Marxists Thread

[Neutrino]

Uh huh. Lets see, the UN sends wepons inspectors to Iraq. Saddam kicks inspectors out. (He is up to something) Saddam sends weapons to Syria. US invades. Saddam claims there were no weapons. Do you believe this?

I have to go to bed now. Part of that education thing about applying yourself and being responsible.

PS, they wernt nuclear weapons, they were biological and chemical weapons. So no.

Hundreds of highly trained workers and tons of equipment: not found.

Do you thing they went to Syria too? Leaving not a trace of any hint that they were ever there?

Suuuurrrreeeee

[foolish_yeti]

The US didnt put Saddam in charge, moron! He clawed his way up to that level. Watch "Saddam and the Third Reich" on the History Channel. Its really good. And how can we be stealing resources if we are buying them?

Sorry, I miscommunicated there- I didn't mean the States literally put him in power. What I was referring to was what the States does with many rulers- giving them military and financial aid- to get them in their pocket, so to say. When Saddam moved from being a general to ruling the country, the States was funding him (for example the Iran-Iraq war- officially started about a year after he assumed presidency).

By stealing resources I mean that they are buying resources sold to them by governments and corporations who do not represent the interests of the people- leaving entire countries economically and socially destroyed. Basically the powerful elite in these countries are using the resources they should be using for their own populations as a means to personal wealth and power.

PS, they wernt nuclear weapons, they were biological and chemical weapons. So no.

Bush talked about all three in his speeches. So yes.

[got tonkaed]

I think though the arguments can certainly be made that communism fails to recognize one of the core human attributes, the notion of self-preservation, for anyone who speaks as if Capitalism is the system that human history has endeavored to create, your remarks sort of smack with ethnocentrism. Certainly the argument has been made that no the individual with talent will not stand for equality between him and his brother who clearly is never going to be as talented. However this is perhaps so because we live in a system that promotes individuals to attempt to rise as high as possible, often at the expense of others. Certainly, although this is perhaps hypothetical, systems other than capitalism would be better suited for societies that frankly havent indoctrinated their children from day one. We believe that capitalism is teh best system to run a society because we have been brought up in a capitalist world. To disregard the effects of your lifetime's socialization on your viewpoint is perhaps questionable.

I, as much as admire many different leftist alternatives, dont seem that as practically applicable in teh world we have now. There is simply too much empahsis on the profit motive and too great an ease of replication for capitalism to be anything but the dominant system. However im anxious to see what countries like those in Latin American who are experimenting with some socialist ideas end up doing. I cant say that i fault someone like Hugo Chavez, who can see that the United States is out for their oil, in response attempts to nationalize his large oil system in order to benefit his society as a whole. Not everyone is in such a spot as Venezuela, and who knows if any of Chavez reforms will ultimatly do the country any good.

I have to say im a bit sickened by much of this thread. Dire and everywhere....if either of you have read any of my posts, youll know that i rarely attempt to attack individuals. I dont think its fair as i dont know people on the other sides of the monitors and we all come to what we believe or long periods of time, filled with reflection mixed with experience. I however have to question some of both of your logic throughout the thread. Certainly you cite all the right arguments for why communism fails, though neither of you cite the fact that the state will mediate the thread of a lower class revolution...perhaps one of the great failures in Marx line of thinking...though ill forgive him, there were few established states at the time in Europe. But to assume that the education system is inherently fair or that people who are working for minimum wage jobs are not trying hard enough, is frankly a bit of a shameful assmption. Besides what are often somewhat racial undertones beneath such lines of thinking, there as a basic failure to see a necesity of the capitalist system, wages are always going to be set to the lowest common denomonator, even if that means below relative subsistence. Clearly its to the benefit of the capitalist to make sure that wages are low enough that if the worker can comeback tommorow, they will be forced to stay in their jobs, and if they cannot there is always another labor pool which is waiting.

The education i was fortuante enough to recieve because of my social location is far different than the education of people even within the city of Detroit, less than 10 miles away from my home town. To assume that i by some nature am a harder worker than they are, becuase i had the oppertunity to have better materials and better educators, after all people would rather work in areas that have better administrative support, is a somewhat absurd assumption. So i should now look upon those who have not had the same privilige that i have had, and call them lazy for not having the cultural capital i have had? Disgusting. If the system was fair then perhaps there would be an argument, but it is not and it certainly will not be any time soon. Those who are scraping by are doing so because it is what is in front of them, and it is what they have been forced to choose. Of course there are exceptions, there always are, but the rule is there for a reason. In a system where profit is your only goal, there will always be those who struggle to get by, and often dont. It is certainly not their fault.

[Neutrino]

The education i was fortuante enough to recieve because of my social location is far different than the education of people even within the city of Detroit, less than 10 miles away from my home town. To assume that i by some nature am a harder worker than they are, becuase i had the oppertunity to have better materials and better educators, after all people would rather work in areas that have better administrative support, is a somewhat absurd assumption. So i should now look upon those who have not had the same privilige that i have had, and call them lazy for not having the cultural capital i have had? Disgusting. If the system was fair then perhaps there would be an argument, but it is not and it certainly will not be any time soon. Those who are scraping by are doing so because it is what is in front of them, and it is what they have been forced to choose. Of course there are exceptions, there always are, but the rule is there for a reason. In a system where profit is your only goal, there will always be those who struggle to get by, and often dont. It is certainly not their fault.

If everywhere116 was still hanging around, I could get into another argument with him about why poor people are poor solely because they made bad financial decisions.

[Balsiefen]

i'm not sure what political standing i have. Basicly, all gouvernments corrupt over time, the trick is to find one that corrupts slowly. The trouble with communism is, while it works in theory it is easy to get some bastard that mucks it up and uses it to gain power for himself

[Anarchy Ninja]

a mix of anarchist and communist ideals would be best i think

[got tonkaed]

i can safely say im not sure....after all there are a lot of variables to note. Are we starting from scratch or are our people already socialized. Assuming they are socialized to some extent, how skilled is the population, can we make stuff? I think at least its a more fun game if your starting over, because frankly with the system the way it is, i cant really (and maybe its my own mind that is limited) see much other than global capitalism.

I actually would love capitalism if there were a better system for social goods. Frankly its a bit disgusting that we spend so much money on killing each other and so little money on curing illnesses like AIDS and many types of Cancer. We have the technological capabilities, truth be told thanks to capitalism, to do amazing things and yet we often choose things that undoubtedly will be seen as barbaric. One of my professors tells me from time to time, Nietzsche believed the next stage of humanity would look back at us and see us as the most barbarian of barbarians, while weve spent so much of our time today doing things to champion how wonderful we are. If we truly do believe that capitalism has the oppertunity to best serve humanity, it would be nice to see it do more to actually serve it.

[Anarchy Ninja]

well i think doomsday is actually reasonably close so maybe it will be a start over

[Neutrino]

Yes, the cleaner will get sick. Will he be sick all the time, no. Will he accept versitile money all the time, yes.

Say that gold isnt worth anything at the New York Stock Exchange. Tell me you wont get an earful about how it is valuable.

Gold is only valuable because people think its valuable In reality, the only practical uses of gold are electronics (only very small amounts are necessary) and radiation shielding (always useful in everyday life).

Go up to the department store and ask to buy shoes intending to pay with your coat. You will be laughed at. Now go up and offer money. They will accept. The reason money is center is because it is versitile.

And gold is valuable because people will buy it. Its that simple.

Great. Showing how a barter system will not work in a country that uses coinage. Genius.

For those who do not get the point: they are two different economic systems. You cannot work between them! This is my pointless example:

Try going into an area that uses a barter economy and try offering them your worthless pieces of paper in exchange for a good or service. You will be laughed at, just like in your example.

How is it slavery? I would say getting paid below the poverty *large and unexplained gap* Wal-Mart doesnt enslave people because they agree to work at Wal-Mart. They dont have to.

Of course they dont have to work at Wal-Mart. They can just stop paying their bills, get kicked out of their house and starve to death on a sidewalk.

Wal-Mart practically enslaves people on the border of the poverty line because there are a destinct lack of other jobs for them to do. Oh, im sure they can get the occassional part time job and make a few dollars from that, but most higher paying jobs are reserved for people with better education than was probably available in the area in which they grew up in.

I beg to differ. Have you ever heard of that free education system called school

Free education, you just cant beat it. Have you ever thought that, even following your own logic that anyone in a communist state will immediatly become unproductive, that teachers in free schools, in low income areas would be equally uninspired? (not that im saying they would be, im just pointing out the huge, gaping hole in his argument)

A bartering system only works for basic goods. It doesn't work for higher up goods. For example, my Dad is a CPA. My best friend's dad is a Firefighter. So using your system, if our house catches fire it better be around tax season or we can forget about our house being saved

Did you consider basic human decency in that train of thought of yours? Also, if someone isnt doing thier job, especially one so vitalas firefighting, im sure they can soon expect a visit from a group of local townspeople armed with brass knuckles...

Dont tell me poor people cant go to college. My Mom's family was so poor they lived in a 2 room apartment..all 8 of them. Her father was a dunk who beat his family and made no money. She still managed to go to college and make a better life for herself by working and taking out student loans and getting as much scholarship money as possible

That is called a success story. X million poor in the USA, a few thousand sucess stories. X million - several thousand = X - several thousand poor.

So Anarchist, do you really need the computer your sitting at?

I'm still not liking this whole "taking the USSR to represent Marxism thing... WHICH IT DIDN'T AND NEVER DID!" thing, but... ya heard of Sputnik? Crazy commies figured out a computer or two.

Do you believe they would have developed these things without the pressure brought on them from the worlds democracies?

Back to competition and trying to do your best. So, any comments, commies?

It is an unfortunate charastic of humanity that they perform fastest when there is competition. For those not given to fine definitions, fastest =/= efficient or infact best. Sure, you might get things done in the blink of an eye, but think about the looser in this competition. Winner: All. Looser: nothing. Does this lead to a stable relationship between the two? Hell no and the winner can just keep using the resources gained from winning to continue winning.

Also, in the wholesale drive to win that Capitalism creates, are other things considered?
The environment? Pah! Who needs it? we can al live in glass domes and have chemicals produc the air we breathe!
Society of the particular people being used for that competion? Why should we care about them? I know, we can explit them to make things for us, then preserve hollow shell of their culture and show tourists around it! Genius!

And like the "Democratic Republic of North Korea"

That is called "Totalitarianism thinly disguised a Socialism by calling it Socialism, but is still not Socialism"

Is Hail a Fault? Hmmm

I dont remember ever seeing a russian reusable shuttle, i remember they were working on a design and not surprisingly it looked like the U.S. shuttle.

I'm not trying to make this an American against Russian thing, I'm just saying that without the pressure of the cold war, they would have no desire for those kinds of advancements. They would keep the status quo.

No, but exploding is.

The point of Communism is not man against man, but man for man. They were only competing against America because they knew if they didnt, they would become outdated and obsolete. They had to do it to stay in the running, even though it went against the point of their whole society.

Thats enough ranting from me for tonight, but im sure ill find more gaping holes to explose after Direstraits and Everywhere wake up.

P.S. If you are going to try to respond to what I said, please do not quote the whole thing, please delete the things said by other people. It is not fun to scroll down through half a page of quotes to find 1 line of text.

[qeee1]

I must say, I'm impressed by the showing of the rogue state here. I'm suprised its members have actually thought out marxist/anarchist ideals.

Go you guys.

This thread is too long to read and reply to. I'll get dragged in later I think.

[XenHu]

i'm not sure what political standing i have. Basicly, all gouvernments corrupt over time, the trick is to find one that corrupts slowly. The trouble with communism is, while it works in theory it is easy to get some bastard that mucks it up and uses it to gain power for himself

Which is when you kill the 'bastard'.

Anarchy, tell me one thing. If everyone shares the resources, why would they work? If the government takes care of them they have no desire to do thier best. And when everyone does this you have to pay useless workers you cant fire, and your tresury will be depleted. See: The Reagan Arms Buildup.

why would they work you ask, because they are not fat lazy slobs thats why

Yeah, ok. If people don't have to work hard to obtain something, THEY WON'T. There would be no incentive to give your best effort.

A basic shortening of what I said. good job.

why strive? BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE IS LAZY OR GREEDY!! i would strive i see no reason not to. i strive not to be better then everyone else but to make myself a better person, this is rare in todays culture

EXACTLY! Hence why a it wouldn't work.

Behavior is programmable. Society can change, it just doesn't want to.

I would be more interested to know how many people have even read/ studied Marx...

You'd think with all the Che purses and shirts and wallets and patches available you've got plenty of Marxists running around- heh heh.

It seems to me anarchy is just popular because it's seen as rebellion- damn the man.... sort of like punk has been co-opted. It's more just a fashion thing now. Seen as hip- sew "A" patches on your jacket and make sure you're wearing your army boots.

True.

Something I often shake my head at.


-X

[btownmeggy]

Are you saying that communism is the way to utopia? You, my friend, are the ignorant one.

Because you and I both know that the way to utopia is through the creation of the warp drive... oh, and the abolition of money... oh, and state-run everything... oh, and universalist principles of equality. Sounds familiar, besides the warp drive part.

[btownmeggy]

the laws of economics.

Laws of economics? Social sciences have... laws?

[ksslemp]

Are you saying that the US Army just goes in to countries, takes the resources and scuttles off? I dont see that happening. We only go to war for good reason. And we do not leave a power vacuum. The last time we invaded a country we replaced dictatorship with democracy.

Well it's more like: the US goes into countries and puts in rulers who will be friendly to US intentions- so they can get easy access to resources. The main reason why a lot of fighting goes on is access to resources. For example, the US didn't invade Iraq until Saddam (who they put in power) stepped out of line. They funded him through his worst atrocities and when he was most powerful, but as soon as he steps out of line he's considered a threat to the world. The US "steals" resources by buying them from governments or corporations. In theory the money is supposed to trickle down and benefit everyone, but in reality the majority of it stays where it's always been- with the rich.

After reading this post, the only conclusion i can make is: You are a FOOL! and any further energy used by anyone to explain the world to you would be wasted because it seems you lack the ability to separate Fact from Fantasy.

Marxism: A Gov't system built on ENVY.

[ksslemp]

The point of Communism is not man against man, but man for man. They were only competing against America because they knew if they didnt, they would become outdated and obsolete. They had to do it to stay in the running, even though it went against the point of their whole society.

Thank you for making my earlier point.

[unriggable]

a mix of anarchist and communist ideals would be best i think

Agree but elements of capitalism are necessary.

[Anarchy Ninja]

a mix of anarchist and communist ideals would be best i think

Agree but elements of capitalism are necessary.

they all kind of clash. but i think its just as likely to be implented as utopia. perhaps we can create our own system

[foolish_yeti]

After reading this post, the only conclusion i can make is: You are a FOOL! and any further energy used by anyone to explain the world to you would be wasted because it seems you lack the ability to separate Fact from Fantasy.

Marxism: A Gov't system built on ENVY.

Okay, for the record- I'm not a communist or a Marxist. You're more than welcome to enlighten me about the world, since you seem to know tons about it but have yet to spill it. Rather than copping out and saying you won't bother I'd love to see you try (I'm not being cocky, but I get my world view through information and testing it out- so if you can show me otherwise I will gladly change my tune).

Separating fact from fantasy?

The US funded the Taliban (not specifically them- but they funded and trained an army of basically radicals) against the Russian occupation- the enventually backfired when they established a permanent military base in Saudi Arabia and these extremists declared them no better than the Russians.

The US is enabling the Israeli-Palestinian war- giving them both military aid and diplomatic aid (pretty much being the only country to vote against (veto) UN resolutions against this conflict under the Geneva conventions.

The US funded Saddam through his worst atrocities (e.g. gassing of the Kurds)- it wasn't until he stepped out of line he suddenly became a threat. After the gulf war there was even an attempt to overthrow him, which the States helped quash- the reason behind it being: even though he's a bad guy, he offer the best chance for stability (e.g. Western interests). He was only seen as a threat after he started disobeying the US's wishes.

These are only three examples- please correct my facts here.

[ksslemp]

I'd be happy to do so.

It will have to be later though, my lunch time is over and i need to get back to making some evil cash.

[KomradeKloininov]

Wow, what a discusion I have prompted.

[Neutrino]

a mix of anarchist and communist ideals would be best i think

Agree but elements of capitalism are necessary.

Youre probably right. Niether Communism or Capitalism is stable on long enough time periods or with large enough groops of people to really be considered a proper system. The best would either be a way to combine them, with a healthy dose of Anarchy added in for good measure (good luck trying to get two mutually exclusive systems to combine), or a fourth option, completly different from the others (except tht it is mostly Anarchy, because you just cant beat Anarchy)

Also, because I dont want to double post:

The point of Communism is not man against man, but man for man. They were only competing against America because they knew if they didnt, they would become outdated and obsolete. They had to do it to stay in the running, even though it went against the point of their whole society.

Thank you for making my earlier point.

What? That Russia was forced into a race that it didnt want to run? Thats plain to see if you just think about the situation for a few moments! How can pointing out the plain and obvious be considered 'a point'?

[KomradeKloininov]

Communism is an ideal, which is why it has never created the Utopian mentioned before. Organization is necessary for a population to continue advancing and sharing of knowledge. That is one way that communism and capitalism (to some extent) have advanced so. Anarchy is all good and fine as long as there is a way to provide that.

[Stopper]

The point of Communism is not man against man, but man for man. They were only competing against America because they knew if they didnt, they would become outdated and obsolete. They had to do it to stay in the running, even though it went against the point of their whole society.

Thank you for making my earlier point.

What? That Russia was forced into a race that it didnt want to run? Thats plain to see if you just think about the situation for a few moments! How can pointing out the plain and obvious be considered 'a point'?

The USSR wasn't forced into a race it didn't want to run. It's all very fine and well being in favour of the principles of communism, but there's no point in saying the USSR lost because the USA didn't play by its rules.

Marxist revolution was never supposed to take place in Russia or China - it was supposed to happen in already-industrialised countries, like Britain, or Marx's greatest hope, Germany, not agricultural, backward places.

Defend non-Marxist Communism all you like, but don't bother defending the USSR or China - they both perverted Marxism more or less from the beginning. It might have taken until 1956 for many people to realise, but we at least have the benefit of hindsight.

[everywhere116]

Some things I found.

Are you saying that communism is the way to utopia? You, my friend, are the ignorant one.

Because you and I both know that the way to utopia is through the creation of the warp drive... oh, and the abolition of money... oh, and state-run everything... oh, and universalist principles of equality. Sounds familiar, besides the warp drive part.

The Federation is not communist. They are a republic. Also, the only reason thier system works is because of replicators. Until then, capitalism is the way to go.

The thing about schools, who is stopping kids from picking up thier books and studying? And the reason the teachers are motivated is because thay are paid. The students are supposed to be motivated by the financial rewards and opportunities, which they will be be denied to if they dont work hard.

Somewhere along the line someone said to "think about the losers in life." Lets take that to the classrooms shall we. "Class, I will just give you the answers to the test so you will all pass. Who cares if you dont learn anything and become miserable low-lives." Why do you think they bust cheaters?

[luns101]

There still seem to be a lot more people preaching capitalism, Luns for example. Still, its nice to see there are some Marxists about.

"...and on the 5th day Adam Smith said, 'Thou shalt not redistribute wealth'.

Haha, what's up Komrade! I had no idea that you were actually into the Marxist philosophy. Well, as long as you keep rolling sixes in our games, that's cool.

Yes, it's true. I love capitalism because I believe it has helped me get out of poverty.