NationStates Jolt Archive

...there's something wrong with your heart. If you're still a communist by the time you're 30, then there's something wrong with your brain."

Does the above phrase hold true to anyone else? In my experience as people become older and more cynical communist beliefs drop away. After all in reality its difficult to live sucessfully in the western world and be a communist without being a hypocrite. Coming from a Jewish family nearly every male I know has gone through a communist stage in his teens and been beaten back into shape by his mother (including me all those years ago).

So the question is, are communist beliefs a symptom of being an angst-wridden teenager, or is the revolutionary cause eternal? I'm expecting some crazy socialist prose, but here we go...

Socialists put me off socialism. I like the old timey socialists, but the current crop are little more than middle class whiners.

as you get older you tend to get more apathetic and as such radical change looks less fun

Though I’m European so I should stay where I am on the compass till the day I die :)

Socialists put me off socialism. I like the old timey socialists, but the current crop are little more than middle class whiners.
Yeah. They really suck.

Eh.. that's a more severe reimagination of the old saying.

I don't think communism is the normal political stance of any age group. Maybe in China.

Eh.. that's a more severe reimagination of the old saying.

I don't think communism is the normal political stance of any age group. Maybe in China.

What's the old saying? The one I put above is the only one I know

...there's something wrong with your heart. If you're still a communist by the time you're 30, then there's something wrong with your brain."

Nope, since that saying makes no sense here.

My vision of a perfect government has some communist views, but also many totalitarian. So I suppose I'm socialist, but anyway I'm 35, and I've held these beliefs since I was twelve.

Yes, the way I live my life is hypocritical to my ideology, but I have been brought up since I was born in a "free" country, which personally I feel is out of order and is basically "The land of do-as-you-please." I have been brought up knowing what I can and cannot do according to current rule, and humanity being what it is, I exploit it.

I know full well that if a socialist government came to power, many of the things I have the freedom to do now will be illegal, and I will have to get used to it, or even have it beaten into me, but that's because of the way I've lived for thirty-five years, and gotten used to. Am I making sense?

What's the old saying? The one I put above is the only one I know

Communism isn't usually mentioned. Usually liberalism vs. conservatism. Kinda cliche either way.

Nope, since that saying makes no sense here.

Why, are there communists over 30 here who claim to be mentally sound?

So the question is, are communist beliefs a symptom of being an angst-wridden teenager, or is the revolutionary cause eternal? I'm expecting some crazy socialist prose, but here we go...
Yeah, "the revolutionary cause" is eternal. When you get older, you'll find yourself focusing on the myriad of challenges you have to deal with. Self-interest will set in with most people. And here is a little something to read that Orwell pointed out in 1984:


The first chapter, Ignorance is Strength, begins with the observation that throughout history, all societies have been divided into a caste system. The three groups or classes: The High, who are the rulers; the Middle, who yearn to take over the position of the High; and the Low, who are typically so suppressed that in their drudgery they have no goals beyond day-to-day survival (if they are at all able to formulate any political agenda, it is to establish a society where all people are equal). Time and time again down the ages, the Middle have overthrown the High by enlisting the Low on their side, pretending to the Low that after the revolution a just society will emerge. However, once the Middle have taken over, they simply become the new High and thrust the Low back into servitude, and as a new Middle group eventually splits off, the pattern repeats. The Middle only speak of justice and human brotherhood as long as they are seeking power; once they are in power, they simply become the new oppressors of the Low.

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." (Sometimes seen as 20 and 40, respectively.)

Often, those words are attributed to Winston Churchill, but there's actually no record of him ever saying them or anything similar.

Still, I think the liberal/conservative saying is a little less radical. I've certainly never been a communist, and I most certainly do have a heart.

What? Maybe 20 or 30 years ago. But not nowadays.

Kids these days have no mental capacity to understand communism or anarchism. While you had the punks, hipies and communists in the past, nowadays kids express their anger/angst through music.

That is why you have emo, grunge and gothic.

People tend to move to the Right as they get older. I'm somewhat worried about where I going to go actually. And have never been communist, or even socialist. I have a heart, I need it to keep living, but whining as much as some socialists seem to has never held such a great appeal.

Teenagers tend to reject whatever ideals their parents have for a while. They also think they are misunderstood geniuses oppressed by the autocratic dictatorship of parenthood who simply cannot understand (please pardon the generalization).

It is this very self-centered arrogance coupled with the lack of knowledge and experience which leads them to follow certain ideologies which sound good on a superficial level. When knowledge and experience is gained they figure out nebulous ideas of ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ are worthless if they are not practicable in the real world. Maturity also eats away at the whole rebellion against the system motivation.

Essentially you have the older equivalent of little kids throwing a tantrum and holding their breath because the parents are not giving them everything they want. Fortunately most people grow out of this stage.

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." (Sometimes seen as 20 and 40, respectively.)

Often, those words are attributed to Winston Churchill, but there's actually no record of him ever saying them or anything similar.

Still, I think the liberal/conservative saying is a little less radical. I've certainly never been a communist, and I most certainly do have a heart.

It bears minding, with the time period the quote stems from the liberal/conservative refers to Classical Liberal vs Tory, bearing no real similarities to the way the terms get used now in the US.

Teenagers tend to reject whatever ideals their parents have for a while. They also think they are misunderstood geniuses oppressed by the autocratic dictatorship of parenthood who simply cannot understand (please pardon the generalization).

It is this very self-centered arrogance coupled with the lack of knowledge and experience which leads them to follow certain ideologies which sound good on a superficial level. When knowledge and experience is gained they figure out nebulous ideas of ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ are worthless if they are not practicable in the real world. Maturity also eats away at the whole rebellion against the system motivation.

Essentially you have the older equivalent of little kids throwing a tantrum and holding their breath because the parents are not giving them everything they want. Fortunately most people grow out of this stage.

Hit the nail on the head there :fluffle:

Socialists put me off socialism. I like the old timey socialists, but the current crop are little more than middle class whiners.

Yeah......old style Communism with mass military rallies rocked.
Touchy-Feely Tony Blair socialism sucks

If I magically turn into a right winger at age 30, I have it on record that i'm going to kill myself. Ugh.

Yeah......old style Communism with mass military rallies rocked.
Touchy-Feely Tony Blair socialism sucks

Tony Blair isn't a socialist.

I know a lot of socialists over the age of 30, even over the age of 50. I think in the age of 20, you are more wanting to change the world, at older age, you build up certain security and don't want it destroyed anymore.

...there's something wrong with your heart. If you're still a communist by the time you're 30, then there's something wrong with your brain."

Does the above phrase hold true to anyone else? In my experience as people become older and more cynical communist beliefs drop away. After all in reality its difficult to live sucessfully in the western world and be a communist without being a hypocrite. Coming from a Jewish family nearly every male I know has gone through a communist stage in his teens and been beaten back into shape by his mother (including me all those years ago).

So the question is, are communist beliefs a symptom of being an angst-wridden teenager, or is the revolutionary cause eternal? I'm expecting some crazy socialist prose, but here we go...

i think its simply a case of not being connected with the real world when you're younger. when you're at school and you're not really paying to be there (the state or your parents pay) and your biggest worries are really quite small in the grand scheme of life, you are free to believe in communism as far as your mind can take you. same is true with university, really - you're removed from 'real' society for the most part.

however after that point, when you have to get a job, pay rent/mortgage, work for a career, pay off debts, etc... then things get a bit more difficult to stay in the imaginary realm of theoretical communism.

currently 'real life' is not communist. it is capitalist. if you become a part of real life you have to become a capitalist to live within the system. i see it like a treadmill - if you're off the treadmill you're free to think about all the other possibilities there are apart from running on this thing, but once you get on it and start running, you have no choice but to keep running in order to stay on. in time you forget about other possibilities because the only thing that matters, and it can be hard at times, is staying on this bloody treadmill. thats how i see it anyway.


personally, this is very very true for me... at uni and in college i would have gladly called myself a communist. i took a politics degree and was really into it. but now, outside the cacoon of academic life, i'm faced with real-world - capitalist - problems, and have to run the rat-race like everybody else. my beliefs have to fall by the wayside a little in order to survive. but i do try to keep hold of them, even though they've been toned-down quite a bit over the last couple of years...

...there's something wrong with your heart. If you're still a communist by the time you're 30, then there's something wrong with your brain."

Does the above phrase hold true to anyone else? In my experience as people become older and more cynical communist beliefs drop away. After all in reality its difficult to live sucessfully in the western world and be a communist without being a hypocrite. Coming from a Jewish family nearly every male I know has gone through a communist stage in his teens and been beaten back into shape by his mother (including me all those years ago).

So the question is, are communist beliefs a symptom of being an angst-wridden teenager, or is the revolutionary cause eternal? I'm expecting some crazy socialist prose, but here we go...

not at all.

Yeah, "the revolutionary cause" is eternal. When you get older, you'll find yourself focusing on the myriad of challenges you have to deal with. Self-interest will set in with most people.The irony, of course, being that communism maximizes the self-interest of the majority of people.

i think its simply a case of not being connected with the real world when you're younger. I disagree. The only time the vast majority of people are connected with the real world at all is while they're learning about it. Once they get out of school and get a job, they tend to retreat into their own world and become disconnected with the real world.

I used to be a communist as a teenager but I became disillusioned with it for a great many reasons. After that I became apathetic and thought that man was too evil and selfish to live up to the moral standards of communism. Now as I've learned more about capitalism I understand that it's a great system and I embrace it completely. You don't have to be a conservative to be a capitalist and you're not selling your soul by living in reality. I'm much happier now.

The irony, of course, being that communism maximizes the self-interest of the majority of people.
.

Find me any ideology that doesn't make that claim...

Find me any ideology that doesn't make that claim...True, I suppose one would have to find out exactly what the self-interest of everybody is to make sure.

I disagree. The only time the vast majority of people are connected with the real world at all is while they're learning about it. Once they get out of school and get a job, they tend to retreat into their own world and become disconnected with the real world.

depends on your definition of the real world i guess.
if 'real world' means the capitalist world in which we must currently all strive to survive in, then i stand by my arguement.

if you're not in a capitalist environment, its easy to think outside the box and believe what you want about the world. once you're in the system you're stuck in it trying to survive, and the ability to think outside your own little box (as you said) is vastly diminished.

I was a socialist when I was like 14, and my only exposure to politics was Command & Conquer: Red Alert.

I have a heart; don't think I don't. I just don't think it's a substitute for a brain when it comes to making policy decisions.

depends on your definition of the real world i guess.
if 'real world' means the capitalist world in which we must currently all strive to survive in, then i stand by my arguement.

if you're not in a capitalist environment, its easy to think outside the box and believe what you want about the world. once you're in the system you're stuck in it trying to survive, and the ability to think outside your own little box (as you said) is vastly diminished.I can agree with this.

True, I suppose one would have to find out exactly what the self-interest of everybody is to make sure.

We can pretty much guess that everyone wants water and shelter but after that there doesn't seem to be a single "common goal" or "interest". Everyones goals and preferences are different and are changing constantly, communism and socialism are often in danger of claiming to know whats best for us with people like Rousseau and Marcuse actually saying if you don't want what we think you should want than you're wrong about what you want. No wonder many people are cautious about communism.

I was a socialist when I was younger but I'm not any more. I've gone right quite a bit and I've understood that capitalism actually is a very good system and far better than socialism. If you look on the world and compare the free-market countries with the controlled market countries you don't have to be very smart to figure out which system is better and more democratic. However, I still wan't to have a certain amount of welfare so everybody's given a fair chance to succed on their own.

It seems to me that the idealistic nature of socialism appeals to the younger set to which it does not truly apply. (Like me). When you grow older, you see the realities of the world and either water down the doctrine to apply to the real world or abandon it altogether.

I am a Democratic Socialist, BTW.

Now, maybe I got the whole communist phase out of the way early, but I did that around 15 and was burned out of the bullshit by 16. I just saw that communism was a dumbass way of making the fucking stupid even more powerful, and that we had enough of that already.

But then again, I manage to balance an equal hate for "kids" and "adults" (never met one of them before, though. Seen lots of posturing, but they're mostly just "kids" with the money to put on the pretension of not being "kids") since they are equally stupid, so maybe I'm just wasting perfectly good teenage rebellion.

We can pretty much guess that everyone wants water and shelter but after that there doesn't seem to be a single "common goal" or "interest". Everyones goals and preferences are different and are changing constantly, communism and socialism are often in danger of claiming to know whats best for us with people like Rousseau and Marcuse actually saying if you don't want what we think you should want than you're wrong about what you want. No wonder many people are cautious about communism.As you saif, this is true for most ideologies. What I should have said is that the reasons capitalism is in someone's self-interest apply even moreso, for the majority of people, to communism.

If you look on the world and compare the free-market countries with the controlled market countries you don't have to be very smart to figure out which system is better and more democratic. However, I still wan't to have a certain amount of welfare so everybody's given a fair chance to succed on their own.What about comparing them to non market countries?
What exactly is a "fair chance"?

But then again, I manage to balance an equal hate for "kids" and "adults" (never met one of them before, though. Seen lots of posturing, but they're mostly just "kids" with the money to put on the pretension of not being "kids") since they are equally stupid, so maybe I'm just wasting perfectly good teenage rebellion.What would you consider an "adult" to be?

What would you consider an "adult" to be?

A fairy tale. Next question?

Seriously, though. I fail to see a significant difference between most people over the age of majority, or, to be honest, over the age of 30, and older teenagers. By the time most kids are 16 they have reached the same level of stupidity, vanity, and greed that will drive them for the rest of their lives.

So, to be totally honest, I see the "adult" as being a cultural myth propogated by those who have more experience using the existing system properly. That's not to say that more experience doesn't give you more data to function off of, just to say that most people, no matter what age they are, don't give a shit about facts, unless they can be used to support their opinion.

Seriously, though. I fail to see a significant difference between most people over the age of majority, or, to be honest, over the age of 30, and older teenagers. By the time most kids are 16 they have reached the same level of stupidity, vanity, and greed that will drive them for the rest of their lives.

I still have until the 10th to turn my life around... ah screw it.

As you saif, this is true for most ideologies. What I should have said is that the reasons capitalism is in someone's self-interest apply even moreso, for the majority of people, to communism.

In a society where simply being alive entitles you to exacly the same as everyone else, from the perspective of someone who didn't enjoy difficult work would it not be in your self interest to do not work or no "hard" work and let those concerned with the greater good provide for everyone.
Capitalism can deal with these people, such behaviour results in a low economic quality of life. Communisms options look less effective; they can either kick them out of society (and thus let them fend for themselves with no welfare, a harsher option than Capitalism) or let them remain as equals and thus encourage paracitic behaviour.

Of course you could try to make sure people work to their "ability" and do not slack on work but in the long run these people will simply mask their ability in order to do as little work as possible for the maximum return. And you may perhaps end up punishing hard workers who are simply underperforming despite their best efforts.


What about comparing them to non market countries?

The type that still have inefficient violent black markets?


What exactly is a "fair chance"?


One with freedom and without economic determinism. But keep in mind this is a moral question a fair chance may or may not be linked to a utilitarian goal of improving everyones self interest (which is what you're arguing for as an end goal right?)

I guess I'm just a sociopath then, because I loathe communism, and consider it to be a fools errand.

What would you consider an "adult" to be?

A person who is willing to accept total responsibilty for their actions, their personal welfare, and the welfare of their charges without the promise of third-party aid.

I guess I'm just a sociopath then, because I loathe communism, and consider it to be a fools errand.
But we still love you just as much!:fluffle:

Teenagers tend to reject whatever ideals their parents have for a while. They also think they are misunderstood geniuses oppressed by the autocratic dictatorship of parenthood who simply cannot understand (please pardon the generalization).
Essentially true. I know, I am one.

People tend to move to the Right as they get older.
no, people don't get more conservative.... society gets more liberal.

I disagree. The only time the vast majority of people are connected with the real world at all is while they're learning about it. Once they get out of school and get a job, they tend to retreat into their own world and become disconnected with the real world.
Quoted for truth.

I used to be a communist as a teenager but I became disillusioned with it for a great many reasons. After that I became apathetic and thought that man was too evil and selfish to live up to the moral standards of communism. Now as I've learned more about capitalism I understand that it's a great system and I embrace it completely. You don't have to be a conservative to be a capitalist and you're not selling your soul by living in reality. I'm much happier now.
Technically, by being a communist you're not selling your soul either; the intelligent reformists know that to gain enough power to establish their reforms, their classless society and whatnot, they first have to attain a position of power in the capitalist structure of today. For instance, once you become a CEO of a big corporation while maintaining your communist views, you can raise wages, implement workplace reforms etc. Not as though anyone actually does that in real life, but still, that's the general view of those in the lower echelons as they strive for the top while maintaining socialist ideologies. By the time they get there, they've long become disillusioned with their ideology and are content to stay at the top.

Oligarchical corporatism, in the long run, is the same as oligarchical collectivism.

Theres a massive surge of marxist students in England at the moment, at least 40% of my History class are marxist and they are studying Russian history.

What about comparing them to non market countries?
What exactly is a "fair chance"?


Non market countries like...?

With a "fair chance" I mean that everyone should have the rights to the basic needs of a decent life, somewhere to live and the right to education.

I'm a classical liberal and 17, I hate socialism its the root of all evil.

I'm a classical liberal and 17, I hate socialism its the root of all evil.

Classic liberal as in no taxes?

I agree with alot of what's said. But I also have this to say:

I don't think there is anything wrong with a socialist ethic; trying to identify what elements of society are "at the bottom" and what elements are "at the top" and trying to right it. People are preconditioned by their environments just as much as they are preconditioned by themselves, and people should have some say as to what their environments are, and how society works in their favor. Though it may not work in reality.

There are instances when it has. Why are working conditions better now that the welfare state is in place? Why are segregation laws abolished? Because those who felt dissillusioned by society would not accept the status-quo, and life is much better off for many people.

That is why we have democracy. So the "people" can create their own social conditions the way they see fit, and there is no reason to leave groups of people out.

But truly, change does not happen in the happy-shiny communist world. Scores need to be settled in the competitive, rough capitalist world or nothing gets done. None of the changes that I mentioned happened because the government instituted "socialist policies". They happened because these groups worked hard in their own right and convinced people on an individual level that it is wrong to segregate black people or wrong to have people fall into vats during work.

How can real social change happen if you just expect the government to change things for you? The government may or may not convince the people themselves so changes stay in place.

With age comes a realization that the failed ideology of communism and the fantasy ideology of anarchism are necessarily doomed to failure because of their immense respective problems.

Kids think they know everything and understand everything with special clarity, I know I did when I was younger, and see the same thing again and again in the new generation.

Not that anyone can ever convince a kid of this, but really why bother. At the worst, they're just irrelevant kids or irrelevant grow-up whackjobs.

What? Maybe 20 or 30 years ago. But not nowadays.

Kids these days have no mental capacity to understand communism or anarchism. While you had the punks, hipies and communists in the past, nowadays kids express their anger/angst through music.

That is why you have emo, grunge and gothic.

Not strickly correct.
I myself happen to be a 14 year old communist. And for a short while I was an Anarchist.:cool:

Kids are still stuck in the mindset that they need to be "taken care of". They need to grow up before they realize that no benefits or even social changes happen because of some "altruistic government" carrying it out for them on its own before human beings resolve all their problems through competition, which isn't going to happen.

Not strickly correct.
I myself happen to be a 14 year old communist. And for a short while I was an Anarchist.:cool:

If you're a communist then you dont understand communism. Thus he's right. There's nothing remotely workable about Marxism, its a dead end.

I guess I'm just a sociopath then, because I loathe communism, and consider it to be a fools errand.
Sociopathy and rational behaviour are often equivalent.

It's the irrational belief in the goodness and value of others that's the basis of communism.

no, people don't get more conservative.... society gets more liberal.
On social issues this is largely the case (I am very liberal on social issues), but on fiscal issues (I am very conservative on fiscal issues) I don't see that sort of long-term trend.

On social issues this is largely the case (I am very liberal on social issues), but on fiscal issues (I am very conservative on fiscal issues) I don't see that sort of long-term trend.

Society is definitely fiscally more liberal today than it was a hundred or two hundred years ago: taxes are far lower, business is deregulated, there are fewer antitrust laws and such, practically anyone can start their own little business -- at least in the USA. It may be different where you live.

Society is definitely fiscally more liberal today than it was a hundred or two hundred years ago: taxes are far lower, business is deregulated, there are fewer antitrust laws and such, practically anyone can start their own little business -- at least in the USA. It may be different where you live.
We tripped over the regional definitions of "liberal", there.

Okay, so if what you say is true, people who hold unchanging opinions should appear more communist over time as the economy moves away from their ideals.

We tripped over the regional definitions of "liberal", there.

Okay, so if what you say is true, people who hold unchanging opinions should appear more communist over time as the economy moves away from their ideals.

Not necessarily more communist, but history has shown that yesterday's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives, or at least centrists -- I speak in terms of change rather than economic policy, because that's what liberalism and centrism and conservatism are all about: liberals desire change, conservatives do not. And because society changes, and that change is sparked by liberals, society is always becoming more liberal, sometimes faster than its members do. Explaining why the USA is full of extremist Christians, Great Britain is full of Victorianists and nativists, etc.

If you're a communist then you dont understand communism. Thus he's right. There's nothing remotely workable about Marxism, its a dead end.

Whoever said he was a marxian communist? Since he went through an Anarchist phase, I'd say he's more of a libertarian communist.

Whoever said he was a marxian communist? Since he went through an Anarchist phase, I'd say he's more of a libertarian communist.

Oh, sorry. I totally forgot that communists hate to be branded Marxists outright...

:sniper:

Oh, sorry. I totally forgot that communists hate to be branded Marxists outright...

:sniper:

That's because most modern socialists and communists outright reject Marxism. I agree, Marx was a buffoon in many ways. But his failings can't be used to a straw man to "prove" that socialism is an untenable philosophy.

That's because most modern socialists and communists outright reject Marxism. I agree, Marx was a buffoon in many ways. But his failings can't be used to a straw man to "prove" that socialism is an untenable philosophy.

Yeah, the only thing that can do that is socialism itself.

Yeah, the only thing that can do that is socialism itself.

Do you even know what socialism as a philosophy is? If you do, post you're take on it.

That's because most modern socialists and communists outright reject Marxism. I agree, Marx was a buffoon in many ways. But his failings can't be used to a straw man to "prove" that socialism is an untenable philosophy.

Why should people reject Marxs philosophies? Although I disagree with him about many issues he still analyzied the society well and I don't think he should be rejected. People should instead modernise his theories so they fit in in todays society because it's changed quite a bit since his days.

You don't have to believe in everything he said. Just pick the best of him and of every other ideology instead of rejecting it. That's how I do.

My name is Ashley Price and I am a communist. I'm 18 years old as are many of my friends who have left wing veiws we have these left wing veiws as many of us were brought up in a catholic household and although the majority of us have dismissed the idea of a 'God' we kept the moral and ethical teachings that we found in the Bible and these are extremely close to the ideals of pure communism. However we have long known that due to many historical figues such as Stalin and moa Zedong a communist goveremnt would be impossible as we cannot shed these people from our history we have (as a group) decided that a republic would work better with a three group system the extreme left, the extreme right and a middle group who decide what to do after the other two sides have debated which would ideally create a 'perfect society' by following the middle ground.

I've grown steadily more radical with age. I'm much less of a firebrand than I was when I was younger, but substantially more extreme.

Perhaps the reason is that I never went through a "naive rebellious communist" phase; I've never worn a Che Guevara t-shirt, never bought communist utopianism, and have never (since late middle school, anyway) been willing to make a substantial change in my political position before thinking it through thoroughly.

Of course, the amusing thing is that much of this is just the pot calling the kettle black. Many "anti-communists" transparently have no idea what they are talking about, and have never seriously considered the idea at all (and no, a "naive communist" phase in one's youth doesn't count.)

Why should people reject Marxs philosophies? Although I disagree with him about many issues he still analyzied the society well and I don't think he should be rejected. People should instead modernise his theories so they fit in in todays society because it's changed quite a bit since his days.

You don't have to believe in everything he said. Just pick the best of him and of every other ideology instead of rejecting it. That's how I do.

The overwhelming bulk of Marx's philosophy is social democracy: the principle that through state centralisation we can not only slowly get rid of capitalism but also acheived decentralized anarchy. A little counter-intuitive, don't you think.

The parts of Marx's theories that I still find relevant are his critiques of capitalism and that parts of his philosophy that inspired Left-Marxism and other libertarian communist movemnent. I by no means reject of what Marx thought, I just reject Marxism.

Of course, the amusing thing is that much of this is just the pot calling the kettle black. Many "anti-communists" transparently have no idea what they are talking about, and have never seriously considered the idea at all (and no, a "naive communist" phase in one's youth doesn't count.)

I'm not an anti-communist I'm just not a communist but I agree with u that most people don't have a clue about what communism is. I've considered the idea and even though it is beautiful, it's totally impossible to achieve considering the human nature. Capitalism fits the human nature much better than communism does and that's why it's the better system out of those two.

I've grown steadily more radical with age. I'm much less of a firebrand than I was when I was younger, but substantially more extreme.

Perhaps the reason is that I never went through a "naive rebellious communist" phase; I've never worn a Che Guevara t-shirt, never bought communist utopianism, and have never (since late middle school, anyway) been willing to make a substantial change in my political position before thinking it through thoroughly.

Of course, the amusing thing is that much of this is just the pot calling the kettle black. Many "anti-communists" transparently have no idea what they are talking about, and have never seriously considered the idea at all (and no, a "naive communist" phase in one's youth doesn't count.)

I'm curious as to why you think it doesnt. Nowerdays people who become communists during their teens are generally politically aware and know the details of communist theory as well as any adult. The problem is that, ironically, they do not consider the implications of the system they are living under, namely capitalism.

I'm curious as to why you think it doesnt. Nowerdays people who become communists during their teens are generally politically aware and know the details of communist theory as well as any adult. The problem is that, ironically, they do not consider the implications of the system they are living under, namely capitalism.

No, they know all too well the implications of capitalism. I am a teenager, and I know plenty of other teenage communists/socialists. They are all very intelligent people without a trace of naivete left in them. They know fully well what's going on.

Do you even know what socialism as a philosophy is? If you do, post you're take on it.

I know what socialism, as a philosophy, is, yes. Many of the arguments presented by socialist philosophers do make sense, and are tenable up to a point; that being the point where my own personal feelings and thoughts come in. For instance, a common socialist line of thought states, quite rightly, that most of the people who work receive far from adequate compensation for what they do, whereas much of the profits go to corporate executives or the state; therefore it would be better to abolish the corporate executives or mandate that they pay their workers more, since the workers are the ones doing the work after all. Knowing what I know of human nature, I find this argument rather illogical; the corporate executives still have enough money that they can pay off the state to subvert welfare and minimum wage laws, and trying to ensure that they don't exist in the first place will lead to companies that tend to fail against their more ruthless competitors. The more ideal solution would be to tighten antitrust laws, so workers unhappy with their condition can quit and start their own company to compete with the big corporations, and quite possibly succeed if they do things better. This, of course, is also an idealist solution to the problem of wages. Neither one works with human nature.

In the end, it comes down to one fact: With human nature the way it is, socialism will never work. The number of times people have tried to implement it, and failed, is testament to this. An excellent example is the kibbutz of Israel; once a perfect socialist society, as soon as more people arrived they had to bring in work from outside, leading to competition and a monetary-based economy, and the lovely socialist system collapsed under its own flaws.

I only subscribe to free-market capitalism because I have a better chance of getting higher in the ranks in such a society. Both are doomed to collapse anyway into some form of oligarchism -- whether collectivist (like Orwell's 1984) or corporatist (like the USA) -- so I may as well go with the system in which I can make the most money and maybe retire on a nice pension with actual food and possessions. That's what it comes down to for most anti-communists: neither communism nor capitalism actually works, so they just go with the system out of which they could get the most. And contrary to popular belief most people don't like waiting in bread lines or being sent to gulags.

No, they know all too well the implications of capitalism. I am a teenager, and I know plenty of other teenage communists/socialists. They are all very intelligent people without a trace of naivete left in them. They know fully well what's going on.

So they chose to ignore the cold, hard, truth of reality then? I still cant understand how anybody could willingly reconcile communism with our capitalist system without being misled. It's the old 'we know better than you because Marx told us the truth' complex.

So, you're defining socialism based upon Marxian Social Democracy or Leninist Bolshevism, with a sidebar of Zionist Kibbutzim?

That is far from the only way of defining socialism. The first two in fact get in the way of real socialism more often than not.

So they chose to ignore the cold, hard, truth of reality then? I still cant understand how anybody could willingly reconcile communism with our capitalist system without being misled. It's the old 'we know better than you because Marx told us the truth' complex.

No, they don't ignore the cold truth of reality. Neither do I. Our vision of socialism has nothing to do with the cliche's of socialism. It is not utopian, it is part of an unending road of progress, the continual efforts to stop the oppression & exploitation of man by man, or of womon by man, or of womon by womon etc.

I still cant understand how anybody could willingly reconcile communism with our capitalist system without being misled. err...Huh?

I'm curious as to why you think it doesnt.

Because serious consideration encompasses a whole lot more than what most "naive communists" give it.

Indeed, their attitude towards their position later in life is perhaps the best illustration of that.

Nowerdays people who become communists during their teens are generally politically aware and know the details of communist theory as well as any adult.

That is not good enough. They need to know the details of the opposition to communist theory as well, and the (serious) communist replies to them.

The problem is that, ironically, they do not consider the implications of the system they are living under, namely capitalism.

Explain.

So, you're defining socialism based upon Marxian Social Democracy or Leninist Bolshevism, with a sidebar of Zionist Kibbutzim?

not really, I'm just citing those as examples.

The point remains that trying to stop the exploitation of some individuals by others is like trying to stop the earth from going around the sun. You can do it, but it's practically impossible and is almost certain to backfire.

The strong -- the ruthless, rational, and sometimes mildly psychopathic -- will always defeat and exploit the weak -- the emotional, petty, self-absorbed, and everyone else. Attempting to remove either of these states from human nature would involve the killing or deportation of millions, and likely be counterproductive as well. After all, the masses make a great political tool.

Sadism aside... the best way for a nation to be ruled would be by an entity that is not human and thus not prone to human flaws, such as a sentient AI. I mentioned this in another thread today, as well.

even though it is beautiful

See, this kind of sentiment is what I hate seeing from people who oppose communism, and is exactly why I don't think most of them have seriously engaged it.

They always talk about how it's "beautiful" or something, which is utterly beside the point. No one serious supports any political ideology because it's "beautiful." If the best you can say for it is that it's beautiful, then you probably haven't paid very much serious intellectual attention to its advocates.

not really, I'm just citing those as examples.

The point remains that trying to stop the exploitation of some individuals by others is like trying to stop the earth from going around the sun. You can do it, but it's practically impossible and is almost certain to backfire.

The strong -- the ruthless, rational, and sometimes mildly psychopathic -- will always defeat and exploit the weak -- the emotional, petty, self-absorbed, and everyone else. Attempting to remove either of these states from human nature would involve the killing or deportation of millions, and likely be counterproductive as well. After all, the masses make a great political tool.

Sadism aside... the best way for a nation to be ruled would be by an entity that is not human and thus not prone to human flaws, such as a sentient AI. I mentioned this in another thread today, as well.

It's not about removing the people themselves, it's about removing the social structures that enable such oppression to occur. First of all is capitalism. Second of all, hierarchy.

See, this kind of sentiment is what I hate seeing from people who oppose communism, and is exactly why I don't think most of them have seriously engaged it.

They always talk about how it's "beautiful" or something, which is utterly beside the point. No one serious supports any political ideology because it's "beautiful." If the best you can say for it is that it's beautiful, then you probably haven't paid very much serious intellectual attention to its advocates.

I can say a lot of things about it and I do think that a class free society would be great but it would also be great if I could fly without using an airplane to.
Instead of dismissing all critisism against communism you could actually try to pay attention to it and ask yourself why all attemps to communism has ended up in one party states like N.Korea and China. China's actually developing reallt fast right know and you know why that is?

I can say a lot of things about it and I do think that a class free society would be great but it would also be great if I could fly without using an airplane to.
Instead of dismissing all critisism against communism you could actually try to pay attention to it and ask yourself why all attemps to communism has ended up in one party states like N.Korea and China. China's actually developing reallt fast right know and you know why that is?

The question has already been asked, and the answer has been found. A small group of people took control of the state in the name of the people. That is not socialism, that is oligarchal collectivism, a subversion of the ideology of socialism to be used as a justification for trememndous crimes.

It's not about removing the people themselves, it's about removing the social structures that enable such oppression to occur. First of all is capitalism. Second of all, hierarchy.

Dude... it's not the social structures that are causing the oppression. It's the oppression that's causing the social structures. And the oppression is the direct result of human nature: some people are stronger than others, and will unquestionably exploit that strength to their benefit and the others' disadvantage.

Dude... it's not the social structures that are causing the oppression. It's the oppression that's causing the social structures. And the oppression is the direct result of human nature: some people are stronger than others, and will unquestionably exploit that strength to their benefit and the others' disadvantage.

Human nature is not just one thing. Human society for the longest time was a coalition of the meek preventing the rise of dictatorial alpha males. Hierarchy is a recent addition to humanity.

The question has already been asked, and the answer has been found. A small group of people took control of the state in the name of the people. That is not socialism, that is oligarchal collectivism, a subversion of the ideology of socialism to be used as a justification for trememndous crimes.

Yet socialism always seems to end up as oligarchical collectivism. Coincidence? I think not. I'll go ahead off the deep end and postulate that maybe it's because socialism is incompatible with human nature, so thus in a socialist society the "revolution" will always have leaders, who will exploit the collectivist status of their society to their benefit and the disadvantage of the common people.

Radical, huh?

I can say a lot of things about it and I do think that a class free society would be great but it would also be great if I could fly without using an airplane to.

See? Case in point.

Instead of dismissing all critisism against communism

Never done so.

you could actually try to pay attention to it

I do.

and ask yourself why all attemps to communism has ended up in one party states like N.Korea and China.

That would be a complex question (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question).

China's actually developing reallt fast right know and you know why that is?

Yes, but I question its relevance.

The question has already been asked, and the answer has been found. A small group of people took control of the state in the name of the people. That is not socialism, that is oligarchal collectivism, a subversion of the ideology of socialism to be used as a justification for trememndous crimes.

But how can democracy and communism possibly work together? After the revolution you have to have someone to stabilize the society and you can't have democracy because then there's a chance that your opponents get the power and ruin everything. Everyone has to follow the revolutionairy plan so the society don't collapse.

It's not a coincidece that all efforts to create a communist society has ended up in dictatorships.

But how can democracy and communism possibly work together? After the revolution you have to have someone to stabilize the society and you can't have democracy because then there's a chance that your opponents get the power and ruin everything.

By the same logic, democracy is incompatible with EVERY OTHER IDEOLOGY.

:rolleyes:

Human nature is not just one thing. Human society for the longest time was a coalition of the meek preventing the rise of dictatorial alpha males. Hierarchy is a recent addition to humanity.

I suppose you were around five millennia ago to remember what it was like back then?

As far as I can tell, ever since the start of what we call civilisation, humanity has had a hierarchy. For the 50,000 years humanity had no hierarchy, where did it get? It stayed a slow-spreading species of hairless monkeys. Then it acquired a hierarchy and in about 5000 years look where it got: rulers, and destroyers, of the planet Earth.

Dude... it's not the social structures that are causing the oppression. It's the oppression that's causing the social structures. And the oppression is the direct result of human nature: some people are stronger than others, and will unquestionably exploit that strength to their benefit and the others' disadvantage.Yo... It so is the structure causing the inequality. Inequality so creates oppression. Dude, I guess you nailed the rest.
Hierarchy is a recent addition to humanity.Is it Dude... is IT..?!?

By the same logic, democracy is incompatible with EVERY OTHER IDEOLOGY.

:rolleyes:

That's quite true. Democracy does not and never has worked, at least, not for everyone. Postulating the existence of a slave class, democracy should work fine. But for some reason democrats seem to be against this...

Yo... It so is the structure causing the inequality. Inequality so creates oppression. Dude, I guess you nailed the rest.

uh... what? :confused:

Democracy does not and never has worked, at least, not for everyone.

Nothing ever works for everyone.

Nothing ever works for everyone.

Granted.

/oneword

uh... what? :confused:
Shit. So sorry. Never should have let any outsider see NSG and be left with the computer alone.

How the hell did he manage to quote two posts in one reply, I never know (well, I will, shortly!).

Because serious consideration encompasses a whole lot more than what most "naive communists" give it.

I think that communism is a naive ideology and therefore all communists naive. Many young people seriously consider communism, perhaps for years. I myself read the communist manifesto and quite a lot of socialist trash literature. I seriously considered it, accepted it, and learned better.

Indeed, their attitude towards their position later in life is perhaps the best illustration of that.

I don't see what you mean here.

That is not good enough. They need to know the details of the opposition to communist theory as well, and the (serious) communist replies to them.

Whilst perhaps not as comprehensive as it is today, I knew very well oposition to communist theory and naturally communist replies to them. If you've ever been on an extreme left site you'll see bucketloads of articles attacking critics of communism.

Explain.

I genuinely dont believe that anybody who understands capitalism and the modern world can be communist. Either they choose to ignore the facts, dont actually know the facts, or think that they're above it all. Young communists are a combination of all three in my experience. My friend for instance was into the free Tibet movement. Eventually he came to see his fellow campaigners for what they really were, learned the truth behind the issue and now supports a Tibet under Chinese rule for the sake of the Tibetans.

Replace 'Tibe't for 'the masses', 'the Chinese' for 'the bourgeoise' and 'the campaigners' for 'communists' and its more general.

By the same logic, democracy is incompatible with EVERY OTHER IDEOLOGY.

:rolleyes:

Yeah right. That's why all the capitalist countries don't have elections and stuff.

...there's something wrong with your heart. If you're still a communist by the time you're 30, then there's something wrong with your brain."

Does the above phrase hold true to anyone else? In my experience as people become older and more cynical communist beliefs drop away. After all in reality its difficult to live sucessfully in the western world and be a communist without being a hypocrite. Coming from a Jewish family nearly every male I know has gone through a communist stage in his teens and been beaten back into shape by his mother (including me all those years ago).

So the question is, are communist beliefs a symptom of being an angst-wridden teenager, or is the revolutionary cause eternal? I'm expecting some crazy socialist prose, but here we go...

That is very true. I have some cousins who prove the saying above true.

Both were raised in Highland Park (rich North Suburbs). They were idealists when younger and both went through a Communism stage. Both graduated law school and are now lawyers. Once they left the college campus and entered the real world, the communist state ended.

Nothing ever works for everyone.

Well, I couldn't say it better myself. You've just concluded in one sentence why communism can't work because everyone don't want it and for communism to work it takes a 100% commitment from everybody.

Shit. So sorry. Never should have let any outsider see NSG and be left with the computer alone.

How the hell did he manage to quote two posts in one reply, I never know (well, I will, shortly!).

It's that new multi-quote button next to the quote button... looks like a piece of paper and a plus sign.

Don't worry, I didn't know that either until a short time ago. Jolt added it with a recent update, apparently.

Eurasia and Whatsit, unless you support a corporatist oligarchy, you should recognise that free-market capitalism is subject to the same flaws as socialism -- it doesn't work properly when applied.

I think that communism is a naive ideology and therefore all communists naive.

No ideology is "naive." Only assumptions, and the people who make those assumptions, are naive.

I myself read the communist manifesto

Unimpressive.

and quite a lot of socialist trash literature.

There's a lot of that. Next time, read something other than the trash literature.

I don't see what you mean here.

That if those people seriously considered it in their youth, they would not pretend that communism is the result of naive idealism or admiration of beautiful things. Neither of those things are "serious consideration."

Whilst perhaps not as comprehensive as it is today, I knew very well oposition to communist theory and naturally communist replies to them. If you've ever been on an extreme left site you'll see bucketloads of articles attacking critics of communism.

Of course. It is easy to attack your critics. Some extreme leftists do it seriously; others don't.

I genuinely dont believe that anybody who understands capitalism and the modern world can be communist. Either they choose to ignore the facts, dont actually know the facts, or think that they're above it all. Young communists are a combination of all three in my experience. My friend for instance was into the free Tibet movement. Eventually he came to see his fellow campaigners for what they really were, learned the truth behind the issue and now supports a Tibet under Chinese rule for the sake of the Tibetans.

Replace 'Tibe't for 'the masses', 'the Chinese' for 'the bourgeoise' and 'the campaigners' for 'communists' and its more general.

I must have missed your argument.

...there's something wrong with your heart. If you're still a communist by the time you're 30, then there's something wrong with your brain."
...
So the question is, are communist beliefs a symptom of being an angst-wridden teenager, or is the revolutionary cause eternal? I'm expecting some crazy socialist prose, but here we go...
With age comes wisdom. Ha!

Yeah right. That's why all the capitalist countries don't have elections and stuff.

Try to think before replying next time. "By the same logic," I said. I didn't say that every ideology is ACTUALLY incompatible with democracy.

for communism to work it takes a 100% commitment from everybody.

Where did you get that ludicrous idea?

It's that new multi-quote button next to the quote button... looks like a piece of paper and a plus sign.

Don't worry, I didn't know that either until a short time ago. Jolt added it with a recent update, apparently.

Eurasia and Whatsit, unless you support a corporatist oligarchy, you should recognise that free-market capitalism is subject to the same flaws as socialism -- it doesn't work properly when applied.

I dont support any 'pure' system, I support the current system because, quite frankly, it works well, whatever flaws it may have. I believe that everything evolves. Our current semi-free market system is constantly adapting to change, and for the better in my opinion.

Try to think before replying next time. "By the same logic," I said. I didn't say that every ideology is ACTUALLY incompatible with democracy.



Where did you get that ludicrous idea?

Oh pur-lease. You try making the entire globe believe that their equal culturally, socially and economically. One group dissenting could put a spanner in the works.

You try making the entire globe believe that their equal culturally, socially and economically.

Straw man.

Where did you get that ludicrous idea?

By logic. Why is it ludicrous?

Why is it ludicrous?

Because it's false, and probably based upon serious misconceptions about communism. Communism does not rely on universal consent. At most, it relies on a general support for the basic structure - but so does every non-repressive system.

But don't listen to me. Prove me wrong. Where's your argument?

No ideology is "naive." Only assumptions, and the people who make those assumptions, are naive.

Unconvincing, I dont see why an ideology cant be naive. I could think of one on the spot. Lets call it

Unimpressive.

What, the foundation of Marxism?

There's a lot of that. Next time, read something other than the trash literature.

I was implying that all of it is trash because I now disagree with it

That if those people seriously considered it in their youth, they would not pretend that communism is the result of naive idealism or admiration of beautiful things. Neither of those things are "serious consideration."

You're right, it also stems from insecurity and the old 'I'm smarter than you mum and dad' line of thought that teens have

Of course. It is easy to attack your critics. Some extreme leftists do it seriously; others don't.

Sorry, you said that all communists should know opposition theory. I'd have thought that all extreme leftists do it seriously, its all part of the game. My articles werent poorly written rants on forums.

I must have missed your argument.

You have it there

Straw man.

I thought that was communism in a nutshell, but dont listen to me. I was just a 'naive' communist...

It's that new multi-quote button next to the quote button... looks like a piece of paper and a plus sign.

Don't worry, I didn't know that either until a short time ago. Jolt added it with a recent update, apparently.

That smudge? Ok, thanks.

Sorry about the distraction again. The poor bugger is a sosiology major - hard to reign those ones... he should have know better than to the affect the experiment though.

*goes back to observing mode*

As you were.

Unconvincing, I dont see why an ideology cant be naive.

Because an ideology tends to be composed of assertions - in the case of communism, "a society involving the elimination of class inequality and the collective ownership of the means of production would be beneficial for human beings."

Whether or not that position is naively taken depends on the arguments used to support it.

What, the foundation of Marxism?

No, a political polemic that is at best a rough outline of certain elements of Marxist theory.

I was implying that all of it is trash because I now disagree with it

That seems to be a rigidly close-minded attitude. Not everything you disagree with is automatically "trash."

You're right, it also stems from insecurity and the old 'I'm smarter than you mum and dad' line of thought that teens have

And my point is driven home once more.

Sorry, you said that all communists should know opposition theory. I'd have thought that all extreme leftists do it seriously, its all part of the game.

Of course they're serious in that sense - I didn't mean that they were insincere, rather that some never have a serious, open-minded examination of their critics.

My articles werent poorly written rants on forums.

So?

You have it there

I think you might do a little better if you actually, you know, posted it.

Because it's false, and probably based upon serious misconceptions about communism. Communism does not rely on universal consent. At most, it relies on a general support for the basic structure - but so does every non-repressive system.

But don't listen to me. Prove me wrong. Where's your argument?

Everyone's not equal. Not many will think it's fair that someone who works practically nothing at all gets the same wage as someone who busts his ass of at work and it takes a lot of commitment for the cause to repress those feelings. You can't force everyone to be equal.

Sorry, you said that all communists should know opposition theory. I'd have thought that all extreme leftists do it seriously, its all part of the game. My articles werent poorly written rants on forums.

I note the lack of apostrophes, rather basic vocabulary, and questionable sentence structure.

I thought that was communism in a nutshell

Everyone believing that they're equal economically, socially, and culturally? No.

Basic social and economic equality? Sure ("cultural" varies). But this is not a matter of belief, but rather of reality, and has nothing to do with the notion of universal support and commitment for which Nationalian argued.

Everyone's not equal.

Depends on which kind of "equal" you refer to.

Not many will think it's fair that someone who works practically nothing at all gets the same wage as someone who busts his ass of at work

You aren't thinking this through.

If a person "busts his ass of at work," he does so either because he is rewarded monetarily for it or because he attains other goods from it.

If he does it because he is rewarded monetarily for it, he will no longer do it in a communist society, and will not feel unfairly treated.

If he does it for other reasons, then he will not feel unfairly treated, either, because his concern is not his monetary compensation; it's the other goods he attains from the labor.

Nothing ever works for everyone.
But I would prefer a society that can work for anyone, even if it can't work for everyone. A wholly democratic society is guaranteed not to work for the minority, and thus fails the test.

A wholly democratic society is guaranteed not to work for the minority

Nonsense. Minorities can easily have power even in a wholly majoritarian democratic society.

Eh.. that's a more severe reimagination of the old saying.

I don't think communism is the normal political stance of any age group. Maybe in China.


Speaking of which, how many people died as a result of Mao Tse Tung's rule? Wikipedia said tens of millions, but i was wondering if anyone had a more specific figure.

If a person "busts his ass of at work," he does so either because he is rewarded monetarily for it or because he attains other goods from it.
Or because he'll be sent to Siberia if he doesn't.

Nonsense. Minorities can easily have power even in a wholly majoritarian democratic society.
How, exactly?

Or because he'll be sent to Siberia if he doesn't.

Avoidance of which is certainly a good.

How, exactly?

By using their power to break ties between factions within the majority.

I note the lack of apostrophes, rather basic vocabulary, and questionable sentence structure.

I'm sorry, if you feel so strongly about forum posts I'll rewrite it for you:

Appologies, you had previously mentioned that all communists should be made aware of views in opposition to theirs. I would have thought that all of those on the extreme left fight fiercely for their core beliefs, it's what's expected of them. The articles of which I was made aware in my former days of Marxism were hardly uncomprehendable rants on message boards, but rather detailed analytical observations of the faults of critics and why indeed they were incorrect.

Which is a way of saying; fuck you, troll.

Try to think before replying next time. "By the same logic," I said. I didn't say that every ideology is ACTUALLY incompatible with democracy.
I would argue that democracy is incomatible with every other ideology. Those western nations are hardly unfettered capitalism, as the people keep trying to vote themselves benefits at each others' expense.

Speaking of which, how many people died as a result of Mao Tse Tung's rule? Wikipedia said tens of millions, but i was wondering if anyone had a more specific figure.

Wikipedia is shit for reliable info, anybody with a political axe to grind can edit it any way they choose.....there are no firm figures death tolls in China(or even for ww2) as many estimates are all politically motivated.....for Mao Tse Tung's restructuring of China estimates go from 7million to 60mil(ludicrous), many of the deaths during that period were also caused by natural weather related famines that would have occurred regardless who was in charge......

Everyone believing that they're equal economically, socially, and culturally? No.

Basic social and economic equality? Sure ("cultural" varies). But this is not a matter of belief, but rather of reality, and has nothing to do with the notion of universal support and commitment for which Nationalian argued.

In a communistic society they would believe they were universally equal because it would be reality. Indeed. I thought the two were synonymous.

Nonsense. Minorities can easily have power even in a wholly majoritarian democratic society.
How? They get outvoted at every turn. On any issue where the majority wishes to impose its will, it can do so.

The idiosyncratic have no power whatever.

Wikipedia is shit for reliable info, anybody with a political axe to grind can edit it any way they choose.....there are no firm figures death tolls in China(or even for ww2) as many estimates are all politically motivated.....for Mao Tse Tung's restructuring of China estimates go from 7million to 60mil(ludicrous), many of the deaths during that period were also caused by natural weather related famines that would have occurred regardless who was in charge......

Poor old Mao, if it werent for those terrible famines (which he handled attrociously incidentally) his legacy would have been so much cleaner.

I'm sorry, if you feel so strongly about forum posts I'll rewrite it for you:


I was just pointing that out because it seemed funny in conjunction with your remark about how "your articles" weren't poorly written remarks on internet forums, my point being that they were... of course, they weren't actually "your" articles, making the sentence even more unclear.

And your revision comes nothing close to Orwell's translation of Ecclesiastes:
"Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities is in no way commensurate with innate capacity, but that a significant element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account."

Seriously, why do people get so defensive about humour? It's like, wtf.

I would argue that democracy is incomatible with every other ideology. Those western nations are hardly unfettered capitalism, as the people keep trying to vote themselves benefits at each others' expense.

"Unfettered capitalism," sure. Similarly, I doubt that every single aspect of any communist theory would be embraced by a democratic communist society.

I was just pointing that out because it seemed funny in conjunction with your remark about how "your articles" weren't poorly written remarks on internet forums, my point being that they were... of course, they weren't actually "your" articles, making the sentence even more unclear.

And your revision comes nothing close to Orwell's translation of Ecclesiastes:
"Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities is in no way commensurate with innate capacity, but that a significant element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account."

Seriously, why do people get so defensive about humour? It's like, wtf.

I was unsure about putting that line in, I didn't know how it would reflect on me.

And no, I never claimed to be Orwell material. :) EDIT: Or Ecclesiastical material

How? They get outvoted at every turn. On any issue where the majority wishes to impose its will, it can do so.

The idiosyncratic have no power whatever.

depends on the electoral system used....Canada has a government elected by only 30+% of the population....a minority that votes in mass for one party or another can rule a country, in Canada Quebec voters often decide which party will rule

"Unfettered capitalism," sure. Similarly, I doubt that every single aspect of any communist theory would be embraced by a democratic communist society.
You certainly would have no guarantee that they would.

If you choose democracy, then that is your chosen ideology. Democracy isn't a means to anything except majority tyranny.

How? They get outvoted at every turn. On any issue where the majority wishes to impose its will, it can do so.

As I said to Czardas, by cutting deals with one of the factions of the majority, and breaking ties in favor of that faction in trade for support for their agenda.

That sort of politics is everywhere in every modern democracy.

The idiosyncratic have no power whatever.

That is a general problem with society, not with democracy.

In a communistic society they would believe they were universally equal because it would be reality.

Possibly, but even if so, it would be an effect and not a defining feature of communism. Certainly implementing communism would not require making everyone believe that they were equal, as you falsely stated.

Speaking of which, how many people died as a result of Mao Tse Tung's rule? Wikipedia said tens of millions, but i was wondering if anyone had a more specific figure.

No-one. In fact under mao, the entire country was a land of sunshine and kittens. How dare you suggest otherwise!

In fact, my friend's parents, who fled the country during mao's democratically elected rule, did so because they had an irrational fear of fireworks..

You certainly would have no guarantee that they would.

Of course not. Nor would I want any.

depends on the electoral system used....Canada has a government elected by only 30+% of the population....a minority that votes in mass for one party or another can rule a country, in Canada Quebec voters often decide which party will rule
It takes about 41% of the vote to elect a majority parliament in Canada, yes. But that minority you talk about is still a plurality. Truly idiosyncratic opinions never get any representation at all.

And, I would argue that Quebec appears to be the deciding vote only because it's the only swing vote.

You certainly would have no guarantee that they would.

If you choose democracy, then that is your chosen ideology. Democracy isn't a means to anything except majority tyranny.

is there anything better?.......

As I said to Czardas, by cutting deals with one of the factions of the majority, and breaking ties in favor of that faction in trade for support for their agenda.

That sort of politics is everywhere in every modern democracy.
But those factions you mention are still backed up by maybe thousands of people who share their views. That's hardly idiosyncracy.
That is a general problem with society, not with democracy.
Capitalism can grant the idiosyncratic the power to serve themselves.

Possibly, but even if so, it would be an effect and not a defining feature of communism. Certainly implementing communism would not require making everyone believe that they were equal, as you falsely stated.

Well I've read otherwise. What happened to 'tearing down barriers of class and wealth'? That wont be a by-product of the magical revolution, it'll be a defining effect.

It takes about 41% of the vote to elect a majority parliament in Canada, yes. But that minority you talk about is still a plurality. Truly idiosyncratic opinions never get any representation at all.

And, I would argue that Quebec appears to be the deciding vote only because it's the only swing vote.

Quebecois often vote in mass for one party or another so the government is often of their choosing....call it a swing vote if you want, I see it as a minority deciding who they'll put in power....they will decide if there is a minority or majority government in Canada....

is there anything better?.......
I don't know that. There are systems which are potentially better, but they're also potentially worse. Ideally we'd want a sort of dictator who didn't have to cater to anyone's interests but was somehow restricted from catering to his own.

My point is that democracy is hardly a magic bullet. It necessarily leads to majority tyranny. You can support democracy as your core ideology all you want, but I demand you not characterise it as some sort of Platonic ideal that disenfranchises no one.

Democracy is antithetical to individual freedom.

Quebecois often vote in mass for one party or another so the government is often of their choosing....call it a swing vote if you want, I see it as a minority deciding who they'll put in power....they will decide if there is a minority or majority government in Canada....
The western provinces tend to vote en masse for one party, as well. They just always pick the same one. Does their vote somehow count less because it's predictable?

The governing Conservatives were obliterated in 1993 because western Canada completely abandoned them in favour of an even more right-wing alternative.

I don't know that. There are systems which are potentially better, but they're also potentially worse. Ideally we'd want a sort of dictator who didn't have to cater to anyone's interests but was somehow restricted from catering to his own.

My point is that democracy is hardly a magic bullet. It necessarily leads to majority tyranny. You can support democracy as your core ideology all you want, but I demand you not characterise it as some sort of Platonic ideal that disenfranchises no one.

Democracy is antithetical to individual freedom.

agreed.....a benevolent dictatorship is the ideal, but that tends not to work to well when the dictator is mentally unstable....

under the circumstances a democracy with a Supreme Court(the Senate being a waste of time) to overrule the government occasionally will have to do.....

Wikipedia is shit for reliable info, anybody with a political axe to grind can edit it any way they choose.....there are no firm figures death tolls in China(or even for ww2) as many estimates are all politically motivated.....for Mao Tse Tung's restructuring of China estimates go from 7million to 60mil(ludicrous), many of the deaths during that period were also caused by natural weather related famines that would have occurred regardless who was in charge......

So its not very clear then?

The western provinces tend to vote en masse for one party, as well. They just always pick the same one. Does their vote somehow count less because it's predictable?

The governing Conservatives were obliterated in 1993 because western Canada completely abandoned them in favour of an even more right-wing alternative.

Western provinces vote in mass? mostly Alberta...BC, Sask and Manitoba have elected a variety of Liberals, Conservatives, SoCreds and NDPer's over the years....in Alberta a dead person(or Rob Anders) could win if he ran for the conservatives

Western provinces vote in mass? mostly Alberta...BC, Sask and Manitoba have elected a variety of Liberals, Conservatives, SoCreds and NDPer's over the years....in Alberta a dead person(or Rob Anders) could win if he ran for the conservatives
BC, out side Vancouver and Victoria, votes almost universally conservative. Alberta votes conservative. Saskatchewan votes conservative (check out the last two elections). Those three provinces around roughly equal to Quebec in total seats. And Montreal always votes Liberal, so there's no swing there (and it's equivalent to the Vancouver exception).

Incidentally, I worked for Rob Anders. He was my boss for my first job out of high school (he wasn't an MP yet). What a wanker.