|
Is Communism good? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
375 | 66.25% |
| No |
|
191 | 33.75% |
| Total: | 523 votes | ||
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Lol, massive genocide, and in particular genocide on the basis of race, was not invented by the Soviet Union. In fact there are many more well-established capitalist genocides organised with modern tools that the Nazis used as inspiration. This is holocaust denial with a red coat of paint on it. There is no excusing or mitigating communist mass murder. "Other people did it too" doesnt excuse the Nazis or the Communists or anyone else. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Mar 30, 2017 |
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
hakimashou posted:This is holocaust denial with a red coat of paint on it. There is no excusing or mitigating communist mass murder. "Other people did it too" doesnt excuse the Nazis or the Communists or anyone else. All ffa said was that USSR didn't invent genocide which is true. Sounds like you're denying the Armenian Genocide, the Dzungar Genocide, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It's 2017, not 1894. The debates are over and the case is closed. You can be a religious fanatic about anything but the glove really fits when it's an ideology based around a guy who said a bunch of weird psudo-mystical poo poo two centuries ago. You can use more modern economic frameworks (or data) to say almost anything - there is no reason to self-identify with Marx unless you're deliberately trying to drape yourself in that weird flag. Holy poo poo! Asdf just objectively proved that communism just doesn't work! Someone call Cuba and all social Democratic parties! Man gently caress, nice work on that, could you do conservatism next? I wish to scientifically make old religious people against abortion realize that progressive change is the only way forward. Oh and libertarianism wouldn't be hard at all. Neo liberalism? Hold on, I'll make a list. Oh and a question, how come that even thought nationalism was "proven wrong" it has had a huge resurgence? You know, with Trump and Brexit and all the far right parties in Europe? Any objective data on that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:The debate is over to the same extent the debate about the Nazis is over. You might want to join these people instead of trying to make excuses for the nazis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
The difference, hakimashou, is that Nazism takes genocide as its foundational principle, and proceeds from there. It can't exist without genocide. With Communism mass violence is an original addition by some divergent strains to the ideological basis, but objectively not a necessary one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 11:06
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Or that doesn't happen. Real life will tell. I kinda think recorded history has shown the strains advanced capitalism puts on liberal democracy but your milage may vary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 11:10
|
|
|
The most important thing about Communism that we can all agree on are that Soviet uniforms had really cool fur hats and coats suitable for winter. This will be very important as we boil alive due to global warming from unchecked capitalistic greed. After all the heavy industries of the USSR were well known for being very environmentally friendly and I'm glad our Capitalist Overlords learned that lesson and took it several steps further.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The difference, hakimashou, is that Nazism takes genocide as its foundational principle, and proceeds from there. It can't exist without genocide. With Communism mass violence is an original addition by some divergent strains to the ideological basis, but objectively not a necessary one. Hitler's manifesto doesn't plan for genocide any more overtly than Marx's, but it is the inevitable result of either one's depraved ideas being put into action. The Red Mein Kampf isn't any less despicable just because it's 'red.' The Nazis "seized the means of production" before mass-murdering the people they hated just like communists do. The differences between a communist and a Nazi are purely incidental, both are equally debased and despicable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Hitler's manifesto doesn't plan for genocide any more overtly than Marx's, but it is the inevitable result of either one's depraved ideas being put into action. "I totally think the nazis were bad. Now let me tell you how nazism is sometimes justified becuse communism bad." - A poster who is totally not cribbing from Stormfront
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
If seizing the means of production is genocide, then anybody complicit in the currently sanctioned model of their ownership is partaking on an ongoing genocide. A good opinion, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
- SCENE: Cheap bar with poor lighting. A group of burly men stand around a table drinking beer after a long, hard day at work. - Worker 1: I don't really get it. We're producing twice as much as we did a few years ago, but we haven't seen a nickel extra. I can barely pay my rent, and I can't afford the increase in premiums for our lovely health plan. Worker 2: Did you follow the link in yesterday's email about the company's quarterly filings? Revenue and profits are way up, and that spoiled brat that inherited the company and golfs all day is getting a 30 million dollar bonus. Worker 1: It doesn't make any sense. We're the ones making the products to sell, and we keep making more of them and faster, but we don't see any of it. That's not right. It shouldn't be allowed. We need another way to organize businesses. Worker 2: I agree, but which minority group should we murder?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Question, what is the general take on say the french and american revolution, or smilar revolutions? Where they "worth it" it terms of body count? Why? Is the outcome all that matters? Would the American civil war be a good thing if the north would have lost?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Question, what is the general take on say the french and american revolution, or smilar revolutions? Where they "worth it" it terms of body count? Why? Is the outcome all that matters? The Reign of Terror proves that the Assembly can never work and we should stick with the best system we have as proven by history, monarchy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
Looks like the revolution turned violent, I guess we can scrap the entire ideology of liberalism and equal rights and democracy because of it. At least feudalism doesn't have guillotines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean sure there are companies with employees numbering several times the population of iceland that somehow don't operate on some kind of per-building feudal system but central planning clearly cannot work on a national level. In any other context "government shouldn't run like a business / household" would be uncontrovertial and sort of obvious but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The debate isn't over, and contemporary economists like Piketty are essentially having to rediscover Marx. I'll agree it's never a good idea to idealize people, but ideas can stick, and the idea that capitalism itself produces inequality, rather than merely being subject to it, matches what we have in the real world. The fantasy of capitalism as a pure meritocracy is nothing but self-serving bullshit. What does marx mean to you because Picketty completely contradicts him. Picketty is exactly what I meant when I said modern frameworks and data can be used to say anything. Picketty says profit is going up and can be fixed with taxes. Marx says profit must inevitably fall and bring down the system because: human nature. Even if we assumed they both say capitalism is doomed (they don't) you don't get credit in science for the what. You get credit for how and why which is why evolution is Darwin and not credited to the dozens of others who had theories of evolution. Marx said weird and specific poo poo. The only reason to stuff other observed capitalist problem like Picketty into the marx bucket is ideology or ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Marx says profit must inevitably fall and bring down the system because: human nature. Wow that sounds like nothing of the Marx I read. Can you source where he says that or a commentator who drew those conclusions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
It's a good thing the USSR wasn't true communism. We should try again so we can recalculate the death count
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:In any other context "government shouldn't run like a business / household" would be uncontrovertial and sort of obvious but here we are. It shouldn't be run like a business in the sense that it shouldn't be owned by a few people who get all the benefit from it, but giving up on the idea of being able to make decisions about things involving production of goods and spending of money because that becomes magically impossible as soon as you introduce the word "government" seems silly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Weird BIAS posted:Wow that sounds like nothing of the Marx I read. Can you source where he says that or a commentator who drew those conclusions? Making strict assumptions about how humans will behave in certain situations is a human nature argument. In marx's case TRPF depends on capitalists behaving exactly one way and depends on that behavior (destructive competition) being inevitable and impossible to restrain or reform. Same thing for alienation and the belief that changing our relationship to the means of production in a very specific (legal) way necesarily fixes things. Even a small change to the underlying model of human behavior upends all that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Well he argues that the bourg will continue to automate out as much skill and labour as they can, and/or drive wages as low as they can, because it's in their immediate interest to do so and they don't plan ahead, and that only direct opposition by organized proletariat will stop that. Which, well, seems to have held up for the last two centuries...
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It shouldn't be run like a business in the sense that it shouldn't be owned by a few people who get all the benefit from it, but giving up on the idea of being able to make decisions about things involving production of goods and spending of money because that becomes magically impossible as soon as you introduce the word "government" seems silly. Uhh... What you're proposing the government would do is vastly more complex (and complicated) than what any business does, just to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well he argues that the bourg will continue to automate out as much skill and labour as they can, and/or drive wages as low as they can, because it's in their immediate interest to do so and they don't plan ahead, and that only direct opposition by organized proletariat will stop that. And that's why the proletariat is so much poorer today than it was two centuries ago and capitalism has collapsed. Wait...
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Voluntary sharing is good. Mandated sharing is evil. The gifted and ambitious should be encouraged to drive society, rather than hobbled so that no one feels like a loser.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Making strict assumptions about how humans will behave in certain situations is a human nature argument. In marx's case TRPF depends on capitalists behaving exactly one way and depends on that behavior (destructive competition) being inevitable and impossible to restrain or reform. Interesting you should say that, seeing as it has been radical capitalist apologists who tend to make most confident judgments about human nature (while opposing empiricism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Fundamental_tenets), while non-authoritarian socialism trends towards an uncertain vision of society that is progressively managed in a deliberative fashion rather than set in stone based on a grand theory of the individual human nature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Voluntary sharing is good. Mandated sharing is evil. The gifted and ambitious should be encouraged to drive society, rather than hobbled so that no one feels like a loser. I see you've never gotten over that experience in kindergarten when the teacher prevented you from hogging all the toys to yourself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
See, you're a sociopath and a prick, so you won't get this, Effetronica. Socialization is a means to teach children not to be sociopaths. Part of this involves teaching them to share voluntarily. Because you are a sociopath, you don't understand this, and think it must be mandated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Making strict assumptions about how humans will behave in certain situations is a human nature argument. In marx's case TRPF depends on capitalists behaving exactly one way and depends on that behavior (destructive competition) being inevitable and impossible to restrain or reform. Marx does not ascribe the aggregate behaviour of capitalists to human nature, but rather to material necessity brought on by the inherent logic of capitalist economy. But then again you've been wrong about literally everything, so you not getting Marx 101 is not surprising. TheImmigrant posted:Voluntary sharing is good. Mandated sharing is evil. I see you've also come to the conclusion that capitalism is immoral.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:See, you're a sociopath and a prick, so you won't get this, Effetronica. Socialization is a means to teach children not to be sociopaths. Part of this involves teaching them to share voluntarily. Because you are a sociopath, you don't understand this, and think it must be mandated. So how to deal with sociopathic heirs to massive fortunes who do not want to share under any circumstances, as well as public corporations that can't share due to their very nature? If voluntary sharing is not an option, but sharing is good?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Marx does not ascribe the aggregate behaviour of capitalists to human nature, but rather to material necessity brought on by the inherent logic of capitalist economy. Even assuming ultimately destructive competition is indeed logical it takes an assumption in human nature to believe capitalists must necesarily persue that behavior rather than any other path which doesn't meet the same end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:So how to deal with sociopathic heirs to massive fortunes who do not want to share under any circumstances, as well as public corporations that can't share due to their very nature? If voluntary sharing is not an option, but sharing is good? Heavy, heavy inheritance tax. You didn't earn your parents' money, and dead people shouldn't have property rights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:
Capitalism is an absence of regulation. A negative quality cannot be immoral.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Even assuming ultimately destructive competition is indeed logical it takes an assumption in human nature to believe capitalists must necesarily persue that behavior rather than any other path which doesn't meet the same end. No it doesn't, all it requires is the assumption that the capitalists who do not act in certain ways will eventually stop being capitalists on account of them going out of business. Again literally babby's first Marx, but then again, it's hard to know anything when you're not interested in learning. TheImmigrant posted:Capitalism is an absence of regulation. A negative quality cannot be immoral. lol, what the gently caress are you even on about? EDIT: Like, this isn't even failing babby's first Marx, it's failing babby's first Smith. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Even assuming ultimately destructive competition is indeed logical it takes an assumption in human nature to believe capitalists must necesarily persue that behavior rather than any other path which doesn't meet the same end. No, it takes assumption about the system. Individual capitalists can give up the cycle, but in the aggregate they will be replaced by others because the mechanics of the system promote actors following one pattern of behavior to positions of power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Heavy, heavy inheritance tax. Aka mandated sharing. Which is evil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Aka mandated sharing. Which is evil. No, it is not. Dead people logically should not have property rights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:No it doesn't, all it requires is the assumption that the capitalists who do not act in certain ways will eventually stop being capitalists on account of them going out of business. ...yeah but that is an assumption that deserves a critical look.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:...yeah but that is an assumption that deserves a critical look. If you like, but it's still not an assumption about human nature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:No, it takes assumption about the system. Individual capitalists can give up the cycle, but in the aggregate they will be replaced by others because the mechanics of the system promote actors following one pattern of behavior to positions of power. What if they don't for cultural reasons? What if they're constrained by regulations (note: a logical behavior by the voting masses).
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:No, it is not. Dead people logically should not have property rights. Okay, so they bequeath it in life, perhaps preparing a document that allows them to bequeath in the interval between cessation of life and legal death.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:27
|
|