Left-wing discussion

[mordusxxx]

well here is my opinion. it shall cover everything u talk about but in more lamens terms, people are going to live how they where brought up to live, if something hits close to home in there lives they are going to take it in and use it. I have had numerous times where i believed in one thing but something happend in my life and i believed in another thing, if it was religion govt. love etc. I am sure everyone here knows that but we all try to forget about life just plain life, pretty soon u will be worrying about one thing and get to carryied away with it and guess what then u die, dont have to worry about none of those things u spent countless hours reading on, so think of that to is it worth all the time u take to do it or would u rather live a life of commitment to values u were brought up on? well sorry if i babled but i am not as smart as all of u people that post here but thanks :-[

[mordusxxx]

anyone? this is a good converstion probally better than should we eat dogs or not? dont u think

[Caid Ivik]

(1.) Are you saying that capitalist society is NOT stratified? So the child of a billionnaire with 5 luxury houses, 7 expensive cars, and 2 private helicopters has the same chances in life as a child born on the street? ::)

Wake up to reality, Caid!

(2.) I'm sure that almost anybody could get to be part of the government of Slovakia, or Romania, or some other unimportant country. But what about the government of the United States, or Britain, or Russia? You need to invest millions of dollars in your election campaign if you want to have the slightest chance of being elected.

(3.) As for Christian communities, the fact is that no one knows how big they were, so don't pretend that you do.

And it's really funny how you try to throw mud at the idea of communist society by talking about Inca child sacrifices, when these were in fact part of an annual religious ceremony called Capacocha. What do religious rituals have to do with the economic organization of their villages?

1. It isn't stratification, because the fact someone is richer doesn't mean he has other rights than poorer one does. Wealth gives more abilities, not rights.

2. Large countries are specifical, but if you'll look to their regional administrations, there you can find same diversity as here. Greedy campaigns are specifical only for presidential or other central administrative, altough these people are also the from regional politics. About Russia it is else: we all know it is de facto monarchy of Jelcin's adoptive dynasty.

3. How no one knows? Do you think that Peter, Linus and other early popes couldn't write? About Incas, children sacrifices are a show of their low valuing for human life. Those children were "overborn": their economy was not sufficiently productive to feed those born over specifical limit. More disgusting is fact they made a religion from it. Opium der Menschen...

[Edric O]

1. And that isn't stratification? ::) When the rich have nearly infinite opportunities and priviledges, while the poor are forced to accept any deal that is offered to them, you don't see any difference between social classes?

2. My point stands: The great world leaders buy their way into office. Lesser leaders don't, but they also have far less power.

And yes, you're right about Russia. At their most recent elections, our media had taken to calling Putin "the tsar"... Capitalism hasn't really made any improvement to the life of the average Russian. If anything, it made things worse: Now there's also a powerful Mafia to worry about...

3. If you know of any documents that talk about the size of the early Christian communities, then please show them to me.

As for child sacrifices, you are completely confusing things. It was the ancient people of Carthage (the greatest enemy of young Rome) who sacrificed children as a way of controlling their population. The Incas (who were tens of thousands of kilometres away and lived over a thousand years later) only sacrificed children once a year, and only very few (1 single child from every tribe in the Empire). It was a purely religious ceremony, in which the children were "sent to the gods" as messengers.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Rich don't form a "class". They are individual parts of a society, which has one law. I am not talking just about economy. "Privileges" made by my own hand - why shouldn't me and my children have please of fruit of my work?

2. Buy? Then we wouldn't shit at Bush, but Forbes. Russia should first make reforms like their western neighbouring former satellites, then they'll see ;) Now it is half-communism, half-capitalism, full of legislative holes. First there has to be order, than we can think about fair economical competition.

3. Maybe end of 2nd letter to Timotheus? Sacrificing children was even in first societies, we can see it on many jungle natives as well. They do also share all their work and throw venom spears on any visitor.

[nemafakei]

mordusxxx, I can't understand your post. What are you suggesting? That a certain state of affairs will happen, that it should happen, that it could happen, or somehing else? And how is this state of affairs any different to the present (for, at the moment, overall, people live in a way based on their upbringing)?

"Buy? Then we wouldn't shit at Bush, but Forbes"

But why would the richest businessmen spend time and effort in politics when they could be enjoying their affluence? All they need to make sure things are biased in the favour of businesses, and so keep the cash flowing to their pockets is a bit of bribery, commonly known as party or candidate sponsorship. Of course, the candidates need to have a bit of money themselves, and a fairly good ability in politics, to ensure they are viable as candidates, but they will probably require a lot of money, probably partly from elsewhere, to advertise and promote themselves to make sure they get in.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, as Forbes and other such candidates had always less than 3 percents, I don't think the rooms of White House are for sell...

[mordusxxx]

just my luck man well if u were really reading it u would of got this out of it, life is life live it to the best and dont change unless u are for sure to do it. and also dont let people influence u on things that really dont matter to what your beliefs are, satisfyed

[Edric O]

1. Of course, social classes are not defined by wealth ("the rich" and "the poor"), but by property relations. Therefore we have the Bourgeoisie (people who own means of production and who can hire others to work for them) and the Proletariat (people who do not own means of production and must sell their labour-power in order to make a living). The vast majority of the bourgeois are rich, and the vast majority of proletarians are poor. And because the Bourgeoisie has all the political and economic power, it can dictate its own terms to the Proletariat. This is what capitalist oppression is all about.

As for your beloved priviledges: For one thing, most of the wealth of the rich is NOT made by their own hands. It is made by the employees who work for them. But even if that wasn't the case, one of the problems with capitalism is that material wealth gives you the power to oppress and enslave others. The rich capitalists get all their priviledges at the expense of the poor.

2. Like Nema said, it is much better for corporate leaders to put their puppets into the White House than to put themselves into the White House. This way they get all the advantages of controlling the United States, without having to do the job themselves.

And Russia is FULLY CAPITALIST, Caid. It's not completely democratic, but that has nothing to do with capitalism.

You seem to think that capitalism means "things Caid likes", and that communism means "things Caid doesn't like"... ::)

3. Sacrifices in general were part of all primitive religions. Even Europeans (which you seem to consider some sort of "superior race"...) made all sorts of sacrifices (including human sacrifices) as late as a few hundred years ago. So what?

Anyway, I think we can declare point 3 closed... This was originally about giving examples of working communist societies, and I've done that (actually, even you gave quite a few examples).

[Caid Ivik]

1. How easy dialectics. If world is so simple, then were is that revolution? Reading your post, it is like I am in school somewhere in 70s. THEN it was true. We had a Party, which ruled everything and a proletariate, poor, fully equal people working for the State-Party. I think it was a magnificient experiment: first we had to CREATE the anti-Marx utopia, to summon a proletar revolution! Weird, the revolution brought only capitalism...

2. Ah, yes, I know. Whole world is capitalist. Everything that isn't communist is capitalist. In one thread you've made even from Wilhelm II. and Gavrilo Princip capitalists. And all capitalists have a secret organisation named Hand of Sion, which has only one goal, to oppress the proletariate.

3. Of course I consider white as superior. I am not a communist, so I MUST BE a capitalist -> that means I MUST BE on a right wing -> what means I MUST BE a nazist! OK, now seriously. Read part 3 of my previous post again, add your description to it and read it once. Then read the hidden text.

[hide]Here we can find out, that marxism itself is a political and economical system of prestate tribes and natural societies. We can find it even between various animals. Alongside with sexual rule, the matriarchate, it is one of the oldest political forms, altough it's creation is not dependant on functional mind with free will. Marx based his teachings on Darwin, thinking that if non-thinking animals can have sharing society, people with erased thinking will be do so as well. This can be done only in one case: if human lacks universal soul, what means that everything in our very humanity is relative. With acceptance of communism, we accept also every sin of relative view on human: world wars, slavery, genocide. (thought based on P.Johnson: History of the 20th Century)[/hide]

[Edric O]

1. Errr, I described capitalist society, Caid. Not what you had in the 70's.

And of course that it was only a short and simple description. What would you expect me to do, write a whole book? Karl Marx already wrote it, and he did a far better job than I ever could. So just read Capital if you want a really good explanation of how capitalism works.

Oh, and by the way, what you had in 1989 doesn't really qualify as a revolution, much less a full-scale proletarian one. That's why it's called the "velvet revolution". And the reason why it brought capitalism was that you had a stalinist dictatorship which pretended to be communist. So, naturally, the people had an aversion towards anything related to communism.

2. Nice sarcasm, Caid, but you'll have to do better than that if you want to get away with completely ignoring my point.

Have you looked on a world map recently? The huge majority of countries are capitalist. Congratulations, you rule the world! But with great power comes great responsibility. Now that YOU (capitalists) rule the world, you can no longer hide your crimes and screw-ups by saying "the commies did it".

3. I don't know what political/philosophical model you're talking about, but it sure as hell isn't marxism... First of all, marxism deals with industrial and post-industrial societies. Second of all, what you said about communal lifestyle and the human soul makes no sense whatsoever. What on Earth does spirituality have to do with politics and economics? And what does the simple concept of sharing have to do with the existence or non-existence of the soul?

Modern communism is not a system for animals or primitive humans. It is a system for rational, intelligent human beings.

Edit: fixed link to Das Kapital

[Caid Ivik]

1. Well, that's a look from one side, from opposition. Have you ever read something about other classics, like Smith, Hume or Hobbes? From Marx' view, Czechoslovakia in 1970 was a classic capitalistic antiutopy. Society parted into two parts: band of oligarchs controlling whole economy for their vicious targets ("defense against imperialism", de facto building the most powerful war machinery in the history), and under them proletariate, violently created class of equal and same people. To be sure, very like Russia in 1920...

2. From marxist dialectic view is whole world capitalistic, maybe excluding Antarctis and natural tribes in rainforests. But making them all same is like if I would accuse you for carrying guilt of inquisitional cleansings, just because you are a christian (no matter you're orthodox etc.). As well as it wouldn't be correct to accuse slovak commie leader Sevc for gulag, but I think you understand.

3. Marxism itself is a modernised form of ancient socialism. Effect is same: elimination of individuality, creating unified society, which is doomed to stagnation. As well material as spiritual. Such society will lost motivation. Or other way is possible, creating Orwell-like perfect tyranny. Modern communism is a way for (i)rational intelligent human beings to return to ancient animality.

[Edric O]

1. Thank you, Caid! You've just proved that stalinism was not communism! Well, what more can I say? I completely agree!

"From Marx' view, Czechoslovakia in 1970 was a classic capitalistic antiutopy."

(one thing about your vocabulary, though: the opposite of "utopia" is "dystopia")

2. I'm not talking about the marxist point of view. Capitalism is defined by capitalists as "the economic system in which the means of production are private property and no birthrights (i.e. nobility, the divine right of kings, etc.) exist".

That is the universally accepted definition of capitalism. Even you could never find anything wrong with it. So why do you refuse to accept that the overwhelming majority of the world is indeed capitalist?

3. LOL, that's a good one! You're trying to accuse communism of something which is one of the fundamental elements of capitalism!

Tell me, which law governs the behaviour of irrational animals? Survival of the fittest.

And which is the basic principle of capitalism? Survival of the fittest.

If anything can be called a "return to ancient animality", it's capitalism. Communism isn't a return to anything, except perhaps the communal lifestyle of early humans. Not animals. Humans.

As for the "doomed to stagnation" part, I find that really funny coming from a conservative. I thought you loved stagnation. I'm sorry to dissapoint you, though, because communism is all about growth and development, not stagnation. Without the financial constraints of capitalism, people are free to pursue the career that they are best at. Inventors don't have to spend all their time looking for funding or only thinking about inventions that can make a profit. They get rewarded for anything that benefits society.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Yes, of course. But see the evolution: Lenin's communism evolves into Marx' capitalism! It is nearly 100% accurate, just it has to be rolled over 180 degrees.

2. Well, if whole communism is based on such definition, then isn't communism same? There you will have also some motivation based on private property, the equal wages. From your capitalist eyes, even Antarctis and rainforest tribes are capitalistic...

3. I think you have some visions, but jungle laws have no place in functional state, lest we can't call it a modern capitalism. Anarchy is a thing I am not talking about. State laws, against which is Marx so attacking, are ensuring EQUALITY before law. And state ensures law, so it would be more fitting if you will call communism more like return to good old natural path. You have no idea what I've written or what? Do you have to start you propagandistic methods just to distract your lack of time for thinking or what is the problem? There are more laws of animals, if you would understand (not sure if it isn't too much for you), I am talking about a hive society.

I am really losing my thoughts about your abilities to have a serious conversation. Do I have to say, that main goal of conservatives isn't destruction of all clocks ticking on the world?

[Edric O]

1. Yes, but there wasn't any "evolution". More like a hijacking. The Soviet Union was hijacked by Stain and his cronies, who had no intention of ever building communism (or even socialism). Then they got to impose their kind of regimes on Eastern Europe... and the rest is history.

2. Err, what? We were talking about capitalism, not communism. And I gave you the universally accepted definition of capitalism. You can see that the "rainforest tribes" that you were talking about obviously don't fit the definition (since most of them are primitive communes without private property, and those that DO have private property also have some sort of hereditary "nobility"). And the Antarctic isn't even worth mentioning, since it has no permanent inhabitants.

You see, Caid, I work with logic and reason. I follow the universally accepted definitions of capitalism, communism, socialism, etc. I have exact criteria by which to determine if a country is capitalist or communist or anything else. You, on the other hand, never provided anything even remotely similar to a coherent definition. You just call things "capitalist" or "communist" based on whether they agree with your ideas or not...

But let's get back to the point: You capitalists always wanted to rule the world unchallenged. Well, now you do. Congratulations. But this also means that you must assume responsibility for your empire. You rule the world, and the world is currently in deep shit. Is that a coincidence? I think not.

3. I know a few capitalists on other forums who are in love with the idea of "pure capitalism". They want to abolish the state altogether, and give absolute power (yes, including the police and the justice system) to private corporations. You'd probably hate these lunatics as much as I do. I'm just warning you that they exist, and one day you might have to fight them.

As for the equality laws given by the state: Hey, attacking those laws is the LAST thing a communist would do!

If there's anything hampering our ability to have a serious conversation, Caid, it's your poor English. Normally I wouldn't hold it against you, but now you've crossed the line.

I'm glad you finally discovered that different animal species can be governed by diferent laws of behaviour. Maybe with a little more effort you'll also understand that rational human beings have lived in communes governed by communist principles for thousands of years, while the capitalist principle of "survival of the fittest" can be found among a huge number of animal species.

(note: Both in the case of humans and in the case of other animals, I'm talking about the relationships between individuals of the same species, not about inter-species relations)

[mechadragon]

Edric, I get the impression that you have turned more favorably towards socialism?

[Sardauker-Kirov]

http://www.germane-software.com/~ser/Files/Essays/Communism.html

Capitalism depends on people being basically selfish. The whole point is that, if you work hard, you can get rich, ride to the top, and do whatever (more or less) you want.

-----

I make no pretenses: I dislike communism. It is a noble concept, but it is one that can't work without a radical change in the human psyche, and I'm not sure I'd want to live in a world where people were, effectively, labotimized.

My personal belief is that communism, as it exists in the world today, and capitalism are the same thing. True communism doesn't, and can't, exist.

Just a little interesting site I found. ::)

Why are you bashing for his English, Edric?

So long people's english is understandable, I can accept it.

But words like plz or whutevr is unacceptable.

Anyways, is there such a thing as police?

I've always noticed that criminals gets away with things.

Example in holland:

Someone throws a prop of paper on the ground, he gets a fine of... 90 euro.

If a Criminal tries to steal a car or anything else, the cop just looks in the other way and even if he sees it they just stand there doing nothing.

And someone mentioned that communism would be a mess if there is no police force, since there is a 'different' ruling party.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Hijacking a state? 120 million people? You must be joking with using such words. Stalin wasn't only member of Party, his way had most supporters. And allies in other subgroups of Party, what drove Trockij out. Altough Trockij himself wasn't a very noble man, Ceka was led by him, to be sure.

2. You follow the universal definition, but only ONE for everything. You believe that Marx created an universal equation for defining whole politics, or even very human thinking. For a thousandth time I am yelling again: he was WRONG! There is NO "Capinterna"!

3. Oligarchy. But I wouldn't say it is state what vanishes, but company. If the company management was based on voting, result will be soon classic (altough rather elitistic) democracy, if it was a family firm, we have a monarchy. But to be sure, it is an utopy, what means nonsense. Main course is to ensure balance of all groups, you know, plurality. That is the thing we try to "conserve". In fact, natural communes of rainforests have their "communism" only because of the ensurement of survival. How many philosophers were pointing on this when talking about militarism of socialistic states... Communism is nothing else, than just a pure unification of society to one being. Like Borg, or, better, Asimov's Gaia.

"As for the equality laws given by the state: Hey, attacking those laws is the LAST thing a communist would do!"

No mention of your revolutions?

[Sardauker-Kirov]

1. Hijacking a state? 120 million people? You must be joking with using such words. Stalin wasn't only member of Party, his way had most supporters. And allies in other subgroups of Party, what drove Trockij out. Altough Trockij himself wasn't a very noble man, Ceka was led by him, to be sure.

2. You follow the universal definition, but only ONE for everything. You believe that Marx created an universal equation for defining whole politics, or even very human thinking. For a thousandth time I am yelling again: he was WRONG! There is NO "Capinterna"!

3. Oligarchy. But I wouldn't say it is state what vanishes, but company. If the company management was based on voting, result will be soon classic (altough rather elitistic) democracy, if it was a family firm, we have a monarchy. But to be sure, it is an utopy, what means nonsense. Main course is to ensure balance of all groups, you know, plurality. That is the thing we try to "conserve". In fact, natural communes of rainforests have their "communism" only because of the ensurement of survival. How many philosophers were pointing on this when talking about militarism of socialistic states... Communism is nothing else, than just a pure unification of society to one being. Like Borg, or, better, Asimov's Gaia.

"As for the equality laws given by the state: Hey, attacking those laws is the LAST thing a communist would do!"

No mention of your revolutions?

Yes, all must be assimilated. Do not resist!

The executrix of the house Ordos, will take over the human race. ;D

We are humans, even though the bible says we are different.

Jezus was maybe a alien, but we are a single race.

Humans won't last for long, if we made alien contact and we got a war with them which we can win, so what would happen?

Our ego selves would battle eachother for greed and power, while the aliens just blow up our planets.

And do you think that 'present' Democracy and Capitalism can unify the people?

That's like, throwing a cat in a barrel of dogs.

[Caid Ivik]

Let they come! Let they try to land anywhere, we can make a sufficient crater in few minutes!

[Acriku]

Who says we're not united? Sure we fight about different issues, but that's just because we have different views. It would happen in communism, too.

[nemafakei]

This same argument is going on and on, everywhere. This is no longer a constructive discussion of left wing issues. It's basically two people slinging mud from a mile away - it is not going to reach the other person. Please, just stop.

[Caid Ivik]

Maybe if you would post some of your views of socialism, which wouldn't need to destroy everything like Marx' theory instead of pathetical lamentations this would be constructive. Change the course, if you want, Fakei.

[nemafakei]

Well, I did post them. Check the first page or so of the topic. Feel free to dissect.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, discussion is dynamic, I post my ideas in every post.