14 Aug 03
3 edits
Originally posted by StarValleyWyColin, your logical justification is deductively valid of course, and similar to a few I've come up with (although mine are not as good because I like the sort of religious overtones of yours). I'm afraid that....
Whew Doggie! This is fun!
1 - Communism is the work of evil people. All it's adherents will be fine. It's opponents (our friends) will be shot. As with naziism... "the others are sub-human"... In marxism, "others" are defined ...[text shortened]... voted and ruthless than any christian or jew I ever met.
Mike, I think the Gedankenexperiment nature of what Acolyte said was lost on you. He presented a few premises and drew a conclusion just to illustrate that some arguments could be made. I don't think he was seriously putting those sepcific axioms out for debate though. I'd like to see you back up your statements, but first I am going to take this opportunity, along with the "taskmaster" accent I'm speaking in, to assign Marx's "Das Kapital" to you for bedtime reading, just so you know what it is you're attacking.
EDIT Additionally, Colin, I like your last point. Well done. To be fair, Mike, the bit about how "Others" are defined is quite astute.
15 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenWhat a supercilious, patronizing and stupid remark. I have read two different english "Das Kapital" translations. Also "The Poverty Of Philosophy" and all parts of "The German Ideology".
to assign Marx's "Das Kapital" to you for bedtime reading, just so you know what it is you're attacking.
Let me summarize... The individual is nothing. Only societies (in the form of the state) have meaning in the grand scheme of things. Miss anything? I think not.
15 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYeah, sorry about that 🙁. I hardly think that your last comment is an exact summary though.
What a supercilious, patronizing and stupid remark. I have read two different english "Das Kapital" translations. Also "The Poverty Of Philosophy" and all parts of "The German Ideology".
Let me summarize... The individual is n ...[text shortened]... aning in the grand scheme of things. Miss anything? I think not.
Again I apologize.
I suppose I want to know what is wrong with the state taking precedence (not that I think it should-I am no Marxist). I just think a better attack than calling people "worn out commies" is necessary.
Please check you inbox. I feel bad about insulting you.
15 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenOk. You are correct as to my summary being brief. It is, however all that needs knowing. The evil perpetuated under it's umbrella speaks for itself.
Yeah, sorry about that 🙁. I hardly think that your last comment is an exact summary though.
Again I apologize.
You must also understand the dialectic. Oooooo! That's a tough one. I doubt there has been enough dialectic biology written to fill a single book yet.
Quote (Karl Marx)
"Man is not an abstract being, squatting outside the world. Man is the world of men, the State and Society. The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual. The real natrue of man is the totality of social relations.
Individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class interests.
[Death] seems to be a harsh victory of the species over the particular individual and to contradict their unity. But the particualr individual is only a particular species-being, and as such a mortal." End Quote.
And from a book I have read three times... "The Gulag Archipelago" by A. Solzhenitsyn, Quote...
"Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble-- and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb too. The imagination and the spiritual strength of Shakespear's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology"
15 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by AcolyteNo joke. I was just having a little fun pointing out that the silly religion of "socialism" is the same as all other silly religions. It's "true believers" are dangerous to free thought.
Interesting... if this is a joke, I can't quite see which group of people you're making fun of.
15 Aug 03
Originally posted by richjohnsonWell, don't let your "free" thinking kink any vital parts worrying about it. I am stuck in the fifties in the sense that I have studied history and am not content to repeat stupid mistakes just for the sake of fitting in with people who can "free" think. Thoughts, like everything else are valued by content, not cost. "Free" thoughts, anyone?
I'm worried that it isn't a joke, and he's still stuck in the 50's...
15 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyOk. You are correct as to my summary being brief. It is, however all that needs knowing. The evil perpetuated under it's umbrella speaks for itself.
I don't think that the fact that, say, Josef Stalin was responsible for a lot of deaths while claiming to be communist makes communism evil. I acknowledge that things like gulags are evil. I might even go so far as to admit that Josef Stalin was evil. But the practical outcome of a few experiments with communism in no way makes the actual abstract economic principles of communism evil. I am not a communist for several reasons. For one, Marx makes similar errors to those made by Malthus in failing to take into account how totally technology was to chang the way our economy works. Second, I don't believe communism can be put into practice because of the human potential for evil. I do think, however, that the theoretical underpinnings of command economies are not evil or good or anything but devoid of value.
"Man is not an abstract being, squatting outside the world. Man is the world of men, the State and Society. The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual. The real natrue of man is the totality of social relations.
Individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class interests.
[Death] seems to be a harsh victory of the species over the particular individual and to contradict their unity. But the particualr individual is only a particular species-being, and as such a mortal." End Quote.
My opnly objection to this is that the first sentence contradicts the second paragraph, and indeed the rest of Marx's project.
"Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble-- and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb too. The imagination and the spiritual strength of Shakespear's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology"
I like this quote now that you mention it, and I see where you're going with it. I think you are absolutely right that the capacity for evil is greater in the ideolouge than in other people. However, that does not support the claim that "communism is evil". It only says that "many practitioners of communism are evil", and since many other thought structures could be substituted for "communism" in that sentence with out changing its structure, you have not really proved your point at all.
I would be very interested if you actually listed the tenets of communism and gave an argument why at least one of them is evil.
Apologies to Colin for hijacking this thread. Thank you for continuing this discussion, Mike, given the boorishness on my part.
15 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenMark,
However, that does not support the claim that "communism is evil". It only says that "many practitioners of communism are evil", and since many other thought structures could be substituted for "communism" in that sentence with out changing its structure, you have not really proved your point at all.
You make a logical mistake in removing "adherants" from the "tenets" of the movement. Unlike the communist point of view, I hold only individuals as culpable upon causing and participating in evil. The individuals who enforce communism can logically be called communists. The fact that evil can be done by other groups is also a logical fallicy, as i think you know. It is obvious, but removes the conversation and debate from the point of discussion, ie, "Communism", defined by me as "those who adapt it and propogate it's theology"... that is a deliberate inference by me, that it is indeed just another religion.
15 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenWhy? Surely you don't need the obvious stated. There is over a hundred years history to this particular religion. I think my basic summary is all i want to say. Repeating... "The State is everything. The individual is nothing." I don't agree with that and so I speak against it whenever I get the opportunity. No rehash or consideration of the minutia within the greater message can justify it's ultimate conclusion. Same logic as I apply to all religious questions.
I would be very interested if you actually listed the tenets of communism and gave an argument why at least one of them is evil.
15 Aug 03
Er, sorry to interrupt, but when I started this thread, I wasn't actually particularly thinking about Communism at all. I'm not saying the Americans planned to carry out 'area denial', just that British officials suspected they might, so it can't have been that implausible. I quite agree that the Russian system was oppressive. Also, I'm sure that the Russians would install a puppet government in the event of an invasion of the UK. The question was, what would you be willing to do to stop the spread of such a regime? Where would you nuke?
15 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyReally? From the impression I got from living in Britain in the 80's was that it was a very real threat and that most people were very fearful of it.
From what i read here in the forums, about 50 percent of the people in the UK would have welcomed the Russians with open arms,
I think a lot of people now dismiss the fear as unfounded paranoia, but it was real enough at the time.
15 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by AcolyteNobody from the US government ever came and asked my opinion. I thought that very strange, as I'm sure you do.😕 If they had, i would have reminded them that we have a long history of religious tolerance and we should let people live their lives the way they want to.😲 Sorry for co-oping the thread. I just saw an immediate and not too subtle connection to the politics of religion in the thread title, "some special relationship". If others didn't, then i apologize.
Er, sorry to interrupt, but when I started this thread, I wasn't actually particularly thinking about Communism at all. I'm not saying the Americans planned to carry out 'area denial', just that British officials suspected they might ...[text shortened]... to do to stop the spread of such a regime? Where would you nuke?
The question was, what would you be willing to do to stop the spread of such a regime? Where would you nuke?
Absolutely nothing. Never. We put up with Jehova's Witlesses, Conquoring Mormons and Pedaphilic Priesthoods of various and sundry persuasion. Another whacky religion hardly calls for nuclear warfare. BUT... and this is the entire reason for the "cold war"... realize that this new religion is dangerous because it's priests want to eliminate the ability of every person on earth to decide the value of goods and services. Nobody living under the strictures would have the right to determine what type of property is worth purchasing and what that property is worth. So keep the cannon loaded. Boil the oil for the gate. Since these priests are obviously incapable of reason and bent on aggression... design a strategy that will prevent them from dominating. M.A.D. The only good thing you can say about it is that it worked and still works. Everything else about it is insane. Totally. Completely.
15 Aug 03
Originally posted by VargI think you are correct. What people tend to forget is that some of the first and best boomer subs were and are British. From 1965 to this day, the UK has had the capability of laying waste the entire planet if it were to be invaded. That is why this entire thread can not be taken as a military or political question. Whether the people and government of the UK would have the WILL to use their force is another matter, and it is my opinion that there is little chance they would. Appeasement seems to be the watch word for our times. Is that bad or good? Who knows? Certainly not me.
Really? From the impression I got from living in Britain in the 80's was that it was a very real threat and that most people were very fearful of it.
I think a lot of people now dismiss the fear as unfounded paranoia, but it was real enough at the time.
15 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhy then, do you always seem to dismiss other people's points of view by labelling them as "communist" and then relying on the brutal regimes of Stalin and Mao to "prove" how bad anything other than your world view is? Surely you remember McCarthy too.
Well, don't let your "free" thinking kink any vital parts worrying about it. I am stuck in the fifties in the sense that I have studied history and am not content to repeat stupid mistakes just for the sake of fitting in with people who can "free" think. Thoughts, like everything else are valued by content, not cost. "Free" thoughts, anyone?
I also don't understand how the "greens" and the "commies" are related. As I understand it, communism is primarily an economic ideology, and not particularly concerned with the environment (although I haven't read 'Das Kapital', so please correct me if I'm wrong). While it is true that many "commies" are also "greens", not all "greens" are "commies". In fact, any properly informed "capitalist" would readily see that the short term benefits to be reaped by ignoring environmental issues are far outweighed by the long term costs.
As an example, I have a friend who is a die-hard capitalist, and he's spent many a summer up north helping out with his family's development project. One summer when he arrived, he saw that a huge cedar (likely pushing 1000 yrs old) had been removed. When he asked his grandfather why, the grandfather told him he sold it for a good price. "You idiot", he said to his grandfather, "do you know how much value that tree would have added to the building lots if we had kept it? People come half way around the world to see trees like that."