Notices
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 320
Like Tree79Likes

Thread: Common Misconceptions about Communism

  1. #201  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I don't know that Mom lived in a communist COUNTRY....but she lived under communist rule...
    If that were true your mom would've lived with the tyranny of the majority because the "people" are in charge in a communist country. there is NO RULING CLASS in communism. Communism is NOT a representative government. it literally is 1 person 1 vote with no middle man!

    BALONEY!
    STEAK!!

    Quote Originally Posted by babe
    In order to keep their farm, my uncle worked TWO JOBS.....the farm and another full time job to pay the taxes to KEEP the farm.
    Yeah?!!?! if you really knew what you were talking about you would know that there is no such thing as private property in a communist state, which means IT'S NOT YOUR UNCLE'S FARM! it belongs to the people and if the people decide to vote it away from him.. Guess what... It's gone, no taxes no nothing is gonna keep it in the family.


    Quote Originally Posted by babe
    Man are people ignorant to the reality of what it is really like, i.e. LIVING it not talking about it. LIVING IT!
    YES, PEOPLE ARE IGNORANT WHEN IT COMES TO THE REALITY OF WHAT COMMUNISM IS REALLY LIKE MAINLY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!! !!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 AND HAS NEVER EXISTED!

    What you are describing and have been describing IS NOT COMMUNISM!!! try to keep up.

    So, you can go ahead and capitalize all the words that you want and throw in the exclamation points, and throw whatever tantrum you think will push home your appeal to emotion argument, but it doesn't change the fact that you are NOT DESCRIBING COMMUNISM!

    there is NO RULING CLASS in communism
    Quote Originally Posted by babe
    HOGWASH!! There most certainly is!
    NO THERE IS NOT!! learn something before you go spouting off at the keyboard! A ruling class specifically keeps it from being Communist. It becomes the ANTITHESIS of what communism is.


    Quote Originally Posted by babe
    When we went back to see my grandmother, we were followed the ENTIRE trip. Yeah....really people controlled. There to see my grandmother with my mother and father, also Slovenian..and they follow us EVERYWHERE.... Yeah what were they afraid of......
    I don't doubt that stuff didn't happen, but that doesn't mean that you were followed around by a communist state. IN FACT, IT MEANS THAT YOU WEREN'T followed around by a communist state. you were followed around by an oppressive government. COMMUNISM =/= Oppressive government.



    Maybe you can understand this example...
    If you are an expectant mother and you are a expecting to deliver a baby girl and instead you deliver a baby boy, you don't get to call that baby a girl because he is missing the required elements to be a girl. You can go ahead and call him a baby girl but YOU WOULD BE WRONG TO DO SO!

    This is our situation here...
    and when ever anybody points out that he is not a baby girl, your response is to yell "BALONEY!" and "HOGWASH!" cause after all we weren't there and you delivered it and it is a baby, SEE? We don't know what we're talking about cause we weren't there!
    Right?


    AS it was posted in an earlier post, if you breed two types of animals trying to get a unicorn and a Mule shows up, then you do not have a unicorn. You have a mule and MULE =/= unicorn. Only when a Unicorn shows up do you get a unicorn. until then IT'S NOT WHAT you claim it to be.

    Learn to read, Learn to understand!! Please! Stop settling for "moron" the world needs thinkers. You can be one, just try, open a book and read some of the words. You might even understand a couple of them.

    I've totally heard of hard of hearing but hard of thinking is a new one for me. WHAT YOU DESCRIBE IS NOT COMMUNISM. Are you being thick on purpose? are you selectively reading posts? what's your deal? or do you just ignore what doesn't fit your world view?

    In short, what the hell is wrong with you? Are you retarded? or just illiterate? cause either one would explain so very much.

    I'll tell you one thing though, Roger Ailes is so very proud of you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,227
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Simple solution. Don't work for Walmart.
    Better than that...don't do anything.

    Be lazy.

    If you succeed you will be penalized.


    you certainly will, you will be penalized with your mega mansions and your yachts and your golf courses and servants,and all those things that everyone else who leeches off the state consider "low class." I can't believe "thought" like this exists. Gotta give fox credit they really push their brand.

    Quote Originally Posted by babe
    Don't invent, or create or contribute. Veg......it pays better...
    Of course, I know warren buffet would much rather take food stamps than pay his taxes, cause you know, it's a better life.
    What's funny about people like buffet is the government could tax... err, excuse me, "penalize" their income at 50% and they are still billionaires many times over.
    Get a clue. try thinking for yourself and stop being such an easily lead automaton.
    People with your ignorant attitudes in regards to business, culpability, living conditions and taxes, who just throw out angry accusations do not stay in my reading.

    You have insulted the SELF MADE SUCCESSFUL people

    Welcome to my ignore.

    You are very business ignorant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    babe, your relatives did not live in a communist country. If we are going to continue to correct people for the wrong use of theory - "I've got a theory that Einstein was wrong" - then we should correct people for misusing the word communist. No communist country has, to my knowledge, ever existed. I invited Harold to name one. As far as I can see he has failed to do so. The so-called communists countries are ones that, nominally at least, aimed to become communist, but were first passing through the necessary stage of socialism. No country got anywhere near communism.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Simple solution. Don't work for Walmart.
    It would appear, like most times in this thread, the point is lost on you.
    No, I get the point. People work at Walmart because it's their best available option. You want to take it away from them, because you know what's best for them. You're like a friggin little dictator.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    No communist country has, to my knowledge, ever existed. I invited Harold to name one. As far as I can see he has failed to do so. The so-called communists countries are ones that, nominally at least, aimed to become communist, but were first passing through the necessary stage of socialism. No country got anywhere near communism.
    How do you know so much about something that never existed? How can you say what it would be like, and tell me I'm wrong about it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,227
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    babe, your relatives did not live in a communist country. If we are going to continue to correct people for the wrong use of theory - "I've got a theory that Einstein was wrong" - then we should correct people for misusing the word communist. No communist country has, to my knowledge, ever existed. I invited Harold to name one. As far as I can see he has failed to do so. The so-called communists countries are ones that, nominally at least, aimed to become communist, but were first passing through the necessary stage of socialism. No country got anywhere near communism.
    Sir GALT......THEN I expect you would more state it as a "socialist" country? Mea Culpa and I will stand corrected.

    HOWEVER.....I must explain that to my mother, father and extensive my family living there....it was not "Socialist" but "Communist" in their eyes.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I fully understand that the term communist, in colloquial speech, was applied to a variety of nominally socialist countries. My concern is that this looseness of terminology allows one to condemn communism based on consideration of supposedly communist states that are not communist. Now I am not arguing that communism is a good system; nor am I arguing that it cannot be shown flawed on theoretical grounds. What we cannot do is claim it does not work based on the failure of the Soviet Union and its satellites. (If we did that, we would have to say that it does work based upon the success of communist China.)
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,227
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I fully understand that the term communist, in colloquial speech, was applied to a variety of nominally socialist countries. My concern is that this looseness of terminology allows one to condemn communism based on consideration of supposedly communist states that are not communist. Now I am not arguing that communism is a good system; nor am I arguing that it cannot be shown flawed on theoretical grounds. What we cannot do is claim it does not work based on the failure of the Soviet Union and its satellites. (If we did that, we would have to say that it does work based upon the success of communist China.)
    OK Sir Galt. We might differ here.

    They said, "If you wish to retain your land (which was in the family for hundreds of years and no...we aren't talking rich people) you will pay this tax or we shall take over your farm.

    So you work to pay the tax to keep your farm and work the farm at the same time.

    What is that then called?

    Socialism?

    Communisim?

    What?

    Please educate me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I hesitate to give it a name, since it would need to be seen in a total context. It is certainly not communism, since the option to retain ownership was there. In communism all such property would be owned by the community.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I fully understand that the term communist, in colloquial speech, was applied to a variety of nominally socialist countries. My concern is that this looseness of terminology allows one to condemn communism based on consideration of supposedly communist states that are not communist. Now I am not arguing that communism is a good system; nor am I arguing that it cannot be shown flawed on theoretical grounds. What we cannot do is claim it does not work based on the failure of the Soviet Union and its satellites. (If we did that, we would have to say that it does work based upon the success of communist China.)
    OK Sir Galt. We might differ here.

    They said, "If you wish to retain your land (which was in the family for hundreds of years and no...we aren't talking rich people) you will pay this tax or we shall take over your farm.

    So you work to pay the tax to keep your farm and work the farm at the same time.

    What is that then called?

    Socialism?

    Communisim?

    What?

    Please educate me.
    Ok First of all the property had not been in their family for hundreds of years, serfdom was abolished in 1861 by this point everything was state owned and bound to the land. Second how is your criticism any different than what we have now under capitalism, if you don't pay tax you get arrested right? Third the word 'tax', you wouldn't be taxed because it wouldn't be your own property, you would give resources to the state but they wouldn't be your taxed as this implies ownership, there is none in communism or rather it is common. Fourth, it doesn't matter whether what it's called, we know it's not called communism, socialism you could get away with since it was state owned.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I think it's a cop-out to say that there have been no communist states. All that says is that the pipe dreams have never been realized. Anybody with any common sense knows that won't happen. There may not be communism (the pipe dream) but there have been communists, i.e., people attempting to follow Marxist ideology. The results are a matter of historical record. Babe's mother found out about what that's like. So let's talk about communism the reality, not communism the pipe dream.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think it's a cop-out to say that there have been no communist states. All that says is that the pipe dreams have never been realized. Anybody with any common sense knows that won't happen. There may not be communism (the pipe dream) but there have been communists, i.e., people attempting to follow Marxist ideology. The results are a matter of historical record. Babe's mother found out about what that's like. So let's talk about communism the reality, not communism the pipe dream.
    Common sense... not so common (I ask why? human nature? Marx deals with these questions himself, he's an idealist but by no means an ignorant one, he shows human nature is not static but frequently changes, any anthropologist knows human beings behave differently).

    You still don't seem to understand what communism is though... there have been Marxists not communists, and pretty crappy ones if you contrast their views with the writings of Marx himself, not that I think Marx's views are any more plausible but to call it communism would just be a distortion.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think it's a cop-out to say that there have been no communist states. All that says is that the pipe dreams have never been realized. Anybody with any common sense knows that won't happen. There may not be communism (the pipe dream) but there have been communists, i.e., people attempting to follow Marxist ideology. The results are a matter of historical record. Babe's mother found out about what that's like. So let's talk about communism the reality, not communism the pipe dream.
    Common sense... not so common (I ask why? human nature? Marx deals with these questions himself, he's an idealist but by no means an ignorant one, he shows human nature is not static but frequently changes, any anthropologist knows human beings behave differently).

    You still don't seem to understand what communism is though... there have been Marxists not communists, and pretty crappy ones if you contrast their views with the writings of Marx himself, not that I think Marx's views are any more plausible but to call it communism would just be a distortion.
    It's like a get out of jail free card. The Communist can never be proven wrong, just like a religious person can always say God did it, or a perpetual motion inventor always thinks he just needs to wring a little more efficiency out of his invention. The Communist just says, "it's never been tried." Well people have been trying to do it for about 100 years, but nobody succeeded.

    You would think if it was going to work, it would be seen on a smaller scale - people voluntarily living together and sharing their income. Let's see it. The hippy communes have gone the way of the buffalo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Simple solution. Don't work for Walmart.
    WHAT? You're dissing Wal-Mart, that bastion of true capitalism? For shame, Mr. Harold, for shame!

    Wal-Mart is a good example of the worst of what capitalism produces - a company that treats its employees as poorly as is legal to do so. They go so far as to sign them up for all sorts of government assistance programs, so other taxpayers subsidize them as well. (Something I think you'd be opposed to, but I digress . . . . )

    What is even more important to remember is that Wal-Mart is prevented by law from treating them any more poorly. Thus what keeps Wal-Mart from being an even more inhumane place to work are all those evil socialist laws that prevent them from being true capitalists. We've seen what happens when those laws aren't in place - the Triangle Shirtwaist company, the Pullman company town, Bhopal, the Latimer massacre etc.

    Is the solution communism? Definitely not! That would be as bad as (if not worse than) the pure capitalism that gave us the above atrocities. The strength of our system is that we have a _regulated_ capitalist system that incorporates some aspects of socialism to prevent some of the excesses of capitalism. And so while Wal-Mart can be a truly horrible place to work (because of capitalism) workers are always free to leave (because of our government guaranteeing that freedom.) With both in place the system works pretty well.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Simple solution. Don't work for Walmart.
    WHAT? You're dissing Wal-Mart, that bastion of true capitalism? For shame, Mr. Harold, for shame!
    No, I am offering a practical suggestion to anyone who feels oppressed by working for Walmart.
    Wal-Mart is a good example of the worst of what capitalism produces - a company that treats its employees as poorly as is legal to do so.
    It is clear that Walmart treats its employees better than someone who does not offer them a job. For, if they did not want to be so mistreated, they would simply not show up to work. It logically follows that if you are not offering those employees a better job than Walmart, then you are mistreating them worse than Walmart does. How do you feel about that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Simple solution. Don't work for Walmart.
    Better than that...don't do anything.

    Be lazy.

    If you succeed you will be penalized.


    you certainly will, you will be penalized with your mega mansions and your yachts and your golf courses and servants,and all those things that everyone else who leeches off the state consider "low class." I can't believe "thought" like this exists. Gotta give fox credit they really push their brand.

    Quote Originally Posted by babe
    Don't invent, or create or contribute. Veg......it pays better...
    Of course, I know warren buffet would much rather take food stamps than pay his taxes, cause you know, it's a better life.
    What's funny about people like buffet is the government could tax... err, excuse me, "penalize" their income at 50% and they are still billionaires many times over.
    Get a clue. try thinking for yourself and stop being such an easily lead automaton.
    People with your ignorant attitudes in regards to business, culpability, living conditions and taxes, who just throw out angry accusations do not stay in my reading.

    You have insulted the SELF MADE SUCCESSFUL people

    Welcome to my ignore.

    You are very business ignorant.
    "Welcome to my ignore" Should I expect any less from somebody who refuses to educate themselves I think not.
    good day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    babe, your relatives did not live in a communist country. If we are going to continue to correct people for the wrong use of theory - "I've got a theory that Einstein was wrong" - then we should correct people for misusing the word communist. No communist country has, to my knowledge, ever existed. I invited Harold to name one. As far as I can see he has failed to do so. The so-called communists countries are ones that, nominally at least, aimed to become communist, but were first passing through the necessary stage of socialism. No country got anywhere near communism.
    She doesn't understand it. She doesn't want to understand it. hence the Ignore button. "It's my way or I'm going to put my fingers in my ears and stamp my feet and drown out everyone else." not surprising she knows what little she thinks she does on the subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Simple solution. Don't work for Walmart.
    It would appear, like most times in this thread, the point is lost on you.
    No, I get the point. People work at Walmart because it's their best available option. You want to take it away from them, because you know what's best for them. You're like a friggin little dictator.
    are serious? Tell me you are joking! IS that really what you got out of all of this? Where, pray tell, did I say I wanted to take that away from them? please link it.
    People work at wal mart because it is sometimes their best/only option. I don't want to have them not work at wal mart (You said that) I want Wal mart held to standard that keeps them from exploiting their workers. I didnt' think it was that hard to understand. apparently was wrong.

    way to try to change the subject on us though!

    Man, you have got the O'Rielly Non sequitur and strawman down to an art form. Good for you! at least you're good at something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    No communist country has, to my knowledge, ever existed. I invited Harold to name one. As far as I can see he has failed to do so. The so-called communists countries are ones that, nominally at least, aimed to become communist, but were first passing through the necessary stage of socialism. No country got anywhere near communism.
    How do you know so much about something that never existed? How can you say what it would be like, and tell me I'm wrong about it?
    Because the theory has been written about Many many times. It is becoming increasingly clear that abstract thought is something that waived "bye bye" to you long ago.

    One eyed willies pirate ship never existed either and yet we all know the story of the Goonies.

    Good grief, this is nauseating!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    babe, your relatives did not live in a communist country. If we are going to continue to correct people for the wrong use of theory - "I've got a theory that Einstein was wrong" - then we should correct people for misusing the word communist. No communist country has, to my knowledge, ever existed. I invited Harold to name one. As far as I can see he has failed to do so. The so-called communists countries are ones that, nominally at least, aimed to become communist, but were first passing through the necessary stage of socialism. No country got anywhere near communism.
    Sir GALT......THEN I expect you would more state it as a "socialist" country? Mea Culpa and I will stand corrected.

    HOWEVER.....I must explain that to my mother, father and extensive my family living there....it was not "Socialist" but "Communist" in their eyes.
    they saw it wrong. but that's all anybody has been trying to explain to you.
    Like some of us have been saying, you can call it what you want, but that doesn't mean it's labeled correctly.
    No hard feelings on my end if you are even seeing this. I know I'm ignored.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I fully understand that the term communist, in colloquial speech, was applied to a variety of nominally socialist countries. My concern is that this looseness of terminology allows one to condemn communism based on consideration of supposedly communist states that are not communist. Now I am not arguing that communism is a good system; nor am I arguing that it cannot be shown flawed on theoretical grounds. What we cannot do is claim it does not work based on the failure of the Soviet Union and its satellites. (If we did that, we would have to say that it does work based upon the success of communist China.)
    Exactly the Point!
    And, really, you can't call China communist either because it does not fit the definition. but the bastardizing of the word communism has done far more to bring down the level of discourse when it comes to discussing political systems. Yes, what flies as "communism" today is clearly not it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I fully understand that the term communist, in colloquial speech, was applied to a variety of nominally socialist countries. My concern is that this looseness of terminology allows one to condemn communism based on consideration of supposedly communist states that are not communist. Now I am not arguing that communism is a good system; nor am I arguing that it cannot be shown flawed on theoretical grounds. What we cannot do is claim it does not work based on the failure of the Soviet Union and its satellites. (If we did that, we would have to say that it does work based upon the success of communist China.)
    OK Sir Galt. We might differ here.

    They said, "If you wish to retain your land (which was in the family for hundreds of years and no...we aren't talking rich people) you will pay this tax or we shall take over your farm.

    So you work to pay the tax to keep your farm and work the farm at the same time.

    What is that then called?

    Socialism?

    Communisim?

    What?

    Please educate me.
    Socialist dictatorship.
    In real communism there would be a vote by the entire state before your family got the land and then another vote to then decide to take it away from your family.
    because it's a council (or Representative government) the wants of "the state" are based on their wants and not actually the state. they supposedly represent the state when in fact they do not because they are not doing things that help represent everyone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It is clear that Walmart treats its employees better than someone who does not offer them a job.
    Agreed, just as a communistic society that guarantees someone a job is better than a capitalist society that does not. There is, of course, far more to the issue than that - which is why both your statement and mine are misleading.

    For, if they did not want to be so mistreated, they would simply not show up to work. It logically follows that if you are not offering those employees a better job than Walmart, then you are mistreating them worse than Walmart does. How do you feel about that?
    Ah. So if you do not _guarantee_ someone a job, you are treating them worse than a communist society does! How do you feel about being worse than a communist?
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think it's a cop-out to say that there have been no communist states.
    It's not. Just because you want to run around arbitraraily calling bad governments "communist" does not make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    All that says is that the pipe dreams have never been realized.
    even with that as truth doesn't mean what has been displayed is communism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    Anybody with any common sense knows that won't happen.
    certainly not for anyone who has been indoctrinated into a capitalist system.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    There may not be communism (the pipe dream) but there have been communists, i.e., people attempting to follow Marxist ideology.
    First off, the attempt isn't the completion. If I try to break the world record in pole vault and I miss badly that does not mean I am now the world record holder simply because I tried.
    2nd of all Marxism and communism are different.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    The results are a matter of historical record.
    They sure are. so stop calling it communism



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    Babe's mother found out about what that's like. So let's talk about communism the reality, not communism the pipe dream.
    For the bazillionth time there is no communism "the reality."

    once again a mule does not equal a unicorn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    No communist country has, to my knowledge, ever existed. I invited Harold to name one. As far as I can see he has failed to do so. The so-called communists countries are ones that, nominally at least, aimed to become communist, but were first passing through the necessary stage of socialism. No country got anywhere near communism.
    How do you know so much about something that never existed? How can you say what it would be like, and tell me I'm wrong about it?
    Because the theory has been written about Many many times. It is becoming increasingly clear that abstract thought is something that waived "bye bye" to you long ago.

    One eyed willies pirate ship never existed either and yet we all know the story of the Goonies.

    Good grief, this is nauseating!
    The theory was written about unicorns a long time ago. Does that mean you know something about unicorns? If I say that unicorns are like horses only with a horn, and you say they are like goats with cloven hooves, who's right? You already admitted that there has never been such thing as communism in existence, so I'd say that puts it on the same level as unicorns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    The Communist just says, "it's never been tried." Well people have been trying to do it for about 100 years, but nobody succeeded.
    THERE!!!! that's right
    stop with that and you can be right

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    You would think if it was going to work, it would be seen on a smaller scale - people voluntarily living together and sharing their income. Let's see it. The hippy communes have gone the way of the buffalo.
    You don't have access to all people living everywhere. You think communism could really thrive and have a legitimate chance in a capitalist society where friends and neighbors are encouraged to slit each other's throats? Please!

    You would think with how terrified capitalists are of Communism they would launch an effective campaign to misinform the public about what communism really is....
    Wait...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    WHAT? You're dissing Wal-Mart, that bastion of true capitalism? For shame, Mr. Harold, for shame!
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    No, I am offering a practical suggestion to anyone who feels oppressed by working for Walmart.
    Is it practical to have to starve or sell yourself into modern day slavery to keep from starving?


    Wal-Mart is a good example of the worst of what capitalism produces - a company that treats its employees as poorly as is legal to do so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    It is clear that Walmart treats its employees better than someone who does not offer them a job.
    Seriously/? being whipped is better than being ignored? I guess that's up for debate either way.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    For, if they did not want to be so mistreated, they would simply not show up to work. It logically follows that if you are not offering those employees a better job than Walmart, then you are mistreating them worse than Walmart does. How do you feel about that?
    Kinda feels like a tautology doesn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    No communist country has, to my knowledge, ever existed. I invited Harold to name one. As far as I can see he has failed to do so. The so-called communists countries are ones that, nominally at least, aimed to become communist, but were first passing through the necessary stage of socialism. No country got anywhere near communism.
    How do you know so much about something that never existed? How can you say what it would be like, and tell me I'm wrong about it?
    Because the theory has been written about Many many times. It is becoming increasingly clear that abstract thought is something that waived "bye bye" to you long ago.

    One eyed willies pirate ship never existed either and yet we all know the story of the Goonies.

    Good grief, this is nauseating!
    The theory was written about unicorns a long time ago. Does that mean you know something about unicorns? If I say that unicorns are like horses only with a horn, and you say they are like goats with cloven hooves, who's right? You already admitted that there has never been such thing as communism in existence, so I'd say that puts it on the same level as unicorns.
    Well like a good little researcher you would go back to who wrote the book on what a unicorn is... you don't get to up and decide for yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Well like a good little researcher you would go back to who wrote the book on what a unicorn is... you don't get to up and decide for yourself.
    Why not? If I wrote a book about unicorns, it would be just as true as anybody else's book about unicorns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Well like a good little researcher you would go back to who wrote the book on what a unicorn is... you don't get to up and decide for yourself.
    Why not? If I wrote a book about unicorns, it would be just as true as anybody else's book about unicorns.
    Not the theory in this instance.
    Last edited by grmpysmrf; January 22nd, 2014 at 09:45 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,227
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I fully understand that the term communist, in colloquial speech, was applied to a variety of nominally socialist countries. My concern is that this looseness of terminology allows one to condemn communism based on consideration of supposedly communist states that are not communist. Now I am not arguing that communism is a good system; nor am I arguing that it cannot be shown flawed on theoretical grounds. What we cannot do is claim it does not work based on the failure of the Soviet Union and its satellites. (If we did that, we would have to say that it does work based upon the success of communist China.)

    Understood, and well said Sir Galt. *S*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I fully understand that the term communist, in colloquial speech, was applied to a variety of nominally socialist countries. My concern is that this looseness of terminology allows one to condemn communism based on consideration of supposedly communist states that are not communist. Now I am not arguing that communism is a good system; nor am I arguing that it cannot be shown flawed on theoretical grounds. What we cannot do is claim it does not work based on the failure of the Soviet Union and its satellites. (If we did that, we would have to say that it does work based upon the success of communist China.)
    OK Sir Galt. We might differ here.

    They said, "If you wish to retain your land (which was in the family for hundreds of years and no...we aren't talking rich people) you will pay this tax or we shall take over your farm.

    So you work to pay the tax to keep your farm and work the farm at the same time.

    What is that then called?

    Socialism?

    Communisim?

    What?

    Please educate me.
    Ok First of all the property had not been in their family for hundreds of years, serfdom was abolished in 1861 by this point everything was state owned and bound to the land. Second how is your criticism any different than what we have now under capitalism, if you don't pay tax you get arrested right? Third the word 'tax', you wouldn't be taxed because it wouldn't be your own property, you would give resources to the state but they wouldn't be your taxed as this implies ownership, there is none in communism or rather it is common. Fourth, it doesn't matter whether what it's called, we know it's not called communism, socialism you could get away with since it was state owned.
    My point being. .....It wasn't a tax that was easily based on earnings. It was a tax levied so you probably could NOT pay it and lose your land. My Grandmother, and great grandparents and before them lived there. The house, had no running water, but a hand pump, the stove was not even a conventional wood stove it was made of brick, and there were no toilets.......but an outhouse, two seater.

    My uncle would work at the railroad yard from 6:00 a.m. till 2:00 p.m. then return to the farm and work till dark to be able to keep it. They were not people with much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,227
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Simple solution. Don't work for Walmart.
    WHAT? You're dissing Wal-Mart, that bastion of true capitalism? For shame, Mr. Harold, for shame!

    Wal-Mart is a good example of the worst of what capitalism produces - a company that treats its employees as poorly as is legal to do so. They go so far as to sign them up for all sorts of government assistance programs, so other taxpayers subsidize them as well. (Something I think you'd be opposed to, but I digress . . . . )

    What is even more important to remember is that Wal-Mart is prevented by law from treating them any more poorly. Thus what keeps Wal-Mart from being an even more inhumane place to work are all those evil socialist laws that prevent them from being true capitalists. We've seen what happens when those laws aren't in place - the Triangle Shirtwaist company, the Pullman company town, Bhopal, the Latimer massacre etc.

    Is the solution communism? Definitely not! That would be as bad as (if not worse than) the pure capitalism that gave us the above atrocities. The strength of our system is that we have a _regulated_ capitalist system that incorporates some aspects of socialism to prevent some of the excesses of capitalism. And so while Wal-Mart can be a truly horrible place to work (because of capitalism) workers are always free to leave (because of our government guaranteeing that freedom.) With both in place the system works pretty well.
    My understanding is they treat their vendors with the same disdain after they land them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,227
    I can only speak for what MY PERSONAL FAMILY'S experience and my conversations my family still there. I am 1 1/2 generation here....Dad was born here....Mum wasn't born or raised here, but born and raised in Slovenia through WWII with her family, minus her father, who was in the US.

    I am going back to see my family in Slovenia this summer. First time since I was 19 years old.

    My Slovenian family will meet my children and husband, and my family will finally meet their Slovenian family.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Well like a good little researcher you would go back to who wrote the book on what a unicorn is... you don't get to up and decide for yourself.
    Why not? If I wrote a book about unicorns, it would be just as true as anybody else's book about unicorns.
    Not the theory in this instance.
    Not what theory? You mean communism? I could write a book about that too. It would be just as accurate as Marx's, probably more accurate, because communism never turned out like Marx said it was supposed to. Not once in a hundred years, which you already admitted, except that you seem to think that's a point in its favor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by babe
    They were not people with much.
    The idea behind communism would be that they had exactly as much as everyone else. there is no class system. there would be no poverty because their would be no wealthy.
    The standard of living isn't really a standard, it just is. No above or below a wealth line. So, the fact that your family had more that some and less than others means no communism.
    It would've all been totally equal.
    now, if anybody wants to argue that Fair and Equal are not the same things. I'd be hard pressed to offer a rebuttal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Well like a good little researcher you would go back to who wrote the book on what a unicorn is... you don't get to up and decide for yourself.
    Why not? If I wrote a book about unicorns, it would be just as true as anybody else's book about unicorns.
    Not the theory in this instance.
    Not what theory? You mean communism? I could write a book about that too. It would be just as accurate as Marx's, probably more accurate, because communism never turned out like Marx said it was supposed to. Not once in a hundred years, which you already admitted, except that you seem to think that's a point in its favor.
    Are you in high school?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Well like a good little researcher you would go back to who wrote the book on what a unicorn is... you don't get to up and decide for yourself.
    Why not? If I wrote a book about unicorns, it would be just as true as anybody else's book about unicorns.
    Not the theory in this instance.
    Not what theory? You mean communism? I could write a book about that too. It would be just as accurate as Marx's, probably more accurate, because communism never turned out like Marx said it was supposed to. Not once in a hundred years, which you already admitted, except that you seem to think that's a point in its favor.
    ...you could write a book about it but you'd be viewed in the same way a crank would on this forum. Marx never sets a time period, he doesn't specify: 'a proleteriat revolution at October 22nd 2011 and if it isn't done by then ah well I got it wrong' he regards it as inevitable (you could criticise this, there is no way to prove Marxism wrong, precisely what Karl Popper picked up on) but that it hasn't happened yet says little about its validity. I see you're still using the word communism wrong, much like cranks use the word inertia wrong because it doesn't fit in with their prejudices.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,227
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe
    They were not people with much.
    The idea behind communism would be that they had exactly as much as everyone else. there is no class system. there would be no poverty because their would be no wealthy.
    The standard of living isn't really a standard, it just is. No above or below a wealth line. So, the fact that your family had more that some and less than others means no communism.
    It would've all been totally equal.
    now, if anybody wants to argue that Fair and Equal are not the same things. I'd be hard pressed to offer a rebuttal.
    I understand what you are saying, but Tito was a member of the Communist Party and ruled the former Yugoslovia. Josip Broz Tito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I believe you are saying that he ran it as a socialist country? Please correct me if I am mistaken. Mahalo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think it's a cop-out to say that there have been no communist states. All that says is that the pipe dreams have never been realized. Anybody with any common sense knows that won't happen. There may not be communism (the pipe dream) but there have been communists, i.e., people attempting to follow Marxist ideology. The results are a matter of historical record. Babe's mother found out about what that's like. So let's talk about communism the reality, not communism the pipe dream.
    And lets indulge the ill-informed who who say "I have a theory", or who think the rubber sheet analogy for gravity is equivalent to the real thing. Let's allow loose terminology into any and all of our discussions. Let's throw rigour to the winds, toss the aby out with bath water, encourage ambiguous talk. Lets's do all of those things, then we can feel comfortable about calling it communism when it frigging well isn't.

    If it helps you to sleep better at night having named the big bad bogey monster with a catchy, but inaccurate name, we should all follow suit, should we? I think not. Harold, your antipathy to socialism and left wing thinking is well known. That does not excuse improper use of terminology. By all means condemn the actions of the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. By all means argue against their economic model. By all means condemn their records on human rights. All of these are plausible complaints. But for ****'s sake use the correct ****ing terminology.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Marx never sets a time period,
    You sound like a Christian fundamentalist who says God never set a date for the return of the Messiah, so it didn't happen this year but nobody can prove it isn't going to happen next year. So we're going to keep on believing. At what point do you look for actual evidence?

    I see you're still using the word communism wrong, much like cranks use the word inertia wrong because it doesn't fit in with their prejudices.
    It's more like using the word "phlogiston" wrong.
    I've been reading about "dialectical materialism", the supposed philosophical foundation of communism. Now there's some real crackpot material. Pure word salad.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    That does not excuse improper use of terminology.
    I'm not going to discuss a nonexistent concept as if it were something real, if that's what you're talking about. Let's not get too hung up on terminology. If you want to defend communism go ahead and straighten me out with some real facts about it. Don't just complain about how I'm using the word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you want to defend communism go ahead and straighten me out with some real facts about it. Don't just complain about how I'm using the word.
    Nothing in my posts reflects a defense of communism. I shall continue to complain about how you and anyone else misuses a technical term that has a clear meaning. I am surprised and disappointed that you think this acceptable.
    Trivium and grmpysmrf like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you want to defend communism go ahead and straighten me out with some real facts about it. Don't just complain about how I'm using the word.
    Nothing in my posts reflects a defense of communism. I shall continue to complain about how you and anyone else misuses a technical term that has a clear meaning. I am surprised and disappointed that you think this acceptable.
    Technical term - my foot, to use a euphemism my mother used to use. If I say it's Marxism, somebody jumps in and says no, that's not it. And I still say you are indulging in the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You think the Soviets couldn't be true communists because Marx (or whoever you favorite communist philosopher is) didn't say to do all those things the Soviets did. I think the Soviets were quite sincere, and were attempting to follow the misguided philosophy of Marx and Lenin. But of course, some sausage making is involved. There's always sausage making.

    If you think the Soviets weren't really communists, then show me some real communists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe
    They were not people with much.
    The idea behind communism would be that they had exactly as much as everyone else. there is no class system. there would be no poverty because their would be no wealthy.
    That's a nonsequitur. There can certainly be poverty without any wealthy, unless you think starving people are not poor as long as everybody else is starving too.
    The standard of living isn't really a standard, it just is. No above or below a wealth line. So, the fact that your family had more that some and less than others means no communism.
    It would've all been totally equal.
    now, if anybody wants to argue that Fair and Equal are not the same things. I'd be hard pressed to offer a rebuttal.
    I will argue that fair and equal are not the same thing. Fair is when everybody has an equal opportunity. It does not guarantee equal outcomes. If everybody has the same things, but some are working harder, then that is definitely not fair.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Marx never sets a time period,
    You sound like a Christian fundamentalist who says God never set a date for the return of the Messiah, so it didn't happen this year but nobody can prove it isn't going to happen next year. So we're going to keep on believing. At what point do you look for actual evidence?
    I see you're still using the word communism wrong, much like cranks use the word inertia wrong because it doesn't fit in with their prejudices.
    It's more like using the word "phlogiston" wrong. I've been reading about "dialectical materialism", the supposed philosophical foundation of communism. Now there's some real crackpot material. Pure word salad.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    That does not excuse improper use of terminology.
    I'm not going to discuss a nonexistent concept as if it were something real, if that's what you're talking about. Let's not get too hung up on terminology. If you want to defend communism go ahead and straighten me out with some real facts about it. Don't just complain about how I'm using the word.
    That's probably because, like communism you don't understand dialectical materialism, I don't agree with it either but i'm objective enough to have actually read about the subject (i've read Hegel and Marx, the same way I actually read about physics before discussing it). He's complaining about how you're using the word because you're attacking a strawman, if you don't know the words you're using you can't debate on the matter, and sadly I think you've proven here you're just not objective or knowledgeable enough about the subject to have one.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Marx never sets a time period,
    You sound like a Christian fundamentalist who says God never set a date for the return of the Messiah, so it didn't happen this year but nobody can prove it isn't going to happen next year. So we're going to keep on believing. At what point do you look for actual evidence?
    I see you're still using the word communism wrong, much like cranks use the word inertia wrong because it doesn't fit in with their prejudices.
    It's more like using the word "phlogiston" wrong. I've been reading about "dialectical materialism", the supposed philosophical foundation of communism. Now there's some real crackpot material. Pure word salad.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    That does not excuse improper use of terminology.
    I'm not going to discuss a nonexistent concept as if it were something real, if that's what you're talking about. Let's not get too hung up on terminology. If you want to defend communism go ahead and straighten me out with some real facts about it. Don't just complain about how I'm using the word.
    That's probably because, like communism you don't understand dialectical materialism, I don't agree with it either but i'm objective enough to have actually read about the subject (i've read Hegel and Marx, the same way I actually read about physics before discussing it). He's complaining about how you're using the word because you're attacking a strawman, if you don't know the words you're using you can't debate on the matter, and sadly I think you've proven here you're just not objective or knowledgeable enough about the subject to have one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you want to defend communism go ahead and straighten me out with some real facts about it. Don't just complain about how I'm using the word.
    Nothing in my posts reflects a defense of communism. I shall continue to complain about how you and anyone else misuses a technical term that has a clear meaning. I am surprised and disappointed that you think this acceptable.
    Technical term - my foot, to use a euphemism my mother used to use. If I say it's Marxism, somebody jumps in and says no, that's not it. And I still say you are indulging in the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You think the Soviets couldn't be true communists because Marx (or whoever you favorite communist philosopher is) didn't say to do all those things the Soviets did. I think the Soviets were quite sincere, and were attempting to follow the misguided philosophy of Marx and Lenin. But of course, some sausage making is involved. There's always sausage making. If you think the Soviets weren't really communists, then show me some real communists.
    You seem to think this is an 'us vs you' argument, it really isn't. I'm not a communist, i'm being objective and telling you that the terminology you're using is just flat out wrong, if you don't agree with communism that's perfectly fine, but to redefine it and attack it is a strawman. I don't dimiss ideas in topology because I have no idea understanding of them, and I certainly don't try to redefine the discipline to fit with my prejudices
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You think the Soviets couldn't be true communists because Marx (or whoever you favorite communist philosopher is) didn't say to do all those things the Soviets did.
    Please drop the offensive implications that I am some kind of closet communist. It is dishonest, unpleasant, cynical, irrelevant to the discussion and untrue.

    The Soviets were not true communists, because they had not yet developed to that stage. My grandson, I trust, will one day be a man, before that he will be a teenager, and much earlier than that, a toddler. I will not, in a technical discussion, refer to him as a man until he is a man. It's why we have dictionaries and glossaries and consistent use of terminology within disciplines.
    If you think the Soviets weren't really communists, then show me some real communists.
    There are, as yet, no real communists. No Socialist state ever progressed to the point of practicing communism.

    You are free to be sloppy in your use of language if you wish. I'm done correcting you. You give the appearance of someone so anti-"communist" in your mind and heart that logic will not allow you to abandon the loose term and speak accurately. Be my guest: talk crap, this conversation is at end from my side.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    I don't dimiss ideas in topology because I have no idea understanding of them, and I certainly don't try to redefine the discipline to fit with my prejudices
    The difference is that topology has been used with some success to explain real world observations, and it makes falsifiable predictions. So, even if I don't have the time or brains to delve into it, I can recognize it as something worth learning about. I have been asking for someone to show me the real communists, and what they have accomplished. So far, nothing.

    It's true that I haven't read Marx or Hegel, but neither have I read Science Forum member UROD's UPN, which is his theory of everything based on vortexes in a superfluid. I could tell by reading just a little bit that it contained no math, made no predictions, and could not be falsified.

    Here's what I found out about dialectical materialism, from the Wikipedia page.
    The main thrust of dialectical materialism lies in the concept of the evolution of the natural world and the emergence of new qualities of being at new stages of evolution. As Z. A. Jordan notes, "Engels made constant use of the metaphysical insight that the higher level of existence emerges from and has its roots in the lower; that the higher level constitutes a new order of being with its irreducible laws; and that this process of evolutionary advance is governed by laws of development which reflect basic properties of 'matter in motion as a whole'
    Okay so Engels thought evolution was the emergence of higher levels from lower levels of existence. This is a view that one would expect from someone writing in the nineteenth century. Not something to be taken seriously today.

    Engels postulated three laws of dialectics from his reading of Hegel's Science of Logic.[24] Engels elucidated these laws in his work Dialectics of Nature:
    1.The law of the unity and conflict of opposites
    2.The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes
    3.The law of the negation of the negation
    WTF is this supposed to mean, and how is it supposed to be tested or falsified?

    Although Hegel coined the term "negation of the negation," it gained its fame from Marx's using it in Capital. There Marx wrote this: "The [death] knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators [capitalists] are expropriated. The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation [antithesis] of individual private property. [The "first negation," or antithesis, negates the thesis, which in this instance is feudalism, the economic system that preceded capitalism.] . . . But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It [final communism, the synthesis] is the negation of [the] negation."
    Negation of the negation. I suppose that means war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. Or something. Are you really going to defend this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    I don't dimiss ideas in topology because I have no idea understanding of them, and I certainly don't try to redefine the discipline to fit with my prejudices
    The difference is that topology has been used with some success to explain real world observations, and it makes falsifiable predictions. So, even if I don't have the time or brains to delve into it, I can recognize it as something worth learning about. I have been asking for someone to show me the real communists, and what they have accomplished. So far, nothing.

    It's true that I haven't read Marx or Hegel, but neither have I read Science Forum member UROD's UPN, which is his theory of everything based on vortexes in a superfluid. I could tell by reading just a little bit that it contained no math, made no predictions, and could not be falsified.

    Here's what I found out about dialectical materialism, from the Wikipedia page.
    The main thrust of dialectical materialism lies in the concept of the evolution of the natural world and the emergence of new qualities of being at new stages of evolution. As Z. A. Jordan notes, "Engels made constant use of the metaphysical insight that the higher level of existence emerges from and has its roots in the lower; that the higher level constitutes a new order of being with its irreducible laws; and that this process of evolutionary advance is governed by laws of development which reflect basic properties of 'matter in motion as a whole'
    Okay so Engels thought evolution was the emergence of higher levels from lower levels of existence. This is a view that one would expect from someone writing in the nineteenth century. Not something to be taken seriously today.

    Engels postulated three laws of dialectics from his reading of Hegel's Science of Logic.[24] Engels elucidated these laws in his work Dialectics of Nature:
    1.The law of the unity and conflict of opposites
    2.The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes
    3.The law of the negation of the negation
    WTF is this supposed to mean, and how is it supposed to be tested or falsified?

    Although Hegel coined the term "negation of the negation," it gained its fame from Marx's using it in Capital. There Marx wrote this: "The [death] knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators [capitalists] are expropriated. The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation [antithesis] of individual private property. [The "first negation," or antithesis, negates the thesis, which in this instance is feudalism, the economic system that preceded capitalism.] . . . But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It [final communism, the synthesis] is the negation of [the] negation."
    Negation of the negation. I suppose that means war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. Or something. Are you really going to defend this?
    You don't understand the point of negation because you don't understand the triadic relation in Hegelian philosophy, a thesis and antithesis (i.e opposities) form a synthesis (a new entity or idea in orthodox Hegelian philosophy) through negation, basically if you had actually read Hegel's science of logic you'd be able to understand it.

    The article here is an ok explanation.
    Marxist philosophy of nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Of course it can't be falsified, but it's still Marxism not communism...

    You're still attacking a strawman regardless.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    You don't understand the point of negation because you don't understand the triadic relation in Hegelian philosophy, a thesis and antithesis (i.e opposities) form a synthesis (a new entity or idea in orthodox Hegelian philosophy) through negation, basically if you had actually read Hegel's science of logic you'd be able to understand it.

    The article here is an ok explanation.
    Marxist philosophy of nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Of course it can't be falsified, but it's still Marxism not communism...

    You're still attacking a strawman regardless.
    All right, we have this:
    Law of negation[edit]

    This law was created to account for the tendency[disambiguation needed] in nature to constantly increase the numerical quantity of all things. Marx and Engels decided that each entity tends to negate itself in order to reproduce itself in higher quantity. Engels often cited the case of the barley seed which, in its natural state, germinates and out of its own death or negation produces a plant. The plant in turn grows to maturity and is itself negated after bearing many barley seeds. Thus, all nature is constantly expanding through dying. The elements of opposition which produce conflict in each thing and give it motion also tend to negate the thing itself; but out of this dynamic process of dying the energy is released to expand and produce many more entities of the same kind.³
    I guess Engels never thought about perennials that reproduce before they die. But you think I ought to study this, so I can use the proper pseudoscientific terms.

    Now, you say I'm attacking a straw man because Marxism isn't the same as communism. Where do I go to find out the works that define communism?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,229
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Are you in high school?
    To be fair, I don't think he really thinks that. I think that he probably has the background that many people of the 50's and 60's have - that communism is synonymous with all that is evil and bad. Thus he's not really attacking communism per se but rather the evil it represents to him and his generation.

    When such discussions arise, I am reminded of an essay George Orwell wrote in 1944 about the evil form of government of his day, fascism:

    =============
    Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: ‘What is Fascism?’

    One of the social survey organizations in America recently asked this question of a hundred different people, and got answers ranging from ‘pure democracy’ to ‘pure diabolism’. In this country if you ask the average thinking person to define Fascism, he usually answers by pointing to the German and Italian régimes. But this is very unsatisfactory, because even the major Fascist states differ from one another a good deal in structure and ideology . . .


    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
    Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come. . . .

    All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.
    ==================

    For a modern-day equivalent, imagine someone trying to have a conversation with someone who is convinced that religious extremism is a valid social model. Most people wouldn't even make it past the term "religious extremists" - because they equal evil, and who wants to defend evil?
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    You don't understand the point of negation because you don't understand the triadic relation in Hegelian philosophy, a thesis and antithesis (i.e opposities) form a synthesis (a new entity or idea in orthodox Hegelian philosophy) through negation, basically if you had actually read Hegel's science of logic you'd be able to understand it.

    The article here is an ok explanation.
    Marxist philosophy of nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Of course it can't be falsified, but it's still Marxism not communism...

    You're still attacking a strawman regardless.
    All right, we have this:
    Law of negation[edit]

    This law was created to account for the tendency[disambiguation needed] in nature to constantly increase the numerical quantity of all things. Marx and Engels decided that each entity tends to negate itself in order to reproduce itself in higher quantity. Engels often cited the case of the barley seed which, in its natural state, germinates and out of its own death or negation produces a plant. The plant in turn grows to maturity and is itself negated after bearing many barley seeds. Thus, all nature is constantly expanding through dying. The elements of opposition which produce conflict in each thing and give it motion also tend to negate the thing itself; but out of this dynamic process of dying the energy is released to expand and produce many more entities of the same kind.³
    I guess Engels never thought about perennials that reproduce before they die. But you think I ought to study this, so I can use the proper pseudoscientific terms.

    Now, you say I'm attacking a straw man because Marxism isn't the same as communism. Where do I go to find out the works that define communism?
    Did you try looking at any respectable dictionary published in this century?

    Communism and communism aren't the same thing, and I won't comment on dialectical materialism as it's off-topic anyways (and not to mention contemporary Marxism insofar as it exists completely rejects the deterministic teleological views associated with dialectical materialism).

    Webster:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    There are, as yet, no real communists. No Socialist state ever progressed to the point of practicing communism.

    You are free to be sloppy in your use of language if you wish. I'm done correcting you. You give the appearance of someone so anti-"communist" in your mind and heart that logic will not allow you to abandon the loose term and speak accurately. Be my guest: talk crap, this conversation is at end from my side.
    Seems like you are the one inventing definitions.
    Com·mu·nist (kŏm′yə-nĭst)
    n.
    1.
    a. A member of a Marxist-Leninist party.

    b. A supporter of such a party or movement.

    2. A Communard.
    Are you going to tell me there are no members or supports of a Marxist-Leninist party?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    There are, as yet, no real communists. No Socialist state ever progressed to the point of practicing communism.

    You are free to be sloppy in your use of language if you wish. I'm done correcting you. You give the appearance of someone so anti-"communist" in your mind and heart that logic will not allow you to abandon the loose term and speak accurately. Be my guest: talk crap, this conversation is at end from my side.
    Seems like you are the one inventing definitions.
    Com·mu·nist (kŏm′yə-nĭst)
    n.
    1.
    a. A member of a Marxist-Leninist party.

    b. A supporter of such a party or movement.

    2. A Communard.
    Are you going to tell me there are no members or supports of a Marxist-Leninist party?
    That definition is completely wrong, are you using a dictionary published by the US during the cold war by any chance???
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's a poor definition, Webster, Oxford, Cambridge any dictionary i've checked (I linked one above here: Communism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary) makes the distinction between Communism and communism, the former is a distortion and is used to refer to any Marxist parties who may be aspiring communists whereas the latter is a system based on economic equality.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    The definition you are using describes a system that does not exist, as you have already admitted. So why would your definition be preferred over the one I'm using? Anyway, the OP of this thread was clearly about Marxism-Leninism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The definition you are using describes a system that does not exist, as you have already admitted. So why would your definition be preferred over the one I'm using? Anyway, the OP of this thread was clearly about Marxism-Leninism.
    Precisely, it describes a system that does not exist, communism doesn't and has never existed, communism is the final stage of Marxism and is a system of economic equality, Communism is the name given to political parties who adopted and modified Marxism (Marxist-Leninism). As for the definition being more preferable it's because that's what communism actually is and has been ever since Marx...

    look at the etymology: Online Etymology Dictionary
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Great. So, we're on the third page of a thread about unicorns. That's what I've been trying to tell you guys.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #260  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Great. So, we're on the third page of a thread about unicorns. That's what I've been trying to tell you guys.
    naive... I don't know why I bother trying to convince people, if you actually want to learn about what you're discussing read about it.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe
    They were not people with much.
    The idea behind communism would be that they had exactly as much as everyone else. there is no class system. there would be no poverty because their would be no wealthy.
    The standard of living isn't really a standard, it just is. No above or below a wealth line. So, the fact that your family had more that some and less than others means no communism.
    It would've all been totally equal.
    now, if anybody wants to argue that Fair and Equal are not the same things. I'd be hard pressed to offer a rebuttal.
    I understand what you are saying, but Tito was a member of the Communist Party and ruled the former Yugoslovia. Josip Broz Tito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I believe you are saying that he ran it as a socialist country? Please correct me if I am mistaken. Mahalo.
    From what I read of the wiki I could see that it looks like it might be a brand of socialism but in all honesty I'm a bit embarrassed to admit I don't know enough about the government of Yugoslavia during his stay.

    I can tell you it comes down to this though, if the supreme law of the land and seat of all power rested in his hands and he was trumped by no one, it was not a socialist government. When one person controls all of that power and authority is delegated to one person that is dictatorship/fascism. That Wiki page makes him out to be a saint. but behavior aside, you have good dictators and bad dictators. He may have been a member of the "communist" party but he never got the country there and he certainly couldn't do it by himself. So he may have professed to have been a "communist" but how many Christians do we know that don't live a Christ-like life or even strive for it but still call themselves Christians?

    If he was the figurehead (kinda like a mayor) of a group of people that shared power (note, a mayors vote is not worth more or less than any other member of the city council.) and that group represents the state that is socialism (think city council meeting but on a much wider scale). In socialism the populace doesn't generally vote though, the state (city council) assumes all knowledge and caring about what is good for the state. That's why socialism on it's face is so easily corruptible because there is no check on the power of the representatives it's just supposed to be fair.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You think the Soviets couldn't be true communists because Marx (or whoever you favorite communist philosopher is) didn't say to do all those things the Soviets did.
    Please drop the offensive implications that I am some kind of closet communist. It is dishonest, unpleasant, cynical, irrelevant to the discussion and untrue.

    The Soviets were not true communists, because they had not yet developed to that stage. My grandson, I trust, will one day be a man, before that he will be a teenager, and much earlier than that, a toddler. I will not, in a technical discussion, refer to him as a man until he is a man.
    Fantastic!
    Thumbs up!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #263  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Are you in high school?
    To be fair, I don't think he really thinks that. I think that he probably has the background that many people of the 50's and 60's have - that communism is synonymous with all that is evil and bad. Thus he's not really attacking communism per se but rather the evil it represents to him and his generation.... For a modern-day equivalent, imagine someone trying to have a conversation with someone who is convinced that religious extremism is a valid social model. Most people wouldn't even make it past the term "religious extremists" - because they equal evil, and who wants to defend evil?
    I bet you're exactly right.


    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    When such discussions arise, I am reminded of an essay George Orwell wrote in 1944 about the evil form of government of his day, fascism:
    Orwell always has excellent insight on the corrupt or the corrupted. His essay Shooting an elephant is among my favorite works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #264  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Great. So, we're on the third page of a thread about unicorns. That's what I've been trying to tell you guys.
    No you haven't you've been trying to tell us that the USSR = Communism and it does not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #265  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe
    They were not people with much.
    The idea behind communism would be that they had exactly as much as everyone else. there is no class system. there would be no poverty because their would be no wealthy.
    That's a nonsequitur. There can certainly be poverty without any wealthy, unless you think starving people are not poor as long as everybody else is starving too.
    This makes it quite clear to me that you have no idea what a non sequitur is.

    If everybody is "starving," as in literally everybody (not everybody as in figurative language to mean a bunch of people) then there is no poor. that is just life as it exists. for there to be be "Poor" a class line must exist to distinguish between poor and rich and if everybody has the exact same amount of wealth there is no class line.





    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    The standard of living isn't really a standard, it just is. No above or below a wealth line. So, the fact that your family had more that some and less than others means no communism.
    It would've all been totally equal.
    now, if anybody wants to argue that Fair and Equal are not the same things. I'd be hard pressed to offer a rebuttal.
    I will argue that fair and equal are not the same thing. Fair is when everybody has an equal opportunity. It does not guarantee equal outcomes. If everybody has the same things, but some are working harder, then that is definitely not fair.
    Finally we can agree on something.. little steps, little steps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #266  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Marx never sets a time period,
    You sound like a Christian fundamentalist who says God never set a date for the return of the Messiah, so it didn't happen this year but nobody can prove it isn't going to happen next year. So we're going to keep on believing.
    Is this veiled understanding? that you understand Communism has never happened... yet? (or will ever)
    It is what it is, and it doesn't mean it's never going to happen just because it's not happening fast enough for you. You're right, it may never happen, but as others have pointed out, you don't get to recreate definitions and assign angles that don't exist to the model of communism.

    Back to your Christian example.
    Every day that Jesus doesn't come back is a point for you, but the moment he does you just lost the game. you can't just pick a date and say today is the day. It has to fit the prescribed requisites.

    Communism has never existed that does not mean that anything short of the definition of communism = communism. Which is, in short, what you're trying to argue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    At what point do you look for actual evidence?
    You always look for actual evidence, which is why it's been been so tiring with you in this thread. we keep telling you no actual government has practiced communism and then you show up with some example to say, "HA HA yes it does."
    we show you that what you have produced does not fit the model of what communism is
    and you retort with "well, if communism doesn't exist, what does it matter what I say it is?"
    to which we reply there are clearly defined terms for Communism to
    and you reply "well, if it isn't real how can there be clearly defined terms? So, I can assign any definition I want."
    to which we reply, "just because there has been no example of it doesn't mean the model of idea of it doesn't exist."
    and you come back with "no true scotsman" (which is a non sequitur response by you btw) because we won't let you high jack the meaning/definition of communism...


    It's been one gigantic circle...

    I've been reading about "dialectical materialism", the supposed philosophical foundation of communism. Now there's some real crackpot material. Pure word salad.
    Right! because you can't understand it, it's the idea that's stupid! (Me thinks someone projects!)
    based on this reasoning I get to call everyone over on the cosmology forum stupid because they talk 30 light years above my head.
    Instead of arguing with them, I try to understand what they mean instead of staying fixed in my original understanding (which is apparently disgustingly wrong.)

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    That does not excuse improper use of terminology.
    I'm not going to discuss a nonexistent concept
    The Concept is NOT nonexistent. the PRACTICE is non existent. there is a difference between concept and practice. How do you not know this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #267  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,227
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe
    They were not people with much.
    The idea behind communism would be that they had exactly as much as everyone else. there is no class system. there would be no poverty because their would be no wealthy.
    The standard of living isn't really a standard, it just is. No above or below a wealth line. So, the fact that your family had more that some and less than others means no communism.
    It would've all been totally equal.
    now, if anybody wants to argue that Fair and Equal are not the same things. I'd be hard pressed to offer a rebuttal.
    I understand what you are saying, but Tito was a member of the Communist Party and ruled the former Yugoslovia. Josip Broz Tito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I believe you are saying that he ran it as a socialist country? Please correct me if I am mistaken. Mahalo.
    From what I read of the wiki I could see that it looks like it might be a brand of socialism but in all honesty I'm a bit embarrassed to admit I don't know enough about the government of Yugoslavia during his stay.

    I can tell you it comes down to this though, if the supreme law of the land and seat of all power rested in his hands and he was trumped by no one, it was not a socialist government. When one person controls all of that power and authority is delegated to one person that is dictatorship/fascism. That Wiki page makes him out to be a saint. but behavior aside, you have good dictators and bad dictators. He may have been a member of the "communist" party but he never got the country there and he certainly couldn't do it by himself. So he may have professed to have been a "communist" but how many Christians do we know that don't live a Christ-like life or even strive for it but still call themselves Christians?

    If he was the figurehead (kinda like a mayor) of a group of people that shared power (note, a mayors vote is not worth more or less than any other member of the city council.) and that group represents the state that is socialism (think city council meeting but on a much wider scale). In socialism the populace doesn't generally vote though, the state (city council) assumes all knowledge and caring about what is good for the state. That's why socialism on it's face is so easily corruptible because there is no check on the power of the representatives it's just supposed to be fair.
    He ran it with an iron fist.

    Since Mom lived under his rule till she escaped through the underground, she gave a "citizen's" view of his rule. It mellowed as she got older and as we always kept in contact with Grandmother, and Uncles and Aunties on both sides. Since there was a large group of "Yugoslovian" refugees, in San Francisco, we would congregate at Slovenian Hall every month and learned the music, dance and food.

    So, as time went on,, my understanding is that he became more benevolent, and caring of the people of Yugoslavia. The country, after his death, did what was expected. Slovenia, where my family (mother and father though father born in the USA) became it's own country, as did Croatia, Dalmatia, Montenegro, etc.

    Thank you for your insightful and hones reply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #268  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Great. So, we're on the third page of a thread about unicorns. That's what I've been trying to tell you guys.
    No you haven't you've been trying to tell us that the USSR = Communism and it does not.
    Whoops. You misspelled it with a capital C. No, the USSR did have a Communist (party} government. They just never achieved little "c" communism (the unicorn kind that doesn't exist). Got it?

    This makes it quite clear to me that you have no idea what a non sequitur is.

    If everybody is "starving," as in literally everybody (not everybody as in figurative language to mean a bunch of people) then there is no poor. that is just life as it exists. for there to be be "Poor" a class line must exist to distinguish between poor and rich and if everybody has the exact same amount of wealth there is no class line.
    And that's what really matters, right? We can't have anybody owning more than somebody else. You'd rather see everybody starve.

    Finally we can agree on something.. little steps, little steps.
    No, we didn't agree. You think fairness is when everybody has an equal income so there are no rich or poor.

    Is this veiled understanding? that you understand Communism has never happened... yet? (or will ever)
    It is what it is, and it doesn't mean it's never going to happen just because it's not happening fast enough for you. You're right, it may never happen, but as others have pointed out, you don't get to recreate definitions and assign angles that don't exist to the model of communism.
    It looks like you don't get it yet, because you misspelled little-"c" communism again.

    Back to your Christian example.
    Every day that Jesus doesn't come back is a point for you, but the moment he does you just lost the game. you can't just pick a date and say today is the day. It has to fit the prescribed requisites.
    Yes, but in order to believe in it requires faith. Just like believing in communism. See, I spelled it with a little c. I got my mind right, boss.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #269  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Great. So, we're on the third page of a thread about unicorns. That's what I've been trying to tell you guys.
    No you haven't you've been trying to tell us that the USSR = Communism and it does not.
    Whoops. You misspelled it with a capital C. No, the USSR did have a Communist (party} government. They just never achieved little "c" communism (the unicorn kind that doesn't exist). Got it?

    This makes it quite clear to me that you have no idea what a non sequitur is.

    If everybody is "starving," as in literally everybody (not everybody as in figurative language to mean a bunch of people) then there is no poor. that is just life as it exists. for there to be be "Poor" a class line must exist to distinguish between poor and rich and if everybody has the exact same amount of wealth there is no class line.
    And that's what really matters, right? We can't have anybody owning more than somebody else. You'd rather see everybody starve.

    Finally we can agree on something.. little steps, little steps.
    No, we didn't agree. You think fairness is when everybody has an equal income so there are no rich or poor.

    Is this veiled understanding? that you understand Communism has never happened... yet? (or will ever)
    It is what it is, and it doesn't mean it's never going to happen just because it's not happening fast enough for you. You're right, it may never happen, but as others have pointed out, you don't get to recreate definitions and assign angles that don't exist to the model of communism.
    It looks like you don't get it yet, because you misspelled little-"c" communism again.

    Back to your Christian example.
    Every day that Jesus doesn't come back is a point for you, but the moment he does you just lost the game. you can't just pick a date and say today is the day. It has to fit the prescribed requisites.
    Yes, but in order to believe in it requires faith. Just like believing in communism. See, I spelled it with a little c. I got my mind right, boss.
    Do you have difficulties understanding that when words are capitalised they can refer to something else? Have you even had a look at the basis of Marxism? Primitive communism has already existed, why is it so difficult for you to concieve of a world without private property?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #270  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Do you have difficulties understanding that when words are capitalised they can refer to something else?
    No difficulty, but when you have so many people committed to an ideology and devoting their lives to it, and then they achieve a certain result, I don't think it should be totally dismissed. It's data.
    Have you even had a look at the basis of Marxism?
    Probably not as much as you, but that might only mean you are not as good at recognizing pseudoscience when you see it.
    Primitive communism has already existed, why is it so difficult for you to concieve of a world without private property?
    Hunting-gathering bands typically consist of only a few dozen people, with strong kinship ties. If you think it can work with larger groups, which has not occurred in about 12,000 years of civilization, I believe that would qualify as an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #271  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe
    They were not people with much.
    The idea behind communism would be that they had exactly as much as everyone else. there is no class system. there would be no poverty because their would be no wealthy.
    The standard of living isn't really a standard, it just is. No above or below a wealth line. So, the fact that your family had more that some and less than others means no communism.
    It would've all been totally equal.
    now, if anybody wants to argue that Fair and Equal are not the same things. I'd be hard pressed to offer a rebuttal.
    I understand what you are saying, but Tito was a member of the Communist Party and ruled the former Yugoslovia. Josip Broz Tito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I believe you are saying that he ran it as a socialist country? Please correct me if I am mistaken. Mahalo.
    From what I read of the wiki I could see that it looks like it might be a brand of socialism but in all honesty I'm a bit embarrassed to admit I don't know enough about the government of Yugoslavia during his stay.

    I can tell you it comes down to this though, if the supreme law of the land and seat of all power rested in his hands and he was trumped by no one, it was not a socialist government. When one person controls all of that power and authority is delegated to one person that is dictatorship/fascism. That Wiki page makes him out to be a saint. but behavior aside, you have good dictators and bad dictators. He may have been a member of the "communist" party but he never got the country there and he certainly couldn't do it by himself. So he may have professed to have been a "communist" but how many Christians do we know that don't live a Christ-like life or even strive for it but still call themselves Christians?

    If he was the figurehead (kinda like a mayor) of a group of people that shared power (note, a mayors vote is not worth more or less than any other member of the city council.) and that group represents the state that is socialism (think city council meeting but on a much wider scale). In socialism the populace doesn't generally vote though, the state (city council) assumes all knowledge and caring about what is good for the state. That's why socialism on it's face is so easily corruptible because there is no check on the power of the representatives it's just supposed to be fair.
    He ran it with an iron fist.

    Since Mom lived under his rule till she escaped through the underground, she gave a "citizen's" view of his rule.
    Based on what you write he acted as a dictator (parent figure to everyone responsible to no one) solo dictators are right wing government not left (unless you have the tyranny of the majority, which is the left's version of a dictatorship/tyranny both are bad but I would argue that the Right's version is worse because it's run on the whim of one person, where as, on the left side you have to work a little bit to get the majority to agree with you.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #272  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    This makes it quite clear to me that you have no idea what a non sequitur is.

    If everybody is "starving," as in literally everybody (not everybody as in figurative language to mean a bunch of people) then there is no poor. that is just life as it exists. for there to be be "Poor" a class line must exist to distinguish between poor and rich and if everybody has the exact same amount of wealth there is no class line.
    And that's what really matters, right? We can't have anybody owning more than somebody else. You'd rather see everybody starve.
    See? this is a perfect example of a non sequitur. I'm talking about the definition of a classless society and you go off on a completely different tangent and talk about how I want everybody to be poor. (I understand, O'Rielly has been doing this to you on the factor for years and passing it off as a logical argument. It's not completely your fault... but now you know, so it is your fault if you keep falling for it or keep trying to use it in order "win" your points)

    in a classless society and NOBODY is starving, guess what? it's a still not poor or rich. It is without class distinctions. but now since I've written that "nobody is starving" does this mean that I want everybody to succeed, in your eyes? Humorous to me that you were the one that brought up poverty in a classless society and yet I'm the one that wants everyone to be poor...


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Finally we can agree on something.. little steps, little steps.
    No, we didn't agree. You think fairness is when everybody has an equal income so there are no rich or poor.
    Oh, good grief! go back and read what was actually written not what you want to be written... you know what, never mind. I'll just break it down for you since we're spoon feeding everything else to you.

    I wrote:

    if anybody wants to argue that Fair and Equal are not the same things. I'd be hard pressed to offer a rebuttal.
    This is a colloquialism that means I could not argue that they are the same things. meaning, for me, THEY ARE NOT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Is this veiled understanding? that you understand Communism has never happened... yet? (or will ever)
    It is what it is, and it doesn't mean it's never going to happen just because it's not happening fast enough for you. You're right, it may never happen, but as others have pointed out, you don't get to recreate definitions and assign angles that don't exist to the model of communism.
    It looks like you don't get it yet, because you misspelled little-"c" communism again.
    You want to get me for lazy grammar, ok. a point for you. you know what's being talked about

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Back to your Christian example.
    Every day that Jesus doesn't come back is a point for you, but the moment he does you just lost the game. you can't just pick a date and say today is the day. It has to fit the prescribed requisites.
    Yes, but in order to believe in it requires faith. Just like believing in communism. See, I spelled it with a little c. I got my mind right, boss.
    There are lots of things in life that require faith. I wouldn't put the return of a magical sky wizard and the belief in social evolution among the same levels of faith needed. Although, you're certainly making a solid case against the growth of society. Kudos to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #273  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Do you have difficulties understanding that when words are capitalised they can refer to something else?
    No difficulty, but when you have so many people committed to an ideology and devoting their lives to it, and then they achieve a certain result, I don't think it should be totally dismissed. It's data.
    you don't know their motives. you don't know that any of those governments were even honest attempts at such a government. It could've all been sold crap by some idealistic capitalists at even more of a wealth grab. We all know about the greed of capitalists even to detriment of the society in which they reside.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Have you even had a look at the basis of Marxism?
    Probably not as much as you, but that might only mean you are not as good at recognizing pseudoscience when you see it.
    yes, cause anybody that familiarizes themselves with theory will never ever be able to recognize pseudoscience. You do realize that under this blanket statement that much of Psychology and Sociology are now Pseudoscience?


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Primitive communism has already existed, why is it so difficult for you to concieve of a world without private property?
    Hunting-gathering bands typically consist of only a few dozen people, with strong kinship ties. If you think it can work with larger groups, which has not occurred in about 12,000 years of civilization, I believe that would qualify as an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
    The idea is that it may be able to exist sometime in the future on a larger scale when people stop falling for scare tactics and succumbing to greed. It was able to happen at the hunter gatherer stage so that's a start.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #274  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    in a classless society and NOBODY is starving, guess what? it's a still not poor or rich. It is without class distinctions. but now since I've written that "nobody is starving" does this mean that I want everybody to succeed, in your eyes? Humorous to me that you were the one that brought up poverty in a classless society and yet I'm the one that wants everyone to be poor...
    Poverty is what happens in a "classless" society, but I guess I am only supposed to talk about your mythical classless society, not the real attempts to establish them. I'm sure you don't want everybody to be poor, it's just what will result from the policies you want. And you are so concerned about class envy and hating "capitalists" that you cannot see the opportunity and abundance all around you.
    you don't know their motives. you don't know that any of those governments were even honest attempts at such a government. It could've all been sold crap by some idealistic capitalists at even more of a wealth grab. We all know about the greed of capitalists even to detriment of the society in which they reside.
    But you do know? Read the life story of some people who lived in the Soviet Union and believed all the propaganda. You blaming it all on capitalists just shows you are a dyed in the wool ideologue. Anything that goes wrong is the fault of the capitalists, even if they are Communists. So you are absolutely immune to any evidence.

    yes, cause anybody that familiarizes themselves with theory will never ever be able to recognize pseudoscience. You do realize that under this blanket statement that much of Psychology and Sociology are now Pseudoscience?
    Straw man argument. I didn't say all theory is pseudoscience, just the theory behind Communism. I've read enough to see that, so I'm not going to plow through the rest of Marx and Engels nonsense. There's no reason to do that.
    The idea is that it may be able to exist sometime in the future on a larger scale when people stop falling for scare tactics and succumbing to greed. It was able to happen at the hunter gatherer stage so that's a start.
    Yeah, how are you going to make people stop succumbing to greed? You call the hunter gatherer stage a "start" but those people have all but disappeared. So, you're back to square one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #275  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Poverty is what happens in a "classless" society,
    What happened to you and facts? You can't support this because there has been no classless societies to date... Mule=/= Unicorn, Still! no matter how much you want it to be, it does not and will not. not now. not ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    but I guess I am only supposed to talk about your mythical classless society, not the real attempts to establish them.
    Attempt (honest or not)=/= completion. Should I just cut and paste this over and over again? will that help to drive it home?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I'm sure you don't want everybody to be poor, it's just what will result from the policies you want.
    Perhaps if it's run like a capitalist society, you are quite right. but then again that does not make it communism



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    And you are so concerned about class envy and hating "capitalists" that you cannot see the opportunity and abundance all around you.
    What? Who said I hate capitalists? I am just pointing out that it's far from a perfect system. that doesn't equal hate...

    As far as "opportunity all around you" Tell that load of crap to the tourists. If that were indeed true you would be a warren buffet because you are obviously one of the true believers that see opportunity everywhere. Like it or not, success in capitalism, especially now in america, is mostly a matter of luck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    you don't know their motives. you don't know that any of those governments were even honest attempts at such a government. It could've all been sold crap by some idealistic capitalists at even more of a wealth grab. We all know about the greed of capitalists even to detriment of the society in which they reside.
    But you do know? Read the life story of some people who lived in the Soviet Union and believed all the propaganda.
    Another non sequitur. What do the life stories of people in Russia, who believed the propaganda have to do with the motives of their rulers?

    I would suggest that these people have a fantastic book about the dangers of BAIT AND SWITCH.

    So, some capitalist sells you apples and tells you it's a car (buyer beware) and you believe it and buy those apples, does that mean that that seller actually sold you a car? I refuse to believe that you are this thick. But according to you, it absolutely does, 'cause not only did you buy it but you wrote a book about it, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You blaming it all on capitalists just shows you are a dyed in the wool ideologue.
    Hardly, but if that makes you feel better to label me so, knock yourself out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Anything that goes wrong is the fault of the capitalists, even if they are Communists.
    communism is devoid of greed. capitalism thrives on it, even nurtures it like a virtue. what else would you call someone greedy if not a capitalist?


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    yes, cause anybody that familiarizes themselves with theory will never ever be able to recognize pseudoscience. You do realize that under this blanket statement that much of Psychology and Sociology are now Pseudoscience?
    Straw man argument. I didn't say all theory is pseudoscience, just the theory behind Communism. I've read enough to see that, so I'm not going to plow through the rest of Marx and Engels nonsense. There's no reason to do that.
    Genius, "I've read enough to know it's all crap..." Wish I'd have thought to pull this out of my a$$ when my algebra teacher was trying to teach me how to factor.
    Who knew that half the theory was actually all of the theory and it doesn't work?

    Under that logic I guess sarah Palin was a full term governor cause 1/2 = full...

    Don't let your boss find out about this cause you know he will want to pay you half since it now= full.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    The idea is that it may be able to exist sometime in the future on a larger scale when people stop falling for scare tactics and succumbing to greed. It was able to happen at the hunter gatherer stage so that's a start.
    Yeah, how are you going to make people stop succumbing to greed?
    regulate capitalism so there is no reason for greed? you have to do something about the fear that drives it first, I suppose.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You call the hunter gatherer stage a "start" but those people have all but disappeared. So, you're back to square one.
    cause the capitalists murdered them, (I joke I joke, but just barely). Yes hunter and gathers are all gone but isn't it strange how when it was a necessity it worked fine? What changed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #276  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,227
    Based on what you write he acted as a dictator (parent figure to everyone responsible to no one) solo dictators are right wing government not left (unless you have the tyranny of the majority, which is the left's version of a dictatorship/tyranny both are bad but I would argue that the Right's version is worse because it's run on the whim of one person, where as, on the left side you have to work a little bit to get the majority to agree with you.
    I think dictator, would be fair assumption.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #277  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Attempt (honest or not)=/= completion. Should I just cut and paste this over and over again? will that help to drive it home?
    I don't know what I need to do to make you see that your classless society is not a reality. It's never going to be.

    Perhaps if it's run like a capitalist society, you are quite right. but then again that does not make it communism
    So what. There isn't any communism. Get your head out of the clouds.


    communism is devoid of greed. capitalism thrives on it, even nurtures it like a virtue. what else would you call someone greedy if not a capitalist?
    With this ridiculous statement you have just proven what an ideologue you really are. Greed is not a matter of the economic system you are in. It is a matter of human nature. When you say communism is devoid of greed, that's like saying unicorns have cloven hooves. It's just a ridiculous statement. All you are doing is defining a word, communism, as being a condition of no greed. This does not mean there is any such a thing as communism where greed does not exist. Reality, man. Get back to reality.
    Genius, "I've read enough to know it's all crap..." Wish I'd have thought to pull this out of my a$$ when my algebra teacher was trying to teach me how to factor.
    Who knew that half the theory was actually all of the theory and it doesn't work?

    Under that logic I guess sarah Palin was a full term governor cause 1/2 = full...

    Don't let your boss find out about this cause you know he will want to pay you half since it now= full.
    By your logic everybody needs to read science forum member Urod's UPN theory that says all physics can be explained by vortexes in an all pervasive aether-like superfluid. And if you don't read it all the way through, then you can't criticize it. You're not allowed to drop it when you run across unsupported statements or meaningless gobbledegook.

    regulate capitalism so there is no reason for greed? you have to do something about the fear that drives it first, I suppose.
    Don't you think that's been tried? Do you think more regulation will lead to small-c communism? What leads you to this belief?

    cause the capitalists murdered them, (I joke I joke, but just barely). Yes hunter and gathers are all gone but isn't it strange how when it was a necessity it worked fine? What changed?
    No, it isn't strange at all, if you understand behavior. People still have families and close circles of friends that they treat differently than they do people outside that circle. It's a matter of human nature. You are hoping human nature will change, but it won't just from hoping, or by passing laws.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #278  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    I don't know what I need to do to make you see that your classless society is not a reality.
    Nothing. I know classless society is not a reality. Nobody is arguing that it exists as of today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    It's never going to be.
    Perhaps you could look into that crystal ball of yours and tell me the next lottery drawing's winning #s?
    As long as our current regime stays in place you are probably more right than wrong, but its staying power has more to do with the campaigns of misunderstanding waged by people like yourself and campaigns of fear and ignorance waged by advertisers. Maybe one day people can move beyond material things showing status, but with our current climate... probably not any time soon if ever.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
    Perhaps if it's run like a capitalist society, you are quite right. but then again that does not make it communism
    So what. There isn't any communism. Get your head out of the clouds.
    What do you mean "so What"? that's the entire crux of the argument. there isn't any communism as long as capitalism is around. If communism is to ever have a legit chance capitalism has got to go.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
    communism is devoid of greed. capitalism thrives on it, even nurtures it like a virtue. what else would you call someone greedy if not a capitalist?
    With this ridiculous statement you have just proven what an ideologue you really are.
    No I have not. Sometimes the truth is what it is. Just because I can call it as it exists does not make me an ideologue. you really think capitalism isn't based on greed? That makes you naive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    Greed is not a matter of the economic system you are in. It is a matter of human nature.
    prove it. how do you know it's human nature and not a natural response to the system that we live in?


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    When you say communism is devoid of greed, that's like saying unicorns have cloven hooves. It's just a ridiculous statement. All you are doing is defining a word, communism, as being a condition of no greed. This does not mean there is any such a thing as communism where greed does not exist. Reality, man. Get back to reality.
    By these statements you have proven once again you have no idea what theory of communism is. Under communism the needs of the citizen are taken care of so there is no reason for greed. As been said multiple times over and over again. YES, communism does not exist. IT IS A THEORY! The theory that one day people like yourself will realize the suffering of others is not needed in order for you to thrive. maybe the culture will move past it, maybe not... but the THEORY exists and it is what it is.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
    Genius, "I've read enough to know it's all crap..." Wish I'd have thought to pull this out of my a$$ when my algebra teacher was trying to teach me how to factor.
    Who knew that half the theory was actually all of the theory and it doesn't work?

    Under that logic I guess sarah Palin was a full term governor cause 1/2 = full...

    Don't let your boss find out about this cause you know he will want to pay you half since it now= full.
    By your logic everybody needs to read science forum member Urod's UPN theory that says all physics can be explained by vortexes in an all pervasive aether-like superfluid. And if you don't read it all the way through, then you can't criticize it. You're not allowed to drop it when you run across unsupported statements or meaningless gobbledegook.
    Doesn't really compare since physics is a hard science with set rules (for the most part) and Sociology is a soft science all rooted (for the most part) in theory.
    comparing buildings and people. not the same.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
    regulate capitalism so there is no reason for greed? you have to do something about the fear that drives it first, I suppose.
    Don't you think that's been tried?
    I would say no. because communism isn't something that any one person implements. it's something that is moved into by the people. For example, W and his little plan to bring democracy to the middle east was foolish because democracy is something that has to be demanded by the people. He essentially went over there and made people "vote" at the barrel of a gun. That is not democracy. What he did was a different form of dictatorship. Democracy will never take off until the populace supports it. Until it's something the people want... On the other side you have the soviets that had enough with tyranny and grabbed democracy and embraced it with both hands. That was something THEY wanted, that was something THEY implemented. It's funny to me that conservatives try to give credit to Reagan for that. Reagan had nothing to do with it. It was the will of the people that drove that change. Not some Hollywood has-been B grade actor giving the overacted performance of his life "...tear down this wall!"

    communism looks a lot like this. It will be implemented when the people want it. Will the people ever want it? who is to say? Forever is a long time for you to say "never."

    We do know that whenever the people have had enough of one regime they rise up. The idea is, is that this is one step closer to communism and one day the people will rise up and say enough of the greed and exploitation of capitalism. You say it can't happen, but are you of the age that also said Democracy in Russia would never happen?


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    Do you think more regulation will lead to small-c communism? What leads you to this belief?
    Not sure. perhaps that's the first step to showing people that you can live a more than lavish life style with out having to put others out... What John McCain needs with 6 houses when other people are being evicted is beyond me. But he can still be a better person than everyone else is without being untouchable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
    cause the capitalists murdered them, (I joke I joke, but just barely). Yes hunter and gathers are all gone but isn't it strange how when it was a necessity it worked fine? What changed?
    No, it isn't strange at all, if you understand behavior.
    You mean that behavior that is selfish and greedy that everyone has? this seems opposed to your past statements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    People still have families and close circles of friends that they treat differently than they do people outside that circle. It's a matter of human nature.
    Why can't the country be a big family?Why does it have to be limited to inner circles?


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You are hoping human nature will change, but it won't just from hoping, or by passing laws.
    Maybe not immediately but it would be bound to change... What other reason is there to pass laws if not to curb behavior?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #279  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    By these statements you have proven once again you have no idea what theory of communism is. Under communism the needs of the citizen are taken care of so there is no reason for greed. As been said multiple times over and over again. YES, communism does not exist. IT IS A THEORY! The theory that one day people like yourself will realize the suffering of others is not needed in order for you to thrive. maybe the culture will move past it, maybe not... but the THEORY exists and it is what it is.
    It's not really a theory, in the scientific sense. It's a theory in the pseudoscientific sense. You keep discussing it as if it is a real thing, and that's what makes you an ideologue.


    Doesn't really compare since physics is a hard science with set rules (for the most part) and Sociology is a soft science all rooted (for the most part) in theory.
    comparing buildings and people. not the same.
    Nope. You can't just spew any old crap and call it sociology. It has to follow the rules of science. Do you know about science?
    Why can't the country be a big family?Why does it have to be limited to inner circles?
    Because humans just aren't like that, never have been like that. Even hunting gathering bands often made war on their neighbors. If you want to change them into something else, you need more than a crackpot "theory."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #280  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    By these statements you have proven once again you have no idea what theory of communism is. Under communism the needs of the citizen are taken care of so there is no reason for greed. As been said multiple times over and over again. YES, communism does not exist. IT IS A THEORY! The theory that one day people like yourself will realize the suffering of others is not needed in order for you to thrive. maybe the culture will move past it, maybe not... but the THEORY exists and it is what it is.
    It's not really a theory, in the scientific sense. It's a theory in the pseudoscientific sense. You keep discussing it as if it is a real thing, and that's what makes you an ideologue.
    It is a theory. if you want to call it pseudo science that's fine. There are many who consider psychology and sociology to be pseudosciences. (I think most notably is Tom Cruise) But that's beside the point. The "theory" (quotes for you) is a real thing. It does not make me or anyone else that understands it an "ideologue." It just means that we are aware. Do I think communism can exist now? absolutely not. We're not advanced enough as people. I would be very weary and down right scared if it were to be attempted at this point in our culture. So, stop trying to make it out that anybody that understands the theory is anti capitalist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Doesn't really compare since physics is a hard science with set rules (for the most part) and Sociology is a soft science all rooted (for the most part) in theory.
    comparing buildings and people. not the same.
    Nope. You can't just spew any old crap and call it sociology.
    Nobody is doing that.
    I have my B.A. in Sociology and I can tell you this theory is firmly planted in Sociology, just like democracy, conservatives, liberals, propaganda and anything else that has to do with the attitudes of people and how they react as a group. doesn't mean you have to like it. They have entire course sections on it. Not to preach it as I'm sure your brain has started tell you that's what I mean, but just to understand it. You don't study ways to make it happen in those classes you just study the ideas behind and discuss things like the dialectic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    It has to follow the rules of science. Do you know about science?
    apparently only pseudoscience

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Why can't the country be a big family?Why does it have to be limited to inner circles?
    Because humans just aren't like that, never have been like that. Even hunting gathering bands often made war on their neighbors. If you want to change them into something else, you need more than a crackpot "theory."
    My question was hypothetical. So what hunters and gatherers made war on their neighbors. doesn't the country have neighbors?

    I'm really surprised you're so resistant to understanding. You're obviously right wing and you all love to chant USA, nothing says country love more than patriotism, which is something that communism has in it's favor. although how patriotic can you really be when you're busy trying to screw over your fellow citizen?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #281  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    It is a theory. if you want to call it pseudo science that's fine.
    It may be a theory in the loose sense of the word, but it's not a scientific theory.
    Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').
    There is no way that Marxism meets these criteria.
    There are many who consider psychology and sociology to be pseudosciences. (I think most notably is Tom Cruise) But that's beside the point. The "theory" (quotes for you) is a real thing. It does not make me or anyone else that understands it an "ideologue." It just means that we are aware. Do I think communism can exist now? absolutely not. We're not advanced enough as people. I would be very weary and down right scared if it were to be attempted at this point in our culture. So, stop trying to make it out that anybody that understands the theory is anti capitalist.
    Anybody that understands it and thinks it is a scientific theory may not be an anti capitalist, but they don't understand what science or theory mean.

    Nobody is doing that.
    I have my B.A. in Sociology and I can tell you this theory is firmly planted in Sociology, just like democracy, conservatives, liberals, propaganda and anything else that has to do with the attitudes of people and how they react as a group. doesn't mean you have to like it. They have entire course sections on it. Not to preach it as I'm sure your brain has started tell you that's what I mean, but just to understand it. You don't study ways to make it happen in those classes you just study the ideas behind and discuss things like the dialectic.
    What school did you go to? You should ask for your money back. You were not studying sociology.

    My question was hypothetical. So what hunters and gatherers made war on their neighbors. doesn't the country have neighbors?
    You've heard of Otzi the iceman, who was found frozen in the Alps? He was a homicide victim. There were plenty more examples. According to this book, 15% of prehistoric deaths were murder.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/bo...anted=all&_r=0
    Some studies are based on skeletons found at archaeological sites; averaging their results suggests that 15 percent of prehistoric humans met a violent death at the hands of another person. Research into contemporary or recent hunter-gatherer societies yields a remarkably similarly average, while another cluster of studies of pre-state societies that include some horticulture has an even higher rate of violent death. In contrast, among state societies, the most violent appears to have been Aztec Mexico, in which 5 percent of people were killed by others. In Europe, even during the bloodiest periods — the 17th century and the first half of the 20th —* deaths in war were around 3 percent.
    Are you telling me you didn't learn about this in any of your sociology classes. Get a refund.
    Doesn't what country have neighbors?
    I'm really surprised you're so resistant to understanding. You're obviously right wing and you all love to chant USA, nothing says country love more than patriotism, which is something that communism has in it's favor. although how patriotic can you really be when you're busy trying to screw over your fellow citizen?
    Why do you claim I am trying to screw over my fellow citizens?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #282  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,229
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    regulate capitalism so there is no reason for greed? you have to do something about the fear that drives it first, I suppose.
    Fear doesn't drive greed. Greed drives greed. It's a basic human emotion, hardwired into us back when getting enough stuff meant your progeny survived. Eliminate fear and you'd still have greed.
    communism is devoid of greed. capitalism thrives on it, even nurtures it like a virtue. what else would you call someone greedy if not a capitalist?
    Communists are as greedy as capitalists; they just use a different system to run their economy. (BTW that's because both capitalists and communists are human beings, not due to anything about either system.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #283  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    It may be a theory in the loose sense of the word, but it's not a scientific theory.
    It's a theory in the sense that democracy or any other form of government is a theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What school did you go to? You should ask for your money back. You were not studying sociology.
    You have no idea what sociology is.
    It's not specifically the study of communism. It's no wonder you stand on the right. you apparently don't have the capacity for understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You've heard of Otzi the iceman, who was found frozen in the Alps? He was a homicide victim. There were plenty more examples. According to this book, 15% of prehistoric deaths were murder.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/bo...anted=all&_r=0
    Some studies are based on skeletons found at archaeological sites; averaging their results suggests that 15 percent of prehistoric humans met a violent death at the hands of another person. Research into contemporary or recent hunter-gatherer societies yields a remarkably similarly average, while another cluster of studies of pre-state societies that include some horticulture has an even higher rate of violent death. In contrast, among state societies, the most violent appears to have been Aztec Mexico, in which 5 percent of people were killed by others. In Europe, even during the bloodiest periods — the 17th century and the first half of the 20th —* deaths in war were around 3 percent.
    Ugh... SO? What's your point? Is it any way related to anything at the topic at hand. We all know you've been running from topic to topic and non sequitur after non sequitur in a vain attempt to muddy the waters... so perhaps you have gotten lost, or this is just another attempt to do just that...?


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    Are you telling me you didn't learn about this in any of your sociology classes. Get a refund.
    This is anthropology. Sociology and anthropology, while somewhat related, are not the same thing.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    Doesn't what country have neighbors?
    Nevermind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
    I'm really surprised you're so resistant to understanding. You're obviously right wing and you all love to chant USA, nothing says country love more than patriotism, which is something that communism has in it's favor. although how patriotic can you really be when you're busy trying to screw over your fellow citizen?
    Why do you claim I am trying to screw over my fellow citizens?
    How else do you get ahead in capitalism? There's no sense in community pride it's all about the individual.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #284  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    regulate capitalism so there is no reason for greed? you have to do something about the fear that drives it first, I suppose.
    Fear doesn't drive greed. Greed drives greed. It's a basic human emotion, hardwired into us back when getting enough stuff meant your progeny survived. Eliminate fear and you'd still have greed.
    I disagree. "...getting enough stuff meant your progeny survived" This is fear. fear that you won't get enough and die out.



    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    communism is devoid of greed. capitalism thrives on it, even nurtures it like a virtue. what else would you call someone greedy if not a capitalist?
    Communists are as greedy as capitalists; they just use a different system to run their economy. (BTW that's because both capitalists and communists are human beings, not due to anything about either system.)
    Again, I disagree, but for the sake of a decent conversation, How is the greed kept in check under a communist system of government then?

    Communism takes into account the evolution/growth of a society, you don't think people can grow out of that? That's why communism is devoid of greed. We will have evolved out of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #285  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    It's a theory in the sense that democracy or any other form of government is a theory.
    Which they aren't.

    Ugh... SO? What's your point? Is it any way related to anything at the topic at hand. We all know you've been running from topic to topic and non sequitur after non sequitur in a vain attempt to muddy the waters... so perhaps you have gotten lost, or this is just another attempt to do just that...?
    It's a response to your question about what hunter-gatherers made war. The answer is most of them. A lot. It refutes your idea of the hunter-gatherer societies being blissful worker's paradises like your imaginary communism.
    This is anthropology. Sociology and anthropology, while somewhat related, are not the same thing.
    You should have studied it. How can you get a degree in sociology without studying anthropology?
    How else do you get ahead in capitalism? There's no sense in community pride it's all about the individual.
    Wrong. Capitalism is just the free association of free individuals, doing what people do when they are given freedom.
    I disagree. "...getting enough stuff meant your progeny survived" This is fear. fear that you won't get enough and die out.
    What's your point? Communist are driven by the fear that capitalists are cheating them out of their stuff.


    Again, I disagree, but for the sake of a decent conversation, How is the greed kept in check under a communist system of government then?
    It isn't. There isn't any communist system of government. Will you never get that through your head?
    Communism takes into account the evolution/growth of a society, you don't think people can grow out of that? That's why communism is devoid of greed. We will have evolved out of it.
    No, communism isn't devoid of greed, because it doesn't exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #286  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,229
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    I disagree. "...getting enough stuff meant your progeny survived" This is fear. fear that you won't get enough and die out.
    No, that's the point. People without fear are often still greedy, because they evolved to be so, and it is a separate drive. (If you want examples just let me know.)
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Again, I disagree, but for the sake of a decent conversation, How is the greed kept in check under a communist system of government then?
    ?? It's not; there is less need to do so. A greedy person makes the same as an ambitionless person, who makes the same as an altruistic person. The problem, of course, is that they all have the same motivation to work hard in a communist system - which is the betterment of society, not the betterment of themselves. Thus of the above three, only the last one will work hard. The rest will do the minimum required to stay out of jail.
    Communism takes into account the evolution/growth of a society, you don't think people can grow out of that? That's why communism is devoid of greed. We will have evolved out of it.
    Then you can just just go with capitalism and evolve the same way. With ideal people, both systems work great.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #287  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Then you can just just go with capitalism and evolve the same way. With ideal people, both systems work great.

    And that's the rub. There are no "ideal people." Instead we have basic drives any system must appease. In communism most people become lazy or work hard to cheat the government which hurts everybody in the end and tends to advance poverty across the masses. In unregulated capitalism the lucky (e.g born with silver spoon, or as a genius, or in on the right side of the tracks and of the right skin complexion etc) and hard working thrive and tend to exploit the unlucky until the divide is so great that the masses of unlucky and exploited violently take down the entire system because from their perspective they have nothing to loose.

    The best systems so far seem to be well regulated capitalism based ones that allow natural drives (greed) to be rewarded while protecting the unlucky. No attempt at idealistic socialistic systems above the small city has done well because they seem to fundamentally ignore human nature.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #288  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,227
    There is NO PERFECT
    answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #289  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    There is NO PERFECT
    answer.
    Yours sounded like one.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #290  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Ugh... SO? What's your point? Is it any way related to anything at the topic at hand. We all know you've been running from topic to topic and non sequitur after non sequitur in a vain attempt to muddy the waters... so perhaps you have gotten lost, or this is just another attempt to do just that...?
    It's a response to your question about what hunter-gatherers made war. The answer is most of them. A lot. It refutes your idea of the hunter-gatherer societies being blissful worker's paradises like your imaginary communism.
    They are also on the bottom end of social evolution aren't they?



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    This is anthropology. Sociology and anthropology, while somewhat related, are not the same thing.
    You should have studied it. How can you get a degree in sociology without studying anthropology?
    I would imagine the same way you can get a degree in math but not chemistry. I didn't take the anthropology geared courses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    How else do you get ahead in capitalism? There's no sense in community pride it's all about the individual.
    Wrong. Capitalism is just the free association of free individuals, doing what people do when they are given freedom.
    Now who is the Ideologue?



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    I disagree. "...getting enough stuff meant your progeny survived" This is fear. fear that you won't get enough and die out.
    What's your point? Communist are driven by the fear that capitalists are cheating them out of their stuff.
    No they're not. Communists wouldn't give a damn about capitalists. communists would be people that have moved beyond fear based living.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Again, I disagree, but for the sake of a decent conversation, How is the greed kept in check under a communist system of government then?
    It isn't. There isn't any communist system of government. Will you never get that through your head?
    What is wrong with you? can you not hold onto a seconds worth of understanding? or do you just choose not to?


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Communism takes into account the evolution/growth of a society, you don't think people can grow out of that? That's why communism is devoid of greed. We will have evolved out of it.
    No, communism isn't devoid of greed, because it doesn't exist.
    the idea, thick one, the idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #291  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    (If you want examples just let me know.)
    I'm not saying you're wrong but don't examples exist on both sides of the issue?



    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
    Again, I disagree, but for the sake of a decent conversation, How is the greed kept in check under a communist system of government then?
    ?? It's not; there is less need to do so. A greedy person makes the same as an ambitionless person, who makes the same as an altruistic person. The problem, of course, is that they all have the same motivation to work hard in a communist system - which is the betterment of society, not the betterment of themselves.
    ok sure, but with the betterment of society comes the betterment of their own standard of living. so in that sense the greedy person is going to work harder to advance society so they can all live better. and if we're all greedy as Harold points out we're all going to be trying to out do each other.


    Communism takes into account the evolution/growth of a society, you don't think people can grow out of that? That's why communism is devoid of greed. We will have evolved out of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Then you can just just go with capitalism and evolve the same way. With ideal people, both systems work great.
    except our current standard is not going this way. and you end up with what lynx fox correctly points out about the great divide. Capitalism rewards the hard workers until it can no longer do so and then it rewards the lucky. People don't work in a capitalist society because that's what they want, people don't work in a capitalist society because they are no more jobs to be had or the jobs that are to be had don't support the efforts put into the work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #292  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The best systems so far seem to be well regulated capitalism based ones that allow natural drives (greed) to be rewarded while protecting the unlucky. No attempt at idealistic socialistic systems above the small city has done well because they seem to fundamentally ignore human nature.
    I could not agree more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #293  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Ugh... SO? What's your point? Is it any way related to anything at the topic at hand. We all know you've been running from topic to topic and non sequitur after non sequitur in a vain attempt to muddy the waters... so perhaps you have gotten lost, or this is just another attempt to do just that...?
    It's a response to your question about what hunter-gatherers made war. The answer is most of them. A lot. It refutes your idea of the hunter-gatherer societies being blissful worker's paradises like your imaginary communism.
    They are also on the bottom end of social evolution aren't they?
    No. There is no such thing as the bottom or top of evolution, social or otherwise. This is one of the first things that jumps out at you, or should jump out at you, from the writings of Marx and Engels, that should clue you in that it's pseudoscience. That is, their belief that evolution goes from "lower" to "higher" forms. You should have taken some courses in evolutionary biology too. Go back to your school and get a refund.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #294  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    ... I think you should go back to school and get a refund, above you were of the opinion that 'democracy' is not a theory. It certainly isn't a scientific theory, but that doesn't make it any less useful or plausible now does it? Or are you saying democracy is useless because it's not scientific? Besides if you'd actually been familiar with Marx (seriously you're starting to sound like a crank) you'd know that the only reason he even uses the term 'scientific' is to distance himself from those idealists who came before, Marx was concerned with a description of the concrete, and if you'd read anything about Das Kapital (or is economics too much of a pseduoscience for you) you'd actually have some understanding of what you're talking about.

    Also are you seriously suggesting that some species aren't less evolved than others? For clarification by evolved i'm pretty sure he just means more capable of reacting to the environment, not that they've been evolving longer (since all species have evolved at the same time) You're really just not objective enough to see it for what it is, or more plausible based on your posts you're a pretentious scientist who thinks that just because something isn't scientific it's completely wrong (newsflash you might want to read some Kuhn as you don't even seem all that familiar with the scientific method)
    Last edited by Trivium; January 28th, 2014 at 11:46 AM.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #295  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    ... I think you should go back to school and get a refund, above you were of the opinion that 'democracy' is not a theory. It certainly isn't a scientific theory, but that doesn't make it any less useful or plausible now does it?
    It's a form of government. There may be one or more theories about how it works or should work, but it's not a theory in itself.
    Or are you saying democracy is useless because it's not scientific? Besides if you'd actually been familiar with Marx (seriously you're starting to sound like a crank) you'd know that the only reason he even uses the term 'scientific' is to distance himself from those idealists who came before, Marx was concerned with a description of the concrete, and if you'd read anything about Das Kapital (or is economics too much of a pseduoscience for you) you'd actually have some understanding of what you're talking about.
    So because he wanted to distance himself from non-scientists, you feel that means he succeeded? Freud was considered a scientist in his day. Not so much any more. No, I'm not going to read Das Kapital or any other pseudoscience.
    Also are you seriously suggesting that some species aren't less evolved than others?
    Yes, I am seriously suggesting that. Evolutionist don't use those terms any more. They say "derived" if they mean more human like. I'm just an engineer and even I know that.
    You're really just not objective enough to see it for what it is, or more plausible based on your posts you're a pretentious scientist who thinks that just because something isn't scientific it's completely wrong (newsflash you might want to read some Kuhn as you don't even seem all that familiar with the scientific method)
    You're starting to reveal your ignorance about science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #296  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,229
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    I'm not saying you're wrong but don't examples exist on both sides of the issue?
    Examples of where fear drives behavior? Definitely! My point was not that fear doesn't exist (it definitely does.) My point is that greed is not just an aspect of fear. It's a separate drive, much as lust is a separate drive. Each has evolved to suit a particular need in humans.



    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    ok sure, but with the betterment of society comes the betterment of their own standard of living. so in that sense the greedy person is going to work harder to advance society so they can all live better.
    Ah, but that's the classic prisoner's dilemma. Do I work my ass off to better society, resulting in a tiny incremental benefit to me? Or do I cheat (use the black market, play video games all day, sell my office supplies) to get a significant benefit to me? Historically a lot of people choose the latter.

    and if we're all greedy as Harold points out we're all going to be trying to out do each other.
    But again, they will be selling off this year's corn harvest on the black market; that results in a large personal benefit. (As opposed to harvesting it all and giving it to the state, which results in almost zero personal benefit, but a small amount of societal benefit.)

    except our current standard is not going this way. and you end up with what lynx fox correctly points out about the great divide.
    Yes, that's a problem with capitalism; you have classes. However, even the least among a (realistic) capitalist society generally does better than the least in a (realistic) communist society, because overall productivity is higher.

    Capitalism rewards the hard workers until it can no longer do so and then it rewards the lucky. People don't work in a capitalist society because that's what they want, people don't work in a capitalist society because they are no more jobs to be had . . . .
    Sometimes true.

    or the jobs that are to be had don't support the efforts put into the work.
    Also sometimes true. However, that is almost always true in a communist society. Why work when your efforts (in terms of immediate payback) is wasted?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #297  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Ugh... SO? What's your point? Is it any way related to anything at the topic at hand. We all know you've been running from topic to topic and non sequitur after non sequitur in a vain attempt to muddy the waters... so perhaps you have gotten lost, or this is just another attempt to do just that...?
    It's a response to your question about what hunter-gatherers made war. The answer is most of them. A lot. It refutes your idea of the hunter-gatherer societies being blissful worker's paradises like your imaginary communism.
    They are also on the bottom end of social evolution aren't they?
    No. There is no such thing as the bottom or top of evolution, social or otherwise. This is one of the first things that jumps out at you, or should jump out at you, from the writings of Marx and Engels, that should clue you in that it's pseudoscience. That is, their belief that evolution goes from "lower" to "higher" forms. You should have taken some courses in evolutionary biology too. Go back to your school and get a refund.
    Are you a young earth creationist also?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #298  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    I'm not saying you're wrong but don't examples exist on both sides of the issue?
    Examples of where fear drives behavior? Definitely! My point was not that fear doesn't exist (it definitely does.) My point is that greed is not just an aspect of fear. It's a separate drive, much as lust is a separate drive. Each has evolved to suit a particular need in humans.



    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    ok sure, but with the betterment of society comes the betterment of their own standard of living. so in that sense the greedy person is going to work harder to advance society so they can all live better.
    Ah, but that's the classic prisoner's dilemma. Do I work my ass off to better society, resulting in a tiny incremental benefit to me? Or do I cheat (use the black market, play video games all day, sell my office supplies) to get a significant benefit to me? Historically a lot of people choose the latter.

    and if we're all greedy as Harold points out we're all going to be trying to out do each other.
    But again, they will be selling off this year's corn harvest on the black market; that results in a large personal benefit. (As opposed to harvesting it all and giving it to the state, which results in almost zero personal benefit, but a small amount of societal benefit.)

    except our current standard is not going this way. and you end up with what lynx fox correctly points out about the great divide.
    Yes, that's a problem with capitalism; you have classes. However, even the least among a (realistic) capitalist society generally does better than the least in a (realistic) communist society, because overall productivity is higher.

    Capitalism rewards the hard workers until it can no longer do so and then it rewards the lucky. People don't work in a capitalist society because that's what they want, people don't work in a capitalist society because they are no more jobs to be had . . . .
    Sometimes true.

    or the jobs that are to be had don't support the efforts put into the work.
    Also sometimes true. However, that is almost always true in a communist society. Why work when your efforts (in terms of immediate payback) is wasted?
    You make some interesting points. have a couple of points to make back, but I'll think on a few of them for a bit before I do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #299  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post

    Are you a young earth creationist also?
    I tell you to learn about evolution and you call me a creationist? Come on now. You can't put everybody into a pigeonhole. Try to use some critical thinking. Here's what I'm referring to:
    Misconceptions: Evolution Is like a Ladder of Progress
    Misconception: “Evolution is like a climb up a ladder of progress; organisms are always getting better.”
    Response: It is true that natural selection weeds out individuals that are unfit in a particular situation, but for evolution, “good enough” is good enough. No organism has to be perfect. For example, many taxa (like some mosses, protists, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little over great expanses of time. They are not marching up a ladder of progress. Rather, they are fit enough to survive and reproduce, and that is all that is necessary to ensure their existence.Other taxa may have changed and diversified a great deal—but that doesn’t mean they got “better.” After all, climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade—and what was “better” a million years ago, may not be “better” today. What works “better” in one location might not work so well in another. Fitness is linked to environment, not to progress.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #300  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post

    Are you a young earth creationist also?
    I tell you to learn about evolution and you call me a creationist? Come on now. You can't put everybody into a pigeonhole.
    are you serious? did you just write this? Have you even been reading what you're posting? You've been pigeon holing everyone/anyone that doesn't agree with you from the beginning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    Try to use some critical thinking.
    you could stand to follow some of your own advice.




    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    Here's what I'm referring to:
    Misconceptions: Evolution Is like a Ladder of Progress
    Misconception: “Evolution is like a climb up a ladder of progress; organisms are always getting better.”

    Response: It is true that natural selection weeds out individuals that are unfit in a particular situation, but for evolution, “good enough” is good enough. No organism has to be perfect. For example, many taxa (like some mosses, protists, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little over great expanses of time. They are not marching up a ladder of progress. Rather, they are fit enough to survive and reproduce, and that is all that is necessary to ensure their existence.Other taxa may have changed and diversified a great deal—but that doesn’t mean they got “better.” After all, climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade—and what was “better” a million years ago, may not be “better” today. What works “better” in one location might not work so well in another. Fitness is linked to environment, not to progress.
    Nobody is talking world wide (although who's to say they can't evolve/progress into that) so that takes care of the select populations. The idea is that it is country based. so there may still be war with other nations but the idea is that we don't eat our own.
    If evolution was truly "good enough" then animals never would have evolved past the single cell, because a single cell is apparently good enough to live. and just because an organism need not be "perfect" does not mean it doesn't move towards that state.

    If you think that society hasn't evolved/progressed/any other such similar synonym that you may want to use to split hairs, or there is no such thing, I urge you to take a look at the wild west and compare it to today. How about China today versus when the Mongols ruled it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Misconceptions about Medications
    By Neverfly in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: August 27th, 2013, 01:23 AM
  2. Land Distribution Communism/Capitalism Hybrid
    By kojax in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2013, 02:45 PM
  3. How Reagan did beat Communism.
    By timel in forum History
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: March 15th, 2012, 03:28 PM
  4. Communism.
    By mmatt9876 in forum Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2011, 07:24 AM
  5. communism, capitalism, fascism
    By jjl034 in forum Politics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: April 8th, 2010, 07:14 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •