What have you said? Free market do you prefer? You nazist!

[Caid Ivik]

Well, I am becoming bored with those endless EdricO's comparements between capitalistic free market and nazistic relativization of morale. Primary thing is that even in Bible, primary thing, which we as one catholic and one orthodox have common, there was a big difference between insulting wealth, usually punished financially, and murder by life. Life is saint thing, wealth isn't (don't take it too gnostically, please ;) ).

I don't say that capitalism is criminal, but in freedom you have less control of others, so you have even worse possibilities. It defines honor, to resist seducements. If we would control market, then will be black market, with own laws, criminal laws. If we would control everything, yes, no one will do crime, but also who will do some good?

To be sure, nazism was national socialism. Only national, not international. But it was socialism...

[Dude_Doc]

It is pretty ironically, actually (a side-note even). Those who built the system wants to control everything in it, while those inside do the contrary.

But hey, in Islam: even wealthy people goes to Heaven.

[ordos45]

It is pretty ironically, actually (a side-note even). Those who built the system wants to control everything in it, while those inside do the contrary.

But hey, in Islam: even wealthy people goes to Heaven.

But the wealthy give alms (money/titheing), and also fund Madrassas.

[Egeides]

Caid, what does happen when wealth goes against life? Health issues, food issues, etc.

Adam Smith's answer is liberalism, which mean that if people die, then it's because their production isn't worth, and they are gonna have what their production is worth.

[Caid Ivik]

People die because it is natural to end the material stage once. If people die from starvation, than it is true, altough Smith, as well as other "illuminated" philosophers, told this rather vulgary. Fact is that Smith in England had a big mouth, half of the civilised world was still feudal in that time.

Dude_Doc, wealthy christians can't go to heaven?

[Dude_Doc]

Dude_Doc, wealthy christians can't go to heaven?

The probably can, but to hear it from Islam... anyways...

I think there is two types of capitalism: cruel and honestly. There is no "one" capitalism. Just like there is no "one" communism (well, same ideal, but different rule, say Stalins communism, Chinas communism, Cubas etc). Cruel is just that, evil and unfriendly. A little example is when "Lord of the Rings" first came to DVD. Everyone bought it, fans couldn't live without it etc. Two months later, a special DVD box, 30 minutes of footage that was never in the film, interviews etc. Everything. Of course, many who just wanted to see the film didn't care too much, but the fans: they had to go and buy it because it is like a necissity for their collection. Did they mention that if they waited, the special edition would be released? No, they didn't. Everything in the special-DVD was already filmed and ready, yet, they made money from the first one, and released "the better" later. Then, of course, would the fans still bought the original if they knew a special was on it's way? Considering LotRs popularity, P2P programs, and even piracy (people who went to Thailand etc :) ), I think many of them could just as well download the movie while they were waiting.

This is an (okay, kind of at least) example of "evil capitalism". Money first, entertainment second. And naturally, this is the one we see more of. I personally believe that if you are going to do a book, movie or music, you must enjoy it. You must enjoy doing it. Not thinking of how your product will get money. If people like it, they buy it. If they don't, well, then you've already failed.

"Honest capitalism" does occur every now and then in "the System". A "good" example would be Thailand, or Middle East, where you and the seller agree to a price. This, I think, is the best way of getting both the customer and the seller to make a good deal. And the money is more direct. If the seller, who usually (in honest capitalism) is poor, can "survive" on the money he has, then he will highten the price of his products. If he really needs money, then he will agree on lower prices.

But, even this has it's cons. The seller almost never sell a product he himself made. Which leads to that most honest capitalism is illegal.

[Caid Ivik]

There are two types of people: cruel or honest. System cannot be cruel or honest itself, unless it allows cruel things, like murders in the name of progress...

[Dude_Doc]

Yes. It probably depends from which perspective you look from...

[nemafakei]

A system cannot be intrinsically evil unless it necessitates evil things. However, it can be a bad system if it allows evil things to occur. Since many humans are greedy, corrupt, inconsiderate, and evil, then any good system needs to limit the capability of humans to harm each other, even indirectly - and protect the vulnerable.

Are we agreed so far?

[Edric O]

Dude_Doc, wealthy christians can't go to heaven?

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

- Matthew 19:24

[Hawat]

And what does that tell us, Edric?

Surely it does not show the impossibility for a rich man to make his way to heaven. It gets more difficult, because a rich man has wealth in "this world" and it won't be easy for him to leave his treasures(very understandable). He will have problems with his priorities:

His love for god or for the gold?

[Caid Ivik]

Dude_Doc, wealthy christians can't go to heaven?

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

- Matthew 19:24

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

- 2 Peter 1,20

[Edric O]

And what does that tell us, Edric?

Surely it does not show the impossibility for a rich man to make his way to heaven. It gets more difficult, because a rich man has wealth in "this world" and it won't be easy for him to leave his treasures(very understandable). He will have problems with his priorities:

His love for god or for the gold?

Exactly. This is what I meant.

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

- 2 Peter 1,20

Very good, Caid, except for one thing: The verse I quoted is NOT a prophecy.

Oh, and by the way, I feel flattered by this topic. You see my as a threat to your capitalist world order! Good. I'm making progress. :)

[Caid Ivik]

You feel flattered to be put in one line with national socialism? Well...

[Edric O]

Anyone who has the slightest idea about socialism knows that "national socialism" is an oxymoron. Socialism is an anti-nationalist movement by definition, because nationalism is among the most reactionary ideologies possible.

And anyone who has the slightest idea about Hitler knows that he was willing to use ANY means necessary to get to power. Even if that meant putting the word "socialism" in the name of his party so that he gets support from the working class.

You know, I think I should make a topic about the close friendship between nazis and conservatives. Many people know that Hitler became chancellor in 1933, but few realize that his vice-chancellor was conservative leader Von Papen.

[Caid Ivik]

To be sure, why don't you tell us about Adenauer's candidature, which was unsuccesful due to pressure of seminazist-semibolshevist media? We have even better examples of nazi-commie cooperation. Attack on Poland (with magnificient help of polish comrades), jewish management in Russia, pre-war industrial and military cooperation etc.. Shit off your "stalinism" arguments: Hitler put in every larger company his own loyal people, like Lenin did, also cared more for social care and employment than in any other western country. That's why he was elected, for socialism, less for nationalism.

Hitler was a classical show of the conjoinment between totalitarian systems. Left/right scale isn't true: it is a circle.

[Edric O]

Oh yes, the great nazi-communist "friendship"! I bet that Hitler only invaded the Soviet Union to show Stalin how much he loved him, right? ::) And the nazis put thousands of communists in concentration camps as an act of "comradeship" didn't they? ::)

The bloodiest war in human history was between Hitler and Stalin. How can you come around and say that they were "co-operating" is beyond me...

And then there's your pathetic "political spectrum is a circle" argument. That ridiculous idea only came up because people insisted on using a one-dimensional line for describing the political spectrum, when it is plainly obvious that ONE LINE IS NOT ENOUGH.

The political spectrum is not a single line. Not a straight line, nor a circle, nor any other type of line. The political spectrum is a PLANE WITH 2 DIMENSIONS.

Hitler and Stalin had one thing in common: they were extreme authoritarians. That is also why Stalin was not a communist - because he was far too authoritarian.

[Caid Ivik]

That scale you can put to recycle bin. To be exact, politics have much more factors, official simplified form is right/left, where as extrenme left is thought to be communism and extreme right fascism.

Totalities (that's not only thing of authorities; it is about very look of its followers on their thinking, which is here nearly religious) are same, no matter how they try to look like. Alliance between Germany and USSR was like two bloodlust dogs coming to one hole. This isn't thing of ideas, which are anyway close. This is thing of effects, which were same. Both beasts were destroying everything around them, and it was only matter of time, when they'll attack themselves.

[Edric O]

Have you considered a career in spreading capitalist propaganda, Caid? You seem to have a remarkable talent to make "arguments" which have no facts to support them whatsoever.

Let's start with the beginning: What exactly is wrong with the two-dimensional political scale that I presented (and which was created by experts from The Political Compass, by the way)? I already know that you don't like it. Mind telling me WHY?

[Caid Ivik]

Maybe you can start a career of distracting others from point. Well, it's my cause now to stop your mess before it even starts. Primary thing is that only propaganda showed here is that yours. Only totalitarian system, like communism, can accept propaganda. Liberally interpretable, unclear systems like capitalism, can't lure people at something. They seem rather chaotic due to it, tough.

Communism (as well as nazism) creates an illusion of order. But it is order of thinking: main cause of reaching the utopy is here to distract people from other thoughts. This is productive maybe in monasteries, which does it for God. But for WHOM does it that mighty proletariate? For society? For themselves? For Party? For their own insanity? Or insanity of whole mankind? Marx and Hitler showed the way how to change political philosophy to religion, or better, how to fuse it. That's why they have no place in serious politics.

[Edric O]

No, I can never hope to compete with your ability to distract people from logic and reason, in order to feed them mindless propaganda (or whatever you like to call the nonsense that you post).

You still haven't answered my question: Why do you think that the two-dimensional political scale is wrong? WHAT is wrong with it?

As for your "arguments"... well, I wish I had something to reply to, but unfortunetaly I don't. You are, quite simply, lying. Either that or you don't know what you're talking about.

Communism is not and CANNOT be totalitarian, because communism cannot exist without complete democracy.

And by the way, since you claim that I'm spreading "evil communist propaganda", do you mind showing it to me? Where, exactly, is this "propaganda"?

[Caid Ivik]

Cannot be totalitarian because it is democratic? Where the hell have you created this fully nonsense argument? Have you read something about definition of totalities? Answer my questions, I don't want to talk about some generalising theories, but about communism.

Where am I lying? Isn't your lack of arguments some show of your unability to counter the truth? Well, now is logic on my side...

Propaganda itself isn't evil, altough it is specifical for totalities. Moral status of it you can define for yourself. It is a presenting of facts, no matter if they are true, just by some demagogical way to get fanatics, which will do everything for the cause. Communists showed it sometimes very brilliantly, and are doing so, as I see, still nowadays. Your often using of Enter button, to make your post wider and clearer to see is a good example of it. As well as CAPS, bolds and italics.

[Edric O]

totalitarian

adj.

Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: "A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

You cannot be totalitarian and democratic at the same time, obviously.

As soon as you'll show me any real arguments, I'll counter them. For now, all I can see is that you keep saying "Communism is X and Y, because I say so." You simply have the wrong definition of "communism". Therefore, you're not arguing against the communism that I support (the communism of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky). Instead, you're arguing against your own twisted idea of "communism", which no communist actually supports. What more can I say to that?

Edit: And by the way, you STILL try to get away with not answering any of my questions. But I'll keep asking them until you can no longer ignore them:

1. Just what exactly is wrong with the two-dimensional political spectrum?

2. Where is this "communist propaganda" that you've accused me of?

[Caid Ivik]

Have you ever thought that Marx may not be true? Communism is a system, which is here to "control all aspects of life" by the central party, which is the carrier of thoughts. Without party, or at least fanatism in followers of the philosophy revolution cannot be done. Revolution itself is a negation of democracy. Democracy is rule of the people. Revolution is creation of the rule of power. I am not creator of communism, that's Marx. With these three aspects, making it totalitarian: fanatisation, omnipresence and propaganda.

1. (Quote of my own post) "I don't want to talk about some generalising theories"

2. (Quote of my own post) "It is a presenting of facts, no matter if they are true, just by some demagogical way to get fanatics, which will do everything for the cause. Communists showed it sometimes very brilliantly, and are doing so, as I see, still nowadays. Your often using of Enter button, to make your post wider and clearer to see is a good example of it. As well as CAPS, bolds and italics."

[Edric O]

Marx said many things. He was wrong about some (most notably religion), but he was correct in the vast majority of cases. Do you have any idea AT ALL of what he said?

Communism is NOT meant to "control all aspects of life". No communist ever said anything even remotely similar to that. On the contrary, communism is meant to FREE the people from the oppression and exploitation of the capitalist system.

The Communist Party should not control anything, or even EXIST at all after the revolution. Marx never attributed any special role to the party. Lenin was the first to say that the communist party had such a role to play, and he insisted that the party must form a revolutionary vanguard that would lead the working class to victory. On the other hand, the party would no longer be necessary AFTER the victory of the revolution. However, due to the chaos of 1917-1920, it was not clear whether the revolution had actually won or not, so the party was not dissolved.

Later, Stalin came up with the idea that the communist party should rule the state. This is a stalinist doctrine.

Revolution is not a negation of democracy, it is an inherently democratic act. Through revolution, the majority of the people affirm their democratic right to overthrow and replace the oppressive government.

You clearly have never read any Marx or Lenin in your life, Caid.

Now, regarding your answers:

1. If you don't like THIS generalisation, then why do you like YOUR generalisation? (that ridiculous "circle" of yours)

2. Oh, so the use of the enter key, as well as bold and italics to emphasize points, is propaganda? Wow, I guess there are millions of people spreading vile propaganda without even knowing... ::)