Malachi151
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,404
A Study of Communism
- Thread starter Malachi151
- Start date
Thanks for posting that Malachi151. In it, it says about communism, "Voicing of dissent is strictly controlled and severely punished" and "Forced or slave labor has been an integral part of the economy".
Those are two more reasons I don't like communism.
Those are two more reasons I don't like communism.
Why, yes, communism only killed 100,000,000 or so over half the globe. Let's give it another chance.
(yeah yeah yeah... Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., etc., etc. were all not "real" communists. Funny, though, how no "real communists seem to exist...)
(yeah yeah yeah... Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., etc., etc. were all not "real" communists. Funny, though, how no "real communists seem to exist...)
Cain
Straussian
Genocide, slavery, and supporting tyrannical military dictatorships historically has nothing to do with capitalism. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. The Black Book of Capitalism? An absurd idea! The slave trade, holding blacks as property -- that's not "real" capitalism.
Genocide, slavery, and supporting tyrannical military dictatorships historically has nothing to do with capitalism. Zero, zip, zilch, nada.
But that's not the point. Of course SOME capitalist societies were opressive... but most of them were not... and some of them became the freest, most advanced societies ever... and, in general, they became less and less so as time went by.
In contrast, EVERY SINGLE COMMUNIST SOCIETY THAT EVER EXISTED was repressive--and became worse and worse as time went by, since "the truth" (e.g., how "wonderful" communism is) had to be protected with more and more coersive measures as its absurdity became more and more apparent.
The Black Book of Capitalism? An absurd idea! The slave trade, holding blacks as property -- that's not "real" capitalism.
Actually, it isn't. Capitalism was the single most effective weapon AGAINST slavery. You see, in capitalistic societies, once the industrial revolution started, it become INEFFICIENT to own slaves, for a variety of complicated economical reasons. Modernization--with free workers--was far, far more efficient and better to all concerned.
THIS, not moral arguments, not idealism, is what caused the end of slavery: it cost more than it was worth to maintain it once your society became industrialized. So the evil, self-interested, opressive capitalists who live on the sweat of the workers (blah blah blah--I'm sure you can go on like this for hours) first stopped using slaves, and then outlawed slavery.
So, yes, slavery is not "real capitalism"... and the evidence for that is that CAPITALISM ENDED IT. If there was ever a communist country where "real communists" took over from all those nasty "unreal" ones who give communism a bad name with their gulags and execution squads, your analogy might have had a point... but that never happens, does it?
But that's not the point. Of course SOME capitalist societies were opressive... but most of them were not... and some of them became the freest, most advanced societies ever... and, in general, they became less and less so as time went by.
In contrast, EVERY SINGLE COMMUNIST SOCIETY THAT EVER EXISTED was repressive--and became worse and worse as time went by, since "the truth" (e.g., how "wonderful" communism is) had to be protected with more and more coersive measures as its absurdity became more and more apparent.
The Black Book of Capitalism? An absurd idea! The slave trade, holding blacks as property -- that's not "real" capitalism.
Actually, it isn't. Capitalism was the single most effective weapon AGAINST slavery. You see, in capitalistic societies, once the industrial revolution started, it become INEFFICIENT to own slaves, for a variety of complicated economical reasons. Modernization--with free workers--was far, far more efficient and better to all concerned.
THIS, not moral arguments, not idealism, is what caused the end of slavery: it cost more than it was worth to maintain it once your society became industrialized. So the evil, self-interested, opressive capitalists who live on the sweat of the workers (blah blah blah--I'm sure you can go on like this for hours) first stopped using slaves, and then outlawed slavery.
So, yes, slavery is not "real capitalism"... and the evidence for that is that CAPITALISM ENDED IT. If there was ever a communist country where "real communists" took over from all those nasty "unreal" ones who give communism a bad name with their gulags and execution squads, your analogy might have had a point... but that never happens, does it?
Abdul Alhazred
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 6,023
From each according to his ability == You'll work as hard as you can, whether you feel like it or not!
To each according to his need == No matter how hard you work, you'll never get more than just enough to keep you alive!
Such a system exisited in part of the United States before 1860, if you get my drift.
Jefferson Davis anticipated Karl Marx!
To each according to his need == No matter how hard you work, you'll never get more than just enough to keep you alive!
Such a system exisited in part of the United States before 1860, if you get my drift.
Jefferson Davis anticipated Karl Marx!
Re: Re: A Study of Communism
To each according to his need == No matter how hard you work, you'll never get more than just enough to keep you alive!
...unless you're a high party member, in which case the beurocracy will decide that you "need" a villa, unlimited caviar, your private limo, etc. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
The really sad thing is that communism, economically speaking, was SO inefficient, that the "opressed" middle-class worker in the capitalistic societies lived better, not only from the average communist worker, but better than the "connected" and "high level" communist beurocrat, as well.
To each according to his need == No matter how hard you work, you'll never get more than just enough to keep you alive!
...unless you're a high party member, in which case the beurocracy will decide that you "need" a villa, unlimited caviar, your private limo, etc. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
The really sad thing is that communism, economically speaking, was SO inefficient, that the "opressed" middle-class worker in the capitalistic societies lived better, not only from the average communist worker, but better than the "connected" and "high level" communist beurocrat, as well.
Cain
Straussian
Skeptic said:
Advanced capitalist societies, particularly in the case of the United States and Britain, have a tendency to internalize benefits while externalizing the very worst atrocities through imperialist war and aggression. Are you suggesting the United States was not oppressive? That we didn't have to kill tens of millions of Indians and steal their land (so much for respecting property rights). Or that this nation did not rely heavily on slave labor (so much for respecting individual rights). Didn't Ayn Rand frequently speak out against eating one's cake and having it too?
What kind of hallucinogenic are you on? Slavery, at least in the United States, did not get weeded out through a market process. Of course there were economic factors but they had little to do with efficiency in the usual sense of the term. Getting rid of slavery, um, required considerable government intervention. History books fondly refer to this violent episode as the "Civil War".
Christ, you're stupid. "Capitalism" has also pretty much put an end to Fordism, so does that mean the organizing principles of business that were successful one hundred years ago can no longer be considered "real capitalism"?
Besides, more than a few Communists and Marxists quickly condemned the Soviet Union and other false revolutions. Marx's Hegelian-based conception of history progressed in explicit stages.
Hell, this elementary point was made evident to TIMES'S readers who stumbled across a column on cultural theorist and Marxist Terry Eagleton:
Sometimes I don't even like using the terms "communism" and "capitalism". Look, communists today, at least the handful I've actually encountered, would completely disagree with the assumption of even "real communists" taking over. A genuine, or "real" if you prefer, communist system would have to necessarily enjoy widespread and popular support (unlike, oh say, the enclosure movement). Anything else contradicts basic principles of equality.
Is the United States a "real" capitalist country? Those who most often praise the virtues of the "free market" have a nasty tendency of being fanatical, reactionary statists quite in favor of increasing "big government's" capability to inflict violence on a mass scale.
Were self-proclaimed communist countries consistent with the enunciated principles of communism? Those same countries also called themselves people's democracies. I guess that means democracy is inextricably linked with gulags and death squads.
NullPointerException
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2003
- Messages
- 228
Okay.
Slavery isn't an evil institution unless it is based on race.
Slavery isn't an evil institution unless it is based on race.
Malachi151
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,404
Obviously pretty much everyone in the thread missed the entire point. I'm not wasting my time in this forum of imbeciles anymore.
Didn't Ayn Rand frequently speak out against eating one's cake and having it too?
Indeed so. Which is why your hypocritical criticism of the "evils of capitalism" is so hollow.
You live all your life in the comfort of an advanced capitalistic country, enjoying all the benefits you claim it unfairly and violently acquired. You wouldn't consider for a second helping, let alone living in, any of those righteous, poor countries the US has supposedly violated. Yet you moan and whine about the "evils of capitalism".
Why? To end it? To give the money or land to those it was stolen from, in your view? To actually DO something against the "evils of capitalism" (as you see them)? God forbid, no: that would mean the end of your creature comforts, and would inconvenience you. The sole reason for your "evil of capitalism" nonsense is to make yourself feel superior to others as more "sensitive" and "compassionate".
Indeed so. Which is why your hypocritical criticism of the "evils of capitalism" is so hollow.
You live all your life in the comfort of an advanced capitalistic country, enjoying all the benefits you claim it unfairly and violently acquired. You wouldn't consider for a second helping, let alone living in, any of those righteous, poor countries the US has supposedly violated. Yet you moan and whine about the "evils of capitalism".
Why? To end it? To give the money or land to those it was stolen from, in your view? To actually DO something against the "evils of capitalism" (as you see them)? God forbid, no: that would mean the end of your creature comforts, and would inconvenience you. The sole reason for your "evil of capitalism" nonsense is to make yourself feel superior to others as more "sensitive" and "compassionate".
Cain
Straussian
I love the personal attacks because it's a transparent (and instructive) demonstration of your utter inability to argue the facts.
It's also interesting as to how you repeat the phrase "evils of capitalism" no fewer than four times as though I had said it.
Nevertheless, I'll address your feeble-minded attempts to veer off topic in the order they were blathered:
Yep, no question about that. I've benefited, especially for being white. Mea culpa. Now do you deny that these benefits are not the result of violence? Or was that violence somehow "fair" or "justified"?
I am not at all sure how you should know this. I can make two points, but only one of them is necessary.
1) Your above statement simply is not true.
2) More importantly, it's completely irrelevant.
Ah, we must also the US only "supposedly violated" those poor countries. That's quite a stretch. Most people I've spoken to -- even most conservatives -- acknowledge that the US has a nasty history (oh, but it's all in the past). Your qualification here fringes on lunacy.
First, I don't recall whining or moaning. Second, it doesn't matter. Third, this is funny coming from a person who is quite possibly the shrillest poster on this board.
Re-read my brief original comments. You might notice a couple of things, like, say, our own hypocrisy in criticizing the crimes carried out under the banner of communism. Our preferred system, our own country, is itself responsible for considerable violence and destruction. That's not too difficult to understand. There's no "supposedly" about it.
Even supposing that's true how does it undermine the observation our past atrocities If anything I've been too generous by emphasizing our dark history at the expense of highlighting current policies dedicated to insuring profits over people.
It's also interesting as to how you repeat the phrase "evils of capitalism" no fewer than four times as though I had said it.
Nevertheless, I'll address your feeble-minded attempts to veer off topic in the order they were blathered:
Yep, no question about that. I've benefited, especially for being white. Mea culpa. Now do you deny that these benefits are not the result of violence? Or was that violence somehow "fair" or "justified"?
I am not at all sure how you should know this. I can make two points, but only one of them is necessary.
1) Your above statement simply is not true.
2) More importantly, it's completely irrelevant.
Ah, we must also the US only "supposedly violated" those poor countries. That's quite a stretch. Most people I've spoken to -- even most conservatives -- acknowledge that the US has a nasty history (oh, but it's all in the past). Your qualification here fringes on lunacy.
First, I don't recall whining or moaning. Second, it doesn't matter. Third, this is funny coming from a person who is quite possibly the shrillest poster on this board.
Re-read my brief original comments. You might notice a couple of things, like, say, our own hypocrisy in criticizing the crimes carried out under the banner of communism. Our preferred system, our own country, is itself responsible for considerable violence and destruction. That's not too difficult to understand. There's no "supposedly" about it.
Even supposing that's true how does it undermine the observation our past atrocities If anything I've been too generous by emphasizing our dark history at the expense of highlighting current policies dedicated to insuring profits over people.
See: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30036Malachi151 said:
In it you said:
Malachi151, I suspect that you developed the habit of not telling people how you interpret the information that you post in threads because you fear that if people know how you interpret it, they will reject your interpretation.Malachi151 said:
Malachi151 said:
Communism:
A religion, whose basic dogma asserts that human beings will do their best even if unrewarded for effort, that masqueraded as a "political philosophy" for much of the 20th century, resulting in the death of millions, if not billions of people, enormous and unremediable pollution, both chemical and nuclear, and that finally failed, destabilizing the largest populations on the planet.Was there something else I needed to know?