Marxists Thread

[Neutrino]

Apparently you've never heard of wiring and circuitry.

Which only requires very small amounts and which other metals can do just as well.

And you forgot radiation shielding, always vital in everyday life.

Actually, gold wires, contacts, circuit parts, etc. work better. Why else use it in high performance electronic parts? Aethetics? Even in the worse form of free market, nowbody is that dumb. Radiation Shielding is LEAD! Which as we all know, is used in the bullets required to impelment the Worker's Revolution.

Gold is only slightly more efficient than most other metals and because only small amounts are necessary, it's reasonably cost efficient to use it.
And really any dense material makes good radiation shielding, (even water, water makes great radiation shielding) its just lead is cheap.

Took you long enough to think up a reply. I thought this thread was long dead.

I took a vacation . So sue me if I have a life other than this forum .

I think I will (that is another thing screwy with this society)

[foolish_yeti]

At least we try. And what is the other methods? Denounce the offenders? As I said earlier, it is basically the same as you saying I ticked you off on this thread and now you're gonna ignore me. Big F***ing whop! Now, putting boots on the ground and jets in the skies, that sends the message "Hey, you've messed up for the last time". Force is the last option, Teddy Roosevelt said: "Talk softly and carry a big stick."

I agree force is a viable option- but it should be the last option, and justification should be able to be given. Any use of force (power) is illegitimate without the ability to justify it. There is no way the States tried other options, or even gave legitimate reasons for invading countries. In fact the States often blocked other attempts (UN). An example would be Afghanistan- ignoring the fact the invasion was first officially undertaken to find Bin Laden- let's go with the new objective of ousting the Taliban. When the Americans invaded, the prominent members of the Afghani community said their actions were actually hindering the process of overthrowing the Taliban. They were in the process of losing power anyways. The funny thing about state power is that it has a hard time existing without the compliance of the people....or outside military and financial aid. A great example of that would be the Isreal-Palestine conflict...in which pretty much the whole world is for a dual state solution, but which the States is allowing through the funding of Israel's actions. A surprising amount of conflict in the world would end if the west stopped facilitating it- case in point Iraq and Saddam.

[Jenos Ridan]

At least we try. And what is the other methods? Denounce the offenders? As I said earlier, it is basically the same as you saying I ticked you off on this thread and now you're gonna ignore me. Big F***ing whop! Now, putting boots on the ground and jets in the skies, that sends the message "Hey, you've messed up for the last time". Force is the last option, Teddy Roosevelt said: "Talk softly and carry a big stick."

I agree force is a viable option- but it should be the last option, and justification should be able to be given. Any use of force (power) is illegitimate without the ability to justify it. There is no way the States tried other options, or even gave legitimate reasons for invading countries. In fact the States often blocked other attempts (UN). An example would be Afghanistan- ignoring the fact the invasion was first officially undertaken to find Bin Laden- let's go with the new objective of ousting the Taliban. When the Americans invaded, the prominent members of the Afghani community said their actions were actually hindering the process of overthrowing the Taliban. They were in the process of losing power anyways. The funny thing about state power is that it has a hard time existing without the compliance of the people....or outside military and financial aid. A great example of that would be the Isreal-Palestine conflict...in which pretty much the whole world is for a dual state solution, but which the States is allowing through the funding of Israel's actions. A surprising amount of conflict in the world would end if the west stopped facilitating it- case in point Iraq and Saddam.

Agreed on force being a last but potent resort. I firmly believe that in large, multimillion population countries, some sort of political and buerocratic structure is a necessary evil in order to regulate and administer the affairs of the nation; otherwise, you're dealing with small, independant communes.

I'll repeat myself, I don't think there ever will be a perfect solution, just ways to improve what we got. Goals of any sort (riches, betterment of self/others, etc.) are necessary for any improvement.

[Neutrino]

Agreed on force being a last but potent resort. I firmly believe that in large, multimillion population countries, some sort of political and buerocratic structure is a necessary evil in order to regulate and administer the affairs of the nation; otherwise, you're dealing with small, independant communes.

I'll repeat myself, I don't think there ever will be a perfect solution, just ways to improve what we got. Goals of any sort (riches, betterment of self/others, etc.) are necessary for any improvement.

And what's wrong with small, independant communities? They generally work a hell of a lot better than gigantic cities in which you are nothing more than another number to be factored in by the bureaucracy.

[Jenos Ridan]

Agreed on force being a last but potent resort. I firmly believe that in large, multimillion population countries, some sort of political and buerocratic structure is a necessary evil in order to regulate and administer the affairs of the nation; otherwise, you're dealing with small, independant communes.

I'll repeat myself, I don't think there ever will be a perfect solution, just ways to improve what we got. Goals of any sort (riches, betterment of self/others, etc.) are necessary for any improvement.

And what's wrong with small, independant communities? They generally work a hell of a lot better than gigantic cities in which you are nothing more than another number to be factored in by the bureaucracy.

Just the fact that some people absolutely HATE small towns. I grew up it a small town and I happen to enjoy visiting Portland OR. Yes, I enjoy the crazed mayhem of metropolitan life.

You seem to ignore the statement of utopias being a nice but impractical dream.

[foolish_yeti]

Agreed on force being a last but potent resort. I firmly believe that in large, multimillion population countries, some sort of political and buerocratic structure is a necessary evil in order to regulate and administer the affairs of the nation; otherwise, you're dealing with small, independant communes.

There is the possibility of having larger institutions or companies- the difference would be that power over these bodies would be spread over those who work within them- not concentrated at the top of a hierarchy.

[Jenos Ridan]

Agreed on force being a last but potent resort. I firmly believe that in large, multimillion population countries, some sort of political and buerocratic structure is a necessary evil in order to regulate and administer the affairs of the nation; otherwise, you're dealing with small, independant communes.

There is the possibility of having larger institutions or companies- the difference would be that power over these bodies would be spread over those who work within them- not concentrated at the top of a hierarchy.

I'm interested in seeing an practical demonstration of this new society, as in a living marxist community. However, I'll with capitalism any day but I'm not going to force anyone to accept my way as the only way in this case.

[flashleg8]

Agreed on force being a last but potent resort. I firmly believe that in large, multimillion population countries, some sort of political and buerocratic structure is a necessary evil in order to regulate and administer the affairs of the nation; otherwise, you're dealing with small, independant communes.

There is the possibility of having larger institutions or companies- the difference would be that power over these bodies would be spread over those who work within them- not concentrated at the top of a hierarchy.

I'm interested in seeing an practical demonstration of this new society, as in a living marxist community. However, I'll with capitalism any day but I'm not going to force anyone to accept my way as the only way in this case.

The following countries had governments at some point in the twentieth century who at least nominally adhered to Marxism: Albania, Afghanistan, Angola, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Ethiopia, Hungary, Laos, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, the USSR and its republics, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Vietnam. In addition, the Indian states of Kerala and West Bengal have had Marxist governments.

[catseyeagate]

I should be King of the World. Think about it: Me...as King. What more could you possibly want!? It's ludacris to think there could be something better...then me being King of the World...Think about it...

[luns101]

The following countries had governments at some point in the twentieth century who at least nominally adhered to Marxism: Albania, Afghanistan, Angola, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Ethiopia, Hungary, Laos, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, the USSR and its republics, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Vietnam. In addition, the Indian states of Kerala and West Bengal have had Marxist governments.

...and I hold them all personally responsible for not providing adequate goods and services for their people. Many of their citizens eventually came here and are now crappy taxi drivers.

[Neutrino]

The following countries had governments at some point in the twentieth century who at least nominally adhered to Marxism: Albania, Afghanistan, Angola, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Ethiopia, Hungary, Laos, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, the USSR and its republics, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Vietnam. In addition, the Indian states of Kerala and West Bengal have had Marxist governments.

...and I hold them all personally responsible for not providing adequate goods and services for their people. Many of their citizens eventually came here and are now crappy taxi drivers.

Well how could they? Most of them were small and unindustrialised (E. Germany is an exception, but that had just got the hell blown out of it, so it dosent really count) and barely had enough resources for their populations. Even though they became pseudo-Marxist, you really cant expect them to pull many thousands of tons of various resources out of thin air can you?
Also, by going Communist, they would have attracted all kinds of American-based political unrest. Those opposed to the communist leaders will suddenly find that they are now armed with American weaponry.

It's really no wonder that they all fell.

[KomradeKloininov]

Very true. The US already has most of the wealth and technology in the world, therefore anyone standing up for causes such as communism that they do not support get an unreasonable amount of opposition. It is, on the other hand, true that if it had been the communists that had gained the upper hand, they would have done their very best to remain unrivaled by similar means. The two systems are more similar than people would often like to admit in that respect.

[Jenos Ridan]

Firstly, they have little in comman. One is based on the age-old facts of economics, the other is an unproven hypotheis on a theorietical social engineering experiment. In all test cases, they failed when it was possible for them to thrive. Prehaps the cause is to be found within the formula itself, or in the intrinsic falibililty of humans?

[Jenos Ridan]

Well, anyone........?

[paranoid-android]

ever since doing highschool in history i have leaned toward the left, i talk about it to people at school and when i talk about communism they instantly start the arguement "so if you where a doctor would you like to be paid as much as a street cleaner" its this ignorance which leads me to believe that nomatter how hard we try the greed and what not will always prevent the implentation of a utopian society

This is so true. I immediately get this argument from everyone around me as soon as the word "Communism" leaves my mouth. It frustrates me no end that greed is essentially hardwired into humans.

Communism is a wonderful system, however only in theory. The reason why it never works in real life is because of the greed and corruptibility that is inherent in human nature. If it wasn't, then I think we'd be on the way to a better society. Until then however, Capitalism shall rule the world, and the worker shall continue to be exploited.

[luns101]

Communism is a wonderful system, however only in theory. The reason why it never works in real life is because of the greed and corruptibility that is inherent in human nature. If it wasn't, then I think we'd be on the way to a better society. Until then however, Capitalism shall rule the world, and the worker shall continue to be exploited.

Whoa! That's one of the points I've been trying to make on this site in various threads for a long time now. Minus the part about workers being exploited.

[foolish_yeti]

this notion of intrinsic fallibility and inherent greed seems ridiculous to me- first off, because if it's true then we're screwed. If we're just consuming machines then there's no turning back. Luckily I don't think this is the case. I think what most people see as inherent qualities of man are brought about by the current social organization and it's accompanying memes.

[Jenos Ridan]

this notion of intrinsic fallibility and inherent greed seems ridiculous to me- first off, because if it's true then we're screwed. If we're just consuming machines then there's no turning back. Luckily I don't think this is the case. I think what most people see as inherent qualities of man are brought about by the current social organization and it's accompanying memes.

We are by nature competative, darwinian theory supports this and the Bible says it is a fact of life. Hence why the State, the Market and the Church don't have direct control over each other but through the people who support it. We are not cogs in a machine, but the need for the machine.

[foolish_yeti]

We are by nature competative, darwinian theory supports this and the Bible says it is a fact of life. Hence why the State, the Market and the Church don't have direct control over each other but through the people who support it. We are not cogs in a machine, but the need for the machine.

There's no inherent nature in any being to glut themselves to death- no species can survive living unsustainably- the ecosystem will wipe them out. Competition and greed are not interchangeable. Competition is natural and is seen throughout the species of the earth. However, since in capitalism it's he who has the most toys win- the goal is to amass wealth. This is a different "form" of competition...if you will...greed. If the goal is to survive and to be sustainable then working to gain more is a waste of time once you have satisfied your needs. Take what you need and spend the rest of your time doing something else of your choosing. Right now people work much more than they need to since they are not getting the full value of their labour- it's being amassed by the wealthy.

[Jenos Ridan]

We are by nature competative, darwinian theory supports this and the Bible says it is a fact of life. Hence why the State, the Market and the Church don't have direct control over each other but through the people who support it. We are not cogs in a machine, but the need for the machine.

There's no inherent nature in any being to glut themselves to death- no species can survive living unsustainably- the ecosystem will wipe them out. Competition and greed are not interchangeable. Competition is natural and is seen throughout the species of the earth. However, since in capitalism it's he who has the most toys win- the goal is to amass wealth. This is a different "form" of competition...if you will...greed. If the goal is to survive and to be sustainable then working to gain more is a waste of time once you have satisfied your needs. Take what you need and spend the rest of your time doing something else of your choosing. Right now people work much more than they need to since they are not getting the full value of their labour- it's being amassed by the wealthy.

Hence why I'm a chirstian; evolution fails to explain the basic human evils of greed, lust, envy, etc. (the Seven Deadly Sins). But, Humans are known to be VERY selfish by nature as opposed to the rest of the animal kingdom. Competition is not limited to the economy, it is also in the social structure: man a sees woman b with man c. Man a wants woman b for procreation and is thusly most envious of man c. Man a, therefore, goes everything he can to get woman b away from man c.

[foolish_yeti]

Hence why I'm a chirstian; evolution fails to explain the basic human evils of greed, lust, envy, etc. (the Seven Deadly Sins). But, Humans are known to be VERY selfish by nature as opposed to the rest of the animal kingdom. Competition is not limited to the economy, it is also in the social structure: man a sees woman b with man c. Man a wants woman b for procreation and is thusly most envious of man c. Man a, therefore, goes everything he can to get woman b away from man c.

I think a lot of human vices are exacerbated by capitalism- that's where I see it inherent, not in humans themselves. As for competition for mates, that's seen in nature everywhere. Same with things like being very territorial. The difference in humans is the extent they go to. So for an example other animals deal with competition in a fight or flight manner- escalation threats sometimes leading to violence until one member backs down. End of story. Humans under capitalism deal with competition by attempting to exterminate it. So for example wars are now fought to exterminate the enemy (either literally or by assimilation into the dominant culture).

[paranoid-android]

Communism is a wonderful system, however only in theory. The reason why it never works in real life is because of the greed and corruptibility that is inherent in human nature. If it wasn't, then I think we'd be on the way to a better society. Until then however, Capitalism shall rule the world, and the worker shall continue to be exploited.

Whoa! That's one of the points I've been trying to make on this site in various threads for a long time now. Minus the part about workers being exploited.

I may believe in the system, but I realize when it can and can't work. If humans weren't so damn greedy and corruptible, we'd have a viable system on our hands, in my opinion.

[nagerous]

the insane amount of conservatism in these forums is getting me depressed, *takes salvage in the marxist refuge*

[genius6]

Hence why I'm a chirstian; evolution fails to explain the basic human evils of greed, lust, envy, etc. (the Seven Deadly Sins). But, Humans are known to be VERY selfish by nature as opposed to the rest of the animal kingdom. Competition is not limited to the economy, it is also in the social structure: man a sees woman b with man c. Man a wants woman b for procreation and is thusly most envious of man c. Man a, therefore, goes everything he can to get woman b away from man c.

I think a lot of human vices are exacerbated by capitalism- that's where I see it inherent, not in humans themselves. As for competition for mates, that's seen in nature everywhere. Same with things like being very territorial. The difference in humans is the extent they go to. So for an example other animals deal with competition in a fight or flight manner- escalation threats sometimes leading to violence until one member backs down. End of story. Humans under capitalism deal with competition by attempting to exterminate it. So for example wars are now fought to exterminate the enemy (either literally or by assimilation into the dominant culture).

I'll summarize. Capitalism=acquiesce or die.

[luns101]

the insane amount of conservatism in these forums is getting me depressed, *takes salvage in the marxist refuge*

You've got to be kidding me! This site is dominated by human secularists, marxists, communists, or people who believe in some form of darwinianism.