 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Umm... I'm pretty sure gays in the Soviet Union were sent to the Gulag (forgot where I found that out), |
That would be because Stalin outlawed homosexuality.
quote:
and I know that divorce was ALREADY legal. |
For men. It was almost impossible to get a divorce if your were a woman.
quote:
And they provided free newsprinting for parties "that weren't in active revolt"? So, basically all the ones that disagreed with them  |
Actually, no. Only two minor parties that had virtually no representation to start with. The other socialist party, the Menshiviks, never took up arms. The Socialist Revolutionaries (the anarchists) did, but not becuase they were opposed to the way the Bolsheviks were running things, but because they wanted to take power for themselves.
quote:
Private property was instated IIRC with the Second Duma, and it IMMEDIATELY caused significant increases in food production and decreased famine |
Private property existed long before that. Nobles owned their land. That's private property. The Duma was only instituted, btw, after the 1905 Russian Revolution, which was lead by the Socialists.
quote:
The Provisional Government was elected - it was IIRC the Fourth Duma. |
No, it was appointed by the Tsar's brother, the Grand Duke. No one who served in the Provisional government was ever elected. Furthermore, even if they had been appointed by the Duma, the Duma was a highly unrepresentitive body which weighted against the majority.
quote:
The Soviet was "elected" by the Communists. |
The Communists didn't win a majority ni the Soviets until September. When the Soviets were created by the people of Russia, the majority party was the Mensheviks, who supported the Provisional government, with the next largest party being the SRs. The Soviets were directly elected by the Russian peoples. They held frequent elections and shared political power with the PG.
quote:
Hmmm... my take from the book was that it was the Communists who shot first |
Then your book is wrong.
quote:
The military IS democratic - . That doesn't mean that it is ruled by those it its employ |
That's a strange version of democracy, where the members of the organization have no say. But then, you think the Provisional Government was democratic too. 
quote:
and the Israelis aren't "repressive" against the Palestinians in the same way that the Soviet Union was represssive. |
Go live a week among the Palestinians. Besides, I was talking about the early revolution, not the thing it became under Stalin.
quote:
Wait - so they had to defend themselves against their own people? At our worst point, with the internment camps in WWII, we at least pretended that we were only interning our enemies, and the "free press" that was forbidden was that which talked about critical military information. |
Alien and Sedition acts, the Sedition Act of 1918, McCarythism, COINTELPRO, the suspension of habeus corpus by Lincoln, the Smith Act, etc. This government has been severely, even murderously, repressive when it felt it was necessary for its survival. The U.S. has never faced anything like what the Soviets faced. Oh, and the U.S. had to defend itself from its own people during the Civil War, or have you forgotten. The internment camps were shameful, but they weren't the worst.
BTW, when I was talking about terrorsts and sabotuers and spies and invasions, I was referring to outsiders. I think that should be kinda obvious.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's a mistaken view of our view. We believe two things are essential to human nature. One, humans are social creatures. In other words, we exist as ourselves only through our relationships with other human beings. We learn from each other, we need each other to fullfill psychological needs, and has society gets more developed, we depend increasingly more on each other for our own survival. Alone in the world, we are little match for the elements, preditors, and other groups of humans. We don't even have any instincts beyond infancy. |
That's very true, as it has been further supported by research in modern OB (organisational behaviour), see particularly the Human Relations Movement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
[q] Originally posted by Agathon
You've missed something critical - such improvements in efficiency and so on DON'T undercut the system - they free up labor that can now produce entirely new products. The vast increases in efficiency since the turn of the century haven't increased the unemployment rate - because people now produce new things such as computers. And wrt the environment, I have yet to see "protecting the environment" as a key part of a communist economy. |
Oh I see, so the replacement of manufacturing jobs with service industry McJobs is so great. You are assuming a priori that labour is a commodity that will always be in high demand. That is an unjustified assumption. Devices that replace human labour at a low cost necessarily lower demand for it. That is certain. What is not certain is whether or not demand will increase in other areas. That is uncertain and another case of capitalism mortgaging our future on some ridiculous dream.
quote:
Wrong. I, by giving you a loan, provide you with the means by which you can produce goods and make money. I had to do some work originally to make that money that I loan you, and I have to have some skill to choose who to give loans to to make the most profits. |
Nope. 
If you inherited the wealth as (66% percent of the wealthy in the US have done) then you don't have to work at all. You can hire an investment adviser to make your investments and sit on your arse as the money rolls in.
quote:
Actually, the usual corrective method for oversupply is the price going down and companies producing less or going out of business - why should people be paid for making things that are worthless because no one wants them? |
But I'm not talking about things, I'm talking about people. If the price goes down to below a subsistence level then what happens?
quote:
So you trust the government to be efficient and nonpolitical in this allocation of resources?  |
To a large degree they are. This notion of all governments being corrupt is right win paranoia. Look at Canada's health system - people complain about it, but it is one of the most efficient in the world.
The "political" distributions of resources tend to occur because of capitalist intervention in the economic system and they also tend to be in the minority of resource allocations.
quote:
People are not treated as commodities - we have a constitutional amendment specifically enumerating that. Someone's LABOR is a commodity, which he or she is free to sell. |
Well if someone wrote it in the constitution it must be right. After all, didn't you guys only allow for gun possession to support a militia?
The market necessarily treats people as commodities (or their labour, or on the flipside their purchasing power) because that is all that matters to the market.
quote:
Because all previous systems have collapsed, this one will too? That's like arguing that since all previous scientific facts have been disproven, we must assume that the ones we believe now are false too. |
The latter is highly likely.
You missed the boat on this one. The reasons why capitalism will collapse are fairly evident, it's disdain for the environment being one. But that particular argument is aimed at those who assume that what counts as "human nature" now is in fact human nature and not some social construct.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's a mistaken view of our view. We believe two things are essential to human nature. One, humans are social creatures. In other words, we exist as ourselves only through our relationships with other human beings. We learn from each other, we need each other to fullfill psychological needs, and has society gets more developed, we depend increasingly more on each other for our own survival. Alone in the world, we are little match for the elements, preditors, and other groups of humans. We don't even have any instincts beyond infancy.
From this we can infer that those human activities that aid the survival of the group are more likely to insure the survival of the individual, and so are more likely to have been selected via the evolutionary process. Those activities which strengthen bonds between people give us chemical rewards which we call feeling good. Humor, touching, sex, even the simple act of a smile (which is a universal gesture among humans, though it can be used deceiptfully).
The second aspect of human nature which we Marxists assert is essential is that we create our own reality. Consider that the world in which you exist is not one that occurs naturally, but it is one that was made by other humans. No other animal can do this, especially not consciously. We also create the relationships in which we find ourselves. So, such as the one we have with family are forced upon us, but even then, through our actions we create the nature and shape of our reality. It is not dictated by nature. Our laws are created by us. Our history was created by us. The market is our creation. All of these things are relationships and are part of the world in which we operate. And since we create them, we can also change them.
There lies the fundimental difference between Marxists and those who hold that capitalism is the best system ever. We say that people can change themselves, they say we can't. They say people are naturally greedy, we say, yes but we are also naturally giving. They say we are essentially evil, we say we are neither good nor evil but both at the same and have the capicity to choose.
Is that optimistic? |
First, just to get it out of the way (also partly in response to GePap), I do not think we've reached any sort of "end of history." I don't think capitalism, or whatever you wish to call the current system (sociocapitalism, perhaps?) is the END. Or even necessarily "good." I look at it the way Churchill described democracy: it's a long way from perfect, but it's the best we've come up with yet.
Now, obviously, communists assert they've come up with something even better. There are several reasons for me to be skeptical, however:
1) The implementation of "communism" thus far (I know your counterarguments, and even accept them to a degree, but still the track record is not encouraging, you must admit).
2) Communism does rely on an optimistic view of human nature, when compared to the current system. It assumes that people - billions and billions of individuals - can be convinced to work for the common good. The goal is noble, yes, but I do not believe it to be attainable without coercion... a lot of coercion.
3) You assert "those human activities that aid the survival of the group are more likely to insure the survival of the individual, and so are more likely to have been selected via the evolutionary process." I disagree that this is always the case. I can think of lots of situations in which acting in the best interests of the group will result in harm to the individual.
4) We do, to a certain extent, "create our own reality." But only partly. There are many, many things outside our control. You say our history is "created by us." For the most part, yes. But it did not occur in a vaccum. There were other forces at work.
From what I can gather, communism tends to assume "plenty for everyone." I don't think it's that easy. I think you're more likely to ensure "a little for everyone." Granted, you will most likely argue that a little for everyone is better than lots for some and nothing for many (current situation). But going back to your "those human activities that aid the survival of the group are more likely to insure the survival of the individual" idea, consider that if everyone had but a little, you could end up stagnating rather badly, and we might never get off this rock, which, at some point, will mean exinction.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Marx predicted that capitalism would collapse. So capitalism is not really a viable option at this time. But a state is needed after the revolution until communist utopia can be achieved.
I personally don't believe in communist utopia, that is society without a state. I do believe in a very highly productive, highly technical future society without nations and classes though. |
There is, of course, a difference between collapsing of its own accord and collapsing it by force.
Kid, but this aside, you do seem to share the view that the ultimate goal is a highly productive, highly democratic state where the workers are essentially wealthy themselves and who also own the means of production.
But, if this is your goal, anything that harms increasing productivity has got to be harmful to communism.
State ownership of businesses and suppression of competition demonstratively harms competition. It seemingly advances the goal of democratic control of the means of production, but at a very high cost that ultimately defeats the true goal of high productivity.
What advances Marx's goals best is nearly universal ownership of corporations (in general) by the workers while maintaining competition, as competition brings high and increasing productivity. But this is America, not Cuba.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-01-2004 07:16
|