forced.

Which is impossible considering the fact that human nature is selfish and each person wants the best for him/her self.

Society tells people that we can never be good, because nobody else ever will be, and therefore we must fight to preserve what is ours. Personally i believe that people are intrinsictly good, and can be redeemed (in a non-religious way).

Trot
Reason and Reality - Ok, first, sorta a contradictory name, what with reality more often then not not being reasonable. "collectivism, altruism, and sacrifice--the three most evil notions ever created" Personally i think racisim, Fascism, and greed to be far worse evils.
Then you happen to think wrong.
I mean, greed is even a SIN for crying out loud.
Nope. A lot of people erroneously think it is, but those "people" are also wrong.
Also, how the hell is Altruism an evil? best personification of altuism i can think of is Mother Teresa, and i really don't see how she's evil
Well, she wasn't altruistic, either--after all, she thought she was ensuring a place for her in heaven upon her death, which is a very selfish act. It is the ultimate motive that matters in determining altruism vs. selfishness, not who the superficial beneficiaries are.

wow, it seems like we have an adherent to the pseudo-philosopher Ayn Rand in the house

I mean, were we to find the antonyms of altruism and sacrifice (I have ommited collectivism as it is a little more open to debate than the others)
we arrive at selfishness and greed; who can ever say they wouldn't gladly sacrifice something in some circumstances?

Giving up a lesser value for a greater value is not sacrifice.

Now, do you have any actual arguments to offer, or do you wish to continue with your straw men, childish insults, and mindless anti-intellectualism?

Giving up a lesser value for a greater value is not sacrifice.

Now, do you have any actual arguments to offer, or do you wish to continue with your straw men, childish insults, and mindless anti-intellectualism?

What an interesting thing to say considering who it is comming from. Do me a favour and sod off this thread if we're not going to stay on topic and simply randomly flame

I do not beleive people are selfish by nature, but rather by societal pressures.

We have been split off from any feeling of belonging and had individualism pushed at us all our lives, doesn't that make it likely that we will value our personal interests over the interests of our family or society.

Traditionally, people wanted to be part of their community and keep them alive so they would live eternally through their community. Life was short and ugly, but if one helped one's community, one could live forever through them.

I guess in a way this is a selfish act, but that is only our explanation from our perspective and to those engaging in the act, they probably aren't thinking about their benifit.

I know I will do things that aren't directly benificial to me and feel better about myself as a result of doing them. Why do I do these things? Because I a debt to society. I feel I should do something to make it better.

Maybe as an ideal communism has merits, but as a government it is an evil system. ...

Stalin - 43,675,000
Mao - 37,828,000
Lenin - 4,017,000
Pol Pot - 2,379,000
Joseph Tito - 1,172,000

I agree, with some caveats... First, you should probably add Hitler as well who was a National-Socialist (in short Nazi, yep he really was socialist). Second, Rummel has a very peculiar take on the numbers... not exactly wrong, but he cherry-picks the data. The ranges that have been claimed by different people are: Stalin, 10 to 50; Mao, 10 to 40; Hitler, 30 to 40. I'll go with 30/40/35. See http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm and especially http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm . I think there is no doubt however that the top 3 largest mass murders of the 20th century, totalling around 100 million people, were carried out by socialists/communists.

And for the inevitable someone who will read this and say "but they weren't real communists/socialists"... they were, according to the definition of the word. In the dictionary, Socialist=collective ownership of the means of production, and Communist=collective ownership of all property. But, waitaminute, how the hell do you do collective in practice? Obviously someone has to represent the collective and run things day-to-day, so what it really means is that a person or group who are the government (however decided upon) controls production and/or all property. They can be democratically elected for all I care (and sometimes they were), Party members, military dictators or hereditary but the results are the same, every damn time... lots of people starve to death and lots more die in forced labor camps.

The simple (simplest) lesson from history is that economic systems in which people are not making their own decisions and working for thir own benefit are so bad that they cannot even reliably produce enough food. (also true of serfdom/feudalism which is the real precursor of communism, just replace "noble blood"/"divine right of kings" with "will of the people"/"dictatorship of the proletariat" as justification)

I'm glad communism is being tossed on the ash heap of history. I will be just as happy when capitalism follows it.

Huh?

Communism is filth, Democracy and freedom is the only way to go; one is the will of the majority applied with checks and balances the other is the will of a minority forceably imposed upon the majorty. Nowhere in the world has communism freely come about by the will of the people in the democrartic process. even in eastern europe where the communists used golash tactics to become part of a ruling government they still used their control of the police forces to take power without the vote.

Italy, Greece, and Turkey all practically elected communist governments.

I beleive in one, an election was called off because the communists would've won.

American money was used to prevent communist victories.

Well to counter your "not real communists" argument I would say that they were State-Capitalists, so a nice distinction.

"Communism is filth, Democracy and freedom is the only way to go; one is the will of the majority applied with checks and balances the other is the will of a minority forceably imposed upon the majorty. Nowhere in the world has communism freely come about by the will of the people in the democrartic process. even in eastern europe where the communists used golash tactics to become part of a ruling government they still used their control of the police forces to take power without the vote."

Wow, if you didn't start that with "communism is filth" you might have passed off for an intelligent being. The entire point of the revolutionary part of communism is that the proletariat cannot reach the point of being their own masters through a ballot box which impedes and does not encourage revolutionary change, which leads revolution as the only legitimate way to create social change and to try and make the world a better place.

Italy, Greece, and Turkey all practically elected communist governments.

I beleive in one, an election was called off because the communists would've won.

American money was used to prevent communist victories.

marshall aid was different. and their was a civil war in Greece (a communist uprising) and in italy members of the communist party were engaged in acts of terror. and turkey was a member of NATO and had American ballistic missiles based their a country that was likely to turn communist? not quite

Well to counter your "not real communists" argument I would say that they were State-Capitalists, so a nice distinction.

"Communism is filth, Democracy and freedom is the only way to go; one is the will of the majority applied with checks and balances the other is the will of a minority forceably imposed upon the majorty. Nowhere in the world has communism freely come about by the will of the people in the democrartic process. even in eastern europe where the communists used golash tactics to become part of a ruling government they still used their control of the police forces to take power without the vote."

Wow, if you didn't start that with "communism is filth" you might have passed off for an intelligent being. The entire point of the revolutionary part of communism is that the proletariat cannot reach the point of being their own masters through a ballot box which impedes and does not encourage revolutionary change, which leads revolution as the only legitimate way to create social change and to try and make the world a better place.

yet in Cuba where this happened people are still willing to spend days in an opentop boat to reach the USA and gain political asilem

Well to counter your "not real communists" argument I would say that they were State-Capitalists, so a nice distinction.

This makes no sense. Dictionary definitions are:

communism=collective ownership of everything
socialism=collective ownership of means of production
capitalism=private ownership of means of production

Being a literal-minded guy, I don't understand what "collective ownership" means, other than "state ownership/control". If you have some great plan for non-state collective ownership I'd be interested to hear it, preferably with concrete details.

"State-Capitalists" is a contradiction in terms, since the state is not a private entity and capitalists are private property owners by definition.

This makes no sense. Dictionary definitions are:

communism=collective ownership of everything
socialism=collective ownership of means of production
capitalism=private ownership of means of production

Being a literal-minded guy, I don't understand what "collective ownership" means, other than "state ownership/control". If you have some great plan for non-state collective ownership I'd be interested to hear it, preferably with concrete details.

"State-Capitalists" is a contradiction in terms, since the state is not a private entity and capitalists are private property owners by definition.


No offence, but stop thinking literal then. State Capitalism is referred to when discussing Imperial Russia, parrticularly under Witte and Stolypin, Russia after the October Revolution until the induction of War Communism during the civil war, and I would argue when Stalin took control of the USSR. The difference from Communism whilst it is still centrally driven, it is done in a way so that individual enterprise is guaranteed in limited terms perhaps under the pretence of the state, with the beneficeries being the state itself and not the people who make up that state. Yes i know that was a really bad explanation. Think N.E.P and your close.

yet in Cuba where this happened people are still willing to spend days in an opentop boat to reach the USA and gain political asilem
Because Cuba is perhaps the one nation which had a good chance at being genuinley socialist, but after the dedath of Che Guevara, it degenerated into simply another run of the mill dictatorship ruled over by a meglomaniac named Castro.
Rhetoric and reality are very different things friend

I agree, with some caveats... First, you should probably add Hitler as well who was a National-Socialist (in short Nazi, yep he really was socialist).

I'm not going to get into a battle of dictionary definitions - which is what people incapable of arguing ideas always seem to de-generate into on these threads - but Hitler was NOT a communist. In fact the only people he hated more than Jews were communists.

As to my comment about capitalism, yes, I think communism, as a form of government (and it is, as well as an economic system) is totalitarian and ultimately brutal. However, I think capitalism is just as destructive in different ways and ultimately makes a god of greed, money, and acquisition. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't result in Democide the way communism does, but left unchecked it will be the ruination of the planet.

yeah, this one is historical fact not interpretation. Hitler was not communist, and not left wing in any way

The full name of the party was the national socialist german workers party; a group of words arrived at to create the biggest spread of appeal to germans. national for nationalists, socialist for the poor and workers party for industy and the unions.

QUOTE]Giving up a lesser value for a greater value is not sacrifice.[/QUOTE]
Now, do you have any actual arguments to offer, or do you wish to continue with your straw men, childish insults, and mindless anti-intellectualism?[

Not to engage in flaming, but I challenge you. Who has yet set up a straw man fallacy? Or indeed insulted you? Now I waiver, but is a sacrifice of a child to a god not giving up a lesser value for a greater value? Is offering oneself to the gunman to save a family member not giving up a lesser value for a greater one? Do those who train as athletes for olympic glory not ACTUALLY sacrifice anything then?

And actually, who's anti-intellectual? Intellectuals might follow kant, not some self educated (true fact) pseudo-philosopher such as Ayn Rand. What kind of serious philosopher would decry another philosopher (Kant) as "evil"? Not a very good one. Who here is anti-intellectual exactly?

The only true communists were Jesus and a few Native American tribes.




Jesus wasn't a goddamn Communist. Yes, he cared about the poor but he also believed in God and Marx, who slapped Judaism in the face, said there was no room for God in Communism and that communism was bigger than God. God could beat any army or person he wanted in the world to an insignificant piece of dirt but because he has mercy and grace, he won't, unlike a human like myself, who doesn't really posses either of those when it comes to God bashing.

I would contend, that all the rhetoric aside, the only two people who ever held public office in a nation claiming to be Communist who actually practised communism in deed would be Che Guevara, and Leo Trotsky.
Does anyone agree/disagree? I disagree on Trotsky! He was a Bolshevik. The Bolsheviks seized power. Communism is essentially power and equality to the people - but the Bolsheviks didn't trust the "people" to elect them, so then they stole power from the Social Revolutionaries. The Bolsheviks were not true communists; the Mensheviks and possibly the SR were.

Giving up a lesser value for a greater value is not sacrifice.


Not to engage in flaming, but I challenge you. Who has yet set up a straw man fallacy?
You have--the whole "sacrifice" thing on your part has been a big straw man--completely misrepresenting what Rand held a sacrifice to be.
Or indeed insulted you?
You have, in the very first line of your original post.
Now I waiver, but is a sacrifice of a child to a god not giving up a lesser value for a greater value? Is offering oneself to the gunman to save a family member not giving up a lesser value for a greater one? Do those who train as athletes for olympic glory not ACTUALLY sacrifice anything then?
If one values what is to be gained greater than what is given up, then no, none of those examples are sacrifices.

And actually, who's anti-intellectual?
You are. You're placing pragmatics above principle.
Intellectuals might follow kant, not some self educated (true fact) pseudo-philosopher such as Ayn Rand.
Why does the source of one's education matter? A valid idea is a valid idea regardless of its proponent's background.

What kind of serious philosopher would decry another philosopher (Kant) as "evil"? Not a very good one.
One who finds that person to be evil. Defining "good" and "evil" hardly makes one a bad philosopher--in fact, that's the whole point of much of ethical philosophy.

Now, I ask you again--do you intend to offer any arguments against the actual substance of Randian Objectivism or moral objectivism and egoism in general, or do you wish to continue to make superficial and illogical insults? Your factual premises are all true, but your conclusions do not follow--thus, your insults are illogical; they attack the people and circumstances surrounding the ideas rather than the ideas themselves--therefore, they are superficial.

If it is your position that the above-mentioned ideas possess no substance, then perhaps you can explain why.

Most Christians in the United States, if you believe that the 2004 presidential election ran along party lines, are Republicans.... maybe 70% of Christians are Repubs.

Jesus was bleeding-heart in some ways, but held strong moral values... so he couldn't be a liberal. Liberals don't believe in anything except maybe what suits their situation presently. After all, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong". Everything is relative.

No, Jesus wasn't a liberal.

Also, Jesus thought people should work and be responsible for their own actions... anathema to liberals.

How dare anyone be expected to work? Let the government support everyone who doesn't feel like working.

"The entire point of the revolutionary part of communism is that the proletariat cannot reach the point of being their own masters through a ballot box which impedes and does not encourage revolutionary change, which leads revolution as the only legitimate way to create social change and to try and make the world a better place."

Isn't the ballot box how socialism/Communism come to power -- people are jealous of the rich and want their money (without the brains or ambition to go out and make the money themselves), so they vote for the politician who promises to steal from the rich and redistribute that money.

"Chicken in every pot" and all that horsesh*t makes me want to puke.

If you can't work, the government should help you. If you can, get off your ass and be productive, and stop HATING RICH PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THEIR MONEY.

Most Christians in the United States, if you believe that the 2004 presidential election ran along party lines, are Republicans.... maybe 70% of Christians are Repubs.

Jesus was bleeding-heart in some ways, but held strong moral values... so he couldn't be a liberal. Liberals don't believe in anything except maybe what suits their situation presently. After all, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong". Everything is relative.

No, Jesus wasn't a liberal.

Also, Jesus thought people should work and be responsible for their own actions... anathema to liberals.

How dare anyone be expected to work? Let the government support everyone who doesn't feel like working.

To all the people trying to makle this argument need to re read the NT and look at history. Through out the Jesus and later the deciples condem the rich. Remeber the beatitudes? Or how about the parrable of the rich man? Or any of the thousands of other times Jesus denounced the rich for there treatment of the poor. And historically the early Christians lived in what were baisicly communistic comunes, were they shared every thing they had amongest one another.

And does any one remember what one of the only two things in the bible Jesus got angry at were? Thats right capitalists. The merchants in the temple exploiting religion to make a quick buck, hmm sounds like Christmas and Easter in modern America to me.

The difference from Communism whilst it is still centrally driven, it is done in a way so that individual enterprise is guaranteed in limited terms perhaps under the pretence of the state, with the beneficeries being the state itself and not the people who make up that state. Yes i know that was a really bad explanation. Think N.E.P and your close.

That is indeed a really bad explanation. As I said, if you have a proposal for non-state collective ownership, I'd be interested in hearing it.

You say above "individual enterprise is guaranteed in limited terms ... the beneficeries being the state itself" - I assume you're describing the Soviet Union? If so, that is completely false. I've been there and can tell you a little about it. The only kind of "individual enterprise" was small-scale farming... just because the state found they couldn't reliably produce food, they allowed for a little bit of individual initiative there. Anything else, say retail or manufacturing, was 100% state-run and state-controlled.

Were actually the only really effective Communism ever, and that only worked because they did not allow currency. Every house and citizen had exactly the same goods.

I'd might make a case for the Bushmen of the Sarengetti (I know that's spelled wrong), but they lacked a cohesive government like the Spartans had.

Were actually the only really effective Communism ever, and that only worked because they did not allow currency. Every house and citizen had exactly the same goods.

I'd might make a case for the Bushmen of the Sarengetti (I know that's spelled wrong), but they lacked a cohesive government like the Spartans had.
I don't know the way some of the native american tribes were set up was pretty socialistic same with the early christians. I fyou look at all socialism realy calls for is for people to work together for the common good, which seems to be the way a lot of "primitive" cultures were set up.

I'm not going to get into a battle of dictionary definitions - which is what people incapable of arguing ideas always seem to de-generate into on these threads

Well, let's discuss communism without any clue as to what it actually means then, shall we? The reason I bring up dictionary definitions is because of people who say b.s. like "the only real communists were jesus and mother theresa"... which obviously relies on a made-up happy-shiny definition of what a communist is. There is no "battle of definitions", there is only one definition which I have cited above.

Socialism and communism are economic systems, not political. The only thing that defines them is who owns (or controls) things. That's it. There isn't even any requirement for equality or fairness, merely collective ownership. And again I am interested in hearing of non-state collective ownership options, if you have any.

Hitler was NOT a communist. In fact the only people he hated more than Jews were communists.

Hitler was a socialist since he established state control of most industries (yep, definitions again). No, he probably wasn't a communist, but it is not uncommon for people with closely related ideologies to hate each other more than they do people with a different ideology.

I'd might make a case for the Bushmen of the Sarengetti (I know that's spelled wrong), but they lacked a cohesive government like the Spartans had.

I don't know much about the Spartans, but this piece about the Bushmen, Native Americans and other tribal cultures might interest you...

http://research.biology.arizona.edu/mosquito/willott/323/protected/23bailey.html

It's been kind of fashionable to point at them as examples of "communist" (or "communalist") societies. Not quite true. They do have private property, it is just a more flexible concept. Often it belongs to a family rather than an individual, and often it can be reallocated based on various customs (something which we also have by the way - squatters rights for example). And certainly if you want to use something which somebody else has been using, there is a set of rules governing that.

[QUOTE=

Socialism and communism are economic systems, not political. The only thing that defines them is who owns (or controls) things. That's it. There isn't even any requirement for equality or fairness, merely collective ownership. And again I am interested in hearing of non-state collective ownership options, if you have any.

QUOTE]
Ok how about a sytem were a democrticaly ellected branch of a democraticaly elected goverment is in charge of running the economy. Its a state run economy but sense the goverment is controled by the people the people are the ones (inderectly) controling the economy. We could do it here in the U.S. Just have the CEO's and Boards of all the major corporations replaced by govermental appointees. And in order to give more control to the people maybe create a third branch of congress in charge of making these appointments and monerating the appointments actions. People would then have acentive to suceed hoping to atract enough atention to recieve such an apointment. And if the people don't like who is being apoited vote in someone who promises to apoint someone else.

I don't know the way some of the native american tribes were set up was pretty socialistic same with the early christians. I fyou look at all socialism realy calls for is for people to work together for the common good, which seems to be the way a lot of "primitive" cultures were set up.

My point was that "pure" or "true" Communism only works when you have no currency in the society.

That's also the Republic as well. :)

My point was that "pure" or "true" Communism only works when you have no currency in the society.

That's also the Republic as well. :)
I agree personally I think there has to be a better way of doing it then using money. I mean what is money any way its just a peice of paper that everyone has agreed to use as a means of trade, IE I give you this piece of paper in return for an agreed apoun amount of goods.

I agree personally I think there has to be a better way of doing it then using money. I mean what is money any way its just a peice of paper that everyone has agreed to use as a means of trade, IE I give you this piece of paper in return for an agreed apoun amount of goods.

That's about the size of it. But without currency, any modern (heck, even pre-modern) economy effectively stops. The only reason the Spartans pulled it off was that they were a collective bent upon military superiority.

However, once the Athenians became the seat of Greecian trade, the Spartans began not so much a decline as a relative malaise. They simply could not expand the way that Athens or Corinth or some of the other city-states could.

Currency in and of itself only has the value you ascribe to it. Gold is only valuable because others will accept it for a good or service, etc. Yet without that intermediary, you're stuck. I mean, sure, I have 5 cords of split wood in my back yard. I'd be hard pressed to find a company that would trade me a cellphone for it. :)

So: while there may be a better way out there, I don't see it. And I certainly don't see it happening any time soon.

That's about the size of it. But without currency, any modern (heck, even pre-modern) economy effectively stops. The only reason the Spartans pulled it off was that they were a collective bent upon military superiority.

However, once the Athenians became the seat of Greecian trade, the Spartans began not so much a decline as a relative malaise. They simply could not expand the way that Athens or Corinth or some of the other city-states could.

Currency in and of itself only has the value you ascribe to it. Gold is only valuable because others will accept it for a good or service, etc. Yet without that intermediary, you're stuck. I mean, sure, I have 5 cords of split wood in my back yard. I'd be hard pressed to find a company that would trade me a cellphone for it. :)

So: while there may be a better way out there, I don't see it. And I certainly don't see it happening any time soon.
Agree though that doesn't mean we should stop trying to find a beter way. Any way I have class I'll be back in abit.

I don't know much about the Spartans, but this piece about the Bushmen, Native Americans and other tribal cultures might interest you...

http://research.biology.arizona.edu/mosquito/willott/323/protected/23bailey.html

It's been kind of fashionable to point at them as examples of "communist" (or "communalist") societies. Not quite true. They do have private property, it is just a more flexible concept. Often it belongs to a family rather than an individual, and often it can be reallocated based on various customs (something which we also have by the way - squatters rights for example). And certainly if you want to use something which somebody else has been using, there is a set of rules governing that.

But in going through the examples section, I still don't see any culture that was actually important. Or rather, was a major regional power ala the Spartans. Mostly these were small tribes that survived but lacked a central gov't.

Socialism and communism are economic systems, not political. The only thing that defines them is who owns (or controls) things. That's it. There isn't even any requirement for equality or fairness, merely collective ownership. And again I am interested in hearing of non-state collective ownership options, if you have any.



Cases of collective ownership exist within larger structures, even within capitalist states.

Technically, credit unions are collectives. Many small businesses are collectives. Because of the political connotations of "collective" most organizations with collective ownership refer to themselves as co-operatives or co-ops.

http://www.theenergyco-op.com/index.html

http://www.thephone.coop/

http://www.organicvalley.coop/index.html

... Party members, military dictators or hereditary but the results are the same, every damn time... lots of people starve to death and lots more die in forced labor camps.

The simple (simplest) lesson from history is that economic systems in which people are not making their own decisions and working for thir own benefit are so bad that they cannot even reliably produce enough food. (also true of serfdom/feudalism which is the real precursor of communism, just replace "noble blood"/"divine right of kings" with "will of the people"/"dictatorship of the proletariat" as justification)



Please explain the practical difference between a "sweatshop" that exists in many of the poorer capitalist countries (those with socialistic controls that determine workers must get a least a liveable minimum wage) and "forced labor camp."

What about the capitalist nations where the governments encourage the people to become laborers on farms growing "cash crops" to sell overseas instead of having the people grow actual food for themselves?

Please explain how working for a large corporate entity for a preset wage is any more or less working for your own benefit than working somewhere where the resources are owned by the workers (or in a totalitarian pervesion by the government).

Italy, Greece, and Turkey all practically elected communist governments.

I beleive in one, an election was called off because the communists would've won.

American money was used to prevent communist victories.

Don't forget how the American government supported the Contras in Argentina (even though Congress had declared the Contras to be terrorists) in their fight agains the Sandinistas - a government that greatly improved the standards of living, healthcare, education, and actually instituted _democracy_ in Argentina just because it did not like the fact that the Sandinistas had a few communist leanings.

It would have been most interesting to see how Argentina would have worked out if it were not for the continual bombardment of American sponsered violence against the liberators.

Don't forget how the American government supported the Contras in Argentina (even though Congress had declared the Contras to be terrorists) in their fight agains the Sandinistas - a government that greatly improved the standards of living, healthcare, education, and actually instituted _democracy_ in Argentina just because it did not like the fact that the Sandinistas had a few communist leanings.

It would have been most interesting to see how Argentina would have worked out if it were not for the continual bombardment of American sponsered violence against the liberators.

They didnt isntitute all those public services you said. They took the existing ones and turned them into communist brainwashing camps.

You even got the country wrong. It was Nicragua :rolleyes:

bump

Ok how about a sytem were a democrticaly ellected branch of a democraticaly elected goverment is in charge of running the economy.

Yes, that would be socialism too. I should point out that in most western countries the government runs 30-40% of the economy since they take that percentage in taxes and then decide where to spend them. They don't claim ownership of the means of production per se, merely a large share of the output. Based on that I'd say they are semi-socialist.

Cases of collective ownership exist within larger structures, even within capitalist states.

Technically, credit unions are collectives. Many small businesses are collectives. Because of the political connotations of "collective" most organizations with collective ownership refer to themselves as co-operatives or co-ops.

There is a subtle but crucial difference between what you describe as collective ownership under capitalism and the socialist version. In a credit union or coop - or a corporation for that matter - you have individuals who own shares in their own name, as their own private property. They have freely chosen to be a part of the group and can leave at any time. Moreover they have fairly extensive rights as a result of owning a share, at a minimum they get a fraction of the proceeds and get to elect the management. This is not "collective ownership" in the socialist sense, it is "private ownership of a share". Ownership is basically control of something plus enjoyment of the fruits of it. Members of a USSR-style sovkhoz (agricultural coop) had no control over the organization, no way to cash out, and were not entitled to the products. Doesn't sound like ownership. I guess the difference is that the socialist "collective ownership" really means ownership by the state and state-appointed functionaries which is (supposedly) controlling the property in trust for society as a whole, whereas the capitalist "share ownership" is private property ownership of a piece of something which confers direct individual benefits. Not the same thing at all. The similarities are superficial.

I suppose it is fair to ask whether USSR-style socialism is merely a statist command economy which is not at all socialist, and whether western-style corporations are the true socialist system? Just a thought.

(One interesting thought-experiment modification to corporate law is to say that each individual owner may own one equal share, and corporations may not own other corporations... that would make things different, wouldn't it?)

Please explain the practical difference between a "sweatshop" that exists in many of the poorer capitalist countries (those with socialistic controls that determine workers must get a least a liveable minimum wage) and "forced labor camp."

Okay, I'll try.

I think I would be able to provide all the necessities I need with my own hands if you put me down almost anywhere on the planet with about $200 in starting capital. In some places I would hunt or fish, in others I would farm or gather. I would consider trying that with no capital at all, but it would be somewhat harder. Matter of fact, I have tried living off the land for a week around where I live, just as an experiment. It is not very hard. Considering that, why would I ever work in a sweatshop?

The only way you get sweatshops and similar is that people are specifically prevented from being independent. Land ownership and control of land use is a big part of that... the latifundio system is a huge problem in South America. Part of the system is that a few families own most of the land based on grants from colonial times. The other part is that small independent farmers get attacked and killed/burned out/driven off. So everybody ends up working for the big landowners as (essentially) serfs.

However, I don't think that is capitalist at all. The original idea (as per John Locke) of private property is that something becomes your property through labor... if there is an apple tree growing in the wild, that is nobody's property. If you climb up it and collect the apples, they become your property. However, if the tree is not wild, but you planted it and tended it, it is yours, and so are the apples. Makes sense. Based on that, however, I don't see how the big landowners with grants from Phillip II of Spain or whatever have any claim to owning the land. That is bogus - it is feudalism, not capitalism.

Now, a sort of similar problem exists with industrial production and other modern businesses, except it is vastly more complicated. The main problem I see in western societies are a number of government-granted rights that amount to small monopolies which prevent people from working for themselves. Business licenses, zoning laws, copyrights and so forth are all examples of that. Think of them as "(post-)industrial feudal land-grants". But those are not a problem with capitalism, they are a deviation from capitalism, or at least based on a big misunderstanding about what property is.

What about the capitalist nations where the governments encourage the people to become laborers on farms growing "cash crops" to sell overseas instead of having the people grow actual food for themselves?

See above re: latifundios. They usually control the government.

Please explain how working for a large corporate entity for a preset wage is any more or less working for your own benefit than working somewhere where the resources are owned by the workers (or in a totalitarian pervesion by the government).

They question is always "what are your alternatives"? What's the plan B? In my case I would rather eat acorn mash and live in a tent than work for less than $30 per hour or so, on stuff that interests me... if someone offers me a burger-flipping job at McDonalds I would cheerfully tell them to shove it. I do consulting jobs, and since that is where I'm coming from, it is usually pretty easy for me to bargain with clients. I think most people have a lot more choices than they realize. By the way, I am keenly aware of the fact that if I had kids I would have a lot fewer choices, but having kids itself is also a choice.

They didnt isntitute all those public services you said. They took the existing ones and turned them into communist brainwashing camps.

You even got the country wrong. It was Nicragua :rolleyes:

Yeah. I am brain dead today.

But how the hell is improving the infrastructure, raising literacy rates, institutin a policy of gender equality and improving health care not to mention INSTITUTING (not improving on) democracy communist brainwashing. Unless making things better for the people counts as brainwashing
:rolleyes:

Please explain the practical difference between a "sweatshop" that exists in many of the poorer capitalist countries (those with socialistic controls that determine workers must get a least a liveable minimum wage) and "forced labor camp."
First of all, your premise is false, since capitalism exists NOWHERE in the world. But nonetheless, the fundamental difference is that there's no gun at your head--no one's threatening to take anything from you that was yours to begin with if you refuse to participate; therefore, you're free to choose not to.


Please explain how working for a large corporate entity for a preset wage is any more or less working for your own benefit than working somewhere where the resources are owned by the workers (or in a totalitarian pervesion by the government).

When I go to my job every day, I don't do it for the benefit of my employer. I do it solely for my own sake. That my employer benefits is also true, but it is secondary and not my motive. If you're incapable of seeing that basic fact then you're completely insane.

Yeah. I am brain dead today.

But how the hell is improving the infrastructure, raising literacy rates, institutin a policy of gender equality and improving health care not to mention INSTITUTING (not improving on) democracy communist brainwashing.

The fact that wrong-thinking people such as yourself generally want to do it at gunpoint--which makes any act morally illegitimate, regardless of the end result.

There is a subtle but crucial difference between what you describe as collective ownership under capitalism and the socialist version. In a credit union or coop - or a corporation for that matter - you have individuals who own shares in their own name, as their own private property. They have freely chosen to be a part of the group and can leave at any time. Moreover they have fairly extensive rights as a result of owning a share, at a minimum they get a fraction of the proceeds and get to elect the management. This is not "collective ownership" in the socialist sense, it is "private ownership of a share". Ownership is basically control of something plus enjoyment of the fruits of it. Members of a USSR-style sovkhoz (agricultural coop) had no control over the organization, no way to cash out, and were not entitled to the products. Doesn't sound like ownership. I guess the difference is that the socialist "collective ownership" really means ownership by the state and state-appointed functionaries which is (supposedly) controlling the property in trust for society as a whole, whereas the capitalist "share ownership" is private property ownership of a piece of something which confers direct individual benefits. Not the same thing at all. The similarities are superficial.

I suppose it is fair to ask whether USSR-style socialism is merely a statist command economy which is not at all socialist, and whether western-style corporations are the true socialist system? Just a thought.

(One interesting thought-experiment modification to corporate law is to say that each individual owner may own one equal share, and corporations may not own other corporations... that would make things different, wouldn't it?)

I would definitely say that USSR-style socialism is as much a perversion of communism as latifundios and mega-corporate-conglomerates are a perversion of capitalism. The only difference is whether the oppressor is the government or allowed to exist by the government.

The biggest difference in the systems seems to be that the capitalist version allows more personal freedoms (although the more concentrated the wealth becomes the fewer and fewer freedoms are allowed until, as in some places there are practically none) but unless it has some socialists type programs (social security, public education, nationalized healthcare) then there are no provisions to care for those who are unable to make enough money to provide for the basics, while communists systems have fewer personal freedoms (at least when compared to capitalist systems where the wealth has not yet reached a critical concentration point) but do make provisions to care for their citizens - sometimes with varying success (Cuba in spite of all the sanctions which have ruined the national economy has better healthcare, higher literacy rates, lack of homelessness, etc).

Unless socialist controls (minimum wages, regulation of work hours, anti-trust laws, etc) are imposed on capitalism it will move toward a feudal type police state. The nature of unrestricted capitalism is that once wealth begins to get concentrated it will continue to get concentrated and those without it will become more and more exploited until there are no more open resources - no more wild apple trees. The people who live in capitalist lands and who go on and on about how great captalism is don't seem to realize that it is only because of socialist type controls and the fact that colonialism or the neo-colonialism that calls itself free trade have "created" additonal resources that have kept if from becoming one already.

In places like the United States there are still options (I will agree that many do not see them) as all the resources -including and especially education -have not yet been grabbed. But what of places where education is not considered a right for those who cannot pay for it (as it is in a pure capitalist system) where all the resources are spoken for, etc. There are no options.

I think on share per owner and no corporations owning other corporations would be a big step. So would the removal of corporate "person-hood." There should not be loop holes to protect the profit from the risks.

The fact that wrong-thinking people such as yourself generally want to do it at gunpoint--which makes any act morally illegitimate, regardless of the end result.

Well, at least we agree that the United States is morally illegitimate, even if for different reasons.

In its present form, certainly.

In its present form, certainly.

Ah, but by your definition of "morally illegitimate" the very inception of the United States would have caused it to be so. It was brought about by armed rebellion, forcing change at gunpoint (or bayonet point), afterall.

Nope.

Using coercive force against human beings and their legitimate institutions is wrong, yes. However, the creatures running the government against which the revolutionaries fought were not human beings, because they were engaging in coercive acts. Using coercive force against non-humans is perfectly acceptable--in fact, it's the only way of dealing with them.

Why does engaging in coercive acts make one non-human? Simple:

Take a look of yourself. Compared to most beasts, you are not particularly large, you don't have sharp claws or long teeth, and your strength and speed isn't anything to shout about, either. So what is it, then, that sets you apart from lesser beings? Your ability to reason! Man properly deals with man not by brute force but by reasoned persuasion, in accordance with his nature--and even when dealing nature, which MUST ultimately be dealt with by physical force (after all, if I went up to a tree and tried to persuade it to fall down so I could build a house in its place, you would quite justifiably call me insane), man still uses reason to decide first what it is he wants to do (and whether he wants to do it), and second how he intends to go about accomplishing it. Thus, when a man rejects reason as his means of apprehending the world around him, he has rejected his very nature--the very quality that makes him human; thus, he ceases to be human.

First of all, your premise is false, since capitalism exists NOWHERE in the world. But nonetheless, the fundamental difference is that there's no gun at your head--no one's threatening to take anything from you that was yours to begin with if you refuse to participate; therefore, you're free to choose not to.

When I go to my job every day, I don't do it for the benefit of my employer. I do it solely for my own sake. That my employer benefits is also true, but it is secondary and not my motive. If you're incapable of seeing that basic fact then you're completely insane.

If the only choices left are sweatshop or no job, no food, no anything, that is the same as a gun (albiet with a more slow painful bullet) to your head. Feel free to ignore history if you like. Igonore what pure capitlaism is like. Ignore what the conditons were before governments abolished child labor and mandated public education, before regulations were established limiting work hours and demanding safe work conditions. Feel free to blindly pretend that capitalists corporations are doing that all from the good of their non-existant hearts. Feel free to forget what product regulations were like before some socialist busy-body exposed the meat packing industry.

People who go to work under communist regimes do it for themselves too. Unless you like your job (and yes, some in communists nations do too) you are doing it solely for the money, the means to feed, clothe, house, and entertain yourself. Only for every bit of labor you do, your employer gains several times as much as you do (and would gain an even greater multiple more if it were not for socialist-type government intervention). How the hell is that sane?

If the only choices left are sweatshop or no job, no food, no anything, that is the same as a gun
Nope. You're not threatened with the loss of yours to begin with; thus, you are in fact free to act without coercion. That none of the options available to you are particularly pleasant does not change that fact--just like no one gets to hold a gun to your head to force you to work, neither do you get to hold a gun to someone else's head to force him to give you a pleasant option.
Feel free to ignore history if you like.
And we now return to your false premise of before. Pure capitalism does not now, nor has it ever existed.

And at any rate, what it is "like" is irrelevant--it is morally perfect, and that is all that matters. The end does not justify the means.

Feel free to blindly pretend that capitalists corporations are doing that all from the good of their non-existant hearts.
Who said I do? Strawman.

People who go to work under communist regimes do it for themselves too. Unless you like your job (and yes, some in communists nations do too) you are doing it solely for the money,
Money? What money? You're making it very clear that you have no knowledge of communism--a communist economy is moneyless.

Or are you referring to capitalism--in which case you're not actually contradicting anything I said, so I'm not sure what your point is.
the means to feed, clothe, house, and entertain yourself. Only for every bit of labor you do, your employer gains several times as much as you do
Yes...and that's supposed to bother me? I get plenty for what I need; if it wasn't then I'd try to renegotiate terms or look elsewhere--failing that I would go into business for myself; if that turned out bad, I would seek private charity; failing that, I would do anything short of coercion, even if that meant starving to death. Once again, the end does not justify the means. It is better to starve as an honest man than to live as a thief--anyone who would do anything different is, as I explained earlier, not a human being.
How the hell is that sane?
Because everyone involved consents. Because without the employer's initial risk, I wouldn't have any source of income at all. Because the employer assumes all risk, all initial outlay--it is totally just that he has a lot more to gain than I do. He has a lot more at stake to begin with!

Nope.

Using coercive force against human beings and their legitimate institutions is wrong, yes. However, the creatures running the government against which the revolutionaries fought were not human beings, because they were engaging in coercive acts. Using coercive force against non-humans is perfectly acceptable--in fact, it's the only way of dealing with them.

Why does engaging in coercive acts make one non-human? Simple:

Take a look of yourself. Compared to most beasts, you are not particularly large, you don't have sharp claws or long teeth, and your strength and speed isn't anything to shout about, either. So what is it, then, that sets you apart from lesser beings? Your ability to reason! Man properly deals with man not by brute force but by reasoned persuasion, in accordance with his nature--and even when dealing nature, which MUST ultimately be dealt with by physical force (after all, if I went up to a tree and tried to persuade it to fall down so I could build a house in its place, you would quite justifiably call me insane), man still uses reason to decide first what it is he wants to do (and whether he wants to do it), and second how he intends to go about accomplishing it. Thus, when a man rejects reason as his means of apprehending the world around him, he has rejected his very nature--the very quality that makes him human; thus, he ceases to be human.

Then how was stealing land from the native Americans not coercive? What do you call a legitimate institution? Any prohibitive law beyond those which would stop coercive measures - as in beyond disallowing killing and theft- and any non-prohibitive but mandatory law (like taxation) is coercive. The United States never fit your definition of legitmate if non-coercion is your criteria. Are you a pure anarchist by chance?

Then how was stealing land from the native Americans not coercive? What do you call a legitimate institution? Any prohibitive law beyond those which would stop coercive measures - as in beyond disallowing killing and theft- and any non-prohibitive but mandatory law (like taxation) is coercive. The United States never fit your definition of legitmate if non-coercion is your criteria. Are you a pure anarchist by chance?
aparently he is a moral objectivest

Nope. You're not threatened with the loss of yours to begin with; thus, you are in fact free to act without coercion. That none of the options available to you are particularly pleasant does not change that fact--just like no one gets to hold a gun to your head to force you to work, neither do you get to hold a gun to someone else's head to force him to give you a pleasant option.

And we now return to your false premise of before. Pure capitalism does not now, nor has it ever existed.

What would you call pure capitalism?


And at any rate, what it is "like" is irrelevant--it is morally perfect, and that is all that matters. The end does not justify the means.

Many people have claimed to know what was morally perfect. Very few of those people have agreed. Somehow I don't believe that you are the one to have it right - but that just puts you in the same company as all the rest who have made that claim.


Money? What money? You're making it very clear that you have no knowledge of communism--a communist economy is moneyless.

Or are you referring to capitalism--in which case you're not actually contradicting anything I said, so I'm not sure what your point is.

A communist economy is not necessarily completely moneyless. And I said communist regime - meaning communist nations. People in communist nations do have money. While the neccesities are provided as a reward for their work, the additonal reward is money as a means for allocating the non-necessities (which the people can choose).



Yes...and that's supposed to bother me? I get plenty for what I need; if it wasn't then I'd try to renegotiate terms or look elsewhere--failing that I would go into business for myself; if that turned out bad, I would seek private charity; failing that, I would do anything short of coercion, even if that meant starving to death. Once again, the end does not justify the means. It is better to starve as an honest man than to live as a thief--anyone who would do anything different is, as I explained earlier, not a human being.

Because everyone involved consents. Because without the employer's initial risk, I wouldn't have any source of income at all. Because the employer assumes all risk, all initial outlay--it is totally just that he has a lot more to gain than I do. He has a lot more at stake to begin with!

Within a certain number of generations the only choice left to a person would be starving to death if said person were not born to a handful of families (at least from my understanding of how pure capitalism - which may be different from your definiton- would work).

So you are saying that an initial risk gives an employer the indefinite right to continue profiting off the exploitation of labor even generations later, after the fact that the exploitation of the workers in fact minimize the risk being taken?

Well, at least we agree that the United States is morally illegitimate, even if for different reasons.

Consider that governments don't have morals, but people do.

This is a given since a government is made up of multiple people (yes, even a Dictatorship), and their mores will often clash.

Then how was stealing land from the native Americans not coercive? What do you call a legitimate institution? Any prohibitive law beyond those which would stop coercive measures - as in beyond disallowing killing and theft- and any non-prohibitive but mandatory law (like taxation) is coercive. The United States never fit your definition of legitmate if non-coercion is your criteria. Are you a pure anarchist by chance?

Conquest is one of the few methods of gaining land that is seen as legitimate in the World Court.

Well, let's discuss communism without any clue as to what it actually means then, shall we? The reason I bring up dictionary definitions is because of people who say b.s. like "the only real communists were jesus and mother theresa"... which obviously relies on a made-up happy-shiny definition of what a communist is. There is no "battle of definitions", there is only one definition which I have cited above.

I think if the dictionary is your sole source of understanding, then you are discussing the issue "without any clue as to what it actually means." There is an alternative to learning about political systems, such as communism, through short dictionary definitions. You could pick up some of the essential works of the ideology.

Start with The Communist Manifest by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, and maybe follow it up with Engeles' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Read V.I. Lenin's The State and Revolution and Stalin's The Foundation's of Leninism. Look into Mao's Four Essays on Philosophy. None of these is very long (the Lenin essay is the longest at less than 150 pages).

Then you would want to read some history about how these philosophies have worked in practice.

It is all well and good to go on about Communism being an economic system, which is certainly the root of the philosophy, but the reality of Communism in action has been that it operates as a totalitarian government. Where have you seen Communism, the economic system, working and functioning within, say, a democratic political system? Sure the French and Italians have their Communist parties, but the reality is that Communism in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, and Eastern Europe has always operated as a government in total control of the economy and every other aspect of life.

This is something not to be understood by reading only dictionary definitions, divorced from a more thorough understanding of the ideology and its actual practice. To do so leads people to make embarrassingly uniformed statements, like "Hitler was a communist."

Put simply, read Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx.

That is the only true communism.

There are lots of left winged ideals similar to communism but communism is a set one like nazism.

The scale is not just left and right wing only, try Political Compass for a more real one.

I think if the dictionary is your sole source of understanding, then you are discussing the issue "without any clue as to what it actually means." There is an alternative to learning about political systems, such as communism, through short dictionary definitions. You could pick up some of the essential works of the ideology.

Start with The Communist Manifest by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, and maybe follow it up with Engeles' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Read V.I. Lenin's The State and Revolution and Stalin's The Foundation's of Leninism. Look into Mao's Four Essays on Philosophy. None of these is very long (the Lenin essay is the longest at less than 150 pages).

Then you would want to read some history about how these philosophies have worked in practice.

It is all well and good to go on about Communism being an economic system, which is certainly the root of the philosophy, but the reality of Communism in action has been that it operates as a totalitarian government. Where have you seen Communism, the economic system, working and functioning within, say, a democratic political system? Sure the French and Italians have their Communist parties, but the reality is that Communism in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, and Eastern Europe has always operated as a government in total control of the economy and every other aspect of life.

This is something not to be understood by reading only dictionary definitions, divorced from a more thorough understanding of the ideology and its actual practice. To do so leads people to make embarrassingly uniformed statements, like "Hitler was a communist."

Nazi stands for in english basically "National Socialist" but of course this was twisted.

Communism will only work in practise if everyone applied under it, USSR could never of been true communist because if it did, the USA would just stroll through killing everyone and stealing supplies. Communism at first has to be totalarism to get things in place ready for the break down of the government into the people controlling the country was the theory at the time about it.

The truth is, Communism can never work in practise, no matter what you say, for commmunism to work, you need perfect people with perfect mindset and no difference in opinion basically, Communism breaks down into a collection of Drones just doing what it needs to do, abit like the borg without the whole queen bit, just going around doing their jobs like drones.

oh goody, the joys of refuting a self taught philosopher. You see, like that physics PHD I made myself out of paper and tinfoil, If one teaches oneself then one leaves oneself open to certain criticisms; much like the time I claimed pi as being exactly 4. One cannot learn from others, cannot grasp full principles (as our good friend Ayn demonstrated so admirably with Kant) and merely ingrains one's own ignorances and prejudices.

To the matter in hand then; upon humanitarian and practical grounds I refute utterly Ayn Rand and her ignoble and craven philosophy, believing as I do it to be foolish to extoll greed as a virtue.

Corny as this might sound to someone motivated solely by "rational self interest" (selfishness) I do indeed believe in a higher calling and nature to a human being then simply existing and thriving of others until death.

I do believe that there are higher callings then

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. "

to quote Rand; essentially a hackneyed version of utilitarianism with greed and cold reason thrown in.

My understanding of Objectivism is, admittedly, limited, but as I understand it, following pure reason if I were on fire then a follower of Rand would not put me out if it did not aid them, emotionally or otherwise. Could a society ever run thusly? I rather liked when they asked rand if she wouldn't die to save her husband. Her reply was yes, but only as she couldn't live without him. Whereas if she died she wouldn't be with him anyway! Doesn't her saying she'd lay down her life for a higher cause contradict your own definition of sacrifice?

moral objectivism insists upon a monoploy of government; yet also maintains a principle of non inititiation of force. the two are irreconcilible. How may one run a monoploy without initiating force? What do the police do?

I believe that I am capable of acts for reasons beyond my own selfishness and lust for the material possessions of a fleeting life. Do you?

there, I believe I have struck at what I percieve as the inherent frailties of Rand's philosophy, admittedly tainted by my own disgust as the exoltation of greed as a virtue; perhaps this is where your "anti- intellectualism" argument stems from. The onus is now upon you to define sacrifice (if you would be so kind) and, as i have forwarded my reasons for disliking objectivism, so now shall you forward yours for seeing in it any inherent worth.

N.B I insulted Ayn rand as a pseudo-philosopher- I merely listed you as an "adherent" to her- ergo, she was insulted not you; you cannot be held to blame for the mistakes of others. I doubt she'll be punching her way out of the grave to argue with me anytime soon though. This misunderstanding of mine concerning the nature of "sacrifice" is doubtlessly where your strawman idea stems from. Obviously, dictionary definitions agree wholly with myself, so I'm intrigued to hear how you define sacrifice.

Most of the first part of your post is simply meaningless. Moral philosophy is not what about people in general (and certainly not you personally) actually DO do or TEND to do, it's about what they SHOULD do. Until you can come to grips with that, it is pointless for me to offer you anything more.

Now, for the parts of your post that had some actual substance to them:

I refute utterly Ayn Rand and her ignoble and craven philosophy,
No, you haven't. You've stated that you object to it, but your only reason for doing so is emotional reaction. You haven't actually given any real reasons as to why it is logically invalid, due to either fallacious reasoning or false premises.

moral objectivism insists upon a monoploy of government; yet also maintains a principle of non inititiation of force. the two are irreconcilible. How may one run a monoploy without initiating force? What do the police do?
Police (properly) use retaliatory force. Of course, that's not often the case--but as I stated before, moral philosophy is not concerned with what people DO do but rather with what people SHOULD do.

N.B I insulted Ayn rand as a pseudo-philosopher- I merely listed you as an "adherent" to her- ergo, she was insulted not you;
I never claimed otherwise.

Doesn't her saying she'd lay down her life for a higher cause contradict your own definition of sacrifice?
Nope. Giving up a lesser value for a greater value is not sacrifice, as it results in a net gain. It is only sacrifice if it results in a net loss--that is, giving up a greater value for a lesser one.


Last thing--do not confuse Ayn Rand's position with mine. For instance, Rand made a major metaphysical error when she stated that morality, though objective, is not intrinsic but rather extrinsic. In fact, morality is intrinsic. Certainly, the ARI "objectivists" (actually irrational dogmatists) will have a token point of disagreement with Rand so they don't look like total Randroids, but those are almost always superficial and of no real consequence overall.

... paid lip service to an ideology of collectivism, altruism, and sacrifice--the three most evil notions ever created.

Ive seen you post elsewhere with stuff like this. Now the following is just a guess, but you read ALOT of Ayn Rand don't you? Not that theres anything wrong with literacy or the free exercise there of, but you seem to have memeorized the kind of linguistic style she uses.

Maybe Im wrong. If so no offense ment.

Edit: seriously I posted this without even reading the very last one in the thread.