Influence your thoughts and feelings

[Ashock]

Just clarifying; are you saying that the motivations behind "communisms": are inherently 'evil'?  Or are you restricting your characterization to the implementation of the Sino/Soviet variants?  I find it hard to believe that the likes of Plato, More, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Engels and Marx were motivated by intentions that can be explicitly characterized as fundamentally 'evil'.
[right][snapback]86459[/snapback][/right]

Marx and Engels - evil. Read their works... in detail. Plato - Greece - Democracy. Other three? Don't care. Their works did not lead to a regime that covered 1/2 of the civilized world, and are therefore irrelevant, at least when it comes to discussions of realities of communism.

As far as motivations behind communism? Maybe they're not all evil, but they are all naive.



-A

[Jeunemaitre]

Marx and Engels - evil. Read their works... in detail. Plato - Greece - Democracy. Other three? Don't care. Their works did not lead to a regime that covered 1/2 of the civilized world, and are therefore irrelevant, at least when it comes to discussions of realities of communism.

As far as motivations behind communism? Maybe they're not all evil, but they are all naive.
-A
[right][snapback]86485[/snapback][/right]

Wow. I really am sorry that I let go of that balloon. As to your previous question Ashock, I was half joking. What I was really trying to say is that if SPACE felt my pointing-out that access to medication carries with it a series of inequality issues was an argument that a communist would make, then perhaps his version of communism contains some valid perspective. The other side of my statement was intended to contribute to the growth of SPACE's topic into such a Trollfest™ that it rivals a thread about the outright evils of "mom, apple pie, and the American Way." Most anything I type that is followed by the whistler is intended for humor, or at least half humor.

I'll be perfectly honest, I don't know much about communism, or the differences between its original theoretical suggestion and the way it was implemented in Europe and Asia. I will certainly defer to those who are more knowledgable. If we want to have a discussion about communism, I'd be happy to sit on the sidelines and hear what people have to say. Who am I to get in the way of the will of the people. :rolleyes: ... <_< ... :whistling: (running away)

edit: rearrange the flow, add a statement, rinse, repeat as needed

[Chaerophon]

Marx and Engels - evil. Read their works... in detail.

Have done. Don't see it. They saw the plight of their fellow man and they strove to correct it. Were they misguided, mistaken, naive? Sure, maybe. Evil? Hell no. Marx was a poor man - he wasn't in it for money or power. He was in it because he felt that man could live a better life, one in which their labour helped them to live well.

Plato - Greece - Democracy.

Plato didn't advocate democracy, Aristotle did. Plato felt that democracy was a weak, if less corruptible form of democracy. See book VIII of the Republic in support of my point. It's a quick, easy read. He was an idealist, just like the communists that I mentioned, and in fact, I would say that he was FAR less of a democrat than any of them. Plato provides THE perfect example of what I'm talking about - a moral system with christ-like ideals backed by an advocation of political structures that clash strongly with those of the modern day, which are derived as much from experience of the failures of such idealism as from any strictly 'moral' point of view.

[gekko]

Marx and Engels - evil. Read their works... in detail. Plato - Greece - Democracy. Other three? Don't care. Their works did not lead to a regime that covered 1/2 of the civilized world, and are therefore irrelevant, at least when it comes to discussions of realities of communism.

As far as motivations behind communism? Maybe they're not all evil, but they are all naive.
-A
[right][snapback]86485[/snapback][/right]

I think you're oversimplifying one side of the story here.

It's a simple - to the point of being irrelevant - argument to say that capitalism is based on exploiting other people: I sell a product or a service; simply by definition, in order to make a profit I must charge more for my product or service than it is worth to me. However, I don't consider capitalism evil, per se. Any system has flaws. You need to say more than "read again in detail" as support for calling Marx evil.

See, I like the idea of communism, but only in small communities. I do accept that in real life, well, we only need to read our history books to see how it worked out. However, it's a bit of a stretch to say that communism = evil.

gekko

[Ashock]

Have done.&nbsp; Don't see it.&nbsp; They saw the plight of their fellow man and they strove to correct it.&nbsp; Were they misguided, mistaken, naive?&nbsp; Sure, maybe.&nbsp; Evil?&nbsp; Hell no.&nbsp; Marx was a poor man - he wasn't in it for money or power.&nbsp; He was in it because he felt that man could live a better life, one in which their labour helped them to live well.
[right][snapback]86498[/snapback][/right]

They strove to correct it by advocating violent changes, and the fact that communism can't be stagnant and has to expand in order to survive as a system (which it does). Worldwide violent changes. Yeh, they were pussycats. If they were aborted along with all the original Soviet crimi.... I mean revolutionaries, the world would be a better place. Aside from that, WW2 might not have happened at all either, but that's another story.


-A


ps. The only good communist is a dead one, period. Oooh, that's shocking, isn't it? He is so closed-minded, isn't he? Such an obnoxious a-hole! Blah.

[gekko]

They strove to correct it by advocating violent changes, and the fact that communism can't be stagnant and has to expand in order to survive as a system (which it does). Worldwide violent changes. Yeh, they were pussycats. If they were aborted along with all the original Soviet crimi.... I mean revolutionaries, the world would be a better place. Aside from that, WW2 might not have happened at all either, but that's another story.
-A
ps. The only good communist is a dead one, period. Oooh, that's shocking, isn't it? He is so closed-minded, isn't he? Such an obnoxious a-hole! Blah.
[right][snapback]86533[/snapback][/right]

And capitalism keeps north american upper class white people rich by exploiting poor countries around the world. We (yes, I am including myself in this 'we') keep three quarters of the world living in poverty so they can keep stitching our nike sneakers and gap jeans, and all the while we bitch and complain because gas prices keep rising.

You're delibrately oversimplifying your points. My guess wouldn't be that you're a close minded a-hole, as you put it. My guess is that you're operating on the assumption that no one else at the lounge is as smart or well read as you believe yourself to be. Given the quality of many of the posters here, that's a pretty stupid assumption.

gekko

[wakim]

Plato didn't advocate democracy, Aristotle did.&nbsp; [right][snapback]86498[/snapback][/right]

There are three kinds of constitution, and an equal number of deviation-forms--perversions, as it were, of them. The constitutions are monarchy, aristocracy, and thirdly that which is based on a property qualification, which it seems appropriate to call timocratic, though most people are wont to call it polity. The best of these is monarchy, the worst timocracy. The deviation from monarchy is tyrany; for both are forms of one-man rule, but there is the greatest difference between them; the tyrant looks to his own advantage, the king to that of his subjects. For a man is not a king unless he is sufficient to himself and excels his subjects in all good things; and such a man needs nothing further; therefore he will not look to his own interests but to those of his subjects; for a king who is not like that would be a mere titular king. Now tyranny is the very contrary of this; the tyrant pursues his own good. And it is clearer in the case of tyranny that it is the worst deviation-form; but it is the contrary of the best that is worst. Monarchy passes over into tyranny; for tyranny is the evil form of one-man rule and the bad king becomes a tyrant. Aristocracy passes over into oligarchy by the badness of the rulers, who distribute contrary to equity what belongs to the city-all or most of the good things to themselves, and office always to the same people, paying most regard to wealth; thus the rulers are few and are bad men instead of the most worthy. Timocracy passes over into democracy; for these are coterminous, since it is the ideal even of timocracy to be the rule of the majority, and all who have the property qualification count as equal. Democracy is the least bad of the deviations; for in its case the form of constitution is but a slight deviation. These then are the changes to which constitutions are most subject; for these are the smallest and easiest transitions. [italics mine]

- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII, Chapter 10.


Perhaps something in Politics or Athenian Constitution exists that would allow this to be read differently than that Aristotle found democracy to be the best of the worst forms of government, or, as he puts it, the "least bad of the deviations"?

[Ashock]

And capitalism keeps north american upper class white people rich by exploiting poor countries around the world.&nbsp; We (yes, I am including myself in this 'we') keep three quarters of the world living in poverty so they can keep stitching our nike sneakers and gap jeans, and all the while we bitch and complain because gas prices keep rising.

You're delibrately oversimplifying your points.&nbsp; My guess wouldn't be that you're a close minded a-hole, as you put it.&nbsp; My guess is that you're operating on the assumption that no one else at the lounge is as smart or well read as you believe yourself to be.&nbsp; Given the quality of many of the posters here, that's a pretty stupid assumption.

gekko
[right][snapback]86569[/snapback][/right]

To your 2nd paragraph: There are many issues about which I do not know squat. There are other issues about which I know enough, but not more than most and less than some. There are a couple of issues about which I know more than most, and definately more than people here. 2 reasons for that. 1) I was born there and have many relatives with whom I can talk about these things, who actually lived through them as adults... and 2) Since the age of about 15-16, my fascination with my former (thank god) homeland has led me to read more literature on the topic of the history of the USSR and world comminism in general than people who were not born there would care to do. Oh and works by Marx and Engels and Lenin were required reading in college, and my parents actually took some of their literature with them.

The combination of those 2 factors allows me to have such strong views on this topic. See, you guys think you know and understand. I, OTOH actually do know and understand. Oh, I suppose there are 1 or 2 people here who were born there also, but that does not mean that they care about this topic as much as I do and therefore do not know as much.

As far as your 1st paragraph.....I choose not to touch it, as this might get ugly, and I am in a very relaxed mood right now....



-A

[gekko]

To your 2nd paragraph: There are many issues about which I do not know squat. There are other issues about which I know enough, but not more than most and less than some. There are a couple of issues about which I know more than most, and definately more than people here. 2 reasons for that. 1) I was born there and have many relatives with whom I can talk about these things, who actually lived through them as adults... and 2) Since the age of about 15-16, my fascination with my former (thank god) homeland has led me to read more literature on the topic of the history of the USSR and world comminism in general than people who were not born there would care to do. Oh and works by Marx and Engels and Lenin were required reading in college, and my parents actually took some of their literature with them.

The combination of those 2 factors allows me to have such strong views on this topic. See, you guys think you know and understand. I, OTOH actually do know and understand. Oh, I suppose there are 1 or 2 people here who were born there also, but that does not mean that they care about this topic as much as I do and therefore do not know as much.

As far as your 1st paragraph.....I choose not to touch it, as this might get ugly, and I am in a very relaxed mood right now....
-A
[right][snapback]86580[/snapback][/right]

That may have been enough if this discussion was limited to specific historic facts or timetables. However, the opinion you put forward was not limited to the rule of communism in the USSR. The opinion you put forward was that communism is and must always be evil. That's a pretty bold statement, particularly considering you never bothered to state what aspects of communism you believe are so evil, or even exactly you mean by communism. Off-hand, I can't think of a single definition I would apply to communism, since I'm aware of several very differing beliefs that fall under that broad name.

If you want to say that certain aspects of communism made things worse in the USSR than they would have been had communism not existed, then I would say your personal experiences would make you very qualified to express that argument. However, you didn't do that. You made a broad generalization that communism is evil, without putting any limits or definitions in place. That's like my saying that vegeratians are evil, without mentioning that I'm talking about vegetarians who murder anyone they find eating meat.

My comments regarding capitalism, by the way, were not meant to spark anything ugly. They were simply designed to point out that any system has flaws, and that it is not fair to label something evil by asserting that those flaws are inherent and cannot possibly be fixed or changed.

gekko

[Chaerophon]

Bah. If you don't feel the need to define 'evil', 'communist', or to indicate exactly what it is that makes Marx 'evil' per se, then I don't have time to discuss this with you. Your attempts to dodge providing a real answer with a garbled 'I lived it' argument expose the truth; once a troll, always a troll. I know the works of Marx, in particular, and I know a great deal about the history of communism and social democracy in the world. You have given me no indication that you know the slightest thing about any of it. If you truly do believe that capitalist interests have not been pursued through violent means in the past, then you are a fool, plain and simple. The 'communism leads to war' angle is a dead end. So does money. And property.

[Chaerophon]

There are three kinds of constitution, and an equal number of deviation-forms--perversions, as it were, of them. The constitutions are monarchy, aristocracy, and thirdly that which is based on a property qualification, which it seems appropriate to call timocratic, though most people are wont to call it polity. The best of these is monarchy, the worst timocracy. The deviation from monarchy is tyrany; for both are forms of one-man rule, but there is the greatest difference between them; the tyrant looks to his own advantage, the king to that of his subjects. For a man is not a king unless he is sufficient to himself and excels his subjects in all good things; and such a man needs nothing further; therefore he will not look to his own interests but to those of his subjects; for a king who is not like that would be a mere titular king. Now tyranny is the very contrary of this; the tyrant pursues his own good. And it is clearer in the case of tyranny that it is the worst deviation-form; but it is the contrary of the best that is worst. Monarchy passes over into tyranny; for tyranny is the evil form of one-man rule and the bad king becomes a tyrant. Aristocracy passes over into oligarchy by the badness of the rulers, who distribute contrary to equity what belongs to the city-all or most of the good things to themselves, and office always to the same people, paying most regard to wealth; thus the rulers are few and are bad men instead of the most worthy. Timocracy passes over into democracy; for these are coterminous, since it is the ideal even of timocracy to be the rule of the majority, and all who have the property qualification count as equal. Democracy is the least bad of the deviations; for in its case the form of constitution is but a slight deviation. These then are the changes to which constitutions are most subject; for these are the smallest and easiest transitions. [italics mine]

- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII, Chapter 10.
Perhaps something in Politics or Athenian Constitution exists that would allow this to be read differently than that Aristotle found democracy to be the best of the worst forms of government, or, as he puts it, the "least bad of the deviations"?
[right][snapback]86578[/snapback][/right]

You need to read The Politics ;) In it, Aristotle comes to the final conclusion that, while the ideal forms are best in ideal conditions, there is a great deal of merit in the safety of forms in which there is a balancing power granted to what he calls the 'middle' kind of person, i.e. in governmental forms in which one or another class/group cannot dominate. Thus, he ultimately supports a more decentralized, less corruptible form of governance. He is still an elitist, but his defense of decentralization and 'protective' forms separates him from Plato's idealist interpretation. While Plato sees the decline of civilization as virtually inevitable through the 'loss of virtue in governance' and the descent through monarchy, aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny (or some such order in book VIII), Aristotle disagrees, arguing that stability and accountable governance can be maintained in 'democratic forms' and that eventual descent is not inevitable. For this reason, while he does state that the Platonic notions of Aristocracy and Monarchy are ideal, he explicitly indicates his preference for 'democratic' forms.

[whyBish]

Communism seems to combine the problems of dictators (too much power in one person's hand's lots of killings, less arguments about the best way of doing things), and people who are completel sure that their government philosphy is right down to the last detail (or something along those lines), rarely happens in other governments it seems.
[right][snapback]86437[/snapback][/right]

I've had a number of arguements about communism before and it usually ends up that everyone is talking about different things:
- Does communism require a non-elected leader/s?
- Does communism require central planning?
- Does communism require everyone to recieve equal income?
- Does communism require (virtual) 100% tax rate (i.e. govt recieves all outputs for distribution)?
- Does communism require constant revolution?
I've seen people with all sorts of different combinations of answers to those questions call their version communism. The last question in particular (and the first with it) seems to be the main difference between theoretical communism and the communism that has actually been applied (?occured?) in the real world.

Personally I find it (theoretically) interesting to consider whether you can have a stable communist (NYYYY) government with an elected leadership.

[whyBish]

Most anything I type that is followed by the whistler is intended for humor, or at least half humor.
[right][snapback]86497[/snapback][/right]

I always thought the whistler was for sarcasm and irony :whistling:

[wakim]

You need to read The Politics.
[right][snapback]86611[/snapback][/right]

Your use of the imperative leaves me little choice but to do as you command.

[Alrin]

Uh guys.
I find this thread completely irrelevant.
It turned into a communism vs non-communism thread which is quite sad.
Kinda like arguing good vs evil. "Why, ofcourse good is good and evil is evil!", you may say. Not necessarily.

We operate under the assumptions that good is x and evil is y.
We consider evil = evil just because we have been raised to consider good to the be norm.
What if the society had been brought up as "evil". Then evil would be good, and good would be "abnormal behaviour" and thusly evil.
Kind of like Drizzt (the good drow that is raised in an evil society).
To them, he is the "evil" in their midst.

*shrugs* I'll stop before I rant too much.
There is no perfect form of government, no matter what we tell ourselves.
As long as its humans governing other humans, we will have asshats and jerks as leaders who continue to steal this worlds resources for their own personal gain. Show me a selfless politician and I will guarantee you he has a hidden agenda. If anything, a universal constant would be: Politics = The Great Evil.

/EOF

[Occhidiangela]

:D

Check it out;
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/futurebody/ar...88743-3,00.html

Blah blah blah crappy ad copy[right][snapback]86216[/snapback][/right]

The linked article makes two unwarranted assumptions.

1. An escape from, as already noted, the multi variable interactions that manifest themselves in side ffects, both serious and benign, aswell as the serendipitously beneficial per Viagra. Heroin: once believed to be the perfect replacement for morphine, due to it being, get this, non addictive. :lol:

2. Enhancing intelligence presumes there is something there to start with, and that the brain muscle, as it were, is developed and exercised on useful content while young, and a state of continual fitness is striven for as a matter of habit. Put differently, if you take anobolic steroids but don't work out, you don't get Ahnold like pumped up outcomes.

The second assumption comes up short in any case, given the general opacity of the human population. This is not to blame all of the mentally mundane, as for some the choice to indulge in serious brain exercise runs afoul of the lower three tiers of Maslow's Heriarchy consuming the lions' share of their time.

For the modest percentage operating in the upper two tiers, there is still the matter of overcoming baser instincts such as sloth, caffeine or other drug addiction, drunkenness, purely physical pursuits, and general distaste for matters cerebral.

See any number of sports stars who run afoul of purely animal urges, Bob Hayes or Lawrence Taylor, or Roscoe Tanner and Art Schlichter, Denny McLean, or even Mike Tyson and Kobe Bryant.

Charitably presuming the flawed assumptions presented in the article as true, we would appear to be nearing the utopian condition postulated by Frank Baum, in whose Oz books any number of smart pills were available to enable Oz' denizens to amass immense fields of knowledge by simply taking the pill.

As with any utopia, such a condition can only be approached assymptotically but never achieved. Taking the limit as time approaches infinity, we will still not arrive at utopia, no matter how many drugs we take, but will rather arrive at complete entropy and the perfection of bloody fork all: nothing. There is a purity in nothing, but it makes for lack of variety, and you can't play capture the flag there. I'd opt for the drugs, and the rest of you can have Utopia. The visuals are better my way. :blink:

Perhaps, as time approaches infinity, we will discover that the laws of physics are a bit more local than universal . . .

Back to more reasoned reality. Me, I'll take the neither the blue pill nore the red pill, and keep looking for that damned spoon, since I need to stir some chemicals into my coffee.


As for the Troll: Between his ears there is only SPACE, so the drugs would be wasted on him in the first place, although there's a bridge I'd like to sell him. Since Lemmy gave him his walking papers, I say we score the match

"Absurd Rodent" vs "Ludicrous Troll." :D

As 2-0 in favor of Lemming.

Next on the tee, Overcaffeinated Rogue versus The Madness of King George III.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

Uh guys.
I find this thread completely irrelevant.
It turned into a communism vs non-communism thread which is quite sad.
[right][snapback]86636[/snapback][/right]

That's the nature of the beast here in The Lounge (different 'rules' apply to the more focused fora of the LL). A thread will often diverge from the original topic and become something entirely different. Often more than once. That's the difference between a conversation group and a formal discussion group. Frankly, I love it -- it keeps the brain limber. :)

--Pete

[Chaerophon]

Your use of the imperative leaves me little choice but to do as you command.
[right][snapback]86616[/snapback][/right]

Apologies, I added a winkie. Didn't mean to sound snarky.

[Ashock]

That may have been enough if this discussion was limited to specific historic facts or timetables.  However, the opinion you put forward was not limited to the rule of communism in the USSR.  The opinion you put forward was that communism is and must always be evil.  That's a pretty bold statement, particularly considering you never bothered to state what aspects of communism you believe are so evil, or even exactly you mean by communism.  Off-hand, I can't think of a single definition I would apply to communism, since I'm aware of several very differing beliefs that fall under that broad name.

If you want to say that certain aspects of communism made things worse in the USSR than they would have been had communism not existed, then I would say your personal experiences would make you very qualified to express that argument.  However, you didn't do that.  You made a broad generalization that communism is evil, without putting any limits or definitions in place.  That's like my saying that vegeratians are evil, without mentioning that I'm talking about vegetarians who murder anyone they find eating meat.

My comments regarding capitalism, by the way, were not meant to spark anything ugly.  They were simply designed to point out that any system has flaws, and that it is not fair to label something evil by asserting that those flaws are inherent and cannot possibly be fixed or changed.

gekko
[right][snapback]86586[/snapback][/right]

Look, I'll be honest with you. I don't feel like getting into this. It'd take too long. When someone has lived it, they don't need a lengthy explanation. When they have not, they do... and I simply did not and do not feel like it. Maybe some other time. This is why I suggested some reading on the topic, as the author writes about it better (and in more detail) than I can, and more importantly it requires no effort from me.
My problem is that sometimes I make the same mistake as I accuse liberals of making all the time and that mistake being that I sometimes assume that the whole world has a certain set of views on some aspects of life as someone with my backround does.
To me some things are obvious, like it is obvious to someone who can see, what the color red is, but go try to explain it to someone who was born blind.
People who were born in the West, simply are not capable of seeing reality to it's fullest when it comes to certain issues. I know that when my kids grow up, they will be no different. Then I get to a point when I need to argue issues that I thought were obvious and I simply do not feel like it most of the time. This thread has made me realize this better than I did before, so I'll be more selective from now on.


I will throw this out to you though. There's many countries with communist governments. There were many in Europe, there still are many in Africa and some in Asia. Name one where life is good, one.

-A

[Ninjadruid]

Cuba.

Everyone is educated, all are employed, there is almost no poverty, children have access to afterschool programs, medical care is free and open to all. I've spent a lot of time down there recently, and as it's not very big, I've got to see it all, not just the tourist resorts. The people in Cuba a genuinely happy for the most part. There are of course extemists who oppose the government and are persecuted for it, but that happens in America too, hello Guatanamo Bay.

You are confusing corrupt goverment in general with communism. Anywhere where government puts its needs ahead of its peoples will have problems similar to those in the old Soviet Union, China, et al. Communism isn't perfect, especially with the high rate of corruption seen in communist governments. Corruption happens in all levels of government regardless of the governing system however. Do not blame communism for the evils of abuse of power and corruption. It is possible to have communist government that is not corrupt and looks out more for its people that itself.

In most cases this doesn't happen. The greed that rules a capitalistic nation, such as America, corrupts those with good intentions unless there is democratic control over who is in power. In cases like that, you get places like Sweden. Socialistic paridises. The people elect the government who is bound by laws. There are VERY high taxes, but everyone is extremely well educated, employed and cared for.

If a G8 nation embraced communism do you really think that it would suffer the same fate as an impovershed nation that does? Do you abhor all socialist movements, or just communism? Do you think that because someone has more money than someone else they are more deserving of care and education?

The spirit of communism is not many dominated by few, it is community - the many for the many, with goverment used as a tool to help with the distribution of resources. That ideal may falter due to human nature, but I don't see how as an ideal it is evil.