|
Is Communism good? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
375 | 66.25% |
| No |
|
191 | 33.75% |
| Total: | 523 votes | ||
|
caps on caps on caps posted:So? This is immaterial to the fact that it is a transformation, just as Marx said, and furthermore that the belief in these latent human aspects is a critical pillar of communist theory, as stated by Marx: the true human being is a social being. And social means acting and feeling, and enjoying and even loving in accordance with the societal wellbeing. In terms of theory it is the idea that humans become social optimizers, which they are not under private property, which Marx also writes. And certainly not now. So this change is important, and whether it is true nature, as Marx writes, or not, it is a transformation, as he also writes. it hasn't mattered for the last 20-30 years what marx said on paper because what he advocated has never worked out in practice
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:09 |
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:it hasn't mattered for the last 20-30 years what marx said on paper because what he advocated has never worked out in practice -HOmer simpson
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:And at the bottom of the pile of bad ideologies, is everything you believe in, hakimashou. No the stuff I believe in is good. Good and pragmatic. Its actually way up on top of the other pile, the pile of good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:So? This is immaterial to the fact that it is a transformation, just as Marx said, and furthermore that the belief in these latent human aspects is a critical pillar of communist theory, as stated by Marx: the true human being is a social being. And social means acting and feeling, and enjoying and even loving in accordance with the societal wellbeing. In terms of theory it is the idea that humans become social optimizers, which they are not under private property, which Marx also writes. And certainly not now. So this change is important, and whether it is true nature, as Marx writes, or not, it is a transformation, as he also writes. And of course marxism doesn't accomplish any of this- quite the opposite. You end up with places like Russia and China where over the generations of marxist horror, the good becomes killed and starved and beaten out of the people. In the whole of human history mankind has never come up with an idea worse than communism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:No the stuff I believe in is good. Good and pragmatic. What political theory do you think is best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:And of course marxism doesn't accomplish any of this- quite the opposite. You end up with places like Russia and China where over the generations of marxist horror, the good becomes killed and starved and beaten out of the people. this is good and correct
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:What political theory do you think is best. A Theory of Justice
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:A Theory of Justice Is this the one where you execute the most people?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:A Theory of Justice What does this mean?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:What does this mean? Trolling
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:What does this mean? It's the title of a book...
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
My opinion is that we dont need ideology, people should just do what is right and good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:It's the title of a book... Hm, the liberal approach which states that people should be nice to each other because of their deep appreciation of abstract scenarios with shroud of uncertainty and other bullshit. What a rock solid foundation for a society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Hm, the liberal approach which states that people should be nice to each other because of their deep appreciation of abstract scenarios with shroud of uncertainty and other bullshit. What a rock solid foundation for a society. He asked me what my favorite political theory was. Obviously there's a lot more to life and to the best outcomes than "political theories," but Rawls' is my favorite political theory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:It's the title of a book... I'm a deeply ignorant person, what does the book prescribe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:I'm a deeply ignorant person, what does the book prescribe. "Justice is fairness." One of the biggest practical conclusions is that inequality is fine if it makes things better for the least well-off. There's a lot in there, it's a pretty cool theory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
yeah in theory. too bad it doesnt work in practice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Yup. In practice its about getting the best that you can from the realistic options available, and largely just about stopping the worse people from getting power. Like it says in The Wire, "you gotta keep the devil down in the hole." That's one reason 2017 marxism or communism is such a drag, because it undermines the good guys team. Just look at britain, where a mad dog of the left is dragging the labour party down to nothing, leaving the tories unopposed. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
The mad dog of the moderately social democratic left.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Yup. theres nothing john rawls writes about that is incompatible with communism and you're a dumbass
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
RBC posted:theres nothing john rawls writes about that is incompatible with communism and you're a dumbass The real world and its history are incompatible with communism. "John Rawls is my favorite" is not identical to "John Rawls is all that matters." So it's not important whether John Rawls' views are compatible with communism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
RBC posted:theres nothing john rawls writes about that is incompatible with communism and you're a dumbass actually it is you who is the dumbass
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Not to be that guy, but would you mind awfully supporting any of your bullshit with some evidence and/or argumentation like a grown loving adult.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
There are lots of books about communism that go into very detailed examples. Some good ones: The Gulag Archipelago The Great Terror Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar Gulag: A History Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe Mao's Great Famine Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader Also, in general, the second half of the twentieth century is not kept secret. The outcomes in eastern vs western europe, the outcome in North Korea vs South Korea, China vs Japan. It's also not been kept secret what's gone on in Venezuela the past decade or so. As for the problems in Britain: it's current events, or see any of the Pissflaps polling posts in the UKMT for evidence of the damage Corbynismo is doing to all progressive forces there. "Communism wasn't so bad" is holocaust denial with a red coat of paint on it. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
The pseudo-psychological side of Marx is pretty dumb but the economics is tight af.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Capitalism has been tried many times, in many ways. For every life it improved it ruined two others. We should try something else
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:There are lots of books about communism that go into very detailed examples. Are you tony blair?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Anyone seriously recommending you turn to Pissflaps for anything of value has immediately discredited themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Ah yes noted erudite scholar of our time; Pissflaps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
Pissflaps is a sage, but more to the point, he's invulnerable to ankle-biting personal attacks in this case, because he just posts polling data. As strong as the urge must be to attack the person rather than the argument, or the person rather than the facts, at the end of the day, Corbyn's performance is indefensible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Communism doesn't work on paper if humans are not equally transformed to a new, completely social identity (cf Marx). Wait a minute, though. Your quotes don't argue to that effect - you're reversing the order. Marx says that communism will transform human social identity, NOT that human social identity must first be transformed or else communism can't work. Now, sure, the former is a pretty tall claim and the latter is a commonly made argument, but they're not the same thing. Marx is the guy who says material circumstances give rise to social relations, not vice versa. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Wait a minute, though. Your quotes don't argue to that effect - you're reversing the order. Marx says that communism will transform human social identity, NOT that human social identity must first be transformed or else communism can't work. Now, sure, the former is a pretty tall claim and the latter is a commonly made argument, but they're not the same thing. Marx is the guy who says material circumstances give rise to social relations, not vice versa. dude I get that, I quoted him directly. I am not the "Marxist-who-hasn't-read-Marx" itt. But think for a minute about the details of communist production as given in the manuscripts. A consequence of what he is stating is that if Communism does not lead to this change in human behavior and really, utility, then communism can also not solve alienation of men to men, which necessitates exchange because people's welfare does not EQUAL social welfare, which is exactly the mode of production Marx wants. And we are not talking about approximate social welfare here. In a communal Marxian system, NO exchange of anything is AT ALL necessary. this is his point
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:"Anarchism," if you can be charitable enough to describe the degenerate fever dreams of anarchists with an -ism, is even worse than communism when it comes to relying on people to somehow change their basic dispositions for it to work. The few times Anarchy has been put into practice, things seem to have gone pretty ok until someone with a lot more military power decides to end things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 10:23
|
|
|
BrainParasite posted:The few times Anarchy has been put into practice, things seem to have gone pretty ok until someone with a lot more military power decides to end things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 10:41
|
|
|
Robert C Allen's Farm to Factory is a good economic history of the USSR and concludes its performace was actually not bad in comparative perspective, at least until the 1970s
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 11:12 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 11:09
|
|
|
BrainParasite posted:The few times Anarchy has been put into practice, things seem to have gone pretty ok until someone with a lot more military power decides to end things. There is no other way it could be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Pissflaps is a sage, but more to the point, he's invulnerable to ankle-biting personal attacks in this case, because he just posts polling data. So, you've got the polling data saying that labor should be right-wing like when Tony Blair ran it, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:So, you've got the polling data saying that labor should be right-wing like when Tony Blair ran it, right? Labour wasn't "right wing" when Blair ran it. But they did a bunch of big polls actually, especially prominent ones in 1997, 2001, and 2005. Compare/contrast with his party's fortunes under its current leadership.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
Don't listen to the American tell you why the UK Labour party of all things is struggling at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:09 |
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:dude I get that, I quoted him directly. I am not the "Marxist-who-hasn't-read-Marx" itt. Well like, it'd also be a consequence of of what he is stating that if communism did not end poverty and exploitation that communism couldn't work, but neither of these are actually examples of communism not working on paper. They're both just benefits Marx expected us to reap from it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 16:07
|
|