A Study of Communism

[Ed]

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.

If you go back far enough every society has done some pretty awful things. Awareness and discussion are what characterize the Western democracies.



So, let's go back a really long, long time. Every society and system of geovernment sucks. Now what? Expound on your worldview in some procductive way. You sound a bit like an ungreatful nihlist with no particularly useful ideas.

 

[c0rbin]

Cain, just going by this thread, I would say you are the ad-hominator here.

"Christ, you're stupid. " is a good one and it is not alone.

 

[jj]

If you go back far enough every society has done some pretty awful things. Awareness and discussion are what characterize the Western democracies.



So, let's go back a really long, long time. Every society and system of geovernment sucks. Now what? Expound on your worldview in some procductive way. You sound a bit like an ungreatful nihlist with no particularly useful ideas.

Now, Ed, we disagree entirely on a lot of political things, but I think you hit this one on the head. Cain and Malachi's selective memory and selective presentation suggest something about their agenda.

On the other hand, given the results, I can not understand how anyone can possibly believe in the religion of communism any more.

 

[Jet Grind]

I don't know whether Cain in a communist or not, but it seems to me that he's simply pointing out the hypocrisy that's usually present when the evils of communism are disucussed and the injustices of capitalism are ignored. I'm pretty much o his side here.

 

[Ed]

Now, Ed, we disagree entirely on a lot of political things, but I think you hit this one on the head. Cain and Malachi's selective memory and selective presentation suggest something about their agenda.

.

Really? I am pretty close to some people that might surprise you, it is the absolutist, knee jerk stuff that brings out my contrarian nature.

 

[Ed]

On the other hand, given the results, I can not understand how anyone can possibly believe in the religion of communism any more.

Nor suggest a moral equivilance between the western democracies and communistic countries. Odd, self loathing is.

 

[Cain]

Cain, just going by this thread, I would say you are the ad-hominator here.

"Christ, you're stupid. " is a good one and it is not alone.

C0rbin, you're not very bright. That's a conclusion, not an argument. If I had just written "Christ, you're stupid," or simply said, "No, that's a poor argument because you're stupid," then you would be correct.

The definition of an ad hominem is attacking the person instead of the argument. There's nothing wrong with using vituperative language in addition to an argument in terms of rationality. Civility is another matter. @sshole.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

If you go back far enough every society has done some pretty awful things. Awareness and discussion are what characterize the Western democracies.

Yes, yes, and no. Even western democracies are reluctant to discuss their past crimes. When conservatives, for example, claim that France is quick to act pious about US imperialism and interventionism while forgetting their own recent past which included tyranny and support for tyrants, the critics are absolutely correct. Similarly, Noam Chomsky will compare column inches of coverage on East Timor against official enemies and offical crimes.

So, let's go back a really long, long time. Every society and system of geovernment sucks. Now what? Expound on your worldview in some procductive way. You sound a bit like an ungreatful nihlist with no particularly useful ideas.

First, the most obvious point is that my original comments served as a reference for comparison. Second, I live under this current government and we have a moral responsibilty -- both you and me -- to criticize atrocities carried out by our government. I mean, that's very basic. Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience" spoke out against slavery and the Mexican War. He had directly benefited from previous crimes, so does that make him a hypocrite? If he's an apologist for similar crimes, then, yeah, of course. But that doesn't really speak directly to the Mexican War or slavery.

JJ writes:

Cain and Malachi's selective memory and selective presentation suggest something about their agenda.

[insert irony meter here]

How selective and agenda-driven for me to choose the reigning ideology for comparison.

On the other hand, given the results, I can not understand how anyone can possibly believe in the religion of communism any more.

Who is "believing in" or advocating communism?

Which relates to JAR's question:

Cain, do you think that communism is better than capitalism,

No; although, again, those terms do not seem to make much sense.

or that capitalism is equally as bad as communism?

No, but the same reservation above applies. If communism refers to Stalinism, the USSR, single party domination, central planning, and so on, then I reject that belief system.

If you think the latter, what do you think is a good alternative to the two?

I've discussed this rather extensively here, though I do not see the relevance to the direction of the current thread. See for instance my exchange with Victor D. in a thread about Einstien's essay on socialism.

 

[Troll]

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?

Actually people as a whole tend to accept good things on an internal basis and bad things on an external basis when it comes to themselves. We also have a habit of blaming others for internal faults while overlooking external factors. If my team wins a football game I credit mine and the other team members training. If we lose we say it's because we've never won aganst the other team. If I slip on the ice I say it's because of the ice and if you slip n it I say you are clumsy. That's how internal and external blame goes.

You mentioned slavery right after saying that we externalize our worst. But we never went to other nations and enslaved them. As such, slavery was an internal fault and not exported as you claimed.

If you wish to apply psychological/psychology factors to governments then please use them correctly.

State examples of US Imperialism. Where has the US moved to a war like state soley to gain control of other countries? Yes there are numerous cases where they wished to change things, including the ruling factors of other countries, but Imperialism suggests extending a nation's power through territorial acquisition. The US has been involved in other affairs but have we established ourselves in an authoritive manner in other countries? Puerto Rico is still self-ruled, as is Guam. Vietnam is their own country, Germany is the closest you could get to but we stayed out of re-unification and thus, alowed them to think for themselves with no US control. Well we helped with re-unification but have since had nothing to say that they had to abide by. And this was done as an attack against communism, as part of the cold war.

So we have established capitalism letting the others think for themselves and chose and communism taking and chosing for others as in West Berlin prior to re-unification

 

[jj]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cain, just going by this thread, I would say you are the ad-hominator here.

"Christ, you're stupid. " is a good one and it is not alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




C0rbin, you're not very bright.

 

[jj]

Really? I am pretty close to some people that might surprise you, it is the absolutist, knee jerk stuff that brings out my contrarian nature.

Well, Ed, I dunno, but you seemed to be supporting the present administration quite strongly, unless you've mastered more ambiguity than you intended.

Given the actions of this administration (and I don't mean the war in Iraq), it seems to me that there's an obvious problem. This administration scoffs at the constitution, and senior members of it incite hatred of atheists and people who aren't like them on a routine basis, never mind it was religious fanatacism just like their own that started the obvious destruction of everything boomers saved for.

Face it, look at this last "prescription benefit". Have you LOOKED at the terms? It is, simply put, "if you have more than what the government pays in needs, either you pay or you die". Insurance to cover 'prescriptiongap' is AGAINST THE LAW!

It's the easiest way for the 'X'ers like Shrub to get rid of us, just make sure we die due to a combination of overwork and lack of medical care.

 

[jj]

State examples of US Imperialism.

You're arguing with someone whose response to objections to his ad-hominem attacks is "you're not too bright", so don't hold your breath.

 

[Troll]

You're arguing with someone whose response to objections to his ad-hominem attacks is "you're not too bright", so don't hold your breath.

I know, but the more examples of such claims the more people have to go on in ignoring his attempts to legitimize his posts. So let him try and fail again, it only helps the sane among us.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Wow people still STUDY communism?
Well I guess that make sense , People still study san skrit and Latin and steam locomotives..all alos dead. Well to each his own.

 

[jj]

Wow people still STUDY communism?
Well I guess that make sense , People still study san skrit and Latin and steam locomotives..all alos dead. Well to each his own.

Yeah, but sanskrit, Latin, and steam locomotives all worked.

Communism, well, we should study it historically just so we don't forget what a crashing disaster it was.

 

[Cain]

Actually people as a whole tend to accept good things on an internal basis and bad things on an external basis when it comes to themselves. We also have a habit of blaming others for internal faults while overlooking external factors. If my team wins a football game I credit mine and the other team members training.

As a comedian recently observed on a television special, the winning team in a football game credits the Lord while the losing team blames themselves. Just once he'd like to see a player cry, "Damn, Jesus made me fumble!" Consistency.

I understand your point though, and yes I'd agree that the tendency is natural and widespread. I mentioned modern-day France as an example, but you can substitute practically any nation state.

Here, though, self-criticism is construed as "self-loathing", which, to put it mildly, is f*cking idiotic.

Moreover,

You mentioned slavery right after saying that we externalize our worst. But we never went to other nations and enslaved them. As such, slavery was an internal fault and not exported as you claimed.

I was speaking about advanced (as in contemporary) "capitalist" society. That society -- our society -- was predicated on genocide and slavery.

If you wish to apply psychological/psychology factors to governments then please use them correctly.

State examples of US Imperialism. Where has the US moved to a war like state soley to gain control of other countries? Yes there are numerous cases where they wished to change things, including the ruling factors of other countries, but Imperialism suggests extending a nation's power through territorial acquisition. The US has been involved in other affairs but have we established ourselves in an authoritive manner in other countries?

In my last post I mentioned Thoreau's objections the Mexican War. Are you forgetting about the whole concept of Manifest Destiny? Imperialism understood in terms of establishing colonies died out after World War II. Current analysis, one view at least, sees the world in terms of a center and periphery. The ruling instititions -- WTO, World Bank, and IMF -- erect policies where traditional colonies (the global south) answer to their historical conquerers (the North). Thomas Friedman, the influential op-ed columnist for the _New York Times_, smitten with globalization, enthusiastically invokes the metaphor of the "Golden Straitjacket" because national policies are constrained by market pressures and the IMF.

______________________________

You're arguing with someone whose response to objections to his ad-hominem attacks is "you're not too bright", so don't hold your breath.

Once again: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

But if you insist, refer to any post that uses the word "woo woo". In some cases it's just an ad hominem while in most it's justified.

How am I guilty of ad hominem? Because I called somebody moron? Christ, you're dumb too.

In the absence of an actual argument, yes, it's ad hominem. Look again at my post to "Skeptic". Re-read the paragraph to C0rbin.

Or scrutinize the text within this partition.
______________________________

So let him try and fail again, it only helps the sane among us

 

[jj]

Here, though, self-criticism is construed as "self-loathing", which, to put it mildly, is f*cking idiotic.

Ahh, a solidly supported assertion buried in tons of actual evidence! NOT

It's "self-loathing" when you write obviously misleading, biased, and ill-constructed sentences suggesting that capitalistic society is anything near as bad as communism and communist societies have turned out to be.

No system is perfect.

That's not what you said.

You compared the behavior of the USA to that of what? Let's see, how many dead Ukranians? What pogroms? What bodies in Siberia? What death camps belonging to Pol Pot?

That is an obvious and patently absurd comparison, yet you are the one presenting it as though it is meaningful.


In the absence of an actual argument, yes, it's ad hominem. Look again at my post to "Skeptic". Re-read the paragraph to C0rbin.

You haven't presented any arguments yet, you simply are trying to rely on others' words without any indication of what or how you regard their meaning.

Could you be looking for an out after you and your idea is ridiculed to bits?

 

[Cain]

Ahh, a solidly supported assertion buried in tons of actual evidence! NOT

Oh my, JJ. You somehow manage to outdo yourself. The assertion of self-loathing, you know, the one Ed made, that's ad hominem. It impugns my motives without bothering to address the arguments. You earlier blathered something about an "agenda".

Interestingly, you never even bothered to answer my previous questions relating to these allegations of ad hominem on my part.

It's "self-loathing" when you write obviously misleading, biased, and ill-constructed sentences suggesting that capitalistic society is anything near as bad as communism and communist societies have turned out to be.

That is an obvious and patently absurd comparison, yet you are the one presenting it as though it is meaningful.

Go back to the original response in regards to 100,000,000 million deaths. So, suppose capitalism, is only responsible for 75 million. Is that okay?

How many Africans died on slave ships? How many Indians were slaughtered? If we're talking about "capitalism" versus "communism" we need not, and should not, confine ourselves to the United States. France, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Britain and other european countries are themselves responsible for millions of deaths.

Ah, but: "No system is perfect."

You compared the behavior of the USA to that of what? Let's see, how many dead Ukranians? What pogroms? What bodies in Siberia? What death camps belonging to Pol Pot?

I cited America/the US as an example in a broader comparison.

"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!"

You haven't presented any arguments yet, you simply are trying to rely on others' words without any indication of what or how you regard their meaning.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but "Skeptic's" initial post brings up the recuring problem of "real" communism. In parallel, I raised the problem of "real" capitalism.

Could you be looking for an out after you and your idea is ridiculed to bits?

Please stop, JJ. The obnoxious oversized text declaring "NOT" is just far too clever for me. I mean, you're even better at it than the sixth graders from a ten years ago. "Hey man, I'll give you a dollar. NOT! Haha." Your trenchant wit -- I'm not sure if my sensitive, self-loathing ego can handle much more. Where's my white flag? Please, please don't ridicule me to bits.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Cain:
How many Africans died on slave ships? How many Indians were slaughtered? If we're talking about "capitalism" versus "communism" we need not, and should not, confine ourselves to the United States. France, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Britain and other european countries are themselves responsible for millions of deaths.

Were these European states really capitalist? And how many slaves and Indians died? And doesn't slavery predate capitalism in any case?

 

[Chaos]

Were these European states really capitalist? And how many slaves and Indians died? And doesn't slavery predate capitalism in any case?

How do you define capitalism?

In some definitions, capitalism has been around since the invention of money (= capital) - or longer, if you count barter economy.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Chaos:
How do you define capitalism?

In some definitions, capitalism has been around since the invention of money (= capital) - or longer, if you count barter economy.

Exactly. It could be argued that no country has acheived a purely capitalist system. I certainly wouldn't classify France as being a country that embraces the principles of capitalism.

Just because stuff is being bought, sold or exchanged doesn't necessarily mean that it's being done in a capitalist system. Look at agriculture.