Thread: Common Misconceptions about Communism

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by babe

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!!

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.

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

Originally Posted by John Galt

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?

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

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.)

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

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.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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?

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

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

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by John Galt

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!

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Harold

The results are a matter of historical record.

They sure are. so stop calling it communism

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.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

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

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...

WHAT? You're dissing Wal-Mart, that bastion of true capitalism? For shame, Mr. Harold, for shame!

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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by John Galt

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*

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

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.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

Originally Posted by Trivium

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Trivium

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Trivium

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

Originally Posted by Trivium

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?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Trivium

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.

Originally Posted by Trivium

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?

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Trivium

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

Originally Posted by John Galt

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?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by John Galt

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???

Communist - definition of Communist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
First definition I googled.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Communist - definition of Communist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
First definition I googled.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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

Great. So, we're on the third page of a thread about unicorns. That's what I've been trying to tell you guys.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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!

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Trivium

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.

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.)

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?

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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?

Originally Posted by Trivium

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.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.)

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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...

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Trivium

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Trivium

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?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Trivium

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.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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?

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.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Harold

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.

Originally Posted by Harold

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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Harold

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.

Originally Posted by Harold

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Harold

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.

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?

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?

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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."

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by Harold

It has to follow the rules of science. Do you know about science?

apparently only pseudoscience

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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?

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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?

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.

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.)

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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...?

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.

Originally Posted by Harold

Doesn't what country have neighbors?

Nevermind.

Originally Posted by Harold

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.

Originally Posted by billvon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by billvon

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?

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.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.)

Originally Posted by billvon

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.

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.

There is NO PERFECT
answer.

Originally Posted by babe

There is NO PERFECT
answer.

Yours sounded like one.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

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 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?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

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.