Ask me about Communism.

[Trenitay]

Because the articles of confederation worked *really* well!

 

They had their problems, like any document that tries to shape a nation's government.

[213374U]

Because a communist regime *has* to be tyrannical and murderous, right? It's not communism otherwise!

 

You're not making yourself look particularly smart with those broad generalizations.

Hahaha. How cute. Note how even lof has acknowledged and justified precisely that. Yes, just because I've never done a somersault, it doesn't mean I can't do somersaults. Yes, yes. Faulty logic. If I have an irreversible brain paralysis and as a consequence lack basic motor functions, I will never be able to do somersaults, and the fact that I've never done one is simply the foreseeable result of my lack of, and inability to attain, the necessary conditions.

 

No, a communist regime *has* to be tyrannical and murderous, because otherwise, it cannot be communist. It cannot engage in wealth redistribution in the scale it's required for "communism" to be. And without violent revolution it cannot seize the power required to even think of engaging in said wealth redistribution (Marx himself didn't believe a peaceful revolution could take place in Germany - "The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism by weapons").

 

And that just from a theoretical standpoint, we're not even taking into consideration the record of communist regimes. It's not a "broad generalization" any more than "triangles cannot have any diagonals" is a generalization. More like a fundamental implication derived directly from the definition, really. This point is well illustrated by the failure of "Eurocommunism", and the fall into irrelevance of its adherents, or their adoption of other, less militant and radical, political outlooks. Communism cannot be anything but totalitarian.

 

I've never said I consider myself to be particularly smart, by the way. But at least I've grown past the point where fairy tales hold any appeal for me.

 

Sweet dreams.

[Lare Kikkeli]

ich hab

[Humodour]

ich hab

[Oblarg]

Because a communist regime *has* to be tyrannical and murderous, right? It's not communism otherwise!

 

You're not making yourself look particularly smart with those broad generalizations.

Hahaha. How cute. Note how even lof has acknowledged and justified precisely that. Yes, just because I've never done a somersault, it doesn't mean I can't do somersaults. Yes, yes. Faulty logic. If I have an irreversible brain paralysis and as a consequence lack basic motor functions, I will never be able to do somersaults, and the fact that I've never done one is simply the foreseeable result of my lack of, and inability to attain, the necessary conditions.

 

No, a communist regime *has* to be tyrannical and murderous, because otherwise, it cannot be communist. It cannot engage in wealth redistribution in the scale it's required for "communism" to be. And without violent revolution it cannot seize the power required to even think of engaging in said wealth redistribution (Marx himself didn't believe a peaceful revolution could take place in Germany - "The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism by weapons").

 

And that just from a theoretical standpoint, we're not even taking into consideration the record of communist regimes. It's not a "broad generalization" any more than "triangles cannot have any diagonals" is a generalization. More like a fundamental implication derived directly from the definition, really. This point is well illustrated by the failure of "Eurocommunism", and the fall into irrelevance of its adherents, or their adoption of other, less militant and radical, political outlooks. Communism cannot be anything but totalitarian.

 

I've never said I consider myself to be particularly smart, by the way. But at least I've grown past the point where fairy tales hold any appeal for me.

 

Sweet dreams.

 

You're an idiot.

 

X has not happened, ergo X cannot happen is not valid logic. You know this. A true communist regime hasn't existed yet, and while it probably never will due to problems inherent in the idea of communism (which, to be clear, are not that it *has* to be tyrannical and murderous), there is no mandate that democracy is incompatible with communism, unless you assume that human beings are by default unwilling to make sacrifices for the collective (which is, to a point, demonstrably false).

 

Oh, and a bloody revolution does not always lead to a bloody government, unless you somehow believe that the United States is a tyranny.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Oh, and a bloody revolution does not always lead to a bloody government, unless you somehow believe that the United States is a tyranny.

 

You haven't kept up on the health care bill progression, have you?

[Lare Kikkeli]

Oh, and a bloody revolution does not always lead to a bloody government, unless you somehow believe that the United States is a tyranny.

 

You haven't kept up on the health care bill progression, have you?

 

Are you implying most of US citizens don't want the reform? Cos I think they do, they voted Obama in office and it was a known fact back then that he'd reform the health care system some way.

[Killian Kalthorne]

In the last straw poll 64% of Americans do not want the proposed bill to pass. I for one want health care reform but what is currently on the table is a bloated POS. It is Windows ME equivalent.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[taks]

Are you implying most of US citizens don't want the reform?

they don't want what is being proposed. wanting "reform" is not the same as "wanting this reform."

 

Cos I think they do, they voted Obama in office and it was a known fact back then that he'd reform the health care system some way.

immaterial that they voted him into office on an expectation of reform. they did not expect socialist revisions to our economy, which is what is being proposed (worse, actually). this might also explain why his approval rating is now sitting at 44% (whatever that means).

 

unfortunately, nobody bothered to really pay attention to what obama was actually saying before pulling the lever at the booth. methinks that will be a bit different next fall during congressional elections now that the cat is out of the bag.

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

I don't mind a touch of socialism. What I do mind is an overbloated bill. If a law cannot be written under 50 pages then that bill shouldn't even bother being written.

[Humodour]

they did not expect socialist revisions to our economy,

 

Actually, most Americans do want universal healthcare - or what some of the more hard-core Libertarians like you like to call "socialist healthcare".

 

You can look up various polls on it by companies like Rassmussen, Gallup, ABC, etc.

[213374U]

You're an idiot.

 

X has not happened, ergo X cannot happen is not valid logic. You know this. A true communist regime hasn't existed yet, and while it probably never will due to problems inherent in the idea of communism (which, to be clear, are not that it *has* to be tyrannical and murderous), there is no mandate that democracy is incompatible with communism, unless you assume that human beings are by default unwilling to make sacrifices for the collective (which is, to a point, demonstrably false).

 

Oh, and a bloody revolution does not always lead to a bloody government, unless you somehow believe that the United States is a tyranny.

I did explain how the failure of previous attempts at communism is simply the foreseeable result of mistaking a load of utter hogwash for solid political theory - but I did not imply it was proof that communism can't work. Obtaining proof of that is impossible, as "communism can work" is an unfalsifiable statement. A point that seems to have gone right over your head, possibly leaving you slack-jawed with a blank stare, and what feels like a headache. A piece of friendly advice: wipe the drool off the keyboard before you attempt to reply.

 

Anyway, I'd like you to explain how exactly is the systematic abolition of basic individual rights (including, but not limited to those pertaining to property) compatible with democracy, and precisely how you will force those who aren't happy with it to comply... without a tyranny. You are right on something, though. The problems with communism aren't limited to that; but I'd also like to hear more on this idea that "true" communism hasn't been, because it sounds awfully like an ideologue's excuse when presented with the failure of social experiments based on his favorite theory. Yeah, I know that Lenin said Socialism hadn't truly come after they won, but I tend not to trust mass murderers. Call me paranoid.

 

The point isn't about making sacrifices for the collective, but nice try at equivocation. We already have that covered by charity, volunteer groups, NGOs etc that are perfectly legal and don't step on anyone's toes. The point is about forcing everyone to make sacrifices because you (the Party, the People, whatever) say so, when more efficient alternatives exist.

 

As for the bloody revolutions... as has been pointed out earlier, Hitler came to power legally, but his powers were limited by the President and the Constitution. The point I was making is that, for communist parties to attain the power necessary to credibly pursue their stated goals, violence is needed as they need to do away with the checks and balances present in the constitutions of modern democracies. You know, the safeguards intended ultimately to prevent situations where the populace may regard an invocation of the right to rebel as a viable possibility. I tied that to the contrast offered by the results of "Eurocommunism", to better illustrate the point. But unsurprisingly, that one went over your head too. Poor boy, such a hard day you're having!

[taks]

Actually, most Americans do want universal healthcare

most actually want reform, not universal health care, and most don't think it is an immediate need to be addressed.

 

or what some of the more hard-core Libertarians like you like to call "socialist healthcare".

they are socialized by definition. unless you are one of those that like to redefine the word... oh yeah, i forgot.

 

You can look up various polls on it by companies like Rassmussen, Gallup, ABC, etc.

i did. i'm not seeing what you're claiming.

 

taks

[Trenitay]

The bill that's in the Senate right now, doesn't socialize anything as far as I can tell. It just forces people to buy private insurance.

[lord of flies]

Anyway, I'd like you to explain how exactly is the systematic abolition of basic individual rights (including, but not limited to those pertaining to property) compatible with democracy, and precisely how you will force those who aren't happy with it to comply... without a tyranny.

"Rights" are just a fiction created to justify certain social institutions which are considered valuable. I'm sure that in some other world, people would find drug prohibition (for example) to be absurd and tyrannical, because they consider consumption of drugs a "basic individual right." Yet, curiously, people do not call the United States government a tyranny for its involvement in the drug war.

The point isn't about making sacrifices for the collective, but nice try at equivocation. We already have that covered by charity, volunteer groups, NGOs etc that are perfectly legal and don't step on anyone's toes. The point is about forcing everyone to make sacrifices because you (the Party, the People, whatever) say so, when more efficient alternatives exist.

The point is about returning your property to the community which created you, facilitated your economic victories, and has provided every single object that you needed to get where you are today.

most actually want reform, not universal health care

Wrong again.

The bill that's in the Senate right now, doesn't socialize anything as far as I can tell. It just forces people to buy private insurance.

That is correct, there is currently no public option.

[taks]

Wrong again.

saying they want the government to make sure even those that cannot afford health care have health care and "universal health care" are two different things. i should add, even YOUR plot (which seems more updated than the one i saw from october), shows a majority don't even want the government to be responsible for guaranteeing health care for all. at least, as long at 47% is less than 50%, you lose even on your own strawman. wow.

 

this wasn't even a good effort since your own evidence disproved your hypothesis. wow, must be embarrassing. that's something yrkoon would do, actually.

 

That is correct, there is currently no public option.

um, we're guaranteeing health care to everyone. that's socialized no matter how you cut it.

 

taks

Edited December 23, 2009 by taks

[taks]

"Rights" are just a fiction created to justify certain social institutions which are considered valuable.

yeah, like the right to life. crazy institution that is.

 

Yet, curiously, people do not call the United States government a tyranny for its involvement in the drug war.

i do.

 

The point is about returning your property to the community which created you, facilitated your economic victories, and has provided every single object that you needed to get where you are today.

but it didn't really create me - i was born to my parents who had to work hard to raise me, nor did it really facilitate my economic victories - i had to get my own education (or training) and i had to demonstrate my own ability to contribute to whereever i worked, nor did it actually provide those objects - i had to earn them. all of which is why i feel i own my property.

 

i'll give you one thing, LoF: you don't masquerade around with the definition of rights. you openly admit we have none, which is at least honest, as opposed to the hypocrites that pretend to favor rights while openly advocating egregious violations of all but a few of the most basic rights. everything else you spout, however...

 

taks

[Trenitay]

um, we're guaranteeing health care to everyone. that's socialized no matter how you cut it.

 

taks

 

It seems to me that it's not so much guaranteeing it to everyone, as it's forcing the expenses on those who either don't want it or can't afford it.

[taks]

It seems to me that it's not so much guaranteeing it to everyone, as it's forcing the expenses on those who either don't want it or can't afford it.

no, it will be "redistributed" through some means.

 

mind you, there aren't really that many people (relatively speaking) that don't have health care and can't afford it. the poor are already mostly covered through other means. many, if not most, of the uninsured are willfully uninsured.

 

ultimately, this case will come down to a constitutional argument: can the government FORCE you to buy a service from a private entity?

 

interestingly, the US Constitution is really what stands in the way of socialism in the US. guarantees on individual rights make wealth redistribution difficult to implement.

 

taks

Edited December 23, 2009 by taks

[Yuusha]

Communism RULES! LOL... j/k

 

Let me just say that we can quantify the deaths caused by communism/socialism (Lenin/Stalin etc) and religious (i.e Islamic) extremism, but we will never know how many deaths have been the result of capitalism; of nothing more noble than a rich man wanting to be even richer, and sacrificing the health and lives of millions of workers to achieve this. Don't even try to count how many people capitalism has killed, because not only will you not know where to begin, but also it will never end.

 

[taks]

and sacrificing the health and lives of millions of workers to achieve this.

which is silly. in order to make money, you need those workers. in fact, you need better workers than your competition. it does not make economic sense to kill your workers, nor intentionally sacrifice their health. contrary to your opinion, labor is not unlimited. it follows the law of supply and demand just as products do. duh.

 

Don't even try to count how many people capitalism has killed, because not only will you not know where to begin

zero, but you're done before reaching 1, so it is not a long count

 

taks

Edited December 23, 2009 by Gorth
Lets try without the jabs at the poster?

[Yuusha]

@taks:

 

which is silly. in order to make money, you need those workers. in fact, you need better workers than your competition. it does not make economic sense to kill your workers, nor intentionally sacrifice their health. contrary to your opinion, labor is not unlimited. it follows the law of supply and demand just as products do. duh.

 

Really? Then how come many American/European corporations that seek more profit close domestic factories and run away to Third World countries (such as Indonesia) rather than offer their employees decent wages, proper benefits, and pensions.

 

And let me tell you that here in Indonesia, I

[Killian Kalthorne]

I have to disagree with you on that one taks. Capitalism is based on the motivation of greed and the accumulation of wealth and property. One of the biggest genocides in the name of acquiring wealth and property was done by the United States and its forebears by the mistreatment of the native populations which its greatest mass murder spiked at the event known as the "Trail of Tears."

[Lare Kikkeli]

and sacrificing the health and lives of millions of workers to achieve this.

which is silly. in order to make money, you need those workers. in fact, you need better workers than your competition. it does not make economic sense to kill your workers, nor intentionally sacrifice their health. contrary to your opinion, labor is not unlimited. it follows the law of supply and demand just as products do. duh.

 

taks

 

hahahahahahahahaha....ahem.

 

you expose yourself, almost in comedic fashion. do you really walk through life with your head in such a cloud? it is amazing, but true, ignorance must be bliss.

 

taks

Edited December 23, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli

[213374U]

"Rights" are just a fiction created to justify certain social institutions which are considered valuable. I'm sure that in some other world, people would find drug prohibition (for example) to be absurd and tyrannical, because they consider consumption of drugs a "basic individual right." Yet, curiously, people do not call the United States government a tyranny for its involvement in the drug war.

Always one step behind, aren't you? I'm perfectly aware of your stance on human rights. What I was asking is how modern democracy, an institution grounded on those rights is compatible with a political "philosophy" that necessitates the abolition of said rights. Because, you see, unlike those "other worlds" and alternate historical scenarios you are so fond of, in the real world people don't want socialism. Otherwise, we would have it.

 

 

is about returning your property to the community which created you, facilitated your economic victories, and has provided every single object that you needed to get where you are today.

Heh, I wish I had some "economic victories" to boast of. But the community has only done those things very indirectly. And so, we have taxes, to pay for things nobody can afford individually, like aircraft carriers and nuclear power plants. Another perspective from which socialism is superfluous...

 

 

Lol. Don’t be so na

Edited December 23, 2009 by 213374U