Of course, I will gladly listen to any defenses of Marx and the Manifesto you might have.
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
Communism defined
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
Communism defined
Secret Hidden Knowledge here
Of course, I will gladly listen to any defenses of Marx and the Manifesto you might have.
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
Of course, I will gladly listen to any defenses of Marx and the Manifesto you might have.
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
And just for contrast, some insane Pinko ramblings.
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarell:
<B>Of course while the communist manifesto may be portrayed at one extreme, the claims on stardestroyer.net are obviously solid.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, yes. Unless you have damning evidence regarding Michael Wong.
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
<B>Of course while the communist manifesto may be portrayed at one extreme, the claims on stardestroyer.net are obviously solid.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, yes. Unless you have damning evidence regarding Michael Wong.
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
A pretty entertaining site
Hasn't been updated in a while, though.
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
Hasn't been updated in a while, though.
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
Wow, this is most incredible thing I've found all night.
It transpires that there's more to the story of Senator Joe McCarthy than is commonly known.
Secret Hidden Knowledge here
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
It transpires that there's more to the story of Senator Joe McCarthy than is commonly known.
Secret Hidden Knowledge here
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
*Pant*
I think I need to take more english classes to fully absorb all the information from that link.. I had a great time reading it tho it took me about 40 minutes of working time to do it.. *grin*
Debate damnit! Debate!
------------------
- "Every problem in the univers can be solved with Malacar, ducktape and pink rubber shoes.."
I think I need to take more english classes to fully absorb all the information from that link.. I had a great time reading it tho it took me about 40 minutes of working time to do it.. *grin*
Debate damnit! Debate!
------------------
- "Every problem in the univers can be solved with Malacar, ducktape and pink rubber shoes.."
Well communism as defined by marx is outdated and doesnt work due to human nature, but on the other hand the same applies to capitalism. without communism and/or communist ideas we would not have 8 hour workday (hehe that seems to be a bit elusive for many of us), the 5 day workweek, child labor laws, vacations, health benefits, pension plans and many other advantages. There wouldnt be an embargo on Iraq.
Almost all communist parties in western countries have changed thier rhetoric after the illusion of the ussr was exposed. The main focus now has been the transformation of government controlled operations (electricity, water, etc...) to private ones, and everything reagrding worker rights.
my homecountry has a 10% communist turnout at the polls and several MPs get elected, and many laws that benefit me as a working person have been passed. Im somewhat protected from layoffs, and if i ever go on strike i'll wont be fired. I would never vote for the party, i vote for something like the democrats here, but thier presence i think is beneficial for providing a balance of power.
Almost all communist parties in western countries have changed thier rhetoric after the illusion of the ussr was exposed. The main focus now has been the transformation of government controlled operations (electricity, water, etc...) to private ones, and everything reagrding worker rights.
my homecountry has a 10% communist turnout at the polls and several MPs get elected, and many laws that benefit me as a working person have been passed. Im somewhat protected from layoffs, and if i ever go on strike i'll wont be fired. I would never vote for the party, i vote for something like the democrats here, but thier presence i think is beneficial for providing a balance of power.
Hrmm, I wouldn't categorize those types of innovations as necessarily communist inspired. Not every check on the free market is communist. The USA has a much smaller communist party than the countries of Europe, and we have all of those innovations you list. It really comes down to setting a balance between an efficient economy and a content labor force. Every country has to grapple with that issue, regardless of its politics.
Communism, I think, has a meaning that goes far past an 8 hour work day, 30 days of vacation time per year, and the right to strike without being fired. Something along the lines of aboloshing private property and the traditional family.
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Communism, I think, has a meaning that goes far past an 8 hour work day, 30 days of vacation time per year, and the right to strike without being fired. Something along the lines of aboloshing private property and the traditional family.
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xisiqomelir:
<B>And just for contrast, some insane Pinko ramblings.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
the scary things woth all american anti-communism is what the consequences it has had on the rest of the world post 1950.
the coups in guatemala and chile (the real 9/11) are just some of the international crimes that really should put ike and nixon to trial in haag. the fact that michael wong has his own very special reading of the communist manifesto doesnt change that fact./fil
<B>And just for contrast, some insane Pinko ramblings.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
the scary things woth all american anti-communism is what the consequences it has had on the rest of the world post 1950.
the coups in guatemala and chile (the real 9/11) are just some of the international crimes that really should put ike and nixon to trial in haag. the fact that michael wong has his own very special reading of the communist manifesto doesnt change that fact./fil
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by kolasi:
No, but when those prctices came to be during FDRs term, there was a 1 million stron CP in the USA, and a 10 million strong socialist party, not to forget a smaller but exstant anarchist and trotskyist movement. All of which dominated the labor unions of the time.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is nothing communistic about a labor union. Sure it may have been started by communists, but its basis is ground safely within the capitalist concept.
A labor union selects delegates internally to represent them. This delegates Are sent to meet with the representatives of the management, in order to gain things like higher wages, better benefits, and the like for the members of its union. The union also works to improve the company, because the more they grow and expand, the more money there is to go around, which benefits everyone. If the union gets too much, they have it good for a while but eventually the company will no longer be able to afford it, jobs will be lost, and sometimes companies even close. So both sides are working for the same goal, and yet internally are also fighting each other for the benefits of their work.
If you substitute the management for the federal government, and the union representatives for the state governments, you will find a striking similarity. Communism? I think not. Its capitalism through and through.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
No, but when those prctices came to be during FDRs term, there was a 1 million stron CP in the USA, and a 10 million strong socialist party, not to forget a smaller but exstant anarchist and trotskyist movement. All of which dominated the labor unions of the time.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is nothing communistic about a labor union. Sure it may have been started by communists, but its basis is ground safely within the capitalist concept.
A labor union selects delegates internally to represent them. This delegates Are sent to meet with the representatives of the management, in order to gain things like higher wages, better benefits, and the like for the members of its union. The union also works to improve the company, because the more they grow and expand, the more money there is to go around, which benefits everyone. If the union gets too much, they have it good for a while but eventually the company will no longer be able to afford it, jobs will be lost, and sometimes companies even close. So both sides are working for the same goal, and yet internally are also fighting each other for the benefits of their work.
If you substitute the management for the federal government, and the union representatives for the state governments, you will find a striking similarity. Communism? I think not. Its capitalism through and through.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fildur:
<B> the scary things woth all american anti-communism is what the consequences it has had on the rest of the world post 1950.
the coups in guatemala and chile (the real 9/11) are just some of the international crimes that really should put ike and nixon to trial in haag. the fact that michael wong has his own very special reading of the communist manifesto doesnt change that fact./fil </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats right fildur, its America's fault that communism didn't work. It was the U.S. and their money and supplies that caused the descent of all the third world countries, not the ineptitude of their own governing officials, or the flawed concepts that communism is based on. Are you Cherzra's roommate?
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<B> the scary things woth all american anti-communism is what the consequences it has had on the rest of the world post 1950.
the coups in guatemala and chile (the real 9/11) are just some of the international crimes that really should put ike and nixon to trial in haag. the fact that michael wong has his own very special reading of the communist manifesto doesnt change that fact./fil </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats right fildur, its America's fault that communism didn't work. It was the U.S. and their money and supplies that caused the descent of all the third world countries, not the ineptitude of their own governing officials, or the flawed concepts that communism is based on. Are you Cherzra's roommate?
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thanuk:
<B> Thats right fildur, its America's fault that communism didn't work.
*snip*
Are you Cherzra's roommate?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i never sayed that the us made communism not work, i just pointed out two events that are crimes against humanity which american anti communism should be blamed for. that americans think anything that could stop poverty and hunger as communism is the real scarry part.../fil
edit: im not cherz roomate...
[This message has been edited by fildur (edited 01-30-2003).]
<B> Thats right fildur, its America's fault that communism didn't work.
*snip*
Are you Cherzra's roommate?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i never sayed that the us made communism not work, i just pointed out two events that are crimes against humanity which american anti communism should be blamed for. that americans think anything that could stop poverty and hunger as communism is the real scarry part.../fil
edit: im not cherz roomate...
[This message has been edited by fildur (edited 01-30-2003).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fildur:
<B> i never sayed that the us made communism not work, i just pointed out two events that are crimes against humanity which american anti communism should be blamed for. that americans think anything that could stop poverty and hunger as communism is the real scarry part.../fil
edit: im not cherz roomate...
[This message has been edited by fildur (edited 01-30-2003).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And im pointing out that you are wrong. American anti-communism may have played a role in both of these situations, but it cannot be considered solely responsible for either. There was alot more going on there before america ever got there, and although giving some guns and supplies to rebels may not have been the best idea, it was not the only reason that those situations occurred.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<B> i never sayed that the us made communism not work, i just pointed out two events that are crimes against humanity which american anti communism should be blamed for. that americans think anything that could stop poverty and hunger as communism is the real scarry part.../fil
edit: im not cherz roomate...
[This message has been edited by fildur (edited 01-30-2003).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And im pointing out that you are wrong. American anti-communism may have played a role in both of these situations, but it cannot be considered solely responsible for either. There was alot more going on there before america ever got there, and although giving some guns and supplies to rebels may not have been the best idea, it was not the only reason that those situations occurred.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by kolasi:
<B>One little addition.
Because something is a communist ideal, it doesnt mean it cant work in a democratic framework, like the labor unions</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But a labor union isn't a communistic ideal, this is what ive been trying to tell you. Under a system of communism, there would be no such thing as a labor union. The controlling powers would not allow any form of organization of the employed, because that might be a threat to their control. If anything, a labor union is an example of a socialist ideal, that is functioning in a democratic society. However, i would argue that socialism is in fact a major part of any democracy, as the government is responsible for social services to supplement certain neccessities that are too expensive to be provided by the capitalistic economy, for example healthcare. We have medicare and medicaid for those who cannot afford privatized health insurance, a socialistic supplement to the capitalistic economy. The debate about the separation between democracy and socialism, of course, could rage on endlessly. So lets just forego the arguing and accept that the U.S. is a socialistic democracy.
As for your previous post, union delegates are selected, not voted. Once they have the position, its theres until they retire or are removed from it, usually for improper misuse of power. They dont have to get re-elected constantly. And i also dont understand how you can say that capitalism and democracy are unrelated, as history has proven that one cannot exist without the other. They are symbiotic.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<B>One little addition.
Because something is a communist ideal, it doesnt mean it cant work in a democratic framework, like the labor unions</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But a labor union isn't a communistic ideal, this is what ive been trying to tell you. Under a system of communism, there would be no such thing as a labor union. The controlling powers would not allow any form of organization of the employed, because that might be a threat to their control. If anything, a labor union is an example of a socialist ideal, that is functioning in a democratic society. However, i would argue that socialism is in fact a major part of any democracy, as the government is responsible for social services to supplement certain neccessities that are too expensive to be provided by the capitalistic economy, for example healthcare. We have medicare and medicaid for those who cannot afford privatized health insurance, a socialistic supplement to the capitalistic economy. The debate about the separation between democracy and socialism, of course, could rage on endlessly. So lets just forego the arguing and accept that the U.S. is a socialistic democracy.
As for your previous post, union delegates are selected, not voted. Once they have the position, its theres until they retire or are removed from it, usually for improper misuse of power. They dont have to get re-elected constantly. And i also dont understand how you can say that capitalism and democracy are unrelated, as history has proven that one cannot exist without the other. They are symbiotic.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
hmm well Hitlers germany was capitalistic..free trade and all (regardles they called themselves differently). various dictators in south america were capitalist.
And also under a communist government..there wouldnt be unions because its the worker who has control of production and he would do right is right for himself which equates to what is right for all. The would be no point for a union if the factory was run by the workers.
This is an ideal and has never become a reality on this planet...except maybe for a short while in 1939 in barcelona
And also under a communist government..there wouldnt be unions because its the worker who has control of production and he would do right is right for himself which equates to what is right for all. The would be no point for a union if the factory was run by the workers.
This is an ideal and has never become a reality on this planet...except maybe for a short while in 1939 in barcelona
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thanuk:
<B> And im pointing out that you are wrong. American anti-communism may have played a role in both of these situations, but it cannot be considered solely responsible for either. There was alot more going on there before america ever got there, and although giving some guns and supplies to rebels may not have been the best idea, it was not the only reason that those situations occurred.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
bah, the guatemalan coup was orderd at the whitehouse by joe the banana man, thats just a matter of plain historical fact. that the cia is direct responsible for the 9/11-73 hasent even been questioned by the official america, everybody knows the whitehouse couldnt stand the thougt of an elected socialist president, you are just making a fool out of yourself if you deny it, its just like any revisionist denying auschwitz, plain lies, in whos interest?
/fil
<B> And im pointing out that you are wrong. American anti-communism may have played a role in both of these situations, but it cannot be considered solely responsible for either. There was alot more going on there before america ever got there, and although giving some guns and supplies to rebels may not have been the best idea, it was not the only reason that those situations occurred.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
bah, the guatemalan coup was orderd at the whitehouse by joe the banana man, thats just a matter of plain historical fact. that the cia is direct responsible for the 9/11-73 hasent even been questioned by the official america, everybody knows the whitehouse couldnt stand the thougt of an elected socialist president, you are just making a fool out of yourself if you deny it, its just like any revisionist denying auschwitz, plain lies, in whos interest?
/fil
Actually capitilatist tendency is to crush labor unions like little tiny annoying bugs before those poor bastards who work in sweatshops can organize themselves to make their lives better. If they're lucky, they lose their litle 13 cent per hour jobs. Sometimes they just kill them instead. That's capitalism.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thanuk:
<B> There is nothing communistic about a labor union. Sure it may have been started by communists, but its basis is ground safely within the capitalist concept.
A labor union selects delegates internally to represent them. This delegates Are sent to meet with the representatives of the management, in order to gain things like higher wages, better benefits, and the like for the members of its union. The union also works to improve the company, because the more they grow and expand, the more money there is to go around, which benefits everyone. If the union gets too much, they have it good for a while but eventually the company will no longer be able to afford it, jobs will be lost, and sometimes companies even close. So both sides are working for the same goal, and yet internally are also fighting each other for the benefits of their work.
If you substitute the management for the federal government, and the union representatives for the state governments, you will find a striking similarity. Communism? I think not. Its capitalism through and through.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------
Zellin group says 'I'm still here buddy =)'
Zellin has left the group.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thanuk:
<B> There is nothing communistic about a labor union. Sure it may have been started by communists, but its basis is ground safely within the capitalist concept.
A labor union selects delegates internally to represent them. This delegates Are sent to meet with the representatives of the management, in order to gain things like higher wages, better benefits, and the like for the members of its union. The union also works to improve the company, because the more they grow and expand, the more money there is to go around, which benefits everyone. If the union gets too much, they have it good for a while but eventually the company will no longer be able to afford it, jobs will be lost, and sometimes companies even close. So both sides are working for the same goal, and yet internally are also fighting each other for the benefits of their work.
If you substitute the management for the federal government, and the union representatives for the state governments, you will find a striking similarity. Communism? I think not. Its capitalism through and through.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------
Zellin group says 'I'm still here buddy =)'
Zellin has left the group.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by kolasi:
<B>hmm well Hitlers germany was capitalistic..free trade and all (regardles they called themselves differently). various dictators in south america were capitalist.
And also under a communist government..there wouldnt be unions because its the worker who has control of production and he would do right is right for himself which equates to what is right for all. The would be no point for a union if the factory was run by the workers.
This is an ideal and has never become a reality on this planet...except maybe for a short while in 1939 in barcelona</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You just provided 2 examples of capitalism not being able to work without democracy, thanks
But how could a factory be run by the workers under communism? There would still be supervisors, managers, people in charge of other people, and people who were responsible for making sure things got done. The only difference in communism is that those people would be making almost the same wage as the workers they supervise. Communism is based on the concept that economical(class) equality equates to overall equality, so since the head of the factory makes almost the same amount as the janitor, its the same as the workers running the plant, because they are all in the same economic class. The guy on the assembly line would still have no control over the product, its just that the guy who told him what to do all day wouldn't be any richer than he is. The government, in turn, would have control over everything, including what was produced, how much of it, how often, and who it was given to. That doesn't leave much control left for the worker to decide what is "right".
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<B>hmm well Hitlers germany was capitalistic..free trade and all (regardles they called themselves differently). various dictators in south america were capitalist.
And also under a communist government..there wouldnt be unions because its the worker who has control of production and he would do right is right for himself which equates to what is right for all. The would be no point for a union if the factory was run by the workers.
This is an ideal and has never become a reality on this planet...except maybe for a short while in 1939 in barcelona</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You just provided 2 examples of capitalism not being able to work without democracy, thanks
But how could a factory be run by the workers under communism? There would still be supervisors, managers, people in charge of other people, and people who were responsible for making sure things got done. The only difference in communism is that those people would be making almost the same wage as the workers they supervise. Communism is based on the concept that economical(class) equality equates to overall equality, so since the head of the factory makes almost the same amount as the janitor, its the same as the workers running the plant, because they are all in the same economic class. The guy on the assembly line would still have no control over the product, its just that the guy who told him what to do all day wouldn't be any richer than he is. The government, in turn, would have control over everything, including what was produced, how much of it, how often, and who it was given to. That doesn't leave much control left for the worker to decide what is "right".
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zellin:
<B>Actually capitilatist tendency is to crush labor unions like little tiny annoying bugs before those poor bastards who work in sweatshops can organize themselves to make their lives better. If they're lucky, they lose their litle 13 cent per hour jobs. Sometimes they just kill them instead. That's capitalism.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is where the democratic government is supposed to step in and legalize the organizations of labor unions. Maybe you were sick that day in history class. Once that happens, and it becomes illegal to squash the labor unions and kill all the workers, we see how a democratic society and a capitalist economy work in a symbiotic relationship.
Things like that happened in the U.S. until labor unions were legitimized, and then for a little while after that as well. But they dont happen anymore. They still do happen in other countries, who do not practice democracy, because the regular worker doesn't get to decide who is in office and cant vote for the guy who will legalize labor unions, and events such as this are a prime example of why capitalism doesnt work without democracy.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<B>Actually capitilatist tendency is to crush labor unions like little tiny annoying bugs before those poor bastards who work in sweatshops can organize themselves to make their lives better. If they're lucky, they lose their litle 13 cent per hour jobs. Sometimes they just kill them instead. That's capitalism.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is where the democratic government is supposed to step in and legalize the organizations of labor unions. Maybe you were sick that day in history class. Once that happens, and it becomes illegal to squash the labor unions and kill all the workers, we see how a democratic society and a capitalist economy work in a symbiotic relationship.
Things like that happened in the U.S. until labor unions were legitimized, and then for a little while after that as well. But they dont happen anymore. They still do happen in other countries, who do not practice democracy, because the regular worker doesn't get to decide who is in office and cant vote for the guy who will legalize labor unions, and events such as this are a prime example of why capitalism doesnt work without democracy.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fildur:
<B> bah, the guatemalan coup was orderd at the whitehouse by joe the banana man, thats just a matter of plain historical fact. that the cia is direct responsible for the 9/11-73 hasent even been questioned by the official america, everybody knows the whitehouse couldnt stand the thougt of an elected socialist president, you are just making a fool out of yourself if you deny it, its just like any revisionist denying auschwitz, plain lies, in whos interest?
/fil</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok so what about all the events that led up to the coup? What about the people who carried out the order? They automatically lose all responsibility for their actions because a foreign government told them what to do? It is no secret that the american government did everything it could to prevent the spread of communism and socialism in south/central america, and im not trying to deny it. It is you who are making the fool of yourself, by trying to claim that the U.S. government could be 100% responsible for a coup in guatamala. Im not saying they didnt add fuel to the fire, im just saying that they were not the only factor involved. You make it sound like they went into a perfectly happy and well functioning country where everyone was fine, gave some upstarts some guns and said "go get them!" And that the resulting coup turned the country into a shithole.
Well let me let you in on something. It was a shithole before they got there, and the power struggle was going on way before the U.S. tried to gain influence there, which didnt happen until after the socialists tried to gain interest there. The U.S. was not the only offender in that situation, and that is just plain historical fact.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<B> bah, the guatemalan coup was orderd at the whitehouse by joe the banana man, thats just a matter of plain historical fact. that the cia is direct responsible for the 9/11-73 hasent even been questioned by the official america, everybody knows the whitehouse couldnt stand the thougt of an elected socialist president, you are just making a fool out of yourself if you deny it, its just like any revisionist denying auschwitz, plain lies, in whos interest?
/fil</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok so what about all the events that led up to the coup? What about the people who carried out the order? They automatically lose all responsibility for their actions because a foreign government told them what to do? It is no secret that the american government did everything it could to prevent the spread of communism and socialism in south/central america, and im not trying to deny it. It is you who are making the fool of yourself, by trying to claim that the U.S. government could be 100% responsible for a coup in guatamala. Im not saying they didnt add fuel to the fire, im just saying that they were not the only factor involved. You make it sound like they went into a perfectly happy and well functioning country where everyone was fine, gave some upstarts some guns and said "go get them!" And that the resulting coup turned the country into a shithole.
Well let me let you in on something. It was a shithole before they got there, and the power struggle was going on way before the U.S. tried to gain influence there, which didnt happen until after the socialists tried to gain interest there. The U.S. was not the only offender in that situation, and that is just plain historical fact.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thanuk:
<B> That is where the democratic government is supposed to step in and legalize the organizations of labor unions. Maybe you were sick that day in history class. Once that happens, and it becomes illegal to squash the labor unions and kill all the workers, we see how a democratic society and a capitalist economy work in a symbiotic relationship.
Things like that happened in the U.S. until labor unions were legitimized, and then for a little while after that as well. But they dont happen anymore. They still do happen in other countries, who do not practice democracy, because the regular worker doesn't get to decide who is in office and cant vote for the guy who will legalize labor unions, and events such as this are a prime example of why capitalism doesnt work without democracy.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually this still happens in the U.S. Not the killing part, but companies like McDonald's regularly threaten to shut down entire stores if the workers at that location attempt to form a union. We have it a lot easier in the U.S. with unions, but that doesn't mean that corporations don't still use fear tactics to shut down unions inside of our borders.
------------------
Zellin group says 'I'm still here buddy =)'
Zellin has left the group.
<B> That is where the democratic government is supposed to step in and legalize the organizations of labor unions. Maybe you were sick that day in history class. Once that happens, and it becomes illegal to squash the labor unions and kill all the workers, we see how a democratic society and a capitalist economy work in a symbiotic relationship.
Things like that happened in the U.S. until labor unions were legitimized, and then for a little while after that as well. But they dont happen anymore. They still do happen in other countries, who do not practice democracy, because the regular worker doesn't get to decide who is in office and cant vote for the guy who will legalize labor unions, and events such as this are a prime example of why capitalism doesnt work without democracy.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually this still happens in the U.S. Not the killing part, but companies like McDonald's regularly threaten to shut down entire stores if the workers at that location attempt to form a union. We have it a lot easier in the U.S. with unions, but that doesn't mean that corporations don't still use fear tactics to shut down unions inside of our borders.
------------------
Zellin group says 'I'm still here buddy =)'
Zellin has left the group.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zellin:
<B> Actually this still happens in the U.S. Not the killing part, but companies like McDonald's regularly threaten to shut down entire stores if the workers at that location attempt to form a union. We have it a lot easier in the U.S. with unions, but that doesn't mean that corporations don't still use fear tactics to shut down unions inside of our borders.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The fact that companies do this does not neccessarily mean that it is legal for them to do so. In a case of a place like mcdonalds, however, its a sensitive area. If you are working at mcdonalds, and your not a part of the management, then odds are you are also not living off of the income you receive from them. If you are, then you are also receiving welfare. A Mcdonald's employee union would never work for the simple reason that it will always be cheaper to hire new 15 year olds to run the grill than to give the employees the benefits that they seek. This is not a skilled labor we are talking about, they're making burgers and fries. If you could provide a better example of this occurring in an environment where the employees were likely to live off of their salary, you might be able to make a case, but the government isn't about to step in when some 15 year old kids want an extra 15 cents an hour and dental benefits to cook fries.
There are also companies out there like Kmart. Kmart has a policy that its employees are not allowed to join or form a union. Instead, Kmart guarentees their employees things like health insurance, scheduled raises every 6 months, and increased vacation time for years spent in service. They basically give them all the benefits that members of the supermarket union get, only the employees dont have to pay union dues or go to meetings. It benefits the company because there is no union to make an uproar when they fire an employee, and it benefits the employees because well, they dont have to pay union dues. I dont know anything about how mcdonalds works internally, but my gut feeling is that they have a similar system in place.
I invite you to find an example of a corporation in america squashing a union of legitimate skilled workers, or even unskilled workers who actually live off their wages. Of course, it would also have to be a corporation that didnt guarentee insurance of any kind, and didnt guarentee wage increase, vacation time increase, and the opportunity for overtime. Our country has become so unionized that unions arent even necessary anymore; the corporations are willing to give in before there is anything to fight about.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<B> Actually this still happens in the U.S. Not the killing part, but companies like McDonald's regularly threaten to shut down entire stores if the workers at that location attempt to form a union. We have it a lot easier in the U.S. with unions, but that doesn't mean that corporations don't still use fear tactics to shut down unions inside of our borders.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The fact that companies do this does not neccessarily mean that it is legal for them to do so. In a case of a place like mcdonalds, however, its a sensitive area. If you are working at mcdonalds, and your not a part of the management, then odds are you are also not living off of the income you receive from them. If you are, then you are also receiving welfare. A Mcdonald's employee union would never work for the simple reason that it will always be cheaper to hire new 15 year olds to run the grill than to give the employees the benefits that they seek. This is not a skilled labor we are talking about, they're making burgers and fries. If you could provide a better example of this occurring in an environment where the employees were likely to live off of their salary, you might be able to make a case, but the government isn't about to step in when some 15 year old kids want an extra 15 cents an hour and dental benefits to cook fries.
There are also companies out there like Kmart. Kmart has a policy that its employees are not allowed to join or form a union. Instead, Kmart guarentees their employees things like health insurance, scheduled raises every 6 months, and increased vacation time for years spent in service. They basically give them all the benefits that members of the supermarket union get, only the employees dont have to pay union dues or go to meetings. It benefits the company because there is no union to make an uproar when they fire an employee, and it benefits the employees because well, they dont have to pay union dues. I dont know anything about how mcdonalds works internally, but my gut feeling is that they have a similar system in place.
I invite you to find an example of a corporation in america squashing a union of legitimate skilled workers, or even unskilled workers who actually live off their wages. Of course, it would also have to be a corporation that didnt guarentee insurance of any kind, and didnt guarentee wage increase, vacation time increase, and the opportunity for overtime. Our country has become so unionized that unions arent even necessary anymore; the corporations are willing to give in before there is anything to fight about.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thanuk:
<B>
Well let me let you in on something. It was a shithole before they got there, and the power struggle was going on way before the U.S. tried to gain influence there, which didnt happen until after the socialists tried to gain interest there. The U.S. was not the only offender in that situation, and that is just plain historical fact.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ill let ye in on something laddy, that "socialist interest" was the president elected by the guatemalans, ie, the socialist was not an offender./fil
<B>
Well let me let you in on something. It was a shithole before they got there, and the power struggle was going on way before the U.S. tried to gain influence there, which didnt happen until after the socialists tried to gain interest there. The U.S. was not the only offender in that situation, and that is just plain historical fact.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ill let ye in on something laddy, that "socialist interest" was the president elected by the guatemalans, ie, the socialist was not an offender./fil
'Real' communism has never existed because it cannot exist. It goes against human nature. In order for communism to work, a majority of people must act purely out of interest for others. While undoubtedly some people are capable of this, most people only care about themselves. The only thing worth discussing about communism is whether communist ideals degenerate into dictatorships over time, or whether they are simply used by dictators as a pretext for taking power.
A capitalist understands that the greed of an individual is a driving force towards progress. A person wants money, so he spends thousands of hours building a business. Without greed and self-interest, the knowledge that the company will make him rich if it is successful, he would never had made such a committment. His business grows to the point that people need to be hired. The businessman doesn't hire people out of good will to them. He doesn't pay them any more then he has to. If they don't do a good job, he replaces them. Under this model, his business grows efficiently. The products of the business only sell because someone is willing to pay for them. They are not forced on anyone. The businessman is a self made man.
And what about the workers? They had the same opportunity as the businessman to start a business. They just simply didn't do it. They also had an opportunity to work at different businesses for different wages, but they decided to work for our businessman because he gave the best salary and working conditions available to them. At this point in the story, they might not be rich, but they make an honest living. And the result of this honest living? Cramped quarters, 70 hour work weeks, dangerous working conditions... the best salary and working conditions available to them. The businessman? A Mansion, servants, jewelry, golf courses. This is what America looked like during the height of the industrial revolution.
Lets introduce some element of socialism into the picture. The masses hear about the opulent lifestyles of the relatively few businessmen. They read about the golf courses, the servants, the opulent homes. They say, hey, "GIVE ME SOME OF THAT!" They envy what they see, and they are the majority. What better way for the majority to get what they want then to use the democratic processes available to them? They elect robin-hood politicians to take from the rich and give to the masses. It balances things out a bit. As long as there still is an incentive to take the risk of going into business, i.e., as long as you can still become filthy rich off the fruit of your labor and innovation, the system continues to work. The workers know that without the businesses and businessmen powering the economy, theres nothing for them to take. An intelligent balance is worked out where wealth is transferred from the few to the many, but not so much wealth that the incentive to do business is undermined. "The new deal" measures taken by FDR to ease the hardships of the great depression, represent the high point of this socialistic trend in american government. So you start seeing 40 hour work weeks, mandatory vacation time, workplace safety requirements, pension plans. All of these come about peacefully and democratically.
What happens when there are no democratic institutions available to the masses? Russia at the turn of the century.. a decadent aristocracy. The people cannot elect politicians to make reforms. The tsars are not willing to freely grant them. The only option is to violently take what you want. What is needed is a revolution. In order for a revolution to happen you need people willing to die for a cause. The balanced social capitalism of America and Western Europe is not very inspiring. The idea of democracy can be inspirational, but democracy itself doesn't redistribute wealth. Democracy is simply a political system where redistribution of wealth is a possibility.
Thankfully, there is something very inspirational for the organizers of the revolution. Communism! They identify with the rhetoric of Marx. We are the proletariot, they are the beourgious! We will sieze the means of production. "Workers of the world unite!". Its the kind of stuff revolutions are built on.
So whats left after the revolution? A country slowly dying of strangulation. They didnt win a democracy, they won a noose. The organizers of the revolution move into the lavish mansions where the businessmen used to live. The workers still work lousy hours but at least nobody really watches to make sure they are working. Capitalism isnt dead, theres a flourishing black market. The baker gives you your bread ration, but its so small! (psst! He might be willing to give you a little extra each week should you steal him a couple of chickens from the collective farm you work at). Another revolution you say? Its not going to happen. The organizers saw what happened to their predecessors. The tsar and his family were shot! Such a thing wouldn't have happened if the tsar had... the KGB! So the KGB is instituted to protect the new ruling class, communist party members. Its not a bad deal for the workers either. On top of your salary as a baker, you could earn dough turning your friends in to the secret police! And all this continues until it becomes evident 70 years later that your economy has been completely wrecked. Whats left is the strangled corpse of a once strong country.
Of course this isnt 'real' communism, because 'real' communism is an impossible dream (the whole human nature thing). And once again, the big question is whether the organizers of the revolution actually believed in what they were doing at the time, or whether they knowingly used communism as a tool to seize power for themselves. Probably a little bit of both.
A more interesting debate would be whether the balance between business and social welfare is out of wack in many of todays modern westernized countries.
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
A capitalist understands that the greed of an individual is a driving force towards progress. A person wants money, so he spends thousands of hours building a business. Without greed and self-interest, the knowledge that the company will make him rich if it is successful, he would never had made such a committment. His business grows to the point that people need to be hired. The businessman doesn't hire people out of good will to them. He doesn't pay them any more then he has to. If they don't do a good job, he replaces them. Under this model, his business grows efficiently. The products of the business only sell because someone is willing to pay for them. They are not forced on anyone. The businessman is a self made man.
And what about the workers? They had the same opportunity as the businessman to start a business. They just simply didn't do it. They also had an opportunity to work at different businesses for different wages, but they decided to work for our businessman because he gave the best salary and working conditions available to them. At this point in the story, they might not be rich, but they make an honest living. And the result of this honest living? Cramped quarters, 70 hour work weeks, dangerous working conditions... the best salary and working conditions available to them. The businessman? A Mansion, servants, jewelry, golf courses. This is what America looked like during the height of the industrial revolution.
Lets introduce some element of socialism into the picture. The masses hear about the opulent lifestyles of the relatively few businessmen. They read about the golf courses, the servants, the opulent homes. They say, hey, "GIVE ME SOME OF THAT!" They envy what they see, and they are the majority. What better way for the majority to get what they want then to use the democratic processes available to them? They elect robin-hood politicians to take from the rich and give to the masses. It balances things out a bit. As long as there still is an incentive to take the risk of going into business, i.e., as long as you can still become filthy rich off the fruit of your labor and innovation, the system continues to work. The workers know that without the businesses and businessmen powering the economy, theres nothing for them to take. An intelligent balance is worked out where wealth is transferred from the few to the many, but not so much wealth that the incentive to do business is undermined. "The new deal" measures taken by FDR to ease the hardships of the great depression, represent the high point of this socialistic trend in american government. So you start seeing 40 hour work weeks, mandatory vacation time, workplace safety requirements, pension plans. All of these come about peacefully and democratically.
What happens when there are no democratic institutions available to the masses? Russia at the turn of the century.. a decadent aristocracy. The people cannot elect politicians to make reforms. The tsars are not willing to freely grant them. The only option is to violently take what you want. What is needed is a revolution. In order for a revolution to happen you need people willing to die for a cause. The balanced social capitalism of America and Western Europe is not very inspiring. The idea of democracy can be inspirational, but democracy itself doesn't redistribute wealth. Democracy is simply a political system where redistribution of wealth is a possibility.
Thankfully, there is something very inspirational for the organizers of the revolution. Communism! They identify with the rhetoric of Marx. We are the proletariot, they are the beourgious! We will sieze the means of production. "Workers of the world unite!". Its the kind of stuff revolutions are built on.
So whats left after the revolution? A country slowly dying of strangulation. They didnt win a democracy, they won a noose. The organizers of the revolution move into the lavish mansions where the businessmen used to live. The workers still work lousy hours but at least nobody really watches to make sure they are working. Capitalism isnt dead, theres a flourishing black market. The baker gives you your bread ration, but its so small! (psst! He might be willing to give you a little extra each week should you steal him a couple of chickens from the collective farm you work at). Another revolution you say? Its not going to happen. The organizers saw what happened to their predecessors. The tsar and his family were shot! Such a thing wouldn't have happened if the tsar had... the KGB! So the KGB is instituted to protect the new ruling class, communist party members. Its not a bad deal for the workers either. On top of your salary as a baker, you could earn dough turning your friends in to the secret police! And all this continues until it becomes evident 70 years later that your economy has been completely wrecked. Whats left is the strangled corpse of a once strong country.
Of course this isnt 'real' communism, because 'real' communism is an impossible dream (the whole human nature thing). And once again, the big question is whether the organizers of the revolution actually believed in what they were doing at the time, or whether they knowingly used communism as a tool to seize power for themselves. Probably a little bit of both.
A more interesting debate would be whether the balance between business and social welfare is out of wack in many of todays modern westernized countries.
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fildur:
ill let ye in on something laddy, that "socialist interest" was the president elected by the guatemalans, ie, the socialist was not an offender./fil</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where did his money come from?
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
ill let ye in on something laddy, that "socialist interest" was the president elected by the guatemalans, ie, the socialist was not an offender./fil</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where did his money come from?
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fildur:
the coups in guatemala and chile (the real 9/11) are just some of the international crimes that really should put ike and nixon to trial in haag. the fact that michael wong has his own very special reading of the communist manifesto doesnt change that fact./fil </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nixon is not what we are debating here. What we are debating is the validity of Communist philosophy. Stop dragging in red herrings. Prove that what Michael Wong wrote in my first link was a 'very special' reading. As far I as can see it is an absolute literal interpretation, and hence perfectly admissible. It an interpretation of the Communist Manifesto, which purports to provide the base tenets of all Communism. If the Manifesto is NOT the supreme Communist philosophical work, tell us which work, tract, treatise or thesis is and where it derives it's authority from.
The contention is that Communism is flawed even in principle, and I have yet to see evidence that would persuade me otherwise.
(Side note: Someone talk about my McCarthy link! If it's true, then there has been monstrous injustice done for years to the name of a true American hero)
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
the coups in guatemala and chile (the real 9/11) are just some of the international crimes that really should put ike and nixon to trial in haag. the fact that michael wong has his own very special reading of the communist manifesto doesnt change that fact./fil </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nixon is not what we are debating here. What we are debating is the validity of Communist philosophy. Stop dragging in red herrings. Prove that what Michael Wong wrote in my first link was a 'very special' reading. As far I as can see it is an absolute literal interpretation, and hence perfectly admissible. It an interpretation of the Communist Manifesto, which purports to provide the base tenets of all Communism. If the Manifesto is NOT the supreme Communist philosophical work, tell us which work, tract, treatise or thesis is and where it derives it's authority from.
The contention is that Communism is flawed even in principle, and I have yet to see evidence that would persuade me otherwise.
(Side note: Someone talk about my McCarthy link! If it's true, then there has been monstrous injustice done for years to the name of a true American hero)
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xisiqomelir:
<B>
(Side note: Someone talk about my McCarthy link! If it's true, then there has been monstrous injustice done for years to the name of a true American hero)
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its very difficult to assess that article. The author is obviously trying to be persuasive and probably has some agenda or another. I would not be able to come to a conclusion one way or the other without becoming fully immersed and proficient in the relevant historical data. My gut reaction is that the author represents some fringe right wing agenda and is manipulating the historical record. While I believe that McCarthy has probably been demonized to a greater extent then he deserves, I doubt that he was as clean as the author would have us believe. The author's assertion that the Senate was simply not justified in condemning McCarthy by an overwhelming vote, is not credible on its face. I think also that the 'truth' behind McCarthy is less important than the legend. Whether or not McCarthy conducted a witch hunt is more or less irrlevant now. The lesson to be learned is that in a free country, we tolerate opposing viewpoints regardless of how noxious they are. What McCarthy actually did or did not do is irrelevant to the truth of that lesson. The lesson should be tempered, however, with the knowledge that Soviet espianoge and insurgency groups backed by the soviet union were a fact of life during the time period.
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 01-30-2003).]
<B>
(Side note: Someone talk about my McCarthy link! If it's true, then there has been monstrous injustice done for years to the name of a true American hero)
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its very difficult to assess that article. The author is obviously trying to be persuasive and probably has some agenda or another. I would not be able to come to a conclusion one way or the other without becoming fully immersed and proficient in the relevant historical data. My gut reaction is that the author represents some fringe right wing agenda and is manipulating the historical record. While I believe that McCarthy has probably been demonized to a greater extent then he deserves, I doubt that he was as clean as the author would have us believe. The author's assertion that the Senate was simply not justified in condemning McCarthy by an overwhelming vote, is not credible on its face. I think also that the 'truth' behind McCarthy is less important than the legend. Whether or not McCarthy conducted a witch hunt is more or less irrlevant now. The lesson to be learned is that in a free country, we tolerate opposing viewpoints regardless of how noxious they are. What McCarthy actually did or did not do is irrelevant to the truth of that lesson. The lesson should be tempered, however, with the knowledge that Soviet espianoge and insurgency groups backed by the soviet union were a fact of life during the time period.
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 01-30-2003).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xisiqomelir:
Nixon is not what we are debating here. What we are debating is the validity of Communist philosophy. Stop dragging in red herrings. Prove that what Michael Wong wrote in my first link was a 'very special' reading. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
you want proof? just learn to read....
firstly communist philosophy shouldnt be sayed to be originated from the manifesto, das kapital is the general accepted source for comunist philosophy.
secondly wong is willingly misreading the text he tries to "analyze". that wong thinks taht he can feel pride when he sees a car he made in a factory does not constitute proof against the fundamental injustice inherent in the capitalist system.
wong is just not a serious critic of communism. from what wong wrtes we can say absolutely nothing about communism, due to his intelectual dishonesty, theres just nothing more to it.
what it all comes down to is simple:
wong is wrong.
the scary part tho is that in a context of american anti-communism wongs and others are taken serious, thats why i brought up american anti communism in the first place. yes i blame the likes of wong for the crimes of america./fil
Nixon is not what we are debating here. What we are debating is the validity of Communist philosophy. Stop dragging in red herrings. Prove that what Michael Wong wrote in my first link was a 'very special' reading. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
you want proof? just learn to read....
firstly communist philosophy shouldnt be sayed to be originated from the manifesto, das kapital is the general accepted source for comunist philosophy.
secondly wong is willingly misreading the text he tries to "analyze". that wong thinks taht he can feel pride when he sees a car he made in a factory does not constitute proof against the fundamental injustice inherent in the capitalist system.
wong is just not a serious critic of communism. from what wong wrtes we can say absolutely nothing about communism, due to his intelectual dishonesty, theres just nothing more to it.
what it all comes down to is simple:
wong is wrong.
the scary part tho is that in a context of american anti-communism wongs and others are taken serious, thats why i brought up american anti communism in the first place. yes i blame the likes of wong for the crimes of america./fil
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fildur:
<B>
firstly communist philosophy shouldnt be sayed to be originated from the manifesto, das kapital is the general accepted source for comunist philosophy.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Generally accepted by whom? And what level of canonicity do we ascribe to the Manifesto then?
And which parts of "Das Kapital" are the pertinent ones to the discussion? Let's see some quotes.
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
<B>
firstly communist philosophy shouldnt be sayed to be originated from the manifesto, das kapital is the general accepted source for comunist philosophy.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Generally accepted by whom? And what level of canonicity do we ascribe to the Manifesto then?
And which parts of "Das Kapital" are the pertinent ones to the discussion? Let's see some quotes.
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xisiqomelir:
<B> Let's see some quotes.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
its not about quotes, its about choosing references, and wong is not an authoroty on communism in any way. hes just not the man, and if you really are looking for the philosopical roots to communism, do read the original sources, not what someone that lacks the intelectual capabillities to understand the sources has to say about them. yes, i understand that wong would be interesting for someone that wants to make a rant w out knowing the subject, but thats not the issue.
/fil
<B> Let's see some quotes.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
its not about quotes, its about choosing references, and wong is not an authoroty on communism in any way. hes just not the man, and if you really are looking for the philosopical roots to communism, do read the original sources, not what someone that lacks the intelectual capabillities to understand the sources has to say about them. yes, i understand that wong would be interesting for someone that wants to make a rant w out knowing the subject, but thats not the issue.
/fil
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fildur:
its not about quotes, its about choosing references</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, listen. From Moore and Engels' translation of the Manifesto (link here) come these 10 commandments of Communism.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You say that this is in fact an invalid source and a distortion and gross misrepresentation of the true Communist philosophy. You say that "Das Kapital" is the real source of Communist philosophy. Here is a link to a fully electronic and searchable version of that text. Show us where EXACTLY it goes against the philosophy of the Communist Manifesto, and what the differences are. If you claim that Michael Wong is making strawmen out of Marxism, show us what the real philosophy is, and then we can examine that.
And on a completely seperate note:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fildur:
wong is not an authoroty on communism in any way. hes just not the man, and if you really are looking for the philosopical roots to communism, do read the original sources, not what someone that lacks the intelectual capabillities to understand the sources has to say about them. yes, i understand that wong would be interesting for someone that wants to make a rant w out knowing the subject, but thats not the issue.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
These are quite outrageous ad hominems. How is Michael Wong "lacking intellectual capability" when all he's doing is an exact LITERAL interpretation of the words in the manifesto? How is it disparaging the original sources if he's quoting them exactly as they were written?
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
[This message has been edited by Xisiqomelir (edited 01-31-2003).]
its not about quotes, its about choosing references</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, listen. From Moore and Engels' translation of the Manifesto (link here) come these 10 commandments of Communism.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You say that this is in fact an invalid source and a distortion and gross misrepresentation of the true Communist philosophy. You say that "Das Kapital" is the real source of Communist philosophy. Here is a link to a fully electronic and searchable version of that text. Show us where EXACTLY it goes against the philosophy of the Communist Manifesto, and what the differences are. If you claim that Michael Wong is making strawmen out of Marxism, show us what the real philosophy is, and then we can examine that.
And on a completely seperate note:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fildur:
wong is not an authoroty on communism in any way. hes just not the man, and if you really are looking for the philosopical roots to communism, do read the original sources, not what someone that lacks the intelectual capabillities to understand the sources has to say about them. yes, i understand that wong would be interesting for someone that wants to make a rant w out knowing the subject, but thats not the issue.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
These are quite outrageous ad hominems. How is Michael Wong "lacking intellectual capability" when all he's doing is an exact LITERAL interpretation of the words in the manifesto? How is it disparaging the original sources if he's quoting them exactly as they were written?
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
[This message has been edited by Xisiqomelir (edited 01-31-2003).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xisiqomelir:
<B>(Side note: Someone talk about my McCarthy link! If it's true, then there has been monstrous injustice done for years to the name of a true American hero)
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do a quick scan of some of the other articles on that site. A couple I spotted: Dubya is "too Establishment" to be a good president. The Oklahoma city bombing was most likely a vast conspiricy that the government covered up by claiming it was the work of only two men. Oh look, Castro was installed by the U.S. government.
As pieces of propaganda, some of the articles are more persuasive than others, and the McCarthy one is more slickly written than some of the others. You'd have to do a lot more checking of facts, but my guess is you would find that many of the things presented are indeed true, but only partially true, and all are presented (sometimes twisted) in the best light for the author's purposes, which is exactly to persuade you that McCarthyism is just what we need in this country.
The underlying point the author doesn't address is that America is based on a number of principles, some of the key ones here being freedom of speech and freedom of association. It is not illegal to be a Communist (um, according to the Constitution: laws have been passed saying it is illegal, but they are eventually struck down). It is not illegal to go to meetings at which Communists speak. It is not illegal to do any of those things if you are a government employee. It is not illegal to hire Communists to be government employees, and indeed, would be illegal to NOT hire someone (for most government jobs) merely because he or she was a Communist.
McCarthy, basically, accused the government of hiring Communists. He accused Communists of being Communists, and he accused people who associated with Communists of being Communists. These were almost all citizens of the United States, by the way. Should there be any fuss about that? Constitutionally and legally, no. Much ado about nothing. Politically, though, think about today, and replace "Communist" with "Islamic fundamentalist". Imagine Senator X speechifying; ranting that the government is full of Islamic fundamentalists; the Army is full of Islamic fundamentalists; so-and-so has knowingly hired Islamic fundamentalists; "I have, here in my hand, a list of 205 Islamic fundamentalists" working for...
There's also that little thing about "innocent until proven guilty". It's illegal to work for the government while working for a foreign power, but very few U.S. Communists worked for the Soviet Union. But by equating all Communists with "people who advocate the forcible overthrow of the American government", we don't need to bother with that. Deport 'em. Or if they're citizens, fire 'em and have the FBI tap their phones, read their mail, ask their neighbors pointed questions. What, a court order, offering evidence of their probable guilt? We don't need that, they're Communists!
Besides learning more about McCarthy, you need to learn more about the times, especially something about the House Un-American Activities Committee. There is also some discussion on the BBS here, about the current treatment of Islamic fundamentalists, how it is the same and how it is different from what happened in the 50's.
[This message has been edited by Gurns (edited 01-31-2003).]
<B>(Side note: Someone talk about my McCarthy link! If it's true, then there has been monstrous injustice done for years to the name of a true American hero)
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do a quick scan of some of the other articles on that site. A couple I spotted: Dubya is "too Establishment" to be a good president. The Oklahoma city bombing was most likely a vast conspiricy that the government covered up by claiming it was the work of only two men. Oh look, Castro was installed by the U.S. government.
As pieces of propaganda, some of the articles are more persuasive than others, and the McCarthy one is more slickly written than some of the others. You'd have to do a lot more checking of facts, but my guess is you would find that many of the things presented are indeed true, but only partially true, and all are presented (sometimes twisted) in the best light for the author's purposes, which is exactly to persuade you that McCarthyism is just what we need in this country.
The underlying point the author doesn't address is that America is based on a number of principles, some of the key ones here being freedom of speech and freedom of association. It is not illegal to be a Communist (um, according to the Constitution: laws have been passed saying it is illegal, but they are eventually struck down). It is not illegal to go to meetings at which Communists speak. It is not illegal to do any of those things if you are a government employee. It is not illegal to hire Communists to be government employees, and indeed, would be illegal to NOT hire someone (for most government jobs) merely because he or she was a Communist.
McCarthy, basically, accused the government of hiring Communists. He accused Communists of being Communists, and he accused people who associated with Communists of being Communists. These were almost all citizens of the United States, by the way. Should there be any fuss about that? Constitutionally and legally, no. Much ado about nothing. Politically, though, think about today, and replace "Communist" with "Islamic fundamentalist". Imagine Senator X speechifying; ranting that the government is full of Islamic fundamentalists; the Army is full of Islamic fundamentalists; so-and-so has knowingly hired Islamic fundamentalists; "I have, here in my hand, a list of 205 Islamic fundamentalists" working for...
There's also that little thing about "innocent until proven guilty". It's illegal to work for the government while working for a foreign power, but very few U.S. Communists worked for the Soviet Union. But by equating all Communists with "people who advocate the forcible overthrow of the American government", we don't need to bother with that. Deport 'em. Or if they're citizens, fire 'em and have the FBI tap their phones, read their mail, ask their neighbors pointed questions. What, a court order, offering evidence of their probable guilt? We don't need that, they're Communists!
Besides learning more about McCarthy, you need to learn more about the times, especially something about the House Un-American Activities Committee. There is also some discussion on the BBS here, about the current treatment of Islamic fundamentalists, how it is the same and how it is different from what happened in the 50's.
[This message has been edited by Gurns (edited 01-31-2003).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
In order for communism to work, a majority of people must act purely out of interest for others.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would disagree. Partially out of self-interest, partially out of interest for others. Yet how much of "interest for others" is really self-interest? A very simple example: people who have some education, who have jobs, who have some money, are less likely to engage in criminal behavior. So if I pay taxes (or get paid less by the state) in order to fund schools and job training and welfare, isn't that in my self-interest?
And under democracy, certainly I am sometimes compelled to act purely out of interest toward others. Some of my tax dollars will soon go to fund a war in Iraq (yeah, going out on the prediction limb there). Some of my tax dollars go to fund various welfare programs. I have (almost) no say in either of those. The point being that all societies compel their members to partially work for the good of society/others, so the question is one of degree.
I would strongly disagree. We still read, say, Plato, as part of the history of ideas, as part of consideration of different philosophies, looking at different understandings of human nature. It is certainly useful to read Marx similarly. It should also be important, as we try to understand why such a large number of people apparently supported his ideas, directly in opposition to capitalism.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
A capitalist understands that the greed of an individual is a driving force
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One can easily argue that so did Marx, that's why he wanted to keep it under control. Some of the structures he advocated (no private ownership of the means of production, no inheritence) means that no individual is going to be allowed to let his or her greed get "out of control" (in quotes, because just how big is big is part of the issue).
You can also see, in Marx, some attempt to respond to Adam Smith. Smith argues that unrestrained, unfettered capitalism will produce social good. (OK, I don't know that's actually what he says: That's how many of his disciples interpret him.) Marx says, "Bullshit, people are greedy. If allowed to, they'll grab all they need, then grab all they can, and they'll keep grabbing. And those who get a little power/resources, or start out with a little power/resources, can more easily grab more. That won't lead to free markets, that'll lead to monopoly or at best oligarchy. That's a crappy way to run an economy/society, and so it must be prevented."
The other thing is that Marx thought that there were other driving forces, too, other human needs. He thought there was a basic need to build/produce, which is why he wrote about economics. Also, there is definitely a utopian "fairness" running through his work. (Heavy irony there, given what the "communist" states turned into. A lot like early Christians vs. the medieval Church, but I digress. Interestingly, some of the earliest Christian communities were essentially communistic, but I digress even more.)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>A more interesting debate would be whether the balance between business and social welfare is out of wack in many of todays modern westernized countries.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I dunno about other countries, but in the U.S. it always has been, and still is, too heavily weighted toward business. I smile, since I expect you just might disagree. Curiously enough, I would also expect Cherzra to contend that in the Netherlands, it is presently too far to the social welfare side, given recent demographic shifts in that country. That would be about as close as you two have ever come to agreeing on anything, which I mention because all the rest of us can enjoy that.
Interestingly enough, the issue of fairness occurs again and again in utopian literature (I include Marx there, though I also include him in philosophy, economics, and sociology, and probably a few other places if I thought about it more.) It's also been a big factor in one of the big current debate on the BBS: quests. The argument is that rewards for quests should be fair. The gods put in place certain rules (!camping) to try to make it fair. People get annoyed when they see something that they don't perceive is fair, and people who they believe don't play fair. People get annoyed when they see unrestrained greed. "You're bidding on that for your 17th alt, and I don't have one of them yet!" I dunno, sounds awfully Marxist to me.
Moving to RL, we all know life ain't fair, but most folks get annoyed when they see blatant unfairness. Some folks dislike welfare because it's unfair: "Taking my money to give handouts to folks who won't get off their ass and work." Some folks dislike business because it's unfair: "So the company lost money, the shareholders didn't get diddly, they laid off 10,000 workers, and the CEO got a raise of how many millions?"
Of course, "fairness" as a basis of society is enshired in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constituion as well. More so in the Declaration, of course. Hmm, "all men created equal", with rights of life, liberty, and the pufuit of happineff (for all you Stan Freberg fans). omg, does that make Jefferson a Marxist?
[This message has been edited by Gurns (edited 01-31-2003).]
In order for communism to work, a majority of people must act purely out of interest for others.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would disagree. Partially out of self-interest, partially out of interest for others. Yet how much of "interest for others" is really self-interest? A very simple example: people who have some education, who have jobs, who have some money, are less likely to engage in criminal behavior. So if I pay taxes (or get paid less by the state) in order to fund schools and job training and welfare, isn't that in my self-interest?
And under democracy, certainly I am sometimes compelled to act purely out of interest toward others. Some of my tax dollars will soon go to fund a war in Iraq (yeah, going out on the prediction limb there). Some of my tax dollars go to fund various welfare programs. I have (almost) no say in either of those. The point being that all societies compel their members to partially work for the good of society/others, so the question is one of degree.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The only thing worth discussing about communism is whether communist ideals degenerate into dictatorships over time, or whether they are simply used by dictators as a pretext for taking power.</font>
I would strongly disagree. We still read, say, Plato, as part of the history of ideas, as part of consideration of different philosophies, looking at different understandings of human nature. It is certainly useful to read Marx similarly. It should also be important, as we try to understand why such a large number of people apparently supported his ideas, directly in opposition to capitalism.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
A capitalist understands that the greed of an individual is a driving force
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One can easily argue that so did Marx, that's why he wanted to keep it under control. Some of the structures he advocated (no private ownership of the means of production, no inheritence) means that no individual is going to be allowed to let his or her greed get "out of control" (in quotes, because just how big is big is part of the issue).
You can also see, in Marx, some attempt to respond to Adam Smith. Smith argues that unrestrained, unfettered capitalism will produce social good. (OK, I don't know that's actually what he says: That's how many of his disciples interpret him.) Marx says, "Bullshit, people are greedy. If allowed to, they'll grab all they need, then grab all they can, and they'll keep grabbing. And those who get a little power/resources, or start out with a little power/resources, can more easily grab more. That won't lead to free markets, that'll lead to monopoly or at best oligarchy. That's a crappy way to run an economy/society, and so it must be prevented."
The other thing is that Marx thought that there were other driving forces, too, other human needs. He thought there was a basic need to build/produce, which is why he wrote about economics. Also, there is definitely a utopian "fairness" running through his work. (Heavy irony there, given what the "communist" states turned into. A lot like early Christians vs. the medieval Church, but I digress. Interestingly, some of the earliest Christian communities were essentially communistic, but I digress even more.)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>A more interesting debate would be whether the balance between business and social welfare is out of wack in many of todays modern westernized countries.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I dunno about other countries, but in the U.S. it always has been, and still is, too heavily weighted toward business.
I smile, since I expect you just might disagree. Curiously enough, I would also expect Cherzra to contend that in the Netherlands, it is presently too far to the social welfare side, given recent demographic shifts in that country. That would be about as close as you two have ever come to agreeing on anything, which I mention because all the rest of us can enjoy that. Interestingly enough, the issue of fairness occurs again and again in utopian literature (I include Marx there, though I also include him in philosophy, economics, and sociology, and probably a few other places if I thought about it more.) It's also been a big factor in one of the big current debate on the BBS: quests. The argument is that rewards for quests should be fair. The gods put in place certain rules (!camping) to try to make it fair. People get annoyed when they see something that they don't perceive is fair, and people who they believe don't play fair. People get annoyed when they see unrestrained greed. "You're bidding on that for your 17th alt, and I don't have one of them yet!" I dunno, sounds awfully Marxist to me.
Moving to RL, we all know life ain't fair, but most folks get annoyed when they see blatant unfairness. Some folks dislike welfare because it's unfair: "Taking my money to give handouts to folks who won't get off their ass and work." Some folks dislike business because it's unfair: "So the company lost money, the shareholders didn't get diddly, they laid off 10,000 workers, and the CEO got a raise of how many millions?"
Of course, "fairness" as a basis of society is enshired in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constituion as well. More so in the Declaration, of course. Hmm, "all men created equal", with rights of life, liberty, and the pufuit of happineff (for all you Stan Freberg fans). omg, does that make Jefferson a Marxist?
[This message has been edited by Gurns (edited 01-31-2003).]
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 21 guests