Left-wing discussion

[Edric O]

Sard-Kirov, that site that you found simply makes the all too common mistake of assuming that the inequality in capitalism is between people who work and people who don't. In reality, the inequality is between people who work and people who live off the work of others. The people who work are the working class (obviously) and they are either poor or have a medium income. The people who live off the work of others are the business owners, and they are filthy rich. Their money comes from the work of their employees, not from their own work. THAT is what's wrong with capitalism.

Edit: Btw, the only reason why I bashed Caid for his English was because he complained that I didn't understand what he said. So I explained that sometimes it's rather difficult to understand what he's trying to say.

[Edric O]

Caid:

First of all, as you may have noticed, I have grown sick and tired of this pointless never-ending debate. We are going around in circles. It has turned into a complete waste of time. Perhaps you enjoy wasting your time, but I don't. Let's each make our final statement and END this thing. I'll even let you have the last word if it means so much to you.

Now, back to the actual debate:

1. Seeing how those 120 million people were ruled by a small group of unelected officials, "hijacking the nation" was quite easy.

Say what you will about Trotsky, but if he would have been in Stalin's place (as Lenin intended him to be), the Soviet Union would have known true socialism, and both of us would most likely be living in a Socialist European Union right now. Also, you'd probably be a commited socialist, after seeing all its benefits.

2. That's because things generally tend to have ONE definition... or do you know an object or concept that can be two things at once? ::)

And if you actually read what I said, you'd notice that I gave you a definition of capitalism made by capitalists. Karl Marx had nothing to do with it.

I could even understand it if you didn't like my definitions and provided your own. But even that seems to be too much to ask from you! You simply refuse to accept ANY definitions of ANY political systems, and provide NO definitions of your own... But I'm tired of your games, Caid. WE CANNOT TALK ABOUT CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM IF YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT *ANY* CLEAR DEFINITIONS OF THOSE SYSTEMS.

How can you talk about something if you don't know what that "something" IS in the first place?

3. See above. You never told me just what exactly you consider to be "communism" and "capitalism", so for all I know you could be talking about a recipe for apple pie...

Personally, I think you should let the communists define communism and the capitalists define capitalism. I have given you both of those definitions. For the sake of clarity, let me repeat them:

Capitalism is 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.

Socialism is the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism, in which all means of production are the public property of all the people, and in which the government is fully controlled by the people. Also, people enjoy a very high degree of equality.

Communism is the economic system in which private property itself is abolished, and the state is reduced to a bare minimum. People govern themselves and they are extremely close to absolute equality. (the tiny degree of inequality that still exists is due to the differences in how much each person works)

4. After a revolution, we don't just change laws for the sake of changing them. If they are good laws and they are compatible with socialism, we keep them.

[Caid Ivik]

Bah...

1. I'm not sure. Not only I am hardly opposed to marxistic utopy, even Trockij himself wasn't a genius. He was the leader of oppressive organs in USSR, such man can't be else than Stalin. I've read a book of one slovak communist Zelinka, he has same statements as you. He tried to change the 1989 revolt to "true socialistic" - problem was that he was minimally supported...

2. Not exactly. For example word "chair". It can be defined as "woody thing of specified shape" or "a thing for sit". It depends on view. Philosophical terms, which are created by many hyperworking minds, have thousands of definitions. Define words like "courage", "value" or "justice" and then ask someone for it! It wouldn't be same.

3. These definitions are very reduced and ignoring many strategic points, which are written in their professional definitions. That's why people write books about it. We can't depend on few statements. This is definition provided by dictionary of foreign words:

kapitalizmus - mu m. |lat.|

Social system, where the productivity is provided by privately owned productive devices and resources, used for exploiting workers, which are forced to sell their workforce, which becomes a ware.

socializmus - mu m. |lat.|

1. Social system without exploiting classes, where primary rule is in hands of the proletariate (robotnicka trieda)* and agricultural workers (rolnici)*, where productive devices and resources are a property of society, also there is a law: everyone by his abilities, to everyone for his work. First stage of communism.

2. Scientifical marxistic-leninistic teaching about such society and its creation.

3. Unscientifical (?)* ideology trying for a social equality.

4. Ideology of some political political parties or movement based on some characteristics of the scientific socialism, usually abusing it (reformistic s., socialnodemocracy).

komunizmus - mu m. |lat.|

1. Socioeconomical formation, a system, where will be a class-less society, based on a high progress of productive force, which eliminates the difference between spiritual and physical work, between a city and village, as well as exploitment of human by other human. Everyone will work, by their abilities and will be awarded by its needs.

2. Progressive worldwide philosophy, teaching based on scientifical marxism-leninism, dialectic and historic materialism (!)*.

3. Pre-Marx or non-marxist teaching about social order, based on common property, teaching social equality.

4. (hist.) war communism; System in Soviet Russia of 1918-1920 against intervention.

5. First organised form of society ( ;D )*

* - text in brackets added by Ivik

4. "We" keep them. State is reduced to bare minimum in communism, how would be state with minimal income for police be able to prevent abusement of "common" property by democratically elected managers? Not accidentally is

[nemafakei]

Well, the logical thing to agree on where we're defining is to let Caid define and explain 'Caid-Capitalism', and let Edric define and explain 'Edric-communism', and let each defend their own system, and pick holes in the other's. How about that?

[ordos45]

Sounds like a plan Nema.

[Edric O]

That won't be necessary. Caid's definitions are perfectly fine with me (especially since they're dictionary definitions). I can only hope that he takes a good look at them before talking about "capitalism" or "communism" again.

I have just one question: What exactly is "spiritual work" supposed to mean?

Other than that, I see that we are finally getting close to ending this debate. Good, it's about time we did!

1. The only "state organ" created and lead by Trotsky was the Red Army, during the Civil War. Every country needs an army, you know... Especially in the middle of a war.

But hey, why don't we let Trotsky speak for himself? Go to the Trotsky Internet Archive and read some of his works.

I never heard about Zelinka, but I'll try to look for something written by him...

2. Yes, but those two definitions of "chair" are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they complement each other.

And we're not talking about philosophical concepts here, we're talking about economic systems.

But anyway, your dictionary definitions have solved this problem. There should be no more confusion.

3. See what I wrote at the beginning of this post...

4. The state is reduced to a bare minimum in communism, not socialism. In socialism, the state is usually even larger than it was in capitalism. But the transition between socialism and communism involves the slow process of people learning how to govern themselves, without the need for a "nanny" to watch over them. It will take hundreds of years, but we will get there eventually. Of course, the state will never dissapear completely. There will always have to be a police force, for example (just like you said yourself).

And if it ever turns out that reaching the final stage of communism is impossible, we can always just stop somewhere along the way, in a half-socialist/half-communist system.

Edit: I fixed the link to the Trotsky Internet Archive.

[Caid Ivik]

1. And Ceka. Secret police, also it was he who orderred execution of whole House of Romanov.

2. When philosophy and politics created by Marx are going to fail, you just turn everything only to economics. But Marx wasn't talking only about trade in Germany, it is about whole society, state, every individual.

3. Spiritual work is maybe a synonym for mental work.

4. Why call it "nanny"? Why not KGB, or StB? In "creation" of a system, planned and driven, there can be no compromise, or else it will include even us, reactionists! That "nanny" is the greatest problem, which caused all those things like Stalin, Mao etc., "nanny" just started to love her work. Seducement is too powerful.

[Edric O]

1. Well, seeing how the Tsar wanted to see him executed, and seeing how he had already spent many years in Siberia as a political prisoner of the Tsarist regime, can you blame him?

2. Philosophy can't "fail", Caid, because philosophy simply represents a certain way to look at the world.

By the way, Marx's philosophy was materialism. And in case you haven't noticed, materialism is scoring victory after victory in today's world. I personally don't subscribe to it, of course, but that's beside the point.

In any case, Marx's main concern has always been the economy. His greatest book, Das Kapital, is about economic issues.

3. Well, that explains it then.

4. And that is exactly why the people must always keep a watchful eye on "nanny", and why they must always have the power to dismiss and replace "nanny" if she isn't doing her job properly.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Well, if you think that Levi just followed his native saying "eye for eye", then why he put hands on innocent children and empress? Not saying they weren't only victims of Ceka terror.

2. Capital is more written by Friedrich Engels to be sure. And it was showing the primary philosophy of Marx, which we named simply marxism. Maybe you will have own edricism (sometimes you must tell me your surname), or I'll have my shimkism. Philosophy of everyone is his own, you can't just put him to materialistic way, altough it gave much to him. He was a carrier of also Hegel's historical determinism, or Darwin's evolution theories, so we can put him anywhere by such view.

3. OK. So, I'll ask you again. Do you think that results of work of a doctor is valuably equal to i.e.grave digger?

4. Nanny without authority to overpower children is useless...