Maryland abolishes death penalty.

[FireIceTalon]

No, I understand how capitalism works.

Sorry man, but you very, very clearly do not. I'm not saying this to troll or be an ass, I'm saying it because it's the truth. Putting all sarcasm and juvenile pictures aside, I'll explain to you why in the most civil way I can.

The reason is, you view the system like most people do as it is presented to them by the mainstream. You see it as merely as a playing field for autonomous individuals to come in and make "rational" choices - and to an extent, this is true. At the individual level, it is very easy to see it this way, because that is how it presents itself. But it's only a half truth man. In the big picture, it is much more than this - it is an entire system of social relations (contradictory ones). It doesn't exist in a vacuum or as an abstract system of random, material properties that remain static over space and time. It is a system of totality, in which everything and everyone in it interact accordingly - thus all of society (everything from our behavior and thoughts, all the way to our culture and institutions) is shaped around it, as it is required to be (governed by a certain set of 'laws of motion). To view it as random, abstract entities is to miss the forest through the trees, and this leads to a incomplete and faulty understanding of the system and its processes. Thus the political and social problems in the world are not random and abstract, they symptoms of a much larger and more complex problem (the prevailing social order and its corresponding processes). The only way to truly understand the big picture of it, is to understand it by thinking and viewing it in a dialectical way, the most developed form of critical thinking. Such a way of thinking is not only important in the social sciences, but really in the biological and physical sciences as well. Hopefully this makes sense.

[kandrathe]

Sorry man, but you very, very clearly do not. I'm not saying this to troll or be an ass, I'm saying it because it's the truth. Putting all sarcasm and juvenile pictures aside, I'll explain to you why in the most civil way I can.

Sorry to be a buttinski here. But...

FIT: You don't understand.
Shoju: I do.
FIT: You don't.
Shoju: I do.

Then you spew out a paragraph or two of Marxist inspired rhetoric as "proof". Laced with unsubstantiated assumptions and claims.

The reason is, you view the system like most people do as it is presented to them by the mainstream. You see it as merely as a playing field for autonomous individuals to come in and make "rational" choices - and to an extent, this is true. At the individual level, it is very easy to see it this way, because that is how it presents itself. But it's only a half truth man. In the big picture, it is much more than this - it is an entire system of social relations. It doesn't exist in a vacuum or as an abstract system of random, material properties that remain stagnant over space and time. It is a system of totality, in which everything and everyone in it interact accordingly, on behalf of existing contradictions - thus all of society (everything from our behavior and thoughts, all the way to our culture and institutions) is shaped around it, as it is required to be (governed by a certain set of 'laws of motion). To view it as random, abstract entities is to miss the forest through the trees, and this leads to a incomplete and faulty understanding of the system and its processes. Thus the political and social problems in the world are not random and abstract, they symptoms of a much larger and more complex problem (the prevailing social order and its corresponding processes). The only way to truly understand the big picture of it, is to understand it by thinking and viewing it in a dialectical way. Such a way of thinking is not only important in the social sciences, but really in the biological and physical sciences as well.

Assumptions;

• you view the system like most people do (does he?)
  
• You see it as merely as a playing field (does he?)
  
• it's only a half truth man (I don't recall him ever claiming a TRUTH)
  
• To view it as random (assuming he does)
  
• are not random and abstract (did he claim they were?)

With your coup de grace; "The only way to truly understand the big picture of it, is to understand it by thinking and viewing it in a dialectical way."

My GOD!!! Why did you not reveal this in the first place. The ANSWER to all our problems is HEGELIAN inspird DIALECTAL MATERIALISM!!!!

I like to offer a quote at this point. "Hegelism is like a mental disease; you can't know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it." -- Max Eastman

And, for Shoju, http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/ will tell you everything you need to know on why this mumbo jumbo is total bull excrement. A site, by the way, hosted by a Marxist.

[FireIceTalon]

Yea, you quote a free-market advocate to try and offset what I said, when such an advocate will obviously present capitalism in the same way that I was critiquing Shoju for, so that it is presented with its own agenda - thanks for helping me prove my point! You fail epically, as usual, Kandrathe.

My statements aren't assumptions, they are observations made because of his clear separation of capitalism from political and social problems, and thus capitalism being viewed as not a totality, is implied in his method of thinking; for example when he viewed the way countries interact with one another as being the cause of the problem, as if this is a separate entity or process from capitalism (it isn't). Your and his thinking treats these things as being separate from one another, when they clearly are not - they are very much interrelated and interact with one another.

Also, trying to use a website supposedly hosted by a Marxist that supposedly rejects DM doesn't really help your cause either. Gee, his word must be the gospel!! Considering Dialectical thought is the backbone behind Marxist thought, and to reject it, in my opinion, is about as anti-Marxist as you can get. Fuck that guy, and his site. He's probably some social-democrat trying to pose as a radical to look cool for all his hipster friends, and from reading the jargon on this site, he clearly has no understanding of Marxism, yet claims to be one. Anti-dialectics not only abandons Marxism, but also life and society in general. The guy even used your other quote from that capitalist on his site, and hes claiming to be a Marxist? All I can say is....BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[kandrathe]

Yea, you quote a free-market advocate to try and offset what I said, when such an advocate will obviously present capitalism in the same way that I was critiquing Shoju for, so that it is presented with its own agenda - thanks for helping me prove my point! You fail epically, as usual, Kandrathe.

Max Eastman? You mean the guy who started out as the editor of extreme leftist "The Masses"? The guy who went to the Soviet Union during the revolution, and was chums with Lenin, and Trotsky? It is perhaps inconvenient for your belief system that after fully immersing himself in Communism, and Marxism that he converted to a more enlightened position.

Also, trying to use a website supposedly hosted by a Marxist that supposedly rejects DM doesn't really help your cause either. Gee, his word must be the gospel!! You are going to have to do much better than this.

Well, yes. I read the entire "for beginners", and am in the process of digesting the entire lecture series. How about you? Interested at all in alternative views from other Marxists? Or, are you trapped in your "Marxist Bubble"?

My statements aren't assumptions, they are observations made because of his clear separation of capitalism from political and social problems, and thus capitalism being viewed as not a totality, is implied in his method of thinking; for example when he viewed the way countries interact with one another as being the cause of the problem, as if this is a separate entity or process from capitalism (it isn't). Your and his thinking treats these things as being separate from one another, when they clearly are not - they are very much interrelated and interact with one another.

But, this is your unfounded proposition. You can't just claim he is wrong, and you are right. In between, there needs to be a rationale for making such a claim. You've yet to provide anything like it.

Earlier in the discussion, when I pressed you on specifics of your solution you said;

Marxism indeed doesn't have a framwork, because it IS a framework, and it is that framework that serves as a guide for those fighting for socialism. You want it to predict EXACTLY how socialism will look, and that is impossible because it depends entirely on the material conditions of the time, should socialism become a reality. Artisans (who ultimately became todays capitalist class) during the feudal era could not predict exactly how capitalism would work, just socialists cannot predict exactly how socialism will look. We each have our own set of values respectively and society will be setup to reflect those values as they have been in prior epochs of history. Your notion is almost as absurd as asking a biologist to predict the evolution of a particular species of insect. Predicting the future of history depends on way to many interacting factors, much in the same way predicting the course of evolution does. Modes of analysis are used to understand current conditions to show which futures are possible and not possible. We'll leave it up to religious fundamentalists to make bold predictions like The Rapture being inevitable outcomes of our social existence, or capitalists who predict this system is the be all end all despite its countless contradictions, inefficiencies, and the fact it creates the very seeds of its own destruction (as all class based systems before it did). At the end of the day, Marxism is perfectly honest (and brutally so) in its analysis and its intentions.

Bolded by me. This is a DM answer. We can't know because the future hasn't happened yet. It's crap. I know that if no one plants crops, we won't eat. I know that if we crap in the water we'll have no safe drinking water. I can predict some futures, not all, but some. This is the notion of risk and reward. I could eat all the grain, or I could risk some of the grain by planting it, to get more grain. It is a fundamental thing.

[FireIceTalon]

Max Eastman? You mean the guy who started out as the editor of extreme leftist "The Masses"? The guy who went to the Soviet Union during the revolution, and was chums with Lenin, and Trotsky? It is perhaps inconvenient for your belief system that after fully immersing himself in Communism, and Marxism that he converted to a more enlightened position.

Meaningless argument, since I can use the same logic for myself, or any other Marxist that lives in the United States or any other given capitalist state. Perhaps it is inconvenient to YOUR belief system that I (or any other given Marxist, before or after me) became disillusioned with capitalism and took a more realistic position? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

Well, yes. I read the entire "for beginners", and am in the process of digesting the entire lecture series. How about you? Interested at all in alternative views from other Marxists? Or, are you trapped in your "Marxist Bubble"?

I don't care if you've read Capital cover to cover multiple times.

I am interested in the views of other Marxists, and that is why I engage in discussion fairly actively over at the revleft.com forum, which has Marxists, anarchists, and other types of socialists of all stripes. I have no problems with Marxists who want to build on the foundation that Marx and Engels laid down, since as capitalism develops so too, must Marxism (hey, dialectics right there! Woot!). In fact, it SHOULD be encouraged. If otherwise were the case, I would reject every single Marxist who came after Marx and Engels, and I would be wrong for doing so. However, there are certain aspects and tenets that make Marxism what it is as a mode of analysis, and should never be removed or altered. Dialectical Materialism is one of those things, and there is a good reason why the overwhelming majority of Marxists, regardless of their particular tendency, still use it and consider it so central to understanding capitalism. Because we generally agree that anti-dialectics is ultimately an abandonment of Marxism, or is anti-Marxist.

But, this is your unfounded proposition. You can't just claim he is wrong, and you are right. In between, there needs to be a rationale for making such a claim. You've yet to provide anything like it.

So, you think neo-colonization of third world countries, has nothing to do with developed nations exploiting the resources and markets of 3rd world nations, and that all the wars have nothing to do with expansion and competition of global markets, in the big picture? You think these problems have SOLELY do with the involved institutions and actors, and not the totality of the system which shapes them and their actions? I think its time for you to get real here, and snap out of your Libertopia fantasy.

This is a DM answer. We can't know because the future hasn't happened yet. It's crap. I know that if no one plants crops, we won't eat. I know that if we crap in the water we'll have no safe drinking water. I can predict some futures, not all, but some. This is the notion of risk and reward. I could eat all the grain, or I could risk some of the grain by planting it, to get more grain. It is a fundamental thing.

This is a gross oversimplification. We aren't talking about planting fucking crops or starting a book drive here, where outcomes are much more predictable. We are talking about the change of an entire social order, which is billions of times more complex. We can predict some possible outcomes for capitalism - it will either be destroyed by revolution and replaced with a more progressive and democratic social order, or it will degenerate into some barbaric social-darwinian society or natural catastrophe, since the system cannot ultimately sustain itself. As Marxists, we want to make sure the former happens, and prevent the latter.

[shoju]

And, for Shoju, http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/ will tell you everything you need to know on why this mumbo jumbo is total bull excrement. A site, by the way, hosted by a Marxist.

Thanks for the link. I'll definitely check it out.

I've just come to the conclusion that trying to have a conversation about "this" with FiT, is like trying to have a religious conversation with my father. Stubborn, and unable to look at anything from a viewpoint that would differentiate from their own.

I'm moving on, this has strayed so far off topic as to be laughable, even by the Lounge's standards, where meandering conversations can be the norm.

[FireIceTalon]

Thanks for the link. I'll definitely check it out.

I've just come to the conclusion that trying to have a conversation about "this" with FiT, is like trying to have a religious conversation with my father. Stubborn, and unable to look at anything from a viewpoint that would differentiate from their own.

Yea, you will check out the link, without first investigating the other side I'm sure, just so it is a confirmation of your own dogmatic views. And you call me stubborn. ROFL. I look at it from the viewpoint of others, I just don't agree with it. There is a difference.

Enjoy the kool-aid man.

[kandrathe]

Meaningless argument, since I can use the same logic for myself, or any other Marxist that lives in the United States or any other given capitalist state. Perhaps it is inconvenient to YOUR belief system that I (or any other given Marxist, before or after me) became disillusioned with capitalism and took a more realistic position? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

If I had to choose, based upon his, and your credentials, I'd say he had more experience and knowledge of your positions.

I don't care if you've read Capital cover to cover multiple times.

Well, I have.

I am interested in the views of other Marxists, and that is why I engage in discussion fairly actively over at the revleft.com forum, which has Marxists, anarchists, and other types of socialists of all stripes. I have no problems with Marxists who want to build on the foundation that Marx and Engels laid down, since as capitalism develops so too, must Marxism (hey, dialectics right there! Woot!). In fact, it SHOULD be encouraged. If otherwise were the case, I would reject every single Marxist who came after Marx and Engels, and I would be wrong for doing so. However, there are certain aspects and tenets that make Marxism what it is as a mode of analysis, and should never be removed or altered. Dialectical Materialism is one of those things, and there is a good reason why the overwhelming majority of Marxists, regardless of their particular tendency, still use it and consider it so central to understanding capitalism.

DM is also useful for proving that night is day, and day is night.

Because we generally agree that anti-dialectics is ultimately an abandonment of Marxism, or is anti-Marxist.

Even though Marx never claimed dialectics was core to his reasoning? Lenin did, of course did claim that DM was core to Marxism. But, then again, Lenin also admitted he never fully understood DM either.

So, you think neo-colonization of third world countries, has nothing to do with developed nations exploiting the resources and markets of 3rd world nations, and that all the wars have nothing to do with expansion and competition of global markets, in the big picture? You think these problems have SOLELY do with the involved institutions and actors, and not the totality of the system which shapes them and their actions?

Did I? Or, is this a strawman?

This is a gross oversimplification. We aren't talking about planting fucking crops or starting a book drive here, where outcomes are much more predictable. We are talking about the change of an entire social order, which is billions of times more complex. We can predict some possible outcomes for capitalism - it will either be destroyed by revolution and replaced with a more progressive and democratic social order, or it will degenerate into some barbaric social-darwinian society or natural catastrophe, since the system cannot ultimately sustain itself. As Marxists, we want to make sure the former happens, and prevent the latter.

Ok. Describe how "a more progressive and democratic social order" works. Who gets trained to be the school teacher? Who toils on the farms? Who gets to be the ballet dancer? How is it decided? How do you prevent shortages, and over-production? How will you prevent the corruption that has plagued every other attempt at a command economy? How are people motivated? How do you prevent "free riders"?

[Hammerskjold]

Max Eastman? You mean the guy who started out as the editor of extreme leftist "The Masses"? The guy who went to the Soviet Union during the revolution, and was chums with Lenin, and Trotsky? It is perhaps inconvenient for your belief system that after fully immersing himself in Communism, and Marxism that he converted to a more enlightened position.

No, he probably meant the other guy you linked to, who wrote\hosted whatever anti big TRUTH method he's talking about. (Dipyplectic? Dispectic? Diarhhea?) Though that Eastman dude is probably a wannabe Red Rad guy hipster too.

Or, are you trapped in your "Marxist Bubble"?

Oh... I think we all know the answer to this one by now.

But here is something that may or may not surprise you. In a link I call:

REVOLUTION #9.

(It's #9 on the list.)

http://www.cracked.com/blog/14-photograp...us-people/

Though it's also worth taking a look at #2.


Young Alex Trebek, looks remarkably like Joseph Gordon Levitt. Wait a minute...JGL starred in a film about time travelling...maybe it wasn't a film at all...but a documentary! AND ONLY I KNOW THE TRUTH!!111 He went back to the future and forward into the past! Diuretic Machina!

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!1111

Enjoy the kool-aid man.

Kool aid man is a hipster rad wannabe. Just because he wears all Red, and bursts through walls? EFFffff That GUY!

edited for mis tag. I blame KKKapitalizts.

[shoju]

Thanks for the link. I'll definitely check it out.

I've just come to the conclusion that trying to have a conversation about "this" with FiT, is like trying to have a religious conversation with my father. Stubborn, and unable to look at anything from a viewpoint that would differentiate from their own.

Yea, you will check out the link, without first investigating the other side I'm sure, just so it is a confirmation of your own dogmatic views. And you call me stubborn. ROFL. I look at it from the viewpoint of others, I just don't agree with it. There is a difference.

Enjoy the kool-aid man.

I'm sorry.... do you think you fucking know me or something? Because you sure do make a lot of assumptions about me, and my ideas, and how I'm going to do, or read, or comprehend. How do you know that I haven't researched other standpoints? How do you know that I'll read it, automatically agree with it and use it as confirmation? How do you know that I wont read it, and think "Eh, he's sort of got a point." Or "Eh, No I don't think that's what I think".

The truth is, I've read a lot of the links you've posted, and even lurked around your revleft. Just because I don't come in here, and spew out pounds of rhetoric doesn't mean I'm uneducated about something.

It could just be, that I think that spouting and spewing rhetoric the way you do, makes you look like a blowhard, incapable of reason, because you are so steadfast in your beliefs, that the minute anyone publicly disagrees with you, it's a jump to insults, thinly veiled or otherwise, in an effort to take over the superior position in an argument. Yep. Totally reminds me of my fundamentalist christian pastor father.

Or it could be, that I don't give two shits about communism, or marxism, because through the course of my college career I studied politics, and sociology, and behavioral sciences, and agreed with the people I studied. Textbook marxism, and communism are great theories, but they only work when you are able to remove the primal / base instincts of humanity. Something, that in the course of your interactions with me on this forum, you haven't even been able to do. You immediately jump to put people on the defensive, by positioning yourself as the absolute authority. Anyone who could possibly prove to be your intellectual equal, yet on the opposite side of the argument, you immediately work to discredit. You've done it with me, with Kandrathe, with Jester, Hell, I'm sure you even squared off in the same manner with Kevin, but I'm too tired of reading your crap to go look. You are the textbook definition of why your beloved ideologies can't work. And the hilarious part of the whole thing, is that you can't even see it, because you have your nose so far up your own smug ass, that you think you're right, and that we are all some brainwashed idiots.

Here's a shocker. I went to college in the beginning as a Social Psychology Major.I decided 2 years in, that I couldn't imagine doing this for the rest of my life. Queue career change, and now I'm an E-commerce director. My degree in Web Based Programming and Design is serving me far better than what the social psych would have.

[FireIceTalon]

Sigh. Its only "rhetoric crap" when a Marxist says it, riiiiiiiiiight?? It's only me hurling insults and putting people on the defensive (despite the fact I constantly have to defend Marxism from yours and other peoples reactionary slanders, lies, and vulgarizations of it). Meh, I'm done here as well. This ain't gonna go anywhere. Have at it.

One last thing I will say for Kandrathe, is that DM is indeed central to Marxism, even if he never explicitly stated so. In fact, he never even coined the term itself, but he and Engels used it so extensively in their thought process that it is kind of self-evident and implied for us that it was very much a central component to their ideas and analysis. As a result, anti-dialectics is pretty much un-Marxist by default (if not anti-Marxist). That might sound dogmatic but it really isnt (the "Marxist" who owns that website you posted even called DM a dogmatic philosophy, and I have no idea how he came to this conclusion, since the very essence of DM is in fact anti-dogmatic, i.e. the material processes of the world are in constant conflict and thus ever changing, rather than linear and unchanging which would be a dogmatic perspective...I almost want to contact that guy and tell him to take his shit website down - its complete revisionism like this that has vulgarized and distorted Marxism so terribly). DM just happens to be one of the key tenets that distinguishes Marxism from other strands of leftist thought, be it anarchism, the million and one types of non-Marxist socialism like Blanquism, etc (it can also lead to systems outside the realm of leftism altogether). In short, taking DM out of Marxism would be akin to taking the concept of adaptation out of the process of evolution, when it would cease to be evolution at that point. Anyways, I have neither the interest nor the heart to continue this discussion in general for the time being. Take care, stay safe everyone.

My red, dialectical best --FIT

*EDIT*

Kandrathe, I took it upon myself to research the person who made that website you linked me to in an attempt to disprove DM. Well, it turns out she was a fairly known poster on RevLeft, and regarded by most there as little better than a troll. Pretty much all her criticisms of DM were debunked by various people on RevLeft, including this discussion here, and in this well conceived post here.. And I'm sure there are probably plenty of other posts in old threads that discredit her effectively as well, that I haven't found yet. Not to mention, her whole critique fails for the simple fact that Marxist thought is formed around DM, especially in Capital Vol.1. Essentially the only way her critique could have ANY merit at all (and even then, it really still wouldn't have much) is if she finally admitted she wasn't a Marxist. At least then, she'd only be a fool, instead of a fool with her foot in her mouth.

[kandrathe]

Kandrathe, I took it upon myself to research the person who made that website you linked me to in an attempt to disprove DM. Well, it turns out she was a fairly known poster on RevLeft, and regarded by most there as little better than a troll. Pretty much all her criticisms of DM were debunked by various people on RevLeft.

Of course. The die hard DM advocates would say they debunked it. If you won't read her argument, then you won't know. But, why waste your time when you know you are right.

[FireIceTalon]

No. I read some of the various walls of text on her site, and among what was actually readable, all I saw was a vulgarization of DM that turned it from being the non-deterministic methodology that it is, into some dogmatic, inflexible mysticism to suit her own personal crusade (a crusade that doesn't even make sense to begin with). I was perplexed by her critique which was absolutely incoherent in many parts regardless, so I made a thread about it and got the information I needed, and then some. Me reading her critique is why I investigated it. I knew it was pretty odd but I had no idea of her "history" either.

Bottomline: taking the DM out of Marxism is INCOMPATIBLE - this is a cold, hard fact. Now, this isn't to say DM or even Marxism in general is ultimately right (it may or may not be, I believe it to be so, but that is beside my point), but her critique of it is unfounded, and for now, DM comes out unscathed. It isn't just a matter of the "die hard" DM's claiming to have debunked it, almost every Marxist on RL (whether they were highly interested in DM or not) thought she was a nutcase on some witch hunt whose sole purpose was to discredit DM or any Marxist that agreed with DM (which is, almost all of them) at every turn, and from reading her site and some of her posts on RevLeft, it's not hard to see why she got banned. It was to a point where she was scarring new members of the forum off with her dogmatic gibberish. Her whole rationale is based around that DM is too complex, therefore it is garbage and useless. By her logic, quantum physics, statistics, and all advanced mathematics are garbage and useless as well.

It's pretty paradoxical on her part since she claims to be a Marxist and a materialist! Far as I'm concerned, she is as anti-Marxist as any capitalist is, and to be honest, I have seen capitalist critiques of DM that are more interesting (and more logical!) to read than her crap, even if I disagree with them. Sorry man, she is discredited - and exorbitantly so. Anyway, point is if you are going to use Marxist based sources to try and refute my points, you should be a little more careful and selective in your choices, or maybe just avoid such sources altogether better yet. Just a suggestion.

Im done for real now, just wanted to point that out to ya.

all my red, dialectical best - FIT

[Hammerskjold]

But, why waste your time when you know you are right.

Dialetics...Dianetics. Potay-toe, poh-tah toe.

Well, Raddy McRadish's TRUEST OF TRUTH version of Diuretics anyway. (Though who says poh-tah toes in real life?)

[Hammerskjold]

I'm not as dumb as you'd like to believe

Then stop showing us numerous proof of it.

[eppie]

Or it could be, that I don't give two shits about communism, or marxism, because through the course of my college career I studied politics, and sociology, and behavioral sciences, and agreed with the people I studied. Textbook marxism, and communism are great theories, but they only work when you are able to remove the primal / base instincts of humanity. Something, that in the course of your interactions with me on this forum, you haven't even been able to do. You immediately jump to put people on the defensive, by positioning yourself as the absolute authority. Anyone who could possibly prove to be your intellectual equal, yet on the opposite side of the argument, you immediately work to discredit. You've done it with me, with Kandrathe, with Jester, Hell, I'm sure you even squared off in the same manner with Kevin, but I'm too tired of reading your crap to go look. You are the textbook definition of why your beloved ideologies can't work. And the hilarious part of the whole thing, is that you can't even see it, because you have your nose so far up your own smug ass, that you think you're right, and that we are all some brainwashed idiots.

The problem with social, psychological and political ''sciences'' is that all of them have a huge lack of looking outside of their box.
I mean the whole argument of '''we have seen that communism doesn't work....blablabla'' while at the same time we don't realize how long our market economical world is going on, and how close we are of getting some solutions.

It started all with European countries invading and pillaging most other countries in the world. At the moment we are at a phase were in many countries in this world there is a poverty not imaginable even in the potato-famine days in Ireland.....with the slight difference that now everyone in this world knows about this.....and still doesn't do anything.
NO at this moment still we benefit a lot more from the development countries than we send back to them in aid.
We further have almost surely changed the climate on our planet permanently (on the time scale of human life) and we are sucking dry our planet from its resources, because we (as humans) are some kind of plague.

If you just look at the lives of a few % of our planets inhabitants over 100 maybe 200 years, then capitalism has done a great job. But if you look at the bigger picture we have nothing to be proud of.



I just wanted to react on your comment about textbook marxism etc,. etc, and showing that it is faulty argument.

[Hammerskjold]

The problem with social, psychological and political ''sciences'' is that all of them have a huge lack of looking outside of their box.

...snip snip snip I left out some of the saggy middle because IMO it's not as strong as your opener and closer.

I just wanted to react on your comment about textbook marxism etc,. etc, and showing that it is faulty argument.

The lack of looking outside of one's own box, or seeing everything through a 99% opaque red (or blue, or any other colour really) tinted bubble, is a problem, period.

The simpler version but not hopefully too simplistic. Any idealogical solution that is extremely simple, tend to be too extreme and simplistic, and it only works 'on paper'.

That's what I read Shoju's point was, and I personally don't find that to be a faulty argument.

Textbook 'anything' can mean that wow, that is done perfectly, that's a textbook 'chocolate cake'. I doubt that's what some folks meant when they say something only works 'on paper', especially when a 'perfect plan' requires perfect everything. 100% Perfect people, perfect conditions, and perfect chocolate. That's not a framework, that's barely an idea. That's a fools paradise. Whether one claims that 'paradise' is closer to the extreme left\right, doesn't change that it's still a fools paradise.

I have yet to see commie-ism work on a large scale. Forget global, even at a national level for a sec. Besides how Red Rad Bubble Boy keeps screaming about how the sky is coloured red (through his bubble) and that's the TRUTH, anyone who says otherwise is obviously a KKKapitalizt moron.

Look at some of the echo chamber effect in the links Krimson Komrade put up. He keeps bleating about 'we're so persecuted because we're too cool and radical like'. So what do they do when someone who was formerly drinking their brand of Kool Aid, and say it sorta taste like urine sometimes? 'Start keeping tabs on them! We should denounce that troll who dares to question our TRUTHIEST TRUTH!' (And they're probably not large enough to form a bowling league, let alone a nation state.)

I don't know about you, but that sounds closer to a cult mentality to me, than some intellectually rigorous poli-sciencing. (Some will say there's not much difference at times if we really get down to it, but I'll just say nothing and smile for now.)

The extreme of anything, tend to be only good for specific, limited, extreme circumstances. Commie-ism on a large scale has been tried before, and from what I see a pesky thing called 'the worse side of human nature' tend to gum it up. Krimson Komrade here might as well be shouting 'Just wait until Xenu arrives on Earth' whenever he proclaims Marx is the only way, so for the good of all won't you let him into your heart.

Now I can agree that the extreme, unchecked capitalism, is also not a very good system. If everything has a price, and that is the 'True and Good' way since market forces should decide invizo hand of free market yadda yadda. Then what price would you sell your child for? How much to buy clean air that you're breathing right now? How much to dump toxic waste into your water source? That's not a rhetorical question, and unfortunately history, and even currently, the answer for some folks is not rhetorical either.

But frankly, from my perspective the alternative \ solution to one extreme swing is not necessarily an extreme swing to the other direction. If we all wind up stuck in a ditch, both of equal danger and precarious location, except one has pointy and jagged rocks, and the other has jagged and pointy rocks...

Does it really matter much if we're stuck in the left ditch vs the right? Only an extremist, ideologue would say it matters. And if they don't even get out of the car to help look for the carjack, the least they can do is bray to their god silently.

[eppie]

Does it really matter much if we're stuck in the left ditch vs the right? Only an extremist, ideologue would say it matters. And if they don't even get out of the car to help look for the carjack, the least they can do is bray to their god silently.

First I was mainly trying to prove shoju wrong, not to say that communism is best.
Second: I find Cuba a pretty good example. Despite a boycott from most part of the world, they are doing a lot better than the surrounding island states.
They however show the main problem here....it will not work when it is not a dictatorship.....people tend to want more for themselves so if they see how easy they can make money in the US by selling drugs, of course they want to flee, and of course the leaders start oppressing.
The only thing we could try is give the communists their own state. So everybody who is in to it can move there so that at least there are only like minds there.......of course issues will arise when they need to export and import goods.....

[Hammerskjold]

The only thing we could try is give the communists their own state. So everybody who is in to it can move there so that at least there are only like minds there.......

Ok eppie, let's say we have a magic wand that will let us do just that.

And not just for commies either. If you're a Randtard, you can have your own Randtard only state too. If you hang your toilet paper the 'correct' way, (I'm not going to open that can of worms, besides you chosen ones know what I'm talking about amirite) you can have your own state too where there is only like minded people populating this blissful state.

Just one thing I gotta ask you. Who gets to decide who is worthy to go to this state\island\planet? I'm being serious here.

Numnuts over there for the commies? Does he speak for all commies? Or just the 'right' ones who is worthy of Marx's blessings? If his past behaviour is any indication, that would be a red Ark of exactly one.

Because if we use his own measuring stick, I doubt anyone else but him is 'worthy' to enter Marxist Paradise.

of course issues will arise when they need to export and import goods.....

If it ever gets to that stage, it will be an absolute miracle, and I say that with a straight face. If this thought experiment is carried out for realsies, if we even get to the 'here's your own state\land\planet', it's more likely that the first issue that will arise, will be a re-enactment of 'Lord of The Flies'. Or possibly 'Heart of Darkness'.

[kandrathe]

"Second: I find Cuba a pretty good example."

Two Czech Models detained for photographing Havana slums.-- More...

"She pointed out that it is almost impossible to provide any assistance through official means because the Communist authorities refuse to admit anything in their country does not work."

No news is good news.

Edit: In reflection, I really have no particular animosity towards communal-ism -- that is a group of democratic(not coerced) equals finding a way to share their daily burdens to get along. Throughout the history of the US, there have been many persecuted religious groups who come the the US for that freedom. If the individuals can freely associate, and have the freedom to leave the group (municipality), then it is their choice as to what agreements they enter into.

The only particular part of communism I abhor, as it has been expressed, is the coercion of the State apparatus. I object to any form of government when it is expressed as fascism/oligarchy, or totalitarianism, such as Stalin-ism/Trotsky-ism (incl. Cuba), or Maoism.

For me, it really just gets down to the freedom of the individual. And, I do truly believe in excessive generosity, rather than State enforced altruism. I do think there should be taxes for communal services, to pay for those things we NEED. However, in the US, it has become corrupted into a mechanism for graft, political favors, and vote buying.