NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's see here.

Please, refrain from "all". This is about "worst one".

Brief description for the more obscure one:

National Bolshevism is a modern form of Communism that developed partly out of the section of the Soviet Communist Party opposed to Trotskyist radicalism and initially supportive of Stalin (until purged), partly out of Stalinism itself (and its pseudo-nationalist traits), and partly out of connections between Nazism and the Russian diaspora (many of whom later came to view Stalin as a protototype of a sort of "Communist Fascism", and an enemy of the Jewery). It is quite popular today with the Russian youth, and forms the background to most ecclectic neo-Nazi movements in Russia (and one in Latvia). It also has less notable equivalents in Western Europe.

Well, before the poll's up - I'll say Soviet-style.

Worst for who? I think Comrade Stalin got a number of his goals in life accomplished.

With regards to economics, Maoism. With regard to social policy, probably Soviet-style.

North Korean, if that's a "style".

All of the above. None of them are truly communist. In fact, a communist revolution is simply (even if it was perfect in theory) impossible until Capitalism completely polarizes global society into the bourgeois and the proletariat.

All of the above. None of them are truly communist. In fact, a communist revolution is simply (even if it was perfect in theory) impossible until Capitalism completely polarizes global society into the bourgeois and the proletariat.
You an advocate of Wallerstein?

Stalin killed 50 million Russians, so I suppouse he's the top dog.
Most died from the gulags or a 'cerebral hemmorage'
:( :sniper:

All of the above. None of them are truly communist. In fact, a communist revolution is simply (even if it was perfect in theory) impossible until Capitalism completely polarizes global society into the bourgeois and the proletariat.
Sorry, but you've fallen into the no true Scotsman fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman_fallacy)

None of those are even close to communism. Some may have been used as a (utterly broken, wicked, insane) way from going from capitalism to communism, but none of those are in any form close to what communism is.

Why can't you at least learn what "communism" is before attacking it ?! That really upsets me ! :headbang:

None of those are even close to communism. Some may have been used as a (utterly broken, wicked, insane) way from going from capitalism to communism, but none of those are in any form close to what communism is.

Why can't you at least learn what "communism" is before attacking it ?! That really upsets me ! :headbang:
See above (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10444144&postcount=9)

mao

he killed massive numbers of enemies and friends

he kept china in a state of terror for about 30 years (from victory in '49 to his death in '76)

his policies caused millions of deaths from starvation as well as terror. no one, neither comrade, friend, lover or spouse was immune from his fight for power. he was a truly vile man.

to what communism is.

By your own description, communism isn't. At all. In any case, "it will/could be". How could we discuss it, then?
All of these claimed to be "communist".

Parallel: There is a Nazi revisionism founded by these two brothers, previously Sturmabteilung members. It is called "Third Way" or something. Since the SA had suffered at the hands of Hitler, they claimed that real Nazism was corrupted by Hitler. Now, it may probably be that their Nazism would not have been as violent (or, supposedly, not violent at all - let's give them the benefit of the doubt). When you consider this, do you cease calling Hitler a Nazi? I think not.

This is not MacCarthyism, and I am a leftist myself (though not by far a communist). It is accepting that things are what they claim to be.

You also mix the two VERY DIFFERENT notions of Communism as a stage in Marxist theory (the development you are alluding to) and Communist politics (ie: those aiming to reach the Marxist goal through Lenin's teachings, in very different versions: what you may argue against them does not make them less of what I pointed out they are). Get your criteria right.

See above (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10444144&postcount=9)

That's just completly false. Read Marx. Learn what "communism" is. Communism is an long-term goal in which THERE IS NO STATE. Communism is society in which THE PEOPLE CONTROL the economy. All of your examples are as far from communism as you can be.

What's the fallacy in that ? You can post links to something which is completly unfitted and think you made a point. But you should learn what is something before attacking it. Oh, btw, what was USSR ? Union of Communist Soviet Republics ? Hum... no... Union of Socialist Soivet Republics ! Guess why ? Because not even them did ever claim to BE COMMUNIST. They only claimed to follow the road from capitalism to communism, road which is called "socialism".

And showing the failure of way to go from state A to state B as a failure of state B itself is much more a fallacy than anything else on this thread.

By your own description, communism isn't.

Communism is a long term goal, which cannot be reached directly from capitalism. As such, it was never implemented.

It is accepting that things are what they claim to be.

Not even Stalin claimed to be applying Communism. He claimed to be a communist, and to lead his country towards Communism. That's completly different.

You also mix the two VERY DIFFERENT notions of Communism as a stage in Marxist theory (the development you are alluding to)

Communism was defined by Marx as the long-term goal, in which there is direct democracy, no state, and social ownership of means of production. That's what Communism is.

and Communist politics (ie: those aiming to reach the Marxist goal through Lenin's teachings, in very different versions: what you may argue against them does not make them less of what I pointed out they are).

Anyone who really want to reach this long-term goal can rightfully call himself a communist. Since there are many ways to go from capitalism to communism, communists may disagree strongly with each other on how to do the transition. Lenin's teachings are a proposed way to do the transition, as are Trosty's teachings, as are Mao's, Stalin's, ...

First, you can doubt the sincerity of some of them (especially Mao and Stalin, for my part). But it doesn't even matter. Communism is the goal, and there can be many way to reach it. Opposing very strongly to the ways used by some to go towards communism doesn't mean opposing Communism itself. The way I support to go toward communism is something close to the one of Paris' Commune, of Allende, ... Both are very different ways, as you can try to reach the same destination from the same point using very different paths and means of locomotion.

Get your criteria right.

When did I do any confusion ?

Brief description for the more obscure one:

National Bolshevism

...has a webpage of pictures of their "combat girlfirends"

Communism is a long term goal, which cannot be reached directly from capitalism. As such, it was never implemented.

Doh, that's why all the communist hierarchs claimed to be building socialism first.

Not even Stalin claimed to be applying Communism. He claimed to be a communist, and to lead his country towards Communism. That's completly different.

That is just nonsense. By your own definition, you yourself are not. Neither is Mark, and certainly not Lenin.

BTW: Marx offered himself the luxurious position of standing on a ledge and watching everyone else attempting to "change the world". He criticised everyone (from Blanqui to the Paris Commune - which you cite below - and the Social Democrats) for not being "scientific" and for being "opportunistic" or (how convenient!) "too insurgent". He also stated that "a new stage comes about when it comes about", so everyone who failed was "judged by history" - how very convenient as well! It reminds one of the "1066 and all that" pun: "Lloyd George spent his time trying to figure out the Irish question, but everytime he got close, the Irish secretly changed the question". Marx had become marginal in his own generation: everyone admired his critique, but none accepted his conclusions. None except for Lenin, WHO WENT AGAINST Marx and argued for "voluntarism" - ie: it doesn't "happen", it "gets done".
You, my friend, are in a minority.

Communism was defined by Marx as the long-term goal, in which there is direct democracy, no state, and social ownership of means of production. That's what Communism is.

Thank you for that lesson. Read my first reply again. I have already answered to this claim.

Anyone who really want to reach this long-term goal can rightfully call himself a communist. Since there are many ways to go from capitalism to communism, communists may disagree strongly with each other on how to do the transition. Lenin's teachings are a proposed way to do the transition, as are Trosty's teachings, as are Mao's, Stalin's, ...

First, you can doubt the sincerity of some of them (especially Mao and Stalin, for my part). But it doesn't even matter. Communism is the goal, and there can be many way to reach it. Opposing very strongly to the ways used by some to go towards communism doesn't mean opposing Communism itself. The way I support to go toward communism is something close to the one of Paris' Commune, of Allende, ... Both are very different ways, as you can try to reach the same destination from the same point using very different paths and means of locomotion.

Not only are you contradicting yourself, but NOTHING of what you said makes the others less communist. You don't agree with them. I got it. But that is not to say that they are not definable as "communists". Place it in brackets or whatever, but it fact.
Note: please explain why Allende (who was indeed a very nice guy) did not state that his model was in any way opposed to Cuban or Soviet? Different, surely (and this was ALSO due to circumstance). But not opposed. See my point? You are taking things out of context, not I.

When did I do any confusion ?

If you still don't see where, read my posts again. Be sure that I didn't wake up yesterday to argue these things (so I don't have the Libertarian or whatever simplistic view that you are used to arguing against).

VERY IMPORTANT EDIT: I fail to see any resemblance between Allende and the Paris Commune. If anything, Allende was a product of the Popular Front doctrine, initiated by Stalin AGAINST the "insurgent tactics" (of the Commune, amongst others), and also seen in the Spanish Republic's close alliance between the Communist Party and mainstream politicians against Anarchists, Trotskyists, the POUM, the non-dogmatic Brigadeers etc. Allende (as nice as he may be) is the more acceptable facet of Stalinist internationalism (no, not a contradiction in terms).

To be honest it's hard to choose only one form of communism that's the worst. They're all the springboards of delusional madmen. Sure, I can say Stalinism is the worst, but that's really only because of Stalin. So I'd be judging not by the subtle differences between each variety (I admit I'm not as read-up on those differences as others) but the differences of their practitioners.

I do find it amusing how every form of communism has people claiming what is the TRUE communism, as opposed to the FALSE communisms and false communists.

Because it's very similar to the whole Catholics vs Protestants thing. In that I think all communists are communists, all Christians are Christians, and all arguments involving communist's devotees invariably involves the No True Scotstman fallacy.

Let's see here.

Please, refrain from "all". This is about "worst one".
Sorry, but since they all stem from the same set of fallacious nonsense, they are all equally as bad.

The worst form is obviously Pol Pot's form.

Of the forms listed, I'd have to say Juche. From what I know, all the other forms at least TRIED to feed their people. North Korea clearly doesn't care that it's people are starving.

what about pol pot????? he was a nice guy in person but destroyed an entire country
communism isnt bad at all, look at the countries it has been tried in, all dirt poor then attacked by a global superpower, doesnt really give communims a chance, in Tzarian russia, the living conditions were horrible, with the bolshviks, it gave them a new hope, unfortunately, stalin killed it.
if we were to try socialism in hmmm... scandinavian countries were the average wealh is high, they would be the best countries to live in... wait they are, then there is my country, canada, all the well off countries that are socialist are usually voted the top to live in.

I'm curious here, is "Juche" another form of "Stalinism"? :confused:

wtf are you guys tlaking about?> communism is the best form of goverment.

what about pol pot????? he was a nice guy in person but destroyed an entire country

Well, I had included him in Maoism.

I'm curious here, is "Juche" another form of "Stalinism"?

Well, it is in a way. So is Maoism, technically. So is National-Bolshevism. But I had counted on what sets them apart from each other: I mean, Stalin did not live to say whom he would have favored (though we might all be able to guess). Plus, the three differ from each other: and Juche differs enourmously from Stalinism (even if it might be because it exaggerates it).

Those who are choosing Stalinism truly have no idea just what goes on in North Korea.

The people aren’t allowed to eat the rice they grow. They must resort to consuming tree bark and grass. They get rice on special occasions, like Kim’s birthday. Oh, they worship him as a God by the way. Sick son of a bitch.
At least in Russia and Moist China, the people ate.

At least in Russia and Moist China, the people ate.
More or less. Or less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_famine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward

Stalinism followed by anarcho-communism.

This thread, along with Aerith's theme from Final Fantasy VII, have brought me to tears.

Please, somebody... Kill me now.

wtf are you guys tlaking about?> communism is the best form of goverment.

If you like surrendering freedom and individuality, then yes, I suppose it is quite efficient at that. Combining the stangulating control of fascism socially and the stangulating control over economy of... communism. Communism is more like fasco-communism.

If you like surrendering freedom and individuality, then yes, I suppose it is quite efficient at that. Combining the stangulating control of fascism socially and the stangulating control over economy of... communism. Communism is more like fasco-communism.

*stabs own eye with fork*

*cuts head off to relieve the pain*

If you like surrendering freedom and individuality, then yes, I suppose it is quite efficient at that. Combining the stangulating control of fascism socially and the stangulating control over economy of... communism. Communism is more like fasco-communism.
once again, you must look at the country before they became communist, im sure if canada became communist it would do quite well.
Pre USSR, the whole region was third world, after WW2 it was a global superpower.
In China, it is the fastest growing economy, things have more or lessstabalized, i know some who have been brainwashed by the corporation's propaganda will find some examples of where china is bad, compare to the USA they have not killed 100 thousand iraqi's in a war for oil.

Just rereading it, i am sorry for poor spelling and horrible grammar, i am quite tired

This thread, along with Aerith's theme from Final Fantasy VII, have brought me to tears.

Please, somebody... Kill me now.

?

?

An almost complete lack of knowledge from many posters in this thread, plus this piece of music.

http://www.vgmusic.com/music/console/sony/ps1/aerith.mid

An almost complete lack of knowledge from many posters in this thread, plus this piece of music.

http://www.vgmusic.com/music/console/sony/ps1/aerith.mid
God damn it, Pot. I know what anarcho-communism is and I think it sounds kind of nice. I know that Stalin was a counter-revoltuionary and I know that Mao only used the ideology to distinguish himself from his adversaries, more or less. I know that Kim, Pol Pot and the Veitcong fucked up an already perverted ideology beyond all recognition.

I took the OP to mean which failure to implement communism by self-professing communists is the worst fuck up. Give people the benifit of the doubt or move somewhere where you don't have to deal with people who think communism and nazism are the same thing, or are ideologically aligned in any way shape or form.
I suggest a nice cave in Canada.

BTW, that song sucks!:p

Eh, i've heard the same thing from capitalists regarding examples of where capitalism has fucked up and caused so much hardship.

"Ah! But Pinochet didn't have TRUE capitalism! Somalia hasn't got TRUE capitalism!" and so on.

Ask someone who never asked for communism to be placed upon them, and you will see how vicious and idealistic the system is. You cannot free people by placing them in bondage.

God damn it, Pot. I know what anarcho-communism is and I think it sounds kind of nice. I know that Stalin was a counter-revoltuionary and I know that Mao only used the ideology to distinguish himself from his adversaries, more or less. I know that Kim, Pol Pot and the Veitcong fucked up an already perverted ideology beyond all recognition.

I took the OP to mean which failure to implement communism by self-professing communists is the worst fuck up. Give people the benifit of the doubt or move somewhere where you don't have to deal with people who think communism and nazism are the same thing, or are ideologically aligned in any way shape or form.
I suggest a nice cave in Canada.

BTW, that song sucks!:p

*gunshot*

Sorry, but you've fallen into the no true Scotsman fallacy

Not necessarily. Generally, when socialists speak of communism, they mean a kind of economic and social system characterized by an absense of social class, markets, or the state where the means of production are communally owned and managed. The "communism" of the USSR was intended to act as a transition state between capitalism/feudalism and communism, but is not actually communist.

Eh, i've heard the same thing from capitalists regarding examples of where capitalism has fucked up and caused so much hardship.

"Ah! But Pinochet didn't have TRUE capitalism! Somalia hasn't got TRUE capitalism!" and so on.

Exactly. I was going to say just that.

Social Democracy - It looks innocuous, and then leads people onto harder forms of Communism ;)

You gotta give it to the commies though, they've got much more impressive names overall. 'specially in the native language.

Maoism. The Cultural Revolution completely wins the contest.

Eh, i've heard the same thing from capitalists regarding examples of where capitalism has fucked up and caused so much hardship.

"Ah! But Pinochet didn't have TRUE capitalism! Somalia hasn't got TRUE capitalism!" and so on.

Except the two are not comparable. Communism is an "idealogy." (You can tell because people go around arguing who is the "real" adherants and who are just "pretenders." Just like in organized religion. And not like in capitalism.) Capitalism is just an economic system.

I don't deny that its possible that Somalia has a roughly capitalistic economy.

I do deny that the problems of Somalia are because of "capitalism fucking up." Capitalism is just an economic system! Unlike Communism, it doesn't pretend to have all the answers to all of mankind's problems. You see the difference yet? Communism is a pseudo-panacea for everything that has ever gone wrong with any civilization. Capitalism is a system whereby individuals can own things, engage in market interactions, and where the government prints and maintains a money supply.

And how many capitalists on these boards have you ever seen going on about so-and-so not being a "TRUE" capitalist?

EVERY time someone dares to label the USSR, PRC or whoever as communistic, a half-dozen or more young communists are on about how no, those were false communists. (The implication of course being that, the ones pointing it out are in fact the REAL communists themselves.)

There's really no comparison, either between capitalism and Communism or between the use of no-true-scotsman fallacies between the advocates of either one.

Sorry, but you've fallen into the no true Scotsman fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman_fallacy)

depends on if "no true scotsman comes from russia" is an example of the fallacy, yes?

Not necessarily. Generally, when socialists speak of communism, they mean a kind of economic and social system characterized by an absense of social class, markets, or the state where the means of production are communally owned and managed. The "communism" of the USSR was intended to act as a transition state between capitalism/feudalism and communism, but is not actually communist.
Not according to Lenin when he instituted "War Communism" after the revolution.

"Juche" by far. Even compared to other Communist nations, nothing even remotely matches the sheer economic and social damage this idea wreaked on North Korea. It took the worst of Stalinist autocracy and combined it with the worst economic policy in the history of mankind (autarky only works if you have a really big nation with a lot of natural resources and people and no outside competition...but NK doesn't have any of those)

Virtually nothing has improved in North Korea...it's hardly any better than it was under the Japanese, and is probably even worse.

Any nationalistic socialism would be the worst. Nationalism only accentuates the major problem with socialism/communism.

The moralistic ferver of the "proletariate" under a socialist/communist party tends to offer carte blanche to the leaders of the movement. The people work for the benefit of the party, but it takes a while for them to realize when the party is no longer working for them. Add nationalism to the mix, and you have a public who is extremely motivated to work for the government, yet entirely too trusting of the government.

There are two ways of correctly reaching a good anarchy (which is what communism is, effectively) , in my opinion:

1. Socialist route: Completely remove any information gap between government and the population. (Note: this requires that the public demands honesty and openness, and that the government willingly accepts, in other words, not likely) Then, systematically organize the methodical public claiming of private industries and natural resources through the reworking of land usage rights.

2. Capitalist route: Allow for capitalism to shorten resource distribution chains and eliminate wealth flow bottlenecks, then systematically remove government interference in a way that does not cause severe market irregularities.

I believ the capitalistic route is by far the easier way.


And to the people who say "None of those are communisms," shut up. Socialism is a stage within a communism, and therefore it qualifies.

True capitalism also requires an absense of government interference, but, were I to say that privatization of government owned industries were not capitalist, you could all rightly call me a liar.

Oh come on! Just because it is related to Stalin, all of a sudden it is evil! The Neo-Nazi communism style is of course the worst.

Social Democracy - It looks innocuous, and then leads people onto harder forms of Communism ;)

Its a gateway communism.

Its a gateway communism.

eventually the welfare state just doesn't offer enough of a high anymore. sure, you swear up and down that you just need the one last social program and then you're through. but the rush, man, the rush!

What on earth is pre-Marxist communism?

In fact, what is Stalinist communism? I wouldn't all most of what's there remotely communist. Especially that joke that "National-Bolshevism" is.

eventually the welfare state just doesn't offer enough of a high anymore. sure, you swear up and down that you just need the one last social program and then you're through. but the rush, man, the rush!

Yeah, before you know it the rest of the Western world is having an intervention for you. Outside of America, who is too pissed off at you to care either way, they are all there, saying "Look at what you are doing to yourself," or "Have you not thought of the influence you are having on Africa?" Meanwhile, Sweden just passed you note asking if you wanted to raise corporate taxes after you get done.

Glasnost, as following its invention, its host nation quickly fell, and turned to the wicked ways of capatalism, its unstable, therefore bad.

Capitalism is just an economic system.


Just an economic system that tends to create and depend on the existance of certain sociopolitical institutions and structures, chiefly private property and the police, courts, military and goverments that serve to protect and enforce it.

If capitalism is just an economic system, explain the behavior of the United States all throughout the Cold War era, where a simple economic system served as the motovation for containment, deterence, and military build-up against the Soviet Union, or the overthrow of undesirable left-wing governments in favor of more economically compatible versions.

The simple fact of the matter is that he who controls the limited resources (economics) controls the power (politics). Economics and politics are two sides of the same coin.


Capitalism is just an economic system! Unlike Communism, it doesn't pretend to have all the answers to all of mankind's problems. You see the difference yet?...Capitalism is a system whereby individuals can own things, engage in market interactions, and where the government prints and maintains a money supply.


And individual ownership and market interactions are a perferable way to do things because ___________________________?

Fill in the blank. Oh, look! An ideology that promotes a certain way and means of solving mankind's problems! :D

Just an economic system that tends to create and depend on the existance of certain sociopolitical institutions and structures, chiefly private property and the police, courts, military and goverments that serve to protect and enforce it.
Really? So there were no police, no courts, no military, and no governments before capitalism?

Surely you jest.


And individual ownership and market interactions are a perferable way to do things because ___________________________?
Because it maximizes individual utility and liberty. Contractarianism.

Really? So there were no police, no courts, no military, and no governments before capitalism?

Surely you jest.

It is more than an economic system, as all of government must accommadate it. In the end, property rights governs or weighs heavily upon every government policy.

Really? So there were no police, no courts, no military, and no governments before capitalism?

Surely you jest.

how did you get that out of the words you responded to?

Really? So there were no police, no courts, no military, and no governments before capitalism?

Surely you jest.


Yes, they all existed before capitalism. But I don't recall claiming that capitalism alone creates police, courts, militaries or governments. My assertion was that capitalism will create, maintain, and enhance these institutions and structures where necessary, as those who control the most resources are going to take the measures necessary to ensure continued control.


Because it maximizes individual utility and liberty. Contractarianism.


(The emphasis is mine, of course)

Exactly. Capitalism is justified by a political ideology, and is thus also a political entity, not just an economic entity. Edit: Thus, this idea that capitalism and communism cannot be compared (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10448639&postcount=42) because the former is only "economic" while the latter is "political" or "ideological" is simply false.

how did you get that out of the words you responded to?
"tends to create".

Words like that.

It helps to read, y'know.

It is more than an economic system, as all of government must accommadate it. In the end, property rights governs or weighs heavily upon every government policy.
Only insofar as it might benefit the goverment officials. But when the officials decide that it's not good, then property is stolen and given to someone else.

Only insofar as it might benefit the goverment officials. But when the officials decide that it's not good, then property is stolen and given to someone else.

I'm lost.

"tends to create".

Words like that.

It helps to read, y'know.

"and depend on"

Yes, they all existed before capitalism. But I don't recall claiming that capitalism alone creates police, courts, militaries or governments.

Just an economic system that tends to create and depend on the existance of certain sociopolitical institutions and structures, chiefly private property and the police, courts, military and goverments that serve to protect and enforce it.

Looks to me like you did.


My assertion was that capitalism will create, maintain, and enhance these institutions and structures where necessary, as those who control the most resources are going to take the measures necessary to ensure continued control.
And those who don't have as many resources don't want their property protected?


Exactly. Capitalism is justified by a political ideology
Contractarianism is morality, not politics.

"tends to create".


Your response seemed to indicate that I had said "alone tends to create," which, of course, I didn't say.


It helps to read, y'know.


It does, yes.

"and depend on"
In order to depend on them, it must create them.

Helps to know things like that.

Your response seemed to indicate that I had said "alone tends to create," which, of course, I didn't say.
But you implied. Otherwise, you would have chosen other words.

I'm lost.
Think of things like weath redistribution schemes and "eminent domain".

In order to depend on them, it must create them.

Helps to know things like that.

Oh, so capitalism must have created the police, courts, and military, as it obviously depends on them.

Capitalism takes existing government models and adapts them to promote the system.

And those who don't have as many resources don't want their property protected?


Does my answer to this question change the fact that those with many resources will create the government institutions and structures necessary to maintain and enhance their control?


Contractarianism is morality, not politics.


A morality that is used to justify a particular political ideology and system.

Capitalism takes existing government models and adapts them to promote the system.

Thus "creating" those sociopolitical institutions that it requires. Exactly.

Think of things like weath redistribution schemes and "eminent domain".

How does that support your opinion that government institutions are not created as a result of capitalism?

Oh, so capitalism must have created the police, courts, and military, as it obviously depends on them.
Once they are created, the system becomes dependent on them. That's the upshot of the statement.

How does that support your opinion that government institutions are not created as a result of capitalism?
It wasn't meant to. However, we can see from just looking at the history of humanity that governments were around thousands of years before the notion of capitalism was.

Does my answer to this question change the fact that those with many resources will create the government institutions and structures necessary to maintain and enhance their control?
And what of the government officials who interfere with those who have resources?


A morality that is used to justify a particular political ideology and system.
Do you have even the faintest inkling of what contractarianism is?

However, we can see from just looking at the history of humanity that governments were around thousands of years before the notion of capitalism was.

Recognizing this does not change the fact that capitalism promotes the creation and empowerment of certain types of governmental institutions and organizations.

And what of the government officials who interfere with those who have resources?


So there is competition among those who control the most resources.

"tends to create".

Words like that.

It helps to read, y'know.

i fail to see how claiming that something tends to create a particular set of institutions has any relation to whether other systems also create similar institutions

In order to depend on them, it must create them.

Helps to know things like that.

what?

It wasn't meant to. However, we can see from just looking at the history of humanity that governments were around thousands of years before the notion of capitalism was.

But we can also see that there is a great deal of government policy, activity, and positions that were not around before the advent of capitalism.

i.e. eminent domain, wealth redistribution

*adds Europa Maxima to the list*

You're in trouble now

Does my answer to this question change the fact that those with many resources will create the government institutions and structures necessary to maintain and enhance their control?

Moreover, that many government institutions and structures had to be created or adapted before capitalism could have been instituted to begin with.

Regardless of whether the wealthy mold the government to perpetuate their position, the mere existence of capitalism necessitates specific government institutions.

Moreover, that many government institutions and structures had to be created or adapted before capitalism could have been instituted to begin with.

Regardless of whether the wealthy mold the government to perpetuate their position, the mere existence of capitalism necessitates specific government institutions.

Correct. This is what "...and depend on..." means in my original post.

Stalinism definitely wins. It is the only logical conclusion of a dictatorship of the proletariat, and is nailbittingly horrific. On top of that, it is a virus that wishes to spread. People go wacky hearing about this, but I think Stalin was the greatest internationalist ever, wishing all people would one day fall into his "workers' paradise." It is an evil that, if ever repeated again, must be destroyed immediately.

People go wacky hearing about this, but I think Stalin was the greatest internationalist ever, wishing all people would one day fall into his "workers' paradise."
Stalin wanted to create Socialism in one nation. He was the guy who made the USSR into a powerful country, precisely because he didn't go everywhere else and made revolution.
That was one of his central disagreements with Trotsky, who wanted to create, fund and support revolutions all over the world, because he believed that Socialism was only possible once the entire earth was on board.

I hate Juche the worst by the way. I am disgusted with North Korea. Stalin had at least a little bit of merit in both theory and practice, and he did trade with other nations if necessary.
The Kims are even worse than Stalin, even though they may not have killed as many people.

i fail to see how claiming that something tends to create a particular set of institutions has any relation to whether other systems also create similar institutions
Sounds like a personal problem to me.

But we can also see that there is a great deal of government policy, activity, and positions that were not around before the advent of capitalism.

i.e. eminent domain, wealth redistribution
Ever read the Code of Hammurabi?

Did you know that at the time of Julius Caesar, 1/3 of Rome was on grain relief (i.e. wealth redistribution)?

Ever read the Code of Hammurabi?

Long ago, I believe.

Did you know that at the time of Julius Caesar, 1/3 of Rome was on grain relief (i.e. wealth redistribution)?

You also must know that Rome had a rather free agricultural market. Rome's mercantilism bears a great deal of resemblance to modern capitalism, enough so to easily be considered early capitalism.

In the end, BAAWA, you cannot reasonably argue that capitalism does not mold a government's structure, nor can you reasonably argue that capitalism is not based in a greater political ideology.

Capitalism, at least in my eyes, is the economic offshoot of liberalism, I doubt you would disagree with that.

You also could not disagree that the patent office would not exist without the existence of capitalism.

Stalin's Soviet government decided that a certain percentage of a population are "treasonists", and sent the NKVD to murder that exact number of persons. That's the creepiest policy I've ever heard of. The rest of the system worked on similar ideas.

*adds Europa Maxima to the list*

You're in trouble now
Oh? Why, pray tell?

I think I see why. I detest all forms of Communism, save Utopianism. I don't discriminate. :)

Stalin wanted to create Socialism in one nation.

That's one of the most enduring myths about Stalin, and it's completely false. If he only wanted "socialism in one nation" why did he impose communism on the Eastern European countries and N. Korea? Why did he support communism in China and Indochina?

That's one of the most enduring myths about Stalin, and it's completely false. If he only wanted "socialism in one nation" why did he impose communism on the Eastern European countries and N. Korea? Why did he support communism in China and Indochina?
I suppose his notion of one nation would be a Russian Empire...conquering as it went along.

I suppose his notion of one nation would be a Russian Empire...conquering as it went along.

Prob'ly.

That's one of the most enduring myths about Stalin, and it's completely false. If he only wanted "socialism in one nation" why did he impose communism on the Eastern European countries and N. Korea? Why did he support communism in China and Indochina?
Have you read any of his theoretical works?

He certainly did want to build an empire, but he wasn't an internationalist as such. A real internationalist would have gone Trotsky's way, not Stalin's.

Have you read any of his theoretical works?

He certainly did want to build an empire, but he wasn't an internationalist as such. A real internationalist would have gone Trotsky's way, not Stalin's.

On principle, you are sublimly right. However, there is an internationalism in Stalinism (surely not Trotsky's style):
1. "socialism in one country" was not a rejection of universal insurgence, just a procrastination. In this field, Stalin used the Marxist concept of gradual development as necessary to rech explsion, coupled with Lenin's adaggio (or, actually, twist) that contol might be assumed while the process was being carried out (and not after). The Soviets sounded like morons when they had to explain that, according to Marxist dogmas, the same gvt was to assume the functions of "the savage capitalist" needed for development, and the utopian dictatorship-to-classless.
2. in fact, the distinction between Trotsky and Stalin is less weighty than thought. Trotsky himself had to turn his back on insurgence after the fiasco in 1918-20, and especially after the idiotic 1921 move in your country of origin - when Zinoviev and Kun acted of their own will. Also, Trotsky had not opposed limiting to one country as an initial stage: he just thought that the initial stage had passed.
3. if Stalin linked his theoty to buiding socialism, then bear in mind that the USSR had reached that stage in his lifetime. Not only that: Stalin went against his own dogma (as he did on several topics) and backed Popular Fronts as socialism was being built (sure, the reasons had to do with Hitler's coming to power, more than with Marxism). Even more so, in the interwar period, countries in the way of USSR's expansion (such as mine) have never been met with anything other than Stalin's "internationalism" - meant to counter, for example, the creation of a Greater Romania and a Greater Poland - seen as "oppresors of nationalities". In the latter respect, Stalin backed concepts such as a "Balkan Federation". Of course, after he dissmissed the Comintern, and especially after the fall of the Curtain, this particular principle had no utility for him - and enthusiastic backers of it were executed or otherwise surprised (as was Dimitrov, who had the naivite and proverbial ill timing to come to Bucharest and propose a Bulgaro-Romanian Federation in 1948).

In short, Stalin advertised his way as a "genuine" and "realistic" internationalism.

Long ago, I believe.
Then you would know that much of the Code of Hammurabi deals with government intervention.


You also must know that Rome had a rather free agricultural market. Rome's mercantilism bears a great deal of resemblance to modern capitalism, enough so to easily be considered early capitalism.
Mercantilism != capitalism. Mercantilism = mercantilism.

In the end, BAAWA, you cannot reasonably argue that capitalism does not mold a government's structure, nor can you reasonably argue that capitalism is not based in a greater political ideology.
Yes, I can.


Capitalism, at least in my eyes, is the economic offshoot of liberalism, I doubt you would disagree with that.
Depends on precisely what you mean by it.


You also could not disagree that the patent office would not exist without the existence of capitalism.
I most certainly can, since capitalism can exist w/o patents. Ergo, there must be something else.

Stalin's Soviet government decided that a certain percentage of a population are "treasonists", and sent the NKVD to murder that exact number of persons. That's the creepiest policy I've ever heard of. The rest of the system worked on similar ideas.
What's even more creepy are the death lists. Literally: lists of people to be killed. By name. Stalin would go over them, adding and crossing out as he felt.

Communism allows madmen with delusions of grandeur to be able to slaughter tens of millions of people for their own amusment. Democracy allows the dumbest to rise to the top. And get a lot of people killed along the way in little wars.

All of the above. None of them are truly communist. In fact, a communist revolution is simply (even if it was perfect in theory) impossible until Capitalism completely polarizes global society into the bourgeois and the proletariat.

It won't. Capitilism needs owners and it needs workers, but most of all its life blood is buyers: middle class.

Just an economic system that tends to create and depend on the existance of certain sociopolitical institutions and structures, chiefly private property and the police, courts, military and goverments that serve to protect and enforce it.

Yeah... just like ANY economic system on the scale of the modern nationstate.

But an economic system it remains.


If capitalism is just an economic system, explain the behavior of the United States all throughout the Cold War era, where a simple economic system served as the motovation for containment, deterence, and military build-up against the Soviet Union, or the overthrow of undesirable left-wing governments in favor of more economically compatible versions.

Because political rhetoric can use anything. For example, the United States is currently at "war" with "terror."



And individual ownership and market interactions are a perferable way to do things because ___________________________?


People prefer to own stuff. People prefer to negotiate on their own terms.


Fill in the blank. Oh, look! An ideology that promotes a certain way and means of solving mankind's problems! :D

Nah, just a statement of what people prefer. Hardly a plan for world utopia. ;) Nice try, though, honest.

Mercantilism != capitalism. Mercantilism = mercantilism.

But my point is that those wealth redistribution institutions of Ancient Rome were caused by their mercantile economic system. Likewise, our wealth redistribution institutions were caused by our capitalist economic system.

The fact that wealth redistribution existed before capitalism does not prove that capitalism does not create and require government structures, in only proves that there were common characteristics between Roman mercantilism and modern capitalism.

Yes, I can.

Then start.

Depends on precisely what you mean by it.

To me, liberalism is concerned with liberty and self-determination. I believe that the right to labor and property are keys to self-determination. That is why I support capitalism. I do not support capitalism based on its efficiency as an economic model.

So capitalism is preferable as it allows the private individual the most liberty, therefore capitalism becomes part of a greater moral political ideology.

*gunshot*
Your posts are always so informative.

But my point is that those wealth redistribution institutions of Ancient Rome were caused by their mercantile economic system. Likewise, our wealth redistribution institutions were caused by our capitalist economic system.
No--it's caused by government intervention and silly people who want to believe that they can get around the laws of human action.

However, this is really getting off-topic.

Then start.
I have.


To me, liberalism is concerned with liberty and self-determination. I believe that the right to labor and property are keys to self-determination. That is why I support capitalism. I do not support capitalism based on its efficiency as an economic model.

So capitalism is preferable as it allows the private individual the most liberty, therefore capitalism becomes part of a greater moral political ideology.
I'm inclined to think of anarchism as a-political.

No--it's caused by government intervention and silly people who want to believe that they can get around the laws of human action.

However, this is really getting off-topic.

It is caused by government intervention in reaction to the deficiencies of the free market.

I'm inclined to think of anarchism as a-political.

Any model for societal governance is political. Anarchism is still a model for how society governs itself.

Any model for societal governance is political. Anarchism is still a model for how society governs itself.
I don't buy your definition.

It is caused by government intervention in reaction to the deficiencies of the free market.
No such thing exists.

No such thing exists.
http://schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

dot-communism.

http://schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif
How nice for you. Now I'd like to see some evidence for your claim, if you don't mind.

Shouldn't be much of a trouble for you, right?

I don't buy your definition.

Why not?

No such thing exists.

When all information is commonly held and resource distribution chains are perfectly efficient, then there will be no deficiencies in the free market.

We are a very, very long way away from that.

EDIT: Actually, I would agree that there are no deficiencies in the free market, however, I would say that because of the reasons I posted above, we cannot truly operate a free market.

Shouldn't be much of a trouble for you, right?
Not really. Afterall, I have an entire discipline of science behind me, and all you have is a bunch of people who keep returning to "moral" arguments when the facts prove them wrong.

But why not come back to something simple, where there is no government involvement. Akerlof's market for lemons.

Or externalities for that matter. Good old global warming. I don't see anyone stopping it, do I? Government or market, everyone is too myopic to get together and solve the problem.

Why not?
Doesn't fit.


When all information is commonly held and resource distribution chains are perfectly efficient, then there will be no deficiencies in the free market.
Oh--you mean when humans are omniscient and live in some fantasy land.

IOW: you can't compare some mythical creation with reality and then say that there are "deficiencies" in capitalism. That's just a load of crap.

Not really. Afterall, I have an entire discipline of science behind me,
No, you don't. And argument from #s is a fallacy.


But why not come back to something simple, where there is no government involvement. Akerlof's market for lemons.
Oh--so because humans aren't omniscient and don't live in some hyper-idealized fantasy land, capitalism has failings.

*laughs in your face*


Or externalities for that matter. Good old global warming. I don't see anyone stopping it, do I? Government or market, everyone is too myopic to get together and solve the problem.
"Externalities" are simply part of causation. Can't stop that.

Doesn't fit.

Why?

(I will keep asking why until I get an answer.)

Oh--you mean when humans are omniscient and live in some fantasy land.

IOW: you can't compare some mythical creation with reality and then say that there are "deficiencies" in capitalism. That's just a load of crap.

Society will always be deficient, a free market is society left to itself, so therefore the free market will always have deficiencies.

Also, I am the one who is trying to point out that the free market is bound by reality, meaning it will have deficiencies. You are the one with the mythical creation of a free market without deficiencies.

What does IOW mean, anyway?

Oh--so because humans aren't omniscient and don't live in some hyper-idealized fantasy land, capitalism has failings.
No, because we don't live in that fantasy land, the free market doesn't operate like it might on paper, and thus "fails", thus creating conditions in which government intervention produces a superior outcome.

*laughs in your face*
*Ignores childishness*

Why?

(I will keep asking why until I get an answer.)
You got an answer.


Society will always be deficient,
Vague. Useless. And reification.


a free market is society left to itself, so therefore the free market will always have deficiencies.
Doesn't sound very convincing.


Also, I am the one who is trying to point out that the free market is bound by reality, meaning it will have deficiencies.
No, you're the one comparing reality to some mythical creation.


What does IOW mean, anyway?
In Other Words.

No, because we don't live in that fantasy land, the free market doesn't operate like it might on paper,
And that's bad?

Oh wait--it's not.

*laughs in your face*.


and thus "fails",
Fails to live up to some fantasy? That's bad?


thus creating conditions in which government intervention produces a superior outcome.
But that never happens.

*laughs at your blatant load of crap*

You got an answer.

"It doesn't fit" is sorely lacking as an answer.

Vague. Useless. And reification.

Doesn't sound very convincing.

Then you show me how the free market is not bound by the deficiencies of society.

No, you're the one comparing reality to some mythical creation.

I am comparing reality to a mythical utopia, I am doing so to point out why a free market will be deficient when applied to reality.


Do you ever make points, or do you just like to derail the discussion?

Do you ever make points, or do you just like to derail the discussion?

typically the latter

-snip-
Well, do as you please. I don't think you'll ever have a chance of convincing anyone with that sort of behaviour, but then, that's not really your point either.

Fact is that the majority of people are happy as it is, with the government in there, taking some tax money and using it for communal purposes, which are decided every few years in elections.

Ask most people, and they don't want to see welfare abolished. They don't want to see regulations on business abandoned. They don't want their police and military privatised - indeed, in some countries people don't want to see anything privatised at all. Who's to say that they are wrong?

You? Why?

Fact is that the majority of people are happy as it is, with the government in there, taking some tax money and using it for communal purposes, which are decided every few years in elections.
That's becasue they are brain-washed by public education and a government regulated (controled) media.
Ask most people, and they don't want to see welfare abolished. They don't want to see regulations on business abandoned. They don't want their police and military privatised - indeed, in some countries people don't want to see anything privatised at all. Who's to say that they are wrong?
Those who aren't brain washed. I should note that I'm not for the military's privatization, though. I'm for its abolition.
You? Why?
I'm not brain-washed.

Remember, there was a time when everyone was quite happy with slavery (except the slaves, that is.)

Stalinism, by far. Though whether it's a form of Communism at all is a matter for debate.

That's becasue they are brain-washed by public education and a government regulated (controled) media.
That sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory.

And anyways, I don't think regulations (not that I see that many of them) is quite the same as goverment control.

That sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory.
And? Surely you aren't going to deny that consipacies exist?
And anyways, I don't think regulations (not that I see that many of them) is quite the same as goverment control.
If you can regulate it, that suggests that you have the power to enforce your regualtions, no? The power to regulate (tax) implies the power to destroy.

That's becasue they are brain-washed by public education and a government regulated (controled) media.

Those who aren't brain washed. I should note that I'm not for the military's privatization, though. I'm for its abolition.

Come on now, how did you reach this position?

I'm not brain-washed.

How do you know?

Brain-washing may be the biggest copout ever. You can claim anything to be true as long as you say that your opponents are brainwashed and you aren't.

At least put a it isn't bad choice up there. Communism is wicked.

At least put a it isn't bad choice up there. Communism is wicked.
Man, I think the option is covered by National Bolshevism. Check it out. I mean, if you think that both National Bolshevism and, say, Trotskyism (or both Trotskyism and Stalinism) are cool, you've got a mental problem.

Now I think I have more than enough posts declaring my state of mentality. Do you think I need to go to a psychiatrists?
Communism Works! Capitalists are jerks!

Now I think I have more than enough posts declaring my state of mentality. Do you think I need to go to a psychiatrists?
Communism Works! Capitalists are jerks!
You may believe whatever you want, man. I was not arguing against that. But check it out: Trotskyism compared to Stalinism. If you think both are right, that's like answering "I think both Nader and Bush are right, because they are both American", or "I think Apartheid was good for South Africa, but I also support the idea of Blacks winning power in that state". Do you understand my point?

You may believe whatever you want, man. I was not arguing against that. But check it out: Trotskyism compared to Stalinism. If you think both are right, that's like answering "I think both Nader and Bush are right, because they are both American", or "I think Apartheid was good for South Africa, but I also support the idea of Blacks winning power in that state". Do you understand my point?

mmmhmmm

And you get discahrged from the asylum when?

mmmhmmm

And you get discahrged from the asylum when?
So, poupee, you don't understand English?

Oh no. Since I can't speak fluent english and write fluent english, I just don't get the point. It's not like english is my first language.

When do you get discharged from the mental asylum? Or are you an escapee?

At least put a it isn't bad choice up there. Communism is wicked.

Quite right, communism is wicked - that is, in the proper usage of the word.

None of those are even close to communism. Some may have been used as a (utterly broken, wicked, insane) way from going from capitalism to communism, but none of those are in any form close to what communism is.

Why can't you at least learn what "communism" is before attacking it ?! That really upsets me ! :headbang:

Communism: an economic system in which the government owns all property and goods and resources are allocated by the government.

Communism: an economic system in which the government owns all property and goods and resources are allocated by the government.

Actually the public owns all of the goods. If for some reason, the government actually does own all of the goods, then the communists call it "State Capitalism."

Actually the public owns all of the goods. If for some reason, the government actually does own all of the goods, then the communists call it "State Capitalism."
I call it an ass-reaming.

I call it an ass-reaming.

That is certainly a more appropriate term.

Communism: an economic system in which the government owns all property and goods and resources are allocated by the government.

That's utterly false. In communism, there is NO government - at least in the current meaning of the term.

Communism was first defined as a class less society. That means a society where no part of the population holds power over the rest - be it power by nobility title (feodalism), by owning the means of production (capitalism), by physical violence (despotism, fascism) or any other way.

An economic system in which the governement owns the means of production could be a step towards communism (it would be socialism) if and only if the said governement is democratic. And the highest number of things the "governement" controls, the more democratic it as to be, in order to not become a social class by itself. Until the governement becomes so democratic, so directly control by the population, that it isn't a government anymore, but a self-organised society.

That's utterly false. In communism, there is NO government - at least in the current meaning of the term.

Communism was first defined as a class less society. That means a society where no part of the population holds power over the rest - be it power by nobility title (feodalism), by owning the means of production (capitalism), by physical violence (despotism, fascism) or any other way.

An economic system in which the governement owns the means of production could be a step towards communism (it would be socialism) if and only if the said governement is democratic. And the highest number of things the "governement" controls, the more democratic it as to be, in order to not become a social class by itself. Until the governement becomes so democratic, so directly control by the population, that it isn't a government anymore, but a self-organised society.

Umm.. That's the ideal. In practice, it turns out to be something else.

Judge a political system by its results, not by what people wish it was.

Theyre All Good Muahahahaha You Suck!!!

Quite right, communism is wicked - that is, in the proper usage of the word.
Okay. excuse my slangness. Communism is one of the best forms of government in the whole wide world.

Umm.. That's the ideal. In practice, it turns out to be something else.

Depends on what you look at. If you look at the first communist revolution of history, Paris' Commune, they did a lot of great things in the 70 days they had. Free education, voting rights for women and immigrants, direct democracy, abolition of the death penalty, revocable mandates, ... If they would have been more time, the fate of history would have been changed, and for the best. And even if they were slaughtered by the bourgeoisie, the inheritance of Paris' Commune played a huge role in the evolution of France, and even whole of Europe later on.

You can also look at the huge role the communists played in fighting the fascist regimes, be it in Italy against Mussolini, in Spain agaisnt Franco (saddly, they failed this one), and later on during World War II (remember that Paris was not liberated by the US or whoever, Paris was liberated by an insurrection, called by the CGT (main union, which was, at this time, controlled by the communist party) and organised by the FTPs, the communist resistance network).

Then, you can look at what was built in Europe after WW2, the so-called "european social system" was largely inspired by communist ideas. The first extensive social system was built in France, in 1944, by the Communist Party. The initial Social Security system (covering unemployment, health care, retirement and more) was designed in very democratic way - controlled by the workers directly, not by the state. This was the work of the PCF (french communist party), which was member of the governement from 1944 to 1946.

And then, you can have a look at the democratic socialism attempts of South America, like Allende's Chile and Chavez' Venezuella, and many others.

Why do people usually think USSR or China when they hear "communsim" ? First because it's that that the capitalists want us to think - they will never speak by themselves of Paris' Commune or of Allende. But the main reason is that they were the one which lasted longer. Why so ? Because everytime someone tried to go towards communism, the bourgeoisie reacted in a reckless, violent way. The attempt always had to face both a internal opposition from the ruling class of that time, and a support of foreign powers to the counter-revolution. It was the Prussian Empire for Paris' Commune, USA for most of South America.

And yes, the sad reality is that when you've to resist to a reckless attempt to destroy you, both from within and from outside, it's very, very hard to survive without crushing opposition with an iron fist. This has nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Those who said "the end justifies the means" and who ruled with an iron fist to win the civil war, or to resist from the coup attempt, or all other means of counter-revolution, managed to survive - but they destroyed the revolution's spirit by doing so. Those who sticked to their principles, like Paris' Commune or Allende, were slaughtered by the bourgeoisie.

So what ? Well, you can stick to your principle and survive. It's not easy. Paris' Commune was isolated, too early, too weak. Allende faced a foe more stronger than himself: the CIA, during the cold war. But Chavez is still in power, he won 7 elections in 6 years, the latest one with 60%. He survived a coup attempt, several economical sabotage attempts, a murder attempt, ... without becoming a dictator. It is possible. And Chavez is beginning to contage other countries of South America, who are massively rejecting the neoliberal dogma which leaded them to disaster, and are seeing Chavez democratic socialism (the first step towards (democratic, of course) communism) as a real alternative.

Judge a political system by its results, not by what people wish it was.

Judge a politicial system by what it is, not by what some do in its name. Else, every political system, every ideal is just horrible, even "freedom", "democracy", "republic" and many other words were used and abused by some to cover horrible doings. Oh, btw, eastern germany was called "Deutschland Democratic Republic", why don't you say from this that "democracy" means Stasi and one-party system ? You won't say that. So don't say that Stalin was Communism.

"It doesn't fit" is sorely lacking as an answer.
No, it's not.


Then you show me how the free market is not bound by the deficiencies of society.
Isn't "society" made up of individuals?

Aren't governmental officials part of that society?

So how can you expect some members of that society to be able to "make up for" those deficiencies?

Answer: you can't. Not unless you live in a fantasy-land.



I am comparing reality to a mythical utopia, I am doing so to point out why a free market will be deficient when applied to reality.
No, you are not. You are using some mythical land fallaciously. It's called the Nirvanna Fallacy.

Do you ever have any points?

Fact is that the majority of people are happy as it is, with the government in there, taking some tax money and using it for communal purposes, which are decided every few years in elections.
Doesn't make it not theft.


Ask most people, and they don't want to see welfare abolished. They don't want to see regulations on business abandoned. They don't want their police and military privatised - indeed, in some countries people don't want to see anything privatised at all. Who's to say that they are wrong?
I am.

Because I don't want my property stolen because of their beliefs.

Is that clear enough?

I am.
And I do not care. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469767)

Telling me that there is some universal truth that you know and everyone else doesn't is essentially the same thing as telling me that god exists and only you and your group know what he is and what he wants.

First off, why does my definition of anarchism not fit, and what would yours be?

Isn't "society" made up of individuals?

Aren't governmental officials part of that society?

So how can you expect some members of that society to be able to "make up for" those deficiencies?

Answer: you can't. Not unless you live in a fantasy-land.

They can make up for the deficiencies through observation and practical problem solving.

Society applies capitalism and uses government intervention when the deficiencies make themselves known. If anything, they can moderate the deficiencies through substitution of deficiencies.

The police, for example. The deficiencies of a private police would be obvious were we to allow it. We trade off the major deficiencies of a private police force for the moderate deficiencies of a government monopolized police force.

No, you are not. You are using some mythical land fallaciously. It's called the Nirvanna Fallacy.

Never once have I proposed any perfect society or system for societal governance.

You have stated that the free market does not have deficiencies. I replied that, since society has deficiencies, the free market would also be bound by these deficiencies.

Now will you admit that the free market, as it is bound by reality, will have deficiencies that may or may not be mitigated by government interaction, or will continue to manipulate my statements as to make them fallacies?

Telling me that there is some universal truth that you know and everyone else doesn't
But other people do know.

Did you have a point that wasn't false?

But other people do know.

Did you have a point that wasn't false?
Look up "universal" in a dictionary.

I can't believe that, judging on poll appearance (which I righteously haven't voted for), you didn't put a Communism isn't bad at all choice.

First off, why does my definition of anarchism not fit, and what would yours be?
That there is no government.



They can make up for the deficiencies through observation and practical problem solving.
Then so can others without the need for a government.

Or else you're special pleading.


The police, for example. The deficiencies of a private police would be obvious were we to allow it.
What deficiencies? And don't try that old lie of "they wouldn't investigate the people who pay their salaries".


We trade off the major deficiencies of a private police force for the moderate deficiencies of a government monopolized police force.
I see no deficiencies in a private system, and huge deficiencies in a coercive monopoly system.



Never once have I proposed any perfect society or system for societal governance.
Yes, you have: your very notion that there are deficencies in the free market presumes that you have some notion of a perfect society where those deficiencies don't exist!

Sheesh--you'd think that you'd understand something so basic as that.


You have stated that the free market does not have deficiencies. I replied that, since society has deficiencies, the free market would also be bound by these deficiencies.
But you never stated what those deficiencies are, nor demonstrated that they are, in fact, deficiencies! How am I supposed to believe your claim?

Now then--will you bother to demonstrate that there are deficiencies, or are you going to rely on your argument from blatant assertion fallacy?

I can't believe that, judging on poll appearance (which I righteously haven't voted for), you didn't put a Communism isn't bad at all choice.
That would be like saying that drinking a Pine-sol and Drano cocktail is healthy for you.

Look up "universal" in a dictionary.
I have.

Your point was.....?

Oh--you didn't have one. Silly you.

That would be like saying that drinking a Pine-sol and Drano cocktail is healthy for you.

Well, since I'm too young to drink, and haven't tried one regardless, they might be?

But communism isn't bad at all in my view.

I have.

Your point was.....?

Oh--you didn't have one. Silly you.
No man. To say "others do" does not affect the point Leonstein was making. Yes, others do. Others do believe morality is objective. The simple fact is that the truth is not universal BECAUSE WE ARE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION (thus, disagreeing over it). Your only way out is to assume that me, or Leonstein, or as anybody contradicting you, are malevolent.
Plus, to state that "we believe moral is transcendent" (stressing the we) is puerile: so what if many agree, let's say, on theft? Will they take the same decision in court? Will they believe all thefts you see are real? Will they apply and demand the same penalties you do?
I hope you see my point now.

Well, since I'm too young to drink, and haven't tried one regardless, they might be?
Ummm...don't you know what Pine-Sol and Drano are?

A bit from the FAQ section of Pine-Sol:

"What are the ingredients in Original Pine-Sol® Brand Cleaner?
This product contains pine oil and cleaning agents called surfactants.

Does Original Pine-Sol® Brand Cleaner disinfect?
Yes. Original Pine-Sol® Brand Cleaner is registered with the E.P.A. as a disinfectant when used as directed full-strength. It kills household bacteria on hard non-porous surfaces. "

And from Drano:

"Drano ® Clog Removers open drains fast. They contain chemicals that quickly dissolve hair, soap scum and gunk. You can use Drano ® Clog Removers in pipes, but DON'T use them in toilets. For clogged or slow-running drains, apply the product and let it work 15 minutes. For tough problems, allow 30 minutes."


Get the picture now?


But communism isn't bad at all in my view.
Mainly because you haven't done enough research into communism.

No man. To say "others do" does not affect the point Leonstein was making.
Yes, it does. Since others know, it's not just myself who knows. He was trying to state that only I know. But since others do, it kills his point.

Quite simple, really.

Yes, it does. Since others know, it's not just myself who knows. He was trying to state that only I know. But since others do, it kills his point.

Quite simple, really.
Did you even read all of my post, poupee?

Stalin is not worthy the title of 'Communist' he were a dictator!

The Communists is people helping every one else, but all the Communist leaders had been evil and ignoring all the poor!

A real communist (like me:cool: - Yea i am Communist ) would think of the poor! Instead of forgetting them like Stalin or Lenin, they were making the Liberal think U.S.S.R were evil!

But let me say it like this:

100% Clean communist does not work
100% Clean liberalist does not work too

Ummm...don't you know what Pine-Sol and Drano are?

A bit from the FAQ section of Pine-Sol:

"What are the ingredients in Original Pine-Sol® Brand Cleaner?
This product contains pine oil and cleaning agents called surfactants.

Does Original Pine-Sol® Brand Cleaner disinfect?
Yes. Original Pine-Sol® Brand Cleaner is registered with the E.P.A. as a disinfectant when used as directed full-strength. It kills household bacteria on hard non-porous surfaces. "

And from Drano:

"Drano ® Clog Removers open drains fast. They contain chemicals that quickly dissolve hair, soap scum and gunk. You can use Drano ® Clog Removers in pipes, but DON'T use them in toilets. For clogged or slow-running drains, apply the product and let it work 15 minutes. For tough problems, allow 30 minutes."


Get the picture now?



Mainly because you haven't done enough research into communism.

I get the picture. I've done more than enough research and I am convinced communism is a more than viable means of government, and is an improvement on many others.

That there is no government.

Yes, but saying that there should be no government is still making a statement on how society should be governed.

Then so can others without the need for a government.

Or else you're special pleading.

One group cannot change the behavior of an entire society. In fact the free market requires that no specific individual or group can greatly affect the pricing and distribution of the free market.

One needs government and collective governance to overcome the free rider problem.

What deficiencies? And don't try that old lie of "they wouldn't investigate the people who pay their salaries".

What happens when one police force decides that another police force is unfairly investigating one of their clients? When you have two competing entities who serve to interpret the law through violent measures, you will be guaranteed to have violence between the two when each tries to establish what service they provide.

Yes, you have: your very notion that there are deficencies in the free market presumes that you have some notion of a perfect society where those deficiencies don't exist!

Sheesh--you'd think that you'd understand something so basic as that.

I have a notion of society where those problems are mitigated not eliminated.

But you never stated what those deficiencies are, nor demonstrated that they are, in fact, deficiencies! How am I supposed to believe your claim?

Now then--will you bother to demonstrate that there are deficiencies, or are you going to rely on your argument from blatant assertion fallacy?

I stated that the free market cannot adapt to problems of information dissymmetry and bottlenecks in resource distribution a few pages back. But you responded to that point by name dropping a million fallacies.

But I am done with this, I am sure that you have another few thousand fallacies in your arsenal that insure that you don't have to question your own logic.

Did you even read all of my post, poupee?
Yes I did, poupee. However, everything after your second sentence was irrelevant.

I get the picture. I've done more than enough research and I am convinced communism is a more than viable means of government, and is an improvement on many others.
Then I might suggest that you have a look at North Korea, the Warsaw Pact nations, the USSR (in history books) and China. That's communism in practice. It sucks major ass. And it utilizes every single economic fallacy there is.

Then I might suggest that you have a look at North Korea, the Warsaw Pact nations, the USSR (in history books) and China. That's communism in practice. It sucks major ass. And it utilizes every single economic fallacy there is.

yeah look at those countries beforehand, all third world, communism comes and brings the into world power or close enough.
try communism in canada and it would flourish

Yes, but saying that there should be no government is still making a statement on how society should be governed.
No, it is not.


One group cannot change the behavior of an entire society.
Then you admit that you were just special pleading vis-a-vis having a government to cope with the "deficiencies" of a market.


In fact the free market requires that no specific individual or group can greatly affect the pricing and distribution of the free market.
And?


One needs government and collective governance to overcome the free rider problem.
No, one does not. Especially since there are free riders where there are governments.

Look, if you want to bring something up, then your way must eliminate it altogther, everywhere. Otherwise, bringing it up does you NO GOOD AT ALL.



What happens when one police force decides that another police force is unfairly investigating one of their clients?
Oh yes--that old standby that doesn't fly.

Don't you statists have any new material? Your old stuff has been so thoroughly demolished that I wonder why people keep insisting on using it.

http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Law_as_a_private_good/Law_as_a_private_good.html


When you have two competing entities who serve to interpret the law through violent measures, you will be guaranteed to have violence between the two when each tries to establish what service they provide.
Only if they are governments which want the same piece of territory and can tax the citizens to provide the funding. A private agency has no such ability.

You really need to find some new material, O Statist.



I have a notion of society where those problems are mitigated not eliminated.
They must be eliminated or your ideas have no merit.


I stated that the free market cannot adapt to problems of information dissymmetry and bottlenecks in resource distribution a few pages back.
But it can and does. Every day.

And why should information be symmetrical in the first place? You need to convince me that it should be.

Anyway, I'm sure you're just going to pull out every single other refuted-to-death piece of statist nonsense. I laugh at people like you.

yeah look at those countries beforehand, all third world, communism comes and brings the into world power or close enough.
try communism in canada and it would flourish
No, it wouldn't. Communism is the economic version of theism. While the various theistic religions seek to annihilate the axioms of logic, communism seeks to annihilate the axioms of human action.

I see this thread as pointless. It would be like arguing if it would be worse to get hit by a car, an SUV, or a tractor trailer traveling at highway speeds. Dead is dead and no matter what the agent, you can't become any more dead than dead.

No, it wouldn't. Communism is the economic version of theism. While the various theistic religions seek to annihilate the axioms of logic, communism seeks to annihilate the axioms of human action.

ok, religion sucks, communism isnt that good, but it sure beats being born into a wage slave destiny, ok im not communist, im floating between a utopian socilsm, parecon and nilhism, havent quite sorted it out yet, but im not of voting age so it doesnt really matter.
communism doesnt destroy human action, your totally free to do anything you want as long as you dont infringe on other's abilitis to do so.

All. I don't think there is a "true" or "good" communist system. I still think communism is a immoral and corrupt system, and it has never worked in government, as you can see all these dictators such as Saddam, Castro, Stalin and others do so many inhumane actions, while oppressing the majority of the people.

ok, religion sucks, communism isnt that good, but it sure beats being born into a wage slave destiny,
There's no such thing as "wage slavery".


ok im not communist, im floating between a utopian socilsm, parecon and nilhism, havent quite sorted it out yet, but im not of voting age so it doesnt really matter.
communism doesnt destroy human action,
It destroys the axioms of human action. Can you not read?


your totally free to do anything you want as long as you dont infringe on other's abilitis to do so.
Then you can't have communism.

Nation of Quebec']All. I don't think there is a "true" or "good" communist system. I still think communism is a immoral and corrupt system, and it has never worked in government, as you can see all these dictators such as Saddam, Castro, Stalin and others do so many inhumane actions, while oppressing the majority of the people.


stalin was horrible saddam too (although saddam was not communist), but castro isnt that bad (nad not communist, just a social dictatorship), hes had his moments in the dark side but he is growing old, he has mellowed out, with chavez (another socialist country leader, by election), chavez and castro have teamed up, castro emptied out some luxary hotels, turned eah one into a hospital, provided doctors, and chavez used money form the citgo oil company.
together they have the best and cheapest medical system worldwide

what part you from?

There's no such thing as "wage slavery".



It destroys the axioms of human action. Can you not read?



Then you can't have communism.


no such thing? ever heard of working class, nothing to sell but their time and labour, they are slaves, without the jobs they starve and so they must work
the axioms of human action and human action are quite the same
of course you can, thats what its founded on
read das capital and then try to argue with me ok?

stalin was horrible saddam too (although saddam was not communist), but castro isnt that bad (nad not communist, just a social dictatorship), hes had his moments in the dark side but he is growing old, he has mellowed out, with chavez (another socialist country leader, by election), chavez and castro have teamed up, castro emptied out some luxary hotels, turned eah one into a hospital, provided doctors, and chavez used money form the citgo oil company.
together they have the best and cheapest medical system worldwide

what part you from?

I'm actually from Ontario. I wanted my nation to have something to do with Quebec since I support the soverginity movement.

support sovereignty?
i would too except now im forced to go to french school,
im forced to read french only signs
so for a few reasons im divided,
parizeau was a nazi, levesque was cool
i support micro management of society,
i am opposed to assimilation,
the economy would crash and burn,
the seperatists are socialist,
but i hate nationalism
and nationalism + socilism is how the nazis got their name
so ive decided that society sucks no matter what,
and it would cost too much to make our own country,
our hockey team would suck, we'd be the joke at the olympics, if we decided to go,
it seems alright but the more you look into it it really isnt all that good

Ah, I guess it has its advantages and disatvantages. I'll make a thread in the morning (it's getting late here) and we're getting off-topic.

Nation of Quebec']Ah, I guess it has its advantages and disatvantages. I'll make a thread in the morning (it's getting late here) and we're getting off-topic.

agreed

yeah look at those countries beforehand, all third world, communism comes and brings the into world power or close enough.
try communism in canada and it would flourish
I would say Germany was a very developed country, even more so than Canada. Communism was introduced in its Eastern part, while the rest remained capitalist. 50 years later, what do we see? Please tell.

I would say Germany was a very developed country, even more so than Canada. Communism was introduced in its Eastern part, while the rest remained capitalist. 50 years later, what do we see? Please tell.

Eastern Germany was the poorest area of Germany since already before WW2. Then, during WW2, it was more healivy bombed than the western part (remember Dresden, anyone ?), partly because it's where Berlin was, partly because for the US forces, the cold war was already started.

The other Eastern European countries were not as developped economically as the Western ones. Remember also that USSR was the country which suffered the most from WW2, especially in the number of deaths, and that it was, in 1917, a rural, illeterate, poor country. So while Western Germany received help from USA and other western countries, it was much harder in the "socialist" block, because they all were in much worse states _before_ becoming "socialists".

Also, remember that Western Germany "miracle" was not at all a success of pure capitalism, but of capitalism with a moderate amount of "socialism" (working code, social help, mostly free health care and education, governement involvement in the economy, ...).

And for DDR defense (of course, it was no excuse for the political repression, but that's not the point we are speaking of economy right now), they had a very good healthcare and education system, no unemployment, no homeless, ... If the PDS (Linkspartei nowadays) is so successful in former Eastern Germany, and despite the massive help from Western Germany to former Easter Germany, and despite the political repression that the people on Eastern Germany had to endure, it's mostly because the social and economical records of DDR were far from being horrible.

Eastern Germany was the poorest area of Germany since already before WW2. Then, during WW2, it was more healivy bombed than the western part (remember Dresden, anyone ?), partly because it's where Berlin was, partly because for the US forces, the cold war was already started.

The other Eastern European countries were not as developped economically as the Western ones. Remember also that USSR was the country which suffered the most from WW2, especially in the number of deaths, and that it was, in 1917, a rural, illeterate, poor country. So while Western Germany received help from USA and other western countries, it was much harder in the "socialist" block, because they all were in much worse states _before_ becoming "socialists".

Also, remember that Western Germany "miracle" was not at all a success of pure capitalism, but of capitalism with a moderate amount of "socialism" (working code, social help, mostly free health care and education, governement involvement in the economy, ...).

And for DDR defense (of course, it was no excuse for the political repression, but that's not the point we are speaking of economy right now), they had a very good healthcare and education system, no unemployment, no homeless, ... If the PDS (Linkspartei nowadays) is so successful in former Eastern Germany, and despite the massive help from Western Germany to former Easter Germany, and despite the political repression that the people on Eastern Germany had to endure, it's mostly because the social and economical records of DDR were far from being horrible.

West Germany received less than half the aid the U.K. did, yet it recovered much, much faster. Why? Free-market reforms.

I really would like to hear from people who answered Perestroika/Glasnost'. Think of the fascinating world they live in.

well I answered Maoism, but maybe those dudes just thought Presetroika/Glasnost were too free-market to be considered communism... it's a pretty huge stretch though

well I answered Maoism, but maybe those dudes just thought Presetroika/Glasnost were too free-market to be considered communism... it's a pretty huge stretch though
But they could also be diehard Stalinists. Or Brezhnevites.
You don't meet many Brezhnevites nowadays.

You don't meet many Brezhnevites nowadays.

this is true... what happened to all of them

and the Khrushchevites, where are they?

this is true... what happened to all of them

and the Khrushchevites, where are they?
Not to mention the Andropovites and Chernenkovites.

no such thing [as wage slavery]?
That's correct: there is absolutely no such thing as wage-slavery.


ever heard of working class, nothing to sell but their time and labour,
Oh please, Herr Marx. Your idiotic notion of how humans interact has been proven wrong time and again.

Read Mises' Human Action and Socialism, Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State, and David Ramsay Steele's From Marx to Mises: Post-Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation and then get back to me.

I'll even help you out a bit:

It is generally assumed that the correctness of this doctrine is sufficiently demonstrated by the fact that the individual wage earner has only a negligible influence on the determination of the terms of the labor contract. The decisions concerning the length of the working day, work on Sundays and holidays, the time set for meals and many other things are made by the employers without asking the employees. The wage earner has no other choice than to yield to these orders or to starve.

The cardinal fallacy involved in this reasoning has already been pointed out in the preceding sections. The employers are not asking for labor in general, but for men who are fitted to perform the kind of labor they need. Just as an entrepreneur must choose for his plants the most suitable location, equipment, and raw materials, so he must hire the most efficient workers. He must arrange conditions of work in such a way as to make them appear attractive to those classes of workers he wants to employ. It is true that the individual worker has but little to say with regard to these arrangements. They are, like the height of wage rates itself, like commodity prices, and the shape of articles produced for mass consumption, the product of the interaction of innumerable people participating in the social process of the market. They are as such mass phenomena which are but little subject to modification on the part of a single individual. However, it is a distortion of truth to assert that the individual voter's ballot is without influence because many thousands or even millions of votes are required to decide the issue and that those of people not attached to any party virtually do not matter. Even if one were to admit this thesis for the sake of argument, it is a non sequitur to infer that the substitution of totalitarian principles for democratic procedures would make the officeholders more genuine representatives of the people's will than election campaigns. The counterparts of these totalitarian fables in the field of the market's economic democracy are the assertions that the individual consumer is powerless against the suppliers and the individual employee against the employers. It is, of course, not an individual's taste, different from that of the many, that determines the features of articles of mass production designed for mass consumption, but the wishes and likes of the majority. It is not the individual job-seeker, but the masses of job-seekers whose conduct determines the terms of the labor contracts prevailing in definite areas or branches of industry. If it is customary to have lunch between noon and one o'clock, an individual worker who prefers to have it between two and three p.m. has little chance of having his wishes satisfied. However, the social pressure to which this solitary individual is subject in this case is not exercised by the employer, but by his fellow employees.

Employers in their search for suitable workers are forced to accommodate themselves even to serious and costly inconveniences if they cannot find those needed on other terms. In many countries, some of them stigmatized as socially backward by the champions of anticapitalism, employers must yield to various wishes of workers motivated by considerations of religious ritual or caste and status. They must arrange hours of work, holidays, and many technical problems according to such opinions, however burdensome such an adjustment may be. Whenever an employer asks for special performances which appear irksome or repulsive to the employees, he must pay extra for the excess of disutility the worker must expend.

The terms of the labor contract refer to all working conditions, not merely to the height of wage rates. Teamwork in factories and the interdependence of various enterprises make it impossible to deviate from the arrangements customary in the country or in the branch concerned and thus result in a unification and standardization of these arrangements. But this fact neither weakens nor eliminates the employee contribution in their setting up. For the individual workers they are, of course, an unalterable datum as the railroad's timetable is for the individual traveler. But nobody would contend that in determining the timetable the company does not bother about the wishes of the potential customers. Its intention is precisely to serve as many of them as possible.

West Germany received less than half the aid the U.K. did, yet it recovered much, much faster. Why? Free-market reforms.

That's the exact opposite ;)

West Germany had much, much more social capitalism than UK. The "European social model" which is emphasised by some comes mostly from France, West Germany, and Scandinavian countries; while UK always was much more free-marketer, always closer to USA.

The social system of West Germany played a huge role in the "miracle" of post-WW2 Germany. Same for France, btw.

That's the exact opposite ;)

West Germany had much, much more social capitalism than UK. The "European social model" which is emphasised by some comes mostly from France, West Germany, and Scandinavian countries; while UK always was much more free-marketer, always closer to USA.
Erm...you seem to have forgetten the tax rates of 90+% back in the '60s and '70s in the UK. And cradle-to-grave welfare.