Debates
29 Jan 06
03 Feb 06
Originally posted by RedmikeHi Mike,
Socialism is not a watered down version of communism. They are the same thing (Cripes - I'm agreeing with SVW!!).
What you describe - safety nets etc etc is social democracy, which is a different thing.
In cold war times, people called themselves socialists rather than communists, to distance themselves from the USSR. Also, people view socialism as th ...[text shortened]... , but politically, they are really the same thing.
SVW, of course, has no idea about either.
You are right. Any "Socialism" taken to the objective of "Equality" would demand everything that classical Communism embodies.
I have been toying with the notion that the "absolute" might be the reason communism fails. There doesn't seem to be any room for compromise when "equality" is the goal. If any exceptions are given then it fails. If it fails... then the movement was for naught.
"Absolute Inclusion"
This notion demands that all become involved. If this can't be achieved, the movement fails. It (by definition) allows for very little "individualism" and absolutely no property rights.
This thread isn't about that though, except that when a movement seeks said "absolute inclusion" and realizes that any deviation is defeat... lends itself to ruthless leadership.
Thanks for responding.
Mike
03 Feb 06
Originally posted by Conrau KThanks for your post.
I think it should be more like, "why totalitarianism always fails."
I believe communism would succeed if not just wealth was distributed evely but also power. Why, would the government deign to receive the same amount of produce and land as a farmer. Thus, i think that a kind of democratic communism (wouldn't that just be socialism?) would be better.
This begs the question of "Why" all attempts at "national collectivization" by a major world power HAS TURNED into a totalitarian nightmare.
Your notion of "democratic communism" is interesting. It is currenty succeeding in Sweden and several other nations, but I would hold that the devoted communist would say that it is a total failure because "equality" is given just lip service. Maybe redmike will comment on this. Or the Shavvy One. I know he has views on this as we discussed it a bit last year.
Mike
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
03 Feb 06
Originally posted by techsouthAs far as "equal power" goes, it can't be attained
The problem with this thinking is that wealth does not naturally distribute itself evenly. How do we ensure that wealth is equal? Of course we have to have an all powerful state to facilitate equal distribution of wealth.
You can't have equal wealth without totalitarian power. ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to even come close.
As far as "equal power" goes, ...[text shortened]... all number that have the power to persuade the masses, and they could have alterier motives.
I diagree. Ever heard of a concept called democracy. Essentially, people vote for who they want to represent them. Hence, in a parliament a select group of people represent the entire populace and perform the "300 million people all vote on each minute government action" for them. Of course, this can be abused, but if so, it wouldn't be democracy.
Or, you have a small number that have the power to persuade the masses, and they could have alterier motives.
Well, I agree refinement is necassary. I have always advocated a meritocracy. You might then argue that these meritocracy would not constitute a democracy but i disagree. Through the radical implementation of Eugenics we could produce a group of people who can evaluate society impartially and also represent the people. These "meritocritacs" would be sufficiently robust to avoid false persuasion (as you suggested). Thus, communism would be viable and Plato would be satisfied.
Apologies if I seem to be rambling.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
03 Feb 06
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI believe "Animal Farm" a laconic allegory on the subject suggests that all revolutions (including communism) fail because of the corrupting influence of power (and hence, a totalitarian government emerges). I suggest the use of eugenics to avoid this but most people don't like the idea.
Thanks for your post.
This begs the question of "Why" all attempts at "national collectivization" by a major world power [b]HAS TURNED into a totalitarian nightmare.
Your notion of "democratic communism" is interesting. It is currenty succeeding in Sweden and several other nations, but I would hold that the devoted communist would say that it ...[text shortened]... the Shavvy One. I know he has views on this as we discussed it a bit last year.
Mike[/b]
03 Feb 06
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhat is happening in Sweden isn't Socialism/Communism.
Thanks for your post.
This begs the question of "Why" all attempts at "national collectivization" by a major world power [b]HAS TURNED into a totalitarian nightmare.
Your notion of "democratic communism" is interesting. It is currenty succeeding in Sweden and several other nations, but I would hold that the devoted communist would say that it ...[text shortened]... the Shavvy One. I know he has views on this as we discussed it a bit last year.
Mike[/b]
It is Social Democracy. Most of Western Europe has this sort of system to some degree or other - the National Health Service in the UK, for example.
Now, I understand that, from a US free-market kinda perspective, these things might look very similar, but they're not.
Social Democracy is about state-provided safety nets, welfare systems and the like. It is about accepting capitalism and putting mechanisms in place to mitigate its effects. None of these are bad things, and the gains made by social democracy are worth defending.
However, socialism is about a whole lot more than this. It is about the entire economic system, and who owns it. It is about democracy.
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by RedmikeYou may be confusing the distinction between who owns the economy and the illusion of who owns the economy.
What is happening in Sweden isn't Socialism/Communism.
It is Social Democracy. Most of Western Europe has this sort of system to some degree or other - the National Health Service in the UK, for example.
Now, I understand that, from a US free-market kinda perspective, these things might look very similar, but they're not.
Social Democracy is about sta ...[text shortened]... ore than this. It is about the entire economic system, and who owns it. It is about democracy.
04 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeIndeed, it is this all or nothing attitude that allows "bad people" to take charge of ALL communistic efforts to form government. It is so driven and single minded in its goal of "forced equality" that the worst killer gains control. I don't know how yet. I'm still trying to figure out "why" basically good people can let it happen EVERY TIME.
No confusion - we'll own it.
That is the thrust of this thread. I think it is good to try to figure out why fanatical movements always get the worst possible leaders.
"Fanatical" in this sense is your stated objection to "partial" or "fake" socializations as being acceptable FINAL forms of government. People must understand that your side, ie, Communism won the educational system of the world about thirty years ago. The vast majority of "professors" and teachers in the US system are communists. They just don't use that word any more.
If a nation thinks it can overcome the manupulation of young adults at their most impressionable stage of development, they are wrong. It is just a matter of time until change toward fanaticism occurs.
I forgot to offer examples of these bold assertions. I offer as proof, PETA and ELF. These are just a few of the new communist forms that we face today in their "rededicated, radicalized" form. I will say that they are nothing more than a more virulent form of communism. When the people "MovedOn" --- what did they MoveOn to? You can't tell me that all communism just died in 1990. Can you?
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by Conrau KI hate the idea for three reasons.
I suggest the use of eugenics to avoid this but most people don't like the idea.
1 - It is a simple answer to a complex problem, thus is capable of being used for great evil.
2 - Unless you plan on eating it, breeding for content seems draconian.
3 - The uniformity of the crop ensures disease. All good farmers know that you must rotate, vary and try new strains. But eugenics taken to conclusion is a uniform stew that to me seems heinous.
I could go on, but I think that any one individual does well to control his/her own life and actions. A committee is worse. It loses it's soul and votes it's mandated stupidity. Keep in mind that a "policy" is just the dregs of a committee.
People have ideas. Committees have Policies. Never to the betterment of the individual.
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by RedmikeI know this Mike.
However, socialism is about a whole lot more than this. It is about the entire economic system, and who owns it. It is about democracy.
But there are a lot of people out there perfectly satisfied that their forms of "socialism" are valid. You know that they are doomed and so do I. But do they?
That is the point isn't it? To get the struggle out into the open?
I think you will never dare say it, so I'll say it for you. You see the pathetic attempts at socialism in europe as very temporary bastard children of the real thing.
The real thing is state ownership of all. Including the people.
Isn't that about it? You and I can dance around for years, but the communist will not accept anything less than a world united in a single commune.
Property and Economy is everything. Only the state can own and distribute equitably.
05 Feb 06
I just had a fanatic commie use the old "cruelty to animals" thing in another thread. I think it was ragnorak or one of the other petafiles.
What's a petafile? Well, it's one who sharpens his knife before killing his pet. 😏😲
That's a joke, in case you miss it. But let's talk "petaphiles" or those who love PETA.
In your imagination... take "Animal Rights" to it's ultimate successful conclusion. What sort of world would it be if indeed animals and humans were finally judged to be equal in every sense? And more importantly WHO WOULD BE THE JUDGE? Obviously, it would have to be a panel or a committee. Because by logical deduction, people are indeed animals. Let's say that the absurdity is worked out to where six goats and six people comprise the committee. The six goats are asked to vote, but let's also just assume that the six humans have agreed that the goat vote is proxy driven.
So the six humans vote. And this committee sets the law.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It's called the "central committee" and the goats are the masses.
It is amusing to me that the many communist pseudo fronts all end in the same condition if one speculates their eventuality.
That state is "a very large mass of people subject to the decision of a committee". Why shucks. If one were a cynic, one could almost think that these silly groups are all just conditioning aparatchik whose only job is to prepare the masses for the rule of the committee.
I am not that cynical. I rather think that these are just groups of very silly twits who have the intellectual punch of dope smokin' worn out hippies from the sixties.
05 Feb 06
Lefties are so dumb. Have you ever noticed that when you call them on their support for the terrorists they will say something like "I don't support the terrorists! I think they are like totally wrong and they are like not right either dude! But the US warmongers have no right to just like kill kids and stuff, you know? Like what gives them the right to like just kill people and stuff?"
I dare you to try this on a lefty.
Proposition one. We can't be in two existential states at one time. Reality demands one and only one state of existence can occur at any one moment.
Proposition two. We can either be in Iraq trying to kill terrorists or we can not be there trying to kill terrorists. These are the only two choices when it comes to KILLING TERRORISTS.
Proposition three. We can like try to deal with them and make friends with them. They are people too.
Conclusion. You either support trying to kill them or you support NOT trying to kill them. Any permission or lack of opposition you grant terrorism is supporting terrorism.
Discussion should then go to the effects on innocent victims killed by both sides. This is the worst part of war and nobody can figure out how to fix it except the idiots who just say that "all war should be banned" and leave us with no explanation of HOW this is to be accomplished.
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThere will always be war..
Lefties are so dumb. Have you ever noticed that when you call them on their support for the terrorists they will say something like "I don't support the terrorists! I think they are like totally wrong and they are like not right either dude! But the US warmongers have no right to just like kill kids and stuff, you know? Like what gives them the right to ...[text shortened]... war should be banned" and leave us with no explanation of HOW this is to be accomplished.
What the world wants to see is enlightened governance, war as a last resort and only started when world peace is threatened..
Iraq was a nation crippled by years of sanctions and warped by iron fisted and bloody governance in the form of Saddam.
Removing him + his kind should have helped the Iraqi people but going into Iraq on a false premise (removing WMDs), having the managing coalition rob billions of dollars earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction, destoy all credibility by torturing prisoners, bypass the geneva convention by holding prisoners in Cuba and outsourcing the torturing to other arab states..
C'mon, you must at least be able to see why everyone is not 100% behind the way the US is handling things here..
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI'm not sure whether its worth my replying.
I know this Mike.
But there are a lot of people out there perfectly satisfied that their forms of "socialism" are valid. You know that they are doomed and so do I. But do they?
That is the point isn't it? To get the struggle out into the open?
I think you will never dare say it, so I'll say it for you. You see the pathetic attempts at socialism ...[text shortened]... e.
Property and Economy is everything. Only the state can own and distribute equitably.
You seem content to post what you think I think, and then proceed to criticise what you think I think.
Isn't this something you can do on your own? (I'm sure your used to many different solitary activities).
One fundamental fact you need to understand about communism - while the state exists, there is no communism.
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by RedmikeBut there is a fundamental underlying reason why there can never
I'm not sure whether its worth my replying.
You seem content to post what you think I think, and then proceed to criticise what you think I think.
Isn't this something you can do on your own? (I'm sure your used to many different solitary activities).
One fundamental fact you need to understand about communism - while the state exists, there is no communism.
be equality: The last 500 million years of evolution have preceeded
our appearance on the planet. We did not come into being by being
co-operative. We came into being by being the nastiest dude on
the block. Look at lions. They come across a clutch of baby leopards,
and chances are very good the lion will have a nice snack of baby
leopard. That is inter-species competition. We used to live side
by side with Neantertals. You think we co-operated them to death?
Humans by their fundamental nature are competitive. There can
never be equality with that background. Any form of government
that tries to force equality will lose, the stronger, the faster, the
smarter with base but hidden agendae will win out, all to the
detriment of individuals. You set up a system of government where
the government owns everything, all of a sudden you find out who
owns the government. I'll give you a guess and its not the people.
So if someone ends up owning the government and they will every
time as SVW says, what does that say for the evolution of
communism?
The only answer is this: considering there is no god forthcoming and
laying down the real rules to each and every person on the planet
at the same time in their own language so there is no mistaking the
new laws, the only alternative that forestalls the breeding of a ruling
class is we make our own gods: Silicon seems to be destined to
exceed carbon in planetary intelligence probably within this century.
So we should or maybe don't have a choice, hand over the running
of the planet to silicon. Silicon will not be bought out, silicon will not
respond to sexy babes as a bribe, silicon will not be argued out of
a proposal that it deems best for humanity. In other words, an
outside force above human striving that can control us and keep us
from destroying ourselves or the planet. That function COULD be
done by a god but since no gods are forthcoming except in the
fungus eating imagination of the religious leaders who would foist
their own views on the gullible as to what god wants, outside of that
pitiful help, and we see no aliens ready to jump into the fray and
rescue us from our own sorry selves, silicon is my guess the only
possible answer. At least with silicon, no one individual would be
able to wrestle control, individuals like Idi Amin would be a thing
of the past, at least when it comes to being in some kind of national
control. Mind you, I don't think I would personally like my life being
controlled by computers but I think it is inevitable given the advances
over the last fifty years in the forced evolution of silicon. That doesn't
even take into account the coming rise of Quantum computers.