PDA

View Full Version : What is a communist?


wutamess
01-01-2008, 11:49 PM
Watching the Great debaters and someone suggested that someone else was a communist. Oswald was a suspected communist. What does that mean?

Doesn't that mean supporter of Russia?
If so... How does that go against our government?

Any help would be appreciated.

Taco John
01-01-2008, 11:51 PM
Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx. Opponents say that communism is an ideology, whereas promoters say that it is the only political system without ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Taco John
01-01-2008, 11:53 PM
Basically, you'd have to be a moron to believe in communism. It asks people to not want to get ahead, to not think about themselves first, and to not expect more from life than the bare minimum. The entire philosophy goes against human nature.

wutamess
01-01-2008, 11:56 PM
Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx. Opponents say that communism is an ideology, whereas promoters say that it is the only political system without ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism


I understand what the government is/means...
But why were people so afraid of it and shunned upon because of it?

pikesome
01-02-2008, 12:04 AM
I understand what the government is/means...
But why were people so afraid of it and shunned upon because of it?

Because, in addition to the questionable theories behind communism, the "communists" people were talking about at the time were, more accurately, "Stalinists" and the doings of Lenin and Stalin had a taint far beyond being just communists.

wutamess
01-02-2008, 12:09 AM
Because, in addition to the questionable theories behind communism, the "communists" people were talking about at the time were, more accurately, "Stalinists" and the doings of Lenin and Stalin had a taint far beyond being just communists.

There an english version of this transcript somewhere?
I'm not real political.

Cochise
01-02-2008, 12:13 AM
It speaks well of human progress that for the most part, no one needs explain that Communism is bad. Merely invoking its name sends people backpedaling explaining how their socialist construct is not really Communism.

Thankfully, it's a blip on the pages of human history, an idea that was barely 150 years from origination to being hauled off to the junkyard - although, in some respects, it seems people have not learned all history's lessons regarding it.

Taco John
01-02-2008, 12:16 AM
I understand what the government is/means...
But why were people so afraid of it and shunned upon because of it?



The real simple answer is this: because if you don't fit into a communist society you either go to jail or are executed. It's a treacherous philosophy.

wutamess
01-02-2008, 12:20 AM
I'm not getting any real answers.

I guess what I'm asking is...

Oswald in JFK was believed to be a communist.
Why was that a bad thing? Were they wanting to make USA a communist territory? Was he like deemed a spy for Communism or Russia?

It seemed as lots of people were tagged communist like some sort of wild witch hunt.
Why? Was there a moment?

pikesome
01-02-2008, 12:22 AM
There an english version of this transcript somewhere?
I'm not real political.

Stalinism is just what they called the brand of communism that Lenin and Stalin set up in the Soviet Union. Lenin had secret police removing "Enemies of the Revolution" and , when Stalin took over it got far worse. Stalin made Hitler look like small fry. There were many things that the USSR did (relocation, seizures, imprisoning and killing of the previous ruling class) that not only weren't required parts of communist theory but were also carried out with a high level of brutality and violence. Marx's writings (the theoretical basis for Soviet communism) are, kinda, like the teachings of Islamic Fundamentalists, with a "Jihad" against the capitalists and that was the foundation for what most of the world saw as "communism". Hence the reason many people were scared of communists.

Maybe I'll clean this up a bit in the morning, just because I think it makes sense at 0130 doesn't mean it is. :)

wutamess
01-02-2008, 12:24 AM
Stalinism is just what they called the brand of communism that Lenin and Stalin set up in the Soviet Union. Lenin had secret police removing "Enemies of the Revolution" and , when Stalin took over it got far worse. Stalin made Hitler look like small fry. There were many things that the USSR did (relocation, seizures, imprisoning and killing of the previous ruling class) that not only weren't required parts of communist theory but were also carried out with a high level of brutality and violence. Marx's writings (the theoretical basis for Soviet communism) are, kinda, like the teachings of Islamic Fundamentalists, with a "Jihad" against the capitalists and that was the foundation for what most of the world saw as "communism". Hence the reason many people were scared of communists.

Maybe I'll clean this up a bit in the morning, just because I think it makes sense at 0130 doesn't mean it is. :)

That makes a lot of sense but why did it affect our history so much?

patteeu
01-02-2008, 07:17 AM
I'm not getting any real answers.

I guess what I'm asking is...

Oswald in JFK was believed to be a communist.
Why was that a bad thing? Were they wanting to make USA a communist territory? Was he like deemed a spy for Communism or Russia?

It seemed as lots of people were tagged communist like some sort of wild witch hunt.
Why? Was there a moment?

That's your answer. There was a global communist revolution underway at the time. The Soviets were attempting to sow the seeds of communism throughout the world and our own domestic communists (who looked to the Soviet Union as the motherland of their utopian ideology) were looking forward to the day when the revolution would come to the US and replace our system of capitalism and individual freedom with their system of communism and collective rights.

It's similar to the way Islamists are trying to establish a new caliphate and bring the world islamic law. And it's also similar to the way the west is trying to spread liberal, democratic ideals. Of course, from our perspective, the latter is a benefit and both communism and islamism are not. But if you were a communist or an islamist, you'd probably feel differently about it.

Baby Lee
01-02-2008, 07:40 AM
I'm not getting any real answers.

I guess what I'm asking is...

Oswald in JFK was believed to be a communist.
Why was that a bad thing? Were they wanting to make USA a communist territory? Was he like deemed a spy for Communism or Russia?

It seemed as lots of people were tagged communist like some sort of wild witch hunt.
Why? Was there a moment?
Dana Perino says, read up on the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis.

Amnorix
01-02-2008, 11:36 AM
From the late 1940s until late 1980s, the US and Russia were engaged in a (mostly) "Cold" war to control the path of many nations around the world with regard to their economic, social and political structure. Russia sought world domination, and the US resisted.

Russia was communist, and our enemy. Anything labeled "communist" was therefore automatically bad.

If you can relate to it better, it's akin to calling someone a "Nazi" during WWII.

Read up on: 1. The Berlin Airlift, 2. The Korean War, 3. The nuclear arms race, 4. The Cuban Missile Crisis, and 5. the McCarthy era (juts Wiki for each is fine), and you'll have a much broader grasp of the scope of the conflict.

BucEyedPea
01-02-2008, 11:56 AM
Communism has been around forever in various forms but it didn't reach a ww political movement until the middle of the 19th century. At that time, both communism and socialism were used interchangeably which is correct afaic.

Socialism is the dictatorship of the people phase, so to speak as in the govt centralizing power to control the means of production ( which is basically you and me). Then the state is supposed to wither away and everybody just shares everything equally. That's the communist phase. Only that part never happens. One reason is because the few don't like to give up power once it has it. The few having such power in the hands of the state, the apparachiks, in the name of the people but which really is an oligarchy. So it's a fraud in that sense.

Today most people, including Americans and Republicans, believe in and advocate some socialist aka communist ideas without even knowing it. We are a bit more than half way there per Marx's ten planks. I had a thread up with 40 something questions taken right from Marx's planks and writings. One yes answer means you agree with that socialist plank at least. Half then you're quasi. Some republicans answered half of them yes.Sorry, just the way I see it. Ideas trickle down from intellectuals into the society.

Todays ncs are more nationalist socialists ( fascists) and the left are more internationalist socialists. Ya' know deference to the UN etc. with the end goal being a world govt.

Cochise
01-02-2008, 01:19 PM
In addition, the internet is rife with many writeups on this subject. An extensive treatise on the failings of centrally planned economies is as near as your nearest search engine.

The basic idea, it seems, would be the sharing of income and government management/central planning of resources.

Some thoughts I found that seem to make sense:


(1) Both communism and socialism have an end utopian goal of complete equality in their ideal state.

(2) Both communism and socialism employ the practice of centralized economic managing and income redistribution as their primary means of working toward this so-called "equality."

(3) Both communism and socialism experience the same types of problems in accomplishing this economic managing - the unintended side effect.

(4) Both socialism and communism are structured in such a way that an inherent inequality develops from the administrative top of the power structure for such is necessary to enforce compliance. Such compliance must be mandated in a socialist system due to the fact that human nature creates skepticism, opposition to control by others, and a desire for free will.

(5) In both systems when this unequal elite inevitably emerges, the concentration of widespread power in a single space must intensify. This naturally attracts individuals seeking widespread power, or it corrupts individuals already in power with the lure of the same widespread power.

(6) As a result of the government structures found in both systems, the intensification of power and control on the upper level necessarily translates into the usurpation of remaining personal freedoms during its expansion.





(of course as you know from hanging around here, I'm a big-government authoritiarian myself, so I love this stuff :rolleyes: )

patteeu
01-02-2008, 01:31 PM
(of course as you know from hanging around here, I'm a big-government authoritiarian myself, so I love this stuff :rolleyes: )

Everyone who doesn't support Ron Paul is a socialist of one kind or another.

Nightfyre
01-02-2008, 01:36 PM
Everyone who doesn't support Ron Paul is a socialist of one kind or another.
Damn all you socialists! ... ... ... well, ok, not all of you.

BucEyedPea
01-02-2008, 01:37 PM
Damn all you socialists! ... ... ... well, ok, not all of you.
Ahem! Just what do you think statistics like GDP and CPI are?
They're central management tools for the economy. Yup! :)

go bowe
01-02-2008, 01:50 PM
* * *

of course as you know from hanging around here, I'm a big-government authoritiarian myself, so I love this stuff :rolleyes: )aha! aha!

we knew all along that you were really a democrat plant...

oh, wait...

go bowe
01-02-2008, 01:53 PM
Everyone who doesn't support Ron Paul is a socialist of one kind or another.how can we be socialist and neocons at the same time?

Amnorix
01-02-2008, 02:02 PM
Communism has been around forever in various forms but it didn't reach a ww political movement until the middle of the 19th century. At that time, both communism and socialism were used interchangeably which is correct afaic.

Socialism is the dictatorship of the people phase, so to speak as in the govt centralizing power to control the means of production ( which is basically you and me). Then the state is supposed to wither away and everybody just shares everything equally. That's the communist phase. Only that part never happens. One reason is because the few don't like to give up power once it has it. The few having such power in the hands of the state, the apparachiks, in the name of the people but which really is an oligarchy. So it's a fraud in that sense.

Today most people, including Americans and Republicans, believe in and advocate some socialist aka communist ideas without even knowing it. We are a bit more than half way there per Marx's ten planks. I had a thread up with 40 something questions taken right from Marx's planks and writings. One yes answer means you agree with that socialist plank at least. Half then you're quasi. Some republicans answered half of them yes.Sorry, just the way I see it. Ideas trickle down from intellectuals into the society.

Todays ncs are more nationalist socialists ( fascists) and the left are more internationalist socialists. Ya' know deference to the UN etc. with the end goal being a world govt.


No! I categorically disagree with the vast majority of your statements. You find me ANYONE in the US that has sponsored state ownership of absolutely everything, and then I will agree that "most people . . . advocate . . . communist ideas."

You are absolutely incorrect.

Taco John
01-02-2008, 02:08 PM
how can we be socialist and neocons at the same time?



Because Neo-conism actually evolved from liberal democrats... Irving Kristol was a liberal Democrat before he switched to neoconservativism.


"I have been a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskist, a neo-socialist, a neo-liberal, and finally a neoconservative."

-Irving Kristol in his Autobiography

patteeu
01-02-2008, 02:11 PM
how can we be socialist and neocons at the same time?

Todays ncs are more nationalist socialists ( fascists) and the left are more internationalist socialists. Ya' know deference to the UN etc. with the end goal being a world govt.

Taco John
01-02-2008, 02:12 PM
No! I categorically disagree with the vast majority of your statements. You find me ANYONE in the US that has sponsored state ownership of absolutely everything, and then I will agree that "most people . . . advocate . . . communist ideas."

You are absolutely incorrect.


No she's not. Are you a progresssive? Do you favor state ownership of "National Parks?" That's community property: a communist idea. I would wager that there is probably a majority of people if asked the question, would favor this policy. Wouldn't you?

patteeu
01-02-2008, 02:14 PM
Because Neo-conism actually evolved from liberal democrats... Irving Kristol was a liberal Democrat before he switched to neoconservativism.


"I have been a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskist, a neo-socialist, a neo-liberal, and finally a neoconservative."

-Irving Kristol in his Autobiography

You were an Obama guy before you became a Paul guy. That doesn't mean you're still a leftist.

I guess Ronald Reagan was an FDR democrat until he drew his last breath too.

Taco John
01-02-2008, 02:16 PM
You were an Obama guy before you became a Paul guy. That doesn't mean you're still a leftist.

I guess Ronald Reagan was an FDR democrat until he drew his last breath too.



A worthless analogy. My support for Obama wasn't philisophical support. It was "anti-establishment" support. I never was a "leftist." I've always been Old Right. I've since come to understand that Obama is very much an establishment candidate (ie. a welfare/warfare candidate like all the rest).

My underlying principles never changed. I was actually a Paul guy who just didn't know that Paul even existed.

And honestly, Irving Kristol's principles never changed either. He just changed what he called it to make it more marketable to dupes like you.

BucEyedPea
01-02-2008, 02:21 PM
You were an Obama guy before you became a Paul guy. That doesn't mean you're still a leftist.

I guess Ronald Reagan was an FDR democrat until he drew his last breath too.
Difference is RR changed fare more than Kristol, who admits he likes the welfare/warfare state. Yes they go hand in hand. Besides, Kristol openly admitted on Fox tv, that if they (meaning his ilk) needed to move to the Democrats again to get what they needed they would.

patteeu
01-02-2008, 02:31 PM
A worthless analogy. My support for Obama wasn't philisophical support. It was "anti-establishment" support. I never was a "leftist." I've always been Old Right. I've since come to understand that Obama is very much an establishment candidate (ie. a welfare/warfare candidate like all the rest).

My underlying principles never changed. I was actually a Paul guy who just didn't know that Paul even existed.

The example using you was a :Poke:

I realized that you just didn't know what you were talking about when you backed Obama. Funny that you call me a dupe now, though.

The real example was Ronald Reagan though. You know, the one you avoided.

And honestly, Irving Kristol's principles never changed either. He just changed what he called it to make it more marketable to dupes like you.

First of all, Irving Kristol's principles did change in that he no longer believed in a state monopoly on power to achieve his idealistic ends. More importantly though, most who are called neocons today are conservative and have been conservative all or most of their lives.

BucEyedPea
01-02-2008, 02:34 PM
No she's not. Are you a progresssive? Do you favor state ownership of "National Parks?" That's community property: a communist idea. I would wager that there is probably a majority of people if asked the question, would favor this policy. Wouldn't you?
That's right. And federal land grabs are getting even more common due to environmental extremism. It happened here in FL for the environment driving up home costs.

Socialism really comes in degrees of. Excessive regulation of the means of production is part of the deal whether it's a new deal or a fair deal. Most people haven't realized that you, me and thee are also the major means of production since it comes down to the people who produce, who start businesses, invent and build machinery. Ownership means to be able to control. When this control is coming mostly from state mandates including taxation ( used to control the subjects), shrinking of private responsiblities and transferring them to the state (childcare, healthcare, MittCare) then we are living in a socialism...it's just a matter of when or how much it becomes full-blown totalitarianism. It's also called Fabian socialism aka creeping socialism.

Depends on how one has been educated. I've study socialism and communism more in depth than most average folks. Yes! Even better informed, intelligent well educated average folks. (afterall our universities are mostly Marxist, even the economics classes)

My favorite quote on this subject:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." — Norman Thomas ( Socialist Party candidate in every national election from 1928 to 1948)

Yup! I'd say that's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Just keep telling the American people that they're free. ROFL

patteeu
01-02-2008, 02:34 PM
Difference is RR changed fare more than Kristol, who admits he likes the welfare/warfare state. Yes they go hand in hand. Besides, Kristol openly admitted on Fox tv, that if they (meaning his ilk) needed to move to the Democrats again to get what they needed they would.

Are we talking exclusively about Irving Kristol now or are we still talking about neoconservatives in general? Taco mention Irving Kristol as an example to support his general contention. That his example is a poor one for it's purpose is not a good reason for us to change the topic now.

BucEyedPea
01-02-2008, 02:36 PM
The example using you was a :Poke:

I see you like to use sticks. I should get some stones. Sticks and stones will break his bones but.......:p

BucEyedPea
01-02-2008, 02:37 PM
Are we talking exclusively about Irving Kristol now or are we still talking about neoconservatives in general? Taco mention Irving Kristol as an example to support his general contention. That his example is a poor one for it's purpose is not a good reason for us to change the topic now.
What part of what you quoted do you not understand?

Nightfyre
01-02-2008, 02:38 PM
What's the fuss with labels anyway? Its all a bunch of nonsense that tries to stick people with the STIGMA behind the word. Can we let the label debates DIE? It seriously makes up like half the arguments on this board and it's completely unimportant.

Taco John
01-02-2008, 02:39 PM
First of all, Irving Kristol's principles did change in that he no longer believed in a state monopoly on power to achieve his idealistic ends. More importantly though, most who are called neocons today are conservative and have been conservative all or most of their lives.


Right... That's why I called them dupes... They apparently actually believe that Kristol really didn't believe in a state monopoly on power. Hilarious!

BucEyedPea
01-02-2008, 02:40 PM
Er, well the title of the thread is "What is a communist?"
It's a label thread. My favorite kind. :p

Taco John
01-02-2008, 02:41 PM
What's the fuss with labels anyway? Its all a bunch of nonsense that tries to stick people with the STIGMA behind the word. Can we let the label debates DIE? It seriously makes up like half the arguments on this board and it's completely unimportant.



Labels are important. They carry with them ideas. These ideas have history. To ignore labels is to ignore history. History is very important. If you don't learn from it, you relive it.

Nightfyre
01-02-2008, 02:45 PM
Labels are important. They carry with them ideas. These ideas have history. To ignore labels is to ignore history. History is very important. If you don't learn from it, you relive it.
The labels are middlemen, vassals of inefficiency. Your argument holds no weight. To forget ideas may be to ignore history, however you could give or take the label.

Taco John
01-02-2008, 02:48 PM
The labels are middlemen, vassals of inefficiency. Your argument holds no weight. To forget ideas may be to ignore history, however you could give or take the label.


I don't know what any of that means, and honestly don't really care. "Labels as vassals of inefficiency" means absolutely nothing to me. What does that even mean?

And saying my argument holds no weight while offering no substance means nothing to me either.

I'll continue to use labels because as I said, labels are symbols for ideas. Ideas have history. If you don't observe history, you repeat it.

patteeu
01-02-2008, 02:51 PM
What part of what you quoted do you not understand?

I understood you to be changing the subject.

Nightfyre
01-02-2008, 02:52 PM
I don't know what any of that means, and honestly don't really care. "Labels as vassals of inefficiency" means absolutely nothing to me. What does that even mean?

And saying my argument holds no weight while offering no substance means nothing to me either.

I'll continue to use labels because as I said, labels are symbols for ideas. Ideas have history. If you don't observe history, you repeat it.
Labels are generalizations of ideas that are often inconsistent and misapplied to attach unwarranted stigma to said ideas and thus labels are a source of great inefficiency. The only thing that matters is the ideas. Burying them behind labels to achieve an agenda through contortion is no more representing the ideas or the history behind the ideas. This proves my point that labels are not only worthless, but also misleading.

patteeu
01-02-2008, 02:52 PM
Right... That's why I called them dupes... They apparently actually believe that Kristol really didn't believe in a state monopoly on power. Hilarious!

Nonsense. No one signs up to be a neoconservative with the understanding that they are supporting whatever Irving Kristol wants. Instead, conservatives following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan are labeled "neoconservative" by a newly resurgent (in a minor sense) isolationist strain of conservatives and by dupes who are led to believe that neocon means something completely different than it did just 10 years ago.

BucEyedPea
01-02-2008, 02:54 PM
I understood you to be changing the subject.
What part of what I said do you not understand? :p

Taco John
01-02-2008, 02:55 PM
Labels are generalizations of ideas that are often inconsistent and misapplied to attach unwarranted stigma to said ideas and thus labels are a source of great inefficiency. The only thing that matters is the ideas. Burying them behind labels to achieve an agenda through contortion is no more representing the ideas or the history behind the ideas. This proves my point that labels are not only worthless, but also misleading.



You probably think this makes a lot of sense. So I'll leave it at that.

Taco John
01-02-2008, 02:59 PM
Nonsense. No one signs up to be a neoconservative with the understanding that they are supporting whatever Irving Kristol wants.

Of course not. He's already instilled his ideas in the movement. He no longer needs to be tied to it. In fact, it's better if he's not. Never a good idea to reveal the man behind the curtain when the man behind the curtain is an admitted Marxist.


Instead, conservatives following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan are labeled "neoconservative" by a newly resurgent (in a minor sense) isolationist strain of conservatives and by dupes who are led to believe that neocon means something completely different than it did just 10 years ago.

Like I said... You've been duped - you actually believe that you're following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan. You've pretty much proven my point.

BucEyedPea
01-02-2008, 02:59 PM
Labels are generalizations of ideas that are often inconsistent and misapplied to attach unwarranted stigma to said ideas and thus labels are a source of great inefficiency. The only thing that matters is the ideas. Burying them behind labels to achieve an agenda through contortion is no more representing the ideas or the history behind the ideas. This proves my point that labels are not only worthless, but also misleading.
I agree and I disagree. Ultimately only the idea matters but they still have names which are words which have definitions. The problem with inconsistency misapplication and wrong labels is one more of education and literacy leading to incorrect definitions. But it doesn't end there, propaganda by redefinition of words was something Orwell, as self-professed Fabian socialist, wrote about on use of language as part of his own movement. So some have a vested interest in keeping the subject confused.

For instance Keyenes was a self-admitted socialist. We have Keynesian monetary system.

A society needs its intellectuals as they foster new ideas. The intellectuals of the 1930s were taken with communism and socialism. It was considered chic. Eventually the ideas from intellectuals filter down into society. People don't necessarily know their origins though.

patteeu
01-02-2008, 04:42 PM
Of course not. He's already instilled his ideas in the movement. He no longer needs to be tied to it. In fact, it's better if he's not. Never a good idea to reveal the man behind the curtain when the man behind the curtain is an admitted Marxist.

That makes no sense.

Like I said... You've been duped - you actually believe that you're following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan. You've pretty much proven my point.

That makes sense, in light of the brainwashing you've been through.

Cochise
01-02-2008, 04:47 PM
Everyone who doesn't support Ron Paul is a socialist of one kind or another.

I prefer statist or authoritarian. Makes it sound like I might be a burly gruff guy speaking a Slavic tongue and wearing a thick moustache.

Hydrae
01-02-2008, 06:07 PM
I don't know what any of that means, and honestly don't really care. "Labels as vassals of inefficiency" means absolutely nothing to me. What does that even mean?

And saying my argument holds no weight while offering no substance means nothing to me either.

I'll continue to use labels because as I said, labels are symbols for ideas. Ideas have history. If you don't observe history, you repeat it.


One of the reason so much "discussion" happens in relation to labels is the question of the meaning of those labels. If instead of using labels you actually stated your point, communication would be much clearer and we could move the discussions forward instead of arguing semantics all the time.

Now if there is a consensus on the definition of terms like neo-con or even what constitutes right and left politically then by all means use those terms. But if you and the other person in the discussion (being a message board you have no idea who that may be which leads to the problems here) are in agreement about what a specific term or "label" means, then you have solid communication. Once that agreement is lost, the discussion no longer holds meaning because each person is interpreting what the other means incorrectly and the communication breaks down. You may as well be speaking in different languages at that point.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-02-2008, 08:00 PM
That makes no sense.



That makes sense, in light of the brainwashing you've been through.

must be opposites day or something, Ron Paul is the only true conservative running.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-02-2008, 11:19 PM
Basically, you'd have to be a moron to believe in communism. It asks people to not want to get ahead, to not think about themselves first, and to not expect more from life than the bare minimum. The entire philosophy goes against human nature.

No it doesn't. It goes against capitalism, which is a philosophy based upon individuality and exclusivity. If you don't support a particular stance that's fine, but don't construct straw men to try and tear it down, it makes you look like an ass.

The bare minimum is not the mean. Do you really think that citizens in communist countries like Cuba get only the minimum # of calories to survive and nothing more??

Communism would seem counter intuitive to someone who has been indoctrinated in the church of the free market.

Taco John
01-03-2008, 01:11 AM
I don't believe that I did erect a straw man. I will agree that "bare minimum" is probably aggressive. But, I don't believe it to be too far off the mark. And for what it's worth, capitalism is just an economic by-product of libertarianism.

And, yes, I do believe that communism goes against human nature. Humans naturally look out for number one. In communism, you're asked to look out for the common good of the community first, and yourself second. That's not human nature.

I'm all for the community. But I believe my philosophy (libertarianism) to be more attune with human nature. I believe that humans look out for their own best interests first. Further, I believe that when people do that en masse, while avoiding the infringement of another's liberty, a healthy community springs from this naturally.

Both communism and libertarianism are idealistic. Both of them require people to evolve consciously. But one asks humans to make a natural evolution, while the other asks them to do the impossible. I'll let you guess which one is which.

Amnorix
01-03-2008, 07:29 AM
TJ is correct on this one. Communism basically ignores a fundamental aspect of human nature -- the fact that people will work harder if THEY (and not someone else) gets most or all of the reward for their work.

Capitalism has alot of annoying aspects, but it maximizes productivity for this very reason -- it gets human nature working FOR it, rather than trying to ignore fundamental facts of human behavior.

Amnorix
01-03-2008, 07:32 AM
No she's not. Are you a progresssive? Do you favor state ownership of "National Parks?" That's community property: a communist idea. I would wager that there is probably a majority of people if asked the question, would favor this policy. Wouldn't you?

Communism, fundamentally, is about power, ownership of the means of production, and private property rights (or lack thereof). If your best argument that we're going communist is that we have some national parks, then you've already lost, because it's fundamentally silly.

If you want to argue that the US is collectivizing the entire country, then that would be a perfectly fine argument. The fact taht the Grand Canyon isn't owned by Grand Canyon Ventures, Inc. isn't a sign of current or incipient Communism, however.

Nor is it a communistic idea.

Amnorix
01-03-2008, 07:40 AM
Main Entry: com·mu·nism opWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?commun24.wav=communism')" target="_blank">http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<img src=)
Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common

Date: 1840

1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property
b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

2capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/communism

NewChief
01-03-2008, 08:46 AM
If you want to argue that the US is collectivizing the entire country, then that would be a perfectly fine argument. The fact taht the Grand Canyon isn't owned by Grand Canyon Ventures, Inc. isn't a sign of current or incipient Communism, however.

Nor is it a communistic idea.

Reminds me of a local political crank who writes an occasional op-ed for one of our papers. He is always accusing everything of being communist in origin. The last one I remember was about how sidewalks and trail systems are part of some communist attack on our god given rights as Americans to drive cars.

Cochise
01-03-2008, 08:52 AM
Communism would seem counter intuitive to someone who has been indoctrinated in the church of the free market.

Is that some kind of insult? ROFL ROFL

Amnorix
01-03-2008, 09:59 AM
Reminds me of a local political crank who writes an occasional op-ed for one of our papers. He is always accusing everything of being communist in origin. The last one I remember was about how sidewalks and trail systems are part of some communist attack on our god given rights as Americans to drive cars.
Right. I mean, take TJ's comment one step furhter -- even roads should be privately owned so that companies can put tolls on them if they want to in order to pay maintenance, or else you're leaning towards Communism or whatever. It would also apply to rivers. Want a stretch of the Mississippi? It's absurd.

Taco John
01-03-2008, 10:12 AM
Right. I mean, take TJ's comment one step further -- even roads should be privately owned so that companies can put tolls on them if they want to in order to pay maintenance, or else you're leaning towards Communism or whatever. It's absurd.


I've never advocated for changing the road structure. But if I had to, I'd argue that roads could be privatized without the massive disruption that you are imagining. And for what it's worth, government already puts tolls on these roads in the form of gas taxes, licensing fees, property taxes and other hidden fees. I'd also argue that it could be done much cheaper if it was privatized.

Either way, it's a pedantic point because it's nothing that I'm advocating. We have enough problems to solve nationally, that this egg doesn't need to be cracked. But to be pedantic, it's accurate to say that it's most definitely a communistic idea for government to own all of the roads. It certainly doesn't fall under the capitalistic umbrella.

But yes, I believe that privatizing the road system could be beneficial, and that someday this might be a worthwhile discussion to have when we've shrunk down government enough that this is the next logical step. I'll be delighted if we get this much progress in eliminating this much unnecessary government in the next 50 years.

Taco John
01-03-2008, 10:24 AM
Communism, fundamentally, is about power, ownership of the means of production, and private property rights (or lack thereof). If your best argument that we're going communist is that we have some national parks, then you've already lost, because it's fundamentally silly.

If you want to argue that the US is collectivizing the entire country, then that would be a perfectly fine argument. The fact taht the Grand Canyon isn't owned by Grand Canyon Ventures, Inc. isn't a sign of current or incipient Communism, however.

Nor is it a communistic idea.


I can't lose this argument. I'm right. I've never said that "we're going communist." I said that a majority of Americans have come to favor communistic ideas. Community property is a communistic idea. It's an academic point - but it's still accurate. You acted as though the idea that a majority of people in America advocate communistic ideas was ridiculous. But then you advocate communistic ideas and find it ridiculous that anybody would dare call them communistic ideas. But any way you slice it, community property is a communistic idea. It might be one that you personally find agreeable depending on the circumstance, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a communistic idea. Just because you personally agree with it in certain circumstances doesn't make it any less communistic.

But personally, I'm less concerned about government owning national parks than government owning the lives of the most poor through welfare and other socialistic programs. But I feel for the people who have become dependant of the government cheese. I'd like to see programs (or more appropriately "anti-programs) put in place that give people incentive and opportunity to get out of the system, rather than to become more and more dependant on it.

patteeu
01-03-2008, 10:48 AM
I agree with Taco. It's not that people are yearning for full blown communism in one fell swoop, but that they are growing more and more comfortable with communistic ideas (socialism) all the time.

Cochise
01-03-2008, 10:58 AM
I agree with Taco. It's not that people are yearning for full blown communism in one fell swoop, but that they are growing more and more comfortable with communistic ideas (socialism) all the time.

Definitely true, in principle.

I remember reading a while back that, as mentioned, there was some municipality thinking about implementing free public wireless service everywhere, because as one person put it, they felt internet access was a basic human right (sic).

It's startling to think about how at one time, there was no social security or welfare or any of this stuff in America. Now not only are people comfortable with those varieties of cheese, they basically want the government to give them everything they need, and have all the money they make at work be spending money, like a kid living with his parents and having a paper route on the side.

Socialism seems to be borne on some levels out of laziness, or at least support for it by many might come from laziness. People want to get everything they desire without having to work very hard, or at all, to get it.

Amnorix
01-03-2008, 11:03 AM
I can't lose this argument. I'm right. I've never said that "we're going communist." I said that a majority of Americans have come to favor communistic ideas. Community property is a communistic idea. It's an academic point - but it's still accurate. You acted as though the idea that a majority of people in America advocate communistic ideas was ridiculous. But then you advocate communistic ideas and find it ridiculous that anybody would dare call them communistic ideas. But any way you slice it, community property is a communistic idea. It might be one that you personally find agreeable depending on the circumstance, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a communistic idea. Just because you personally agree with it in certain circumstances doesn't make it any less communistic.

But personally, I'm less concerned about government owning national parks than government owning the lives of the most poor through welfare and other socialistic programs. But I feel for the people who have become dependant of the government cheese. I'd like to see programs (or more appropriately "anti-programs) put in place that give people incentive and opportunity to get out of the system, rather than to become more and more dependant on it.
You seem to confuse capitalistism with the absolute EXCLUSIVENESS of private ownership of absolutely everything.

So far as I'm aware, no one has ever advocated this, from Adam Smith on down.

I don't dispute that we have some socialistic programs (not communistic), or that perhaps we are moving more socialistic than capitalistic. That's a different debate.

You could in theory have privately run court systems. The entire government could turn over the judiciary (more or less) to oen or more private companies to manage. Ignore the Constitutional limitation (if any), because that's not a function of capitalism. But that's patently absurd, and even the most capitalistic person shouldn't be inf avor of that because of the obvious and gross opportunities for graft, fraud and corruption tainting a bedrock of a functioning capitalistic society -- the right of redress in court.

Taco John
01-03-2008, 11:07 AM
*bewildered shrug*

Uhhh.. What? I haven't confused capitalism with the absolute exclusiveness of private ownership of absolutely everything. I've just pointed out that community property is a communistic idea. There's really no arguing this point. The only thing you can do is try to obfuscate it. Which you've apparently figured out.

But, just as you can have communism in a capitalistic society (see America), you can have capitalism in a communist society (see China). You end up with a TON of crime and corruption, but it's possible.

Taco John
01-03-2008, 11:15 AM
You could in theory have privately run court systems. The entire government could turn over the judiciary (more or less) to oen or more private companies to manage. Ignore the Constitutional limitation (if any), because that's not a function of capitalism. But that's patently absurd, and even the most capitalistic person shouldn't be inf avor of that because of the obvious and gross opportunities for graft, fraud and corruption tainting a bedrock of a functioning capitalistic society -- the right of redress in court.


Ahahahaha...

Yeah, as opposed to the obvious and gross opportunities for graft, fraud and corruption that is already rife in our current court system.

No, in fact, I would argue that you *could* have a privately run court system that would actually work *much* better than the one that we have now with *MUCH* less corruption. MUCH MUCH MUCH less. Just look at what's happened in America with regards to emminent domain in the current court system to see just how corrupt the current system has gotten.

But again, this isn't something that I'd get carried away in advocating, as I believe that there are ways to fix the current corrupt system we have without such upheaval. But the idea that it's impossible, impractical, and otherwise absurd is, to me, patently absurd in itself. Government isn't the end-all of justice. Really, it isn't.

Calcountry
01-03-2008, 01:50 PM
Watching the Great debaters and someone suggested that someone else was a communist. Oswald was a suspected communist. What does that mean?

Doesn't that mean supporter of Russia?
If so... How does that go against our government?

Any help would be appreciated.The answer is simple: Hillary Clinton and the policies she supports.

Nightfyre
01-03-2008, 01:56 PM
I agree and I disagree. Ultimately only the idea matters but they still have names which are words which have definitions. The problem with inconsistency misapplication and wrong labels is one more of education and literacy leading to incorrect definitions. But it doesn't end there, propaganda by redefinition of words was something Orwell, as self-professed Fabian socialist, wrote about on use of language as part of his own movement. So some have a vested interest in keeping the subject confused.

For instance Keyenes was a self-admitted socialist. We have Keynesian monetary system.

A society needs its intellectuals as they foster new ideas. The intellectuals of the 1930s were taken with communism and socialism. It was considered chic. Eventually the ideas from intellectuals filter down into society. People don't necessarily know their origins though.
Labels are used, on this message board especially, to misclassify ideas in an effort to add a negative stigma to them. It is stupid. It has NOTHING to do with the ideas themselves and rather than argue about the ideas, we have PAGES of arguments about the LABELS. Rather than addressing the point, people are addressing these faulty labels. It drives me crazy.

Valiant
01-03-2008, 02:01 PM
I'm not getting any real answers.

I guess what I'm asking is...

Oswald in JFK was believed to be a communist.
Why was that a bad thing? Were they wanting to make USA a communist territory? Was he like deemed a spy for Communism or Russia?

It seemed as lots of people were tagged communist like some sort of wild witch hunt.
Why? Was there a moment?


Communism was expansionist and was a direct threat to America's capitalism/democracy.. That is why America tried to thwart them everywhere across the world..

Cochise
01-03-2008, 02:02 PM
Labels are used, on this message board especially, to misclassify ideas in an effort to add a negative stigma to them. It is stupid. It has NOTHING to do with the ideas themselves and rather than argue about the ideas, we have PAGES of arguments about the LABELS. Rather than addressing the point, people are addressing these faulty labels. It drives me crazy.

Yep... just label it and then attack.

Valiant
01-03-2008, 02:07 PM
No she's not. Are you a progresssive? Do you favor state ownership of "National Parks?" That's community property: a communist idea. I would wager that there is probably a majority of people if asked the question, would favor this policy. Wouldn't you?


Does not make it Communist. Going to go out on a limb and say we had a state ownership of Parks before Lenin and Company took power..

We do not have an intrusive government that tells people where they work and live.. Does not go out and kill opposition to their government..

Taco John
01-03-2008, 02:17 PM
Going to go out on a limb and say we had a state ownership of Parks before Lenin and Company took power...


How does that matter? It doesn't change the fundamental principle.

Valiant
01-03-2008, 02:56 PM
How does that matter? It doesn't change the fundamental principle.


Still does not make it Communist idea though, lots of different government types share some principles..

penchief
01-03-2008, 03:09 PM
It depends on who you ask. I oppose communism but to BEP and Taco I'm a communist. Why? Because I believe in balance (the same kind of balance that led to this country's shared prosperity). The reason some people accuse me of being a communist is because they are incapable of recognizing what shared responsiblity is, or what fairness is, or what democracy is.

To some, Wall Street is the sole indicator of freedom. Which I don't agree with. Wall Street is a concoction that obfuscates reality. IMO, Wall Street is a funny money system that willy nilly distorts the substantive factors of our economy in ways that devalue the fundamentals (i.e. inventiveness, capital, labor, services, supply & demand). Speculation is not the be all and end all of human existence. Just ask any newborn baby, they'll confirm it.

Currently, the people's government is extremely corrupt. Changing that will have to include an evolving economic philosophy that doesn't necessarily embrace greed and hubris as its core values. I believe I stand against the same things that our founding fathers stood against.

I believe I stand for the same things our founding fathers stood for; political and economic liberty.

Taco John
01-03-2008, 03:18 PM
Penchief, you're a communist because you believe in communism. You don't say you believe in communism -- but you do.

Nightfyre
01-03-2008, 03:26 PM
It depends on who you ask. I oppose communism but to BEP and Taco I'm a communist. Why? Because I believe in balance (the same kind of balance that led to this country's shared prosperity). The reason some people accuse me of being a communist is because they are incapable of recognizing what shared responsiblity is, or what fairness is, or what democracy is.

To some, Wall Street is the sole indicator of freedom. Which I don't agree with. Wall Street is a concoction that obfuscates reality. IMO, Wall Street is a funny money system that willy nilly distorts the substantive factors of our economy in ways that devalue the fundamentals (i.e. inventiveness, capital, labor, services, supply & demand). Speculation is not the be all and end all of human existence. Just ask any newborn baby, they'll confirm it.

Currently, the people's government is extremely corrupt. Changing that will have to include an evolving economic philosophy that doesn't necessarily embrace greed and hubris as its core values. I believe I stand against the same things that our founding fathers stood against.

I believe I stand for the same things our founding fathers stood for; political and economic liberty.
ROFL

Adept Havelock
01-03-2008, 03:30 PM
Government isn't the end-all of justice. Really, it isn't.

Agreed. Government isn't the end-all of justice.

It's just the most effective system Man has devised for achieving that ideal, considering the nature of the human animal.

penchief
01-03-2008, 03:42 PM
Penchief, you're a communist because you believe in communism. You don't say you believe in communism -- but you do.

Show me where. You keep saying it so put your money where your mouth is. Give me an example and we'll go from there. I'll respond. If we have to debate each example at length, we will. But somehow we have to put an end to you using labels and namecalling to avoid backing up your mouth.

penchief
01-03-2008, 03:44 PM
ROFL

Explain. Or are you just morphing into Taco's sidekick?

Nightfyre
01-03-2008, 03:45 PM
Explain. Or are you morphing into Taco's yes man?
If your post had anything to do with reality, this would be easier.

BucEyedPea
01-03-2008, 03:47 PM
Labels are used, on this message board especially, to misclassify ideas in an effort to add a negative stigma to them. It is stupid. It has NOTHING to do with the ideas themselves and rather than argue about the ideas, we have PAGES of arguments about the LABELS. Rather than addressing the point, people are addressing these faulty labels. It drives me crazy.
I really don't see how relying on the label alone, as a shortcut to listing all it's attributes, is any more of a stigma than listing all of it attributes each and every time the subject comes up. Afterall, one of the purposes of vocabulary is being able to rely on one appropriate word that describes a school of thought instead of needing to be long-winded each and every time which is unwieldy. One may merely be trying to be pithy. It serves this purpose too.If one doesn't like it's attributes there will still be a stigma regardless.

Besides such terms are not necessarily being used to impart stigma deliberately as much as it is part of the factual merits of an argument. That it has stigma has more to do with how each individual perceives it. I'm sure Islamofascism has a lot of stigma to a Muslim, just as neo-isolationism does to others. On the other hand someone may be using it as an epithet. I mean look at the conservative who accuse folks of being liberal here, who don't like the someone implying they may be a neo-conservative. It's the same of all sides. Besides saying somone is a labeler is labelling itself.

Adept Havelock
01-03-2008, 03:52 PM
Labels are convenient shorthand, but we all have to agree on that meaning.

For instance, I could label myself a "sodden nutter", and I suspect most would agree.

I could label Mr. Kotter a Neo-Vulgarian Fruitbatist...and we would run into some problems with definition.


Besides saying somone is a labeler is labelling itself.

True, even if the Paradox does make my head hurt. :D

BucEyedPea
01-03-2008, 03:52 PM
It's just the most effective system Man has devised for achieving that ideal, considering the nature of the human animal.

I'm not sure about this. It would be a very interesting point to research since there have been many more govts throughout history that have abused rights more than haven't. I'm inclined to think that it's those govt's that are limited, restrained by law and their people ( juries and documents like the Magna Carta) that wield on balance the most justice. No justice system is perfect though. However, govt that can give endless benefits and rights ( even non-rights that get called rights) is a govt that can take them all away too. Very dangerous idea imo. This to me was the main lesson in our nation's founding. Some govt is necessary but too much is dangerous. This to me is the inherent danger in any socialism that people don't see.

penchief
01-03-2008, 03:53 PM
If your post had anything to do with reality, this would be easier.

Who's reality? Yours? Taco's?

I look at what's going on and I think I'm taking a much broader view of reality than he is. Since you've just lately become more vocal about your support for Paul and Semi-Libertarianism, I have to take your word for it that you are being sincere.

I can tell that Taco is not sincere because he has not tried to address my questions, concerns, or criticisms in an honest way. He always resorts to calling me stupid. When you join in on evading the point, that is a clue that you may be headed in the same direction. That's all.

If you want to address the fundamental questions that he repeatedly evades, be my guest. Maybe we can spawn the kind of discussion that he is afraid of.

Nightfyre
01-03-2008, 03:54 PM
I'm not sure about this. It would be a very interesting point to research since there have been many more govts throughout history that have abused rights more than haven't. I'm inclined to think that it's those govt's that are limited, restrained by law and their people ( juries and documents like the Magn Carta) that wield on balance the most justice. No justice system is perfect though. However, govt that can give endless benefits and rights ( even non-rights that get called rights) is a govt that can take them all away too. Very dangerous idea imo.
Let's all revert back to the Roman system of justice and honor that was used around 400 BC.

BucEyedPea
01-03-2008, 03:55 PM
Why?

I don't make a case for that at all.

penchief
01-03-2008, 03:56 PM
Besides saying somone is a labeler is labelling itself.

Now that's what I call Neocon logic (turn it back on your accuser no matter how dishonest it is). You keep giving me clues by your tactics that you are a true right-winger. If Bush (whom I assume you voted for) hadn't been such a fug-up you'd still be a republican.

BucEyedPea
01-03-2008, 03:57 PM
Labels are convenient shorthand, but we all have to agree on that meaning.

That's what dictionaries, encylopedia's and books are for.
I mean how many people have actually study socialism, particularly the various kinds? I rather think most people don't like the truth of where some of their ideas come from.

Adept Havelock
01-03-2008, 03:58 PM
Let's all revert back to the Roman system of justice and honor that was used around 400 BC.


Cool.

We'll start with flaying your skin and then throw you in the river tied in a sack with a Dog, a Snake, and a Monkey.

That's what dictionaries, encylopedia's and books are for.

Even then we have problems. Some people (cough, cough) don't like what the dictionary says a word means. :p

I know...I know...words change over time.

I'm not sure about this. It would be a very interesting point to research since there have been many more govts throughout history that have abused rights more than haven't. I'm inclined to think that it's those govt's that are limited, restrained by law and their people ( juries and documents like the Magna Carta) that wield on balance the most justice. No justice system is perfect though. However, govt that can give endless benefits and rights ( even non-rights that get called rights) is a govt that can take them all away too. Very dangerous idea imo. This to me was the main lesson in our nation's founding. Some govt is necessary but too much is dangerous. This to me is the inherent danger in any socialism that people don't see.

I am. There is no law without government. Without government, even the noble US Constitution is just a piece of paper worth only the value of the autographs. Without government, a jury is just another mob.

Is it perfect? Nope. Not even close.

Is it the best we've come up with so far? Yep. JMO.

Nightfyre
01-03-2008, 04:04 PM
Who's reality? Yours? Taco's?

I look at what's going on and I think I'm taking a much broader view of reality than he is. Since you've just lately become more vocal about your support for Paul and Semi-Libertarianism, I have to take your word for it that you are being sincere.

I can tell that Taco is not sincere because he has not tried to address my questions, concerns, or criticisms in an honest way. He always resorts to calling me stupid. When you join in on evading the point, that is a clue that you may be headed in the same direction. That's all.

If you want to address the fundamental questions that he repeatedly evades, be my guest. Maybe we can spawn the kind of discussion that he is afraid of.
Semi-Libertarianism?

First and foremost, I don't know whom stated that Wall Street is the sole indicator of freedom, and I haven't been able to find it, so feel free to point me to someone who believes that. Secondly, Wall Street enhances all of the values you say it destroys. Wall Street created a new level of efficiency for investment thus FOSTERING inventiveness by rewarding it in a more timely manner. Wall Street does not obfuscate reality in any way. It is a reality. It may over or under react to news and there maybe tiny inefficiencies, but compared to the inefficiencies that existed before such ease of trade was possible, it is minuscule. Any economic philosophy that does not embrace greed creates the very GROSS inefficiencies of investment you so wish to stifle through the destruction of speculation. It is also worth noting that speculative investing is only a TINY portion of the investment world. So maybe the reality you are actually embracing is one that doesn't exist.

Nightfyre
01-03-2008, 04:05 PM
Cool.

We'll start with flaying your skin and then throw you in the river tied in a sack with a Dog, a Snake, and a Monkey.


Boo. I'm being honorable.

Adept Havelock
01-03-2008, 04:07 PM
Boo. I'm being honorable.

Doesn't matter. Someone paid off the Praetor. Get in the sack. It's a very nice one.

Besides, the monkey, dog, and snake won't wait forever.

Nightfyre
01-03-2008, 04:12 PM
Doesn't matter. Someone paid off the Praetor. Get in the sack. It's a very nice one.

Besides, the monkey, dog, and snake won't wait forever.
Is it a mamba? If not, I'll wait til we get one from egypt.

Adept Havelock
01-03-2008, 04:15 PM
Is it a mamba? If not, I'll wait til we get one from egypt.

Sorry, they told me "yes, we have no mambas today!"

I did get a very nice Egyptian snake. I figured everyone appreciates a good piece of Asp.

Will that do?

penchief
01-03-2008, 04:16 PM
Semi-Libertarianism?

Taco doesn't want me to use the term neolibertarian anymore so I opted for the term semi-libertarian because the paulitarians on this board seem to have a grasp on only half of what constitutes liberty.

First and foremost, I don't know whom stated that Wall Street is the sole indicator of freedom, and I haven't been able to find it, so feel free to point me to someone who believes that. Secondly, Wall Street enhances all of the values you say it destroys. Wall Street created a new level of efficiency for investment thus FOSTERING inventiveness by rewarding it in a more timely manner. Wall Street does not obfuscate reality in any way. It is a reality. It may over or under react to news and there maybe tiny inefficiencies, but compared to the inefficiencies that existed before such ease of trade was possible, it is minuscule. Any economic philosophy that does not embrace greed creates the very GROSS inefficiencies of investment you so wish to stifle through the destruction of speculation. It is also worth noting that speculative investing is only a TINY portion of the investment world. So maybe the reality you are actually embracing is one that doesn't exist.

Heh...

Nightfyre
01-03-2008, 04:38 PM
Sorry, they told me "yes, we have no mambas today!"

I did get a very nice Egyptian snake. I figured everyone appreciates a good piece of Asp.

Will that do?
As long as it takes less than 60 breaths.

Adept Havelock
01-03-2008, 05:13 PM
As long as it takes less than 60 breaths.


Good news. The Praetor was assassinated, and you are free to go.

We're also having a special on Snake/Dog stew, and would you like a pet monkey as a parting gift?

BucEyedPea
01-03-2008, 06:03 PM
Cool.

Even then we have problems. Some people (cough, cough) don't like what the dictionary says a word means. :p
No. Sometimes a dictionary carries inadequate info to really grasp something. Some dictionaries have several definitions for one word to cover the various contexts; or even some words have two separate entries because they are entirely different. Ever look at the definitions of communism and socialism in one dictionary? You'll see how similarly they are defined. Then compare that to other dictionaries. I haven't seen how one differs. Dictionaries come in various levels and complexity too. Sometimes a dinky dictionary doesn't do.

Bottom line with communism...is you can read what it's founder and author wrote which is Marx himself. Nothing better than original source.

It's not as subjective as you're making it out to be. It's not like the word quality or fair which are subjective.


I know...I know...words change over time.
Why is that? There's several reasons.

One is because a word was never originally understood to begin with...and so as people used it differently it was redefined...but the older version is included less dinky dictionaries. But that's not always the case. Sometimes the case is the person is operating under a wrong definition.

I think I pointed out that socialism and communism were used interchangeably in the 19th century. Today we think of communism more as Marxism-Leninism. All this does is refer to how one is implemented. Marxism and Leninism implement socialism by violent revolution. Even the Menshiviks broke off from the Bolsheviks and so did the Trotskyites. The Fabians do it gradually by the vote with incremental change such as the socialist-democracies of Europe. Then there's the various forms...such as the welfare-state or where the govt owns businesses or just the major businesses. Ultimately, they all meet the definition though.

Democracy, if you care to look, was once defined very derogatorily....and then changed circa 1920. Like I said, there is propaganda by redefinition of words too.

Then there's the word capitalism, which was actually coined by Marx but never defined by him. That IS a word that carries a lot of confusion and subjectivity as a result. One reason why Marxists and many others fear markets is because they think of cartel capitalism and not the great equalizer free-enterprise markets where the people drive the market with it's demands including price.

But socialism has a definition and an author whose writings can be checked.
All one has to do is compare many of today's laws to it's points.

I am. There is no law without government. Without government, even the noble US Constitution is just a piece of paper worth only the value of the autographs. Without government, a jury is just another mob.
That's true but when it's too big then gov't becomes the problem. In fact the Founders toyed with this whole idea as to what would be too much and too little govt; a balance between group rights versus individual rights. They believed in a balanced center. As the society grows and becomes more complex so should govt but it should grow in proportion so that the center holds. We no longer have that. It's moved steadily off the original balanced center leftward particularly because of preoccupation with making everybody equal as in unequal laws for equal results. That's a socialist contruct.


Is it the best we've come up with so far? Yep. JMO.
I'd say what we had was, but is no longer. We've fallen into many old world patterns of the past including some fascism. Freedom has not grown in a linear pattern. It comes and goes throughout history with moments of more freedom and less freedom.

Taco John
01-03-2008, 06:20 PM
Taco doesn't want me to use the term neolibertarian anymore so I opted for the term semi-libertarian because the paulitarians on this board seem to have a grasp on only half of what constitutes liberty.



Said the man who doesn't even know who Rothbard is, let alone read him. You have no idea what liberty even is, let alone what a libertarian is.

This is why I scorn you rather than debate you. You just talk to be heard. You don't actually know anything.

BucEyedPea
01-03-2008, 06:25 PM
Taco, he's a left-libertarian. Those guys are communitarians aka a type of collectivist.