Curse

Tur713 · May 15, 2005, 06:25 PM // 18:25

On the constant note that "human nature" is based upon where they grew up and what they learned, I do not think this is so. In any small group of people, you see some social structure going on. From Nomadic people way far out from any other influence to a group of friends at school, there is always something. The smaller the group, the more socialistic it seems to be. In the group I hang out with at lunch, we put in different amounts of effort into getting lunch and the food is shared amoung everyone, but those who bought the food get the most food.

Also, the need for some sort of social structure is seen in animals too. Dogs, other primates, even ants. So if you believe in evelution, then there is already a set need for a social structure that has been carried with us from before we reached this state. And if you believe in religion, then there is a God (or Gods depending on who you are, I don't want to leave anybody out) who rules all and once again there is a whole system set in place. Therefore, I do not see where we can get the mind set that human nature would not have the need or desire to have a social system where somebody is in power.

ManadartheHealer · May 15, 2005, 06:39 PM // 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreamsmith

The biggest problem with this issue is the same problem I see in most debates: the false dilemma. There's nothing wrong with either capitalism or socialism until you take them to such an extreme that they actually exclude the other.

This is true to such a sickening degree. But the problem is that people always DO take things to the aforementioned "extreme"

Jaythen Tyradel · May 15, 2005, 07:59 PM // 19:59

"To dream the Impossible Dream." Government styles of control will always be questioned and always should. People need to look out for themselves AND others. To look at others solely means you are givingup you own desires and wishes for you life (assimilate to the mass majority) and thinking only for your ideas and wishes is selfishness (anarchy). The fault with Capatalism is that there is very little boundaries (as stated by others) and leads to self centeredness/greed. The fault with communisim is that there is not much emphasis on the ideals for personal dreams and incentive to make one self better.There is more emphasis on working as a collective for everyones good, but there are freedoms that are lost in this idea (IMO). Combanation of these ideas are truly ideal but have yet to succeed or realized.
Canada, US, Russia, Cuba, China, Sweden, and other countries have issues that another country diagarees with either the leader or the ideal behind the nation. Attacking verbaly or physically another's nation just becuase you don't agree with how they do things only stirs up the beehive and never removes the hive.
People should focus on how thier nation should better other nations instead of tearing down rival or disagreeing nations and complaining how that nation is "wrong" for not joining in thier way of thinking. Yet, even this is a dream.
I accept the fact that any nation will never be ideal or the best example for another country by any majority. A one world governemnt is far worse than mutliple seperate nations that disagree, In my opinion.

Try out Nationstates.net for example. Run a nation on your ideals. I have tried out answers that I though would be best for my country and had suprising adverse affects than what I anticipated.

Tur713 · May 15, 2005, 08:31 PM // 20:31

Nationstates.net is a good site, I'm rather surprised tofind that other people from here have gone there. Then again, the internet's a large place.

ChristopherKee · May 18, 2005, 02:22 PM // 14:22

The simple truth to all this is "He who has the most will always rule". Simple as that. Doesn't matter what government or lack of... It will never change and will never be different.

Look at history, tell my one period of time in history where he who had the least ruled?

blythe · May 18, 2005, 05:27 PM // 17:27

Let's just all face facts and say that there is hardly even a shell of a US government. The US of A is ruled by the media machine, which has recently moved on from global waring (a fictional claim) to terrorism (not so fictional).

However, Communism is a recipe for disaster. Human kind was not meant for civilization, it was meant for anarchy. Only when there are no supreme laws for those to abide by will anyone live in peace...even if it isn't utopia.

The only downside to anarchy is mankind losing its safety in numbers policy. Big cities won't do so well so people will spread out, and learn to live off the land. Sure, one group may form and take over a chunk of land, but it WILL eventually fall, if not from inside then from outside influences (just like Canada. It may keep it's nose where it belongs but other people won't be as considerate, and will invade for glory, resources, or both, eventually).

My two cents...

Joon · May 18, 2005, 08:55 PM // 20:55

Interesting. I haven't talked about any of this in a long time, but I'll try to put in my two cents. I used to be a hardline non-revisionist Marxist-Leninist, but not really anymore..so it might seem hard to figure out where I stand.

Communism, Capitalism and the like are all idealogies. They are idealistic. I saw several people saying that communism is too idealistic, but so is capitalism. These were written and described in their most perfect form. Why? So people would read them and try to replicate them to their best degree. Why would someone write about a state in it's most realistic forms (even though everything is relative, as Aristotle would say)? These idealogies were created as a goal for people to look at and attempt to reach. A hovering utopia in their minds to always strive for.

People need to understand that it takes time for a new state to put be put in place. Marx gave a timeline of events - from the primitive to ultimate. Marx wrote about socialism taking place after the industrialization of capitalism - unlike in the RSFSR (later known as the USSR), which came about after a monarchy. And in many cases, socialism, indeed, ascended after a form of monarchy. For example, the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, etc. Nothing is flowers and candy. In other words, you can't think that everything will be so nice. That's the problem people have. Think about the game of Chess - as the leader, you have to sacrifice in order to gain. Where in the world has there been a country to industrialize and push forward as far and as fast as the Soviet Union? From a economically backwards, agricultural state to a world super power in less than 30 years?

There are a lot of aspects to this, but I don't want to put too much time and effort into this. Those who have the power of today, own the past (and present, similar to what George Orwell said). A reason why leaders and states seem so horrible to us now is because the media and textbooks make it seem so. As I said before, becuase I was such a hardline Marxist-Leninist (as a supporter of Lenin, Stalin, Fidel Castro and the lot) I used to research from libraries other than the US or college libraries (which hold much more intellectual writing from historians and professors).

Communism is an economic idealogy, whereas democracy is a political idealogy - I've seen several people comparing the two. You cannot compare an apple to an orange, following logic. A lot of you self-proclaimed communists seem to be very unauthoritarian, which I used to be for a little bit. In my opinion, to bring about communism, there must be an authoritarian state. What is the definition of authoritarian? Mainly, a one party rule. A lot of people say that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not really a dictatorship, but lets not play with semantics. The state must rule with an iron fist. As Lenin explains in his State and Revolution, the vanguard must bring the masses along. For those idealist, romanticist communists who believe the masses will one day bring flowers and drink tea together and step on capitalism and their oppressors (an exaggeration), get outta here. It is childish to think so kindly of the general human species. Afterall, Marx was a scientific communist

You are being ignorant by choosing to believe the transition between capitalism and communism (with socialism) is going to be a smooth, easy ride - don't be ridiculous. Such a transition from a revolution out of capitalism, through socialism with the idea of one day achieving capitalism will be fierce. Crack down on traitors and counter-revolutionaries (such as the kulaks in the Soviet Union) will need a secret police (like
Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky and the Cheka, later known as the NKVD and KGB). There is so much needed to run a state. I read people talking about such small, minor, trivial details that do not matter at all. There is so much more. That's all I have to say. So much more.

I've got other things to do at the moment, but I'd say to read other philosophers, historians and politicians before reading Marx, Lenin and Stalin. It would be much more useful to take such a route. Atleast read Hegel if you are big on Marx to learn where Marx got some of his philosophical ideas and such from. For example, Dialectical Materialism (one of Marx's biggest ideas), comes from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and his dialectics. If anything, start up on the philosophers who started many of these ideas. Plato (/Socrates), Aristotle, Cicero and later Machiavelli and others.

My position? Marxism seemed so clear to me back in the day - when I was lived in Korea, seeing the workers in factories and the bums on the street. It was not right, it was not just. That's where I began my long research on communism. Contrary to a lot of the things I've said, I don't believe in Marxist-Leninism anymore (well, not really, I haven't really thought about politics lately, been busy

). To me, Marxist-Leninism is weak. I like the ideas, I like a lot of the things real communists have to say..but it just doesn't do it. I haven't had much time to think of my political position, but I agree most with Aristotle. Aristotle said that things are relative. The best state (besides a constitutional democracy and others he named) is relative to the situation of the country. For example, sometimes a country is in need of a powerful dictator, whereas other times people need a democracy.

I am also not so fond of all the US intervensions in the world, as many are, but they are the world super power. Whether they are right or wrong, they have the right to try to "protect the world". People always complain that the US is being a world-police, but they are the world superpower. Think about it this way, if they didn't help other people in different countries, what would the world say? "The US is the world super power and they have the resources to help our people but they do not do so. Shame on them, it is a crime not to help the people in need of this world". As Machiavelli said, whether you're right or wrong, it's best to stick to a position than be a flip-flop about it. Another thing Machiavelli said, the only aspect of a country you can judge for power is the military. The US has a strong military

Ah, I gotta go already. By the way...Hi! I'm Joon, new to the forum.

Dumb Quixote · May 18, 2005, 09:28 PM // 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam.skinner

We don't live in an ideal world. That's what communism doesn't understand, what people who promote communism don't get: people are messed up.

The people in power (and there always are) will abuse their power. Communism is destroyed by the corruption of the human heart.

Don't think people are inherently good. They're not.

Serafita Kayin · May 18, 2005, 09:33 PM // 21:33

Joon, awesome post. You made the boards better for making it.

ManadartheHealer · May 18, 2005, 09:59 PM // 21:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joon

...You are being ignorant by choosing to believe the transition between capitalism and communism (with socialism) is going to be a smooth, easy ride - don't be ridiculous. Such a transition from a revolution out of capitalism, through socialism with the idea of one day achieving capitalism will be fierce. Crack down on traitors and counter-revolutionaries (such as the kulaks in the Soviet Union) will need a secret police (like
Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky and the Cheka, later known as the NKVD and KGB). There is so much needed to run a state. I read people talking about such small, minor, trivial details that do not matter at all. There is so much more...

Of course... Whoever the the ruling party is, they will want to retain power (no matter if every single worker in the nation wishes for communism). So, no matter how much of an "evolutionary" communism (meaning that, rather than a straight revolution, communism gradually evolves from capitalism), the Bourgeois will realize what is happening, and struggle to stop it. A little blood ensues, and who would win if around 85% of the country fought 15%? because a decent (or good) communism can only be created if the workers it wishes to help want it (right now, so much of that "Joe McCarthy Red Scare" mentality people still have in their minds. Thus proving mindless capitalist propaganda is efficient)...

Agencies like the KGB become more like terrorists than anything else, killing "traitors" and innocent workers alike. And besides, secret police agencies like this become corrupt. There is a need of a more "foolproof" way to weed out people who wish to sabotage the Revolution...

Stalin betrayed the workers and the revolution. He was just a random, power hungry, corrupt dictator and his rule was no better than if there was a capitalist in charge of the country. One can arrive at this conclusion in the following way: Consider what would happen if you put Stalin into a group of loyal workers (who happen to be Communist Revolutionaries), without body guards and the ability to KILL all who oppose. Chances are he wouldn't last long, if any time at all, before they killed the traitor...

And, if I remember correctly, Lenin would have wanted Trotsky to take over, but Stalin siezed power, banished Trotsky, then sent someone to murder him with that delightful Ice-axe in mexico... If communism will ever be "the best", then there must be unity...not petty bickering and senseless murder of loyal citizens

Joon · May 19, 2005, 10:35 AM // 10:35

Looks like I'll play the devil's advocate here.

Quote:

Of course... Whoever the the ruling party is, they will want to retain power (no matter if every single worker in the nation wishes for communism). So, no matter how much of an "evolutionary" communism (meaning that, rather than a straight revolution, communism gradually evolves from capitalism), the Bourgeois will realize what is happening, and struggle to stop it. A little blood ensues, and who would win if around 85% of the country fought 15%? because a decent (or good) communism can only be created if the workers it wishes to help want it (right now, so much of that "Joe McCarthy Red Scare" mentality people still have in their minds. Thus proving mindless capitalist propaganda is efficient)...

I'm not sure what your position is here on the matter - not sure what you're trying to say. As for capitalist propaganda being efficient...propaganda in general is efficient. Refer to Dr. Josef Goebbels in Nazi Germany.

Quote:

Agencies like the KGB become more like terrorists than anything else, killing "traitors" and innocent workers alike. And besides, secret police agencies like this become corrupt. There is a need of a more "foolproof" way to weed out people who wish to sabotage the Revolution...

Are you saying the CIA and FBI have become terrorist-like? The truth is, at times where the state is unstable these agencies must work with an iron fist. By all means, tell me what is a more "foolproof" way to weed out people. Innocent people die, but in the large picture the "revolution" is saved - hence, even those innocent would die, they would become a sort of martyr.

Quote:

Stalin betrayed the workers and the revolution. He was just a random, power hungry, corrupt dictator and his rule was no better than if there was a capitalist in charge of the country.

Stalin was the secretary of the state, if you read the Soviet constitution, they have less power than the American president or the British Prime Minister does. Stalin had been working with the Bolsheviks for a while, doing under cover work and also spent time in exile for revolutionary activities. Stalin is exactly what the Soviet Union needed at a time like this (right after World War I, two revolutions, an untable state, plus a transition from a backwards agrarian state whereas the whole world has already become industrialized). A powerful, fierce, straight up leader. People don't understand that in Marxism, socialism must be put with such force. They think that socialism is flowers and candy - they don't realize that the point of socialism is to rid of the whole bougeoisie (le gasp!

). He was very different from a capitalist in charge of the country, if you have read his works you would see a very radical difference in idealogies. If you looked at the way he worked, you would see that it was very socialist. People, socialists, try to badmouth Stalin because "he killed 8739 billion people", but it is what was needed in order to pursue a socialist state. Stalin pulled a backwards agrarian country to become a world super power who defeated the onslaught of nazism. This is an unbelievable achievement.

Quote:

Consider what would happen if you put Stalin into a group of loyal workers (who happen to be Communist Revolutionaries), without body guards and the ability to KILL all who oppose. Chances are he wouldn't last long, if any time at all, before they killed the traitor...

Such a conjecture is not viable here.

Quote:

And, if I remember correctly, Lenin would have wanted Trotsky to take over...

False. Before Lenin died, he wrote his last letter. Many anti-Stalinists like to show what Lenin wrote about Stalin while ignoring everything else. Stalin and Lenin got into an argument because of Lenin's wife before Lenin died. Little do people like to admit, that Lenin wrote about Trotsky also - and not in a very nice way either. First off, Trotsky was part of the Menscheviks until near the very end of the revolution, Trotsky sided with the Bolsheviks. Trotsky was also head of the Red Army and he was very fierce. He was the one who instated the 10th man rule (something to that effect). Alongside failure, every 10th man would be shot. "Oh my god! Trotsky isn't an angel?!"

Stalin was good friends with Lenin - have you ever seen a picture of Lenin and Trotsky side by side?

Quote:

...but Stalin siezed power, banished Trotsky, then sent someone to murder him with that delightful Ice-axe in mexico...

Yes, Stalin banished Trotsky. What would you do? Leave your opponent to try and start up a counter-revolutionary force? Last I've read, it was a Mexican anarchist who killed Trotsky in Mexico. If that's not true and Stalin did order him killed - sure, why not? I would've done the same thing (not really an argument, just plain 'human' speak

).

Quote:

If communism will ever be "the best", then there must be unity...not petty bickering and senseless murder of loyal citizens

Communism will never be the "best" - not as an absolute. Unity? The word unity is weak in such a world today. Petty bickering will always exist,thats why there must be a strong leader to rid of all the bickering (refer to Germany in the Wiemar with 30 something parties, Hitler's party speech). It was not a senseless murder of loyal citizens. In all honesty, do you really believe any leader would kill loyal citizens out of nowhere so that their state would become weak and not supported? In general, those who died were mainly counter-revolutionaries.

Damn, I'm sounding like a damn commie!!!

shawn23233 · May 19, 2005, 04:02 PM // 16:02

"I stand by my Orwellian comment. National ID cards to track wherever you go? Throwing suspected terrorists without due process? An enemy always ready to attack? Its 1984, 25 years late."

I agree. I also agree with Marx on the idea that capitolism is essencially inefficient (because it is based on charging more for an item then its real value). I also agree the centralization of wealth in the US and the World in general is and has always been a problem.

However Communism is an polotical theory not really an econmic one. These things are often confused. Socialism is really the economic "piece" of the communist doctrine and it is practiced in every country in the world including the US. I think capitolism has some inate strengths that cannot be denied, basically it exploits peoples natural "self-interest" which simply cannot be denied. The benefits of personal property ownership also cannot be denied, people simply take better care of there own stuff.

Communism as a political theory has never really apealed to me as it is really just an extention of Hobbs leviathon (people are cruel so make a strong goverment to force them to behave well), however the combination of democracy and socialism does seem to be very successful in many place around the world (although those places are almost always rather small and homogenous populices) and I think is the model of the near future anyway.

But the idea of political systems (communism v. democracy) and economic system (socialism v. capitolism) seperated.

Joon · May 19, 2005, 07:19 PM // 19:19

Quote:

However Communism is an polotical theory not really an econmic one. These things are often confused.

False. Communism is an economic theory. You just, previously, stated that you agreed with Marx on a certain issue - yet, you are contradicting Marx in the second paragraph of your post. Communism is the economic structure. If you have read Marx, it will be more than apparent that it is impossible for communism to be a political theory. This is because communism is a state where a government does no exist - it is when the state is completely dissolved (hence my statement that communism is idealistic and a type of utopia).

Quote:

Socialism is really the economic "piece" of the communist doctrine and it is practiced in every country in the world including the US.

False. Socialism is the transition stage between capitalism and communism. Socialism is not 'part of' communism - they are completely different stages. If you are looking for the political state of socialism, it is democratic centralism. This is the idea which Lenin furthered upon.

Quote:

Communism as a political theory has never really apealed to me as it is really just an extention of Hobbs leviathon (people are cruel so make a strong goverment to force them to behave well)...

Communism is not a political theory, but I will neglect that and come to an understanding that you are speaking of the political state in socialism. First off, there are many different types of socialism that people rally behind - for example, democratic socialism. Please present a solution to the problems of a socialist state. If people are not inherently evil and a strong government should not be used to fix this, what do you believe in?

Quote:

however the combination of democracy and socialism does seem to be very successful in many place around the world (although those places are almost always rather small and homogenous populices) and I think is the model of the near future anyway.

If you are talking about places like Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and the like...then that is a very different aspect of socialism than Marx described. This is simple a constitutional democracy with a populist government - not socialism.

Quote:

But the idea of political systems (communism v. democracy) and economic system (socialism v. capitolism) seperated.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here, it seems to be a fragment of what you're trying to say. If anything, it would be democratic centralism vs. democracy and socialism/communism vs. capitalism.

ManadartheHealer · May 19, 2005, 10:27 PM // 22:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joon

...Are you saying the CIA and FBI have become terrorist-like...

Not have become , they are becoming more like that as they gather more power (not necessarily "terrorist-like" I suppose, but if things degrade enough, then yes, they will). Also, the problem with the KGB, etc. unlike the named intelligence agencies of the US is that ours are separated into different factions, and therefore have less power on the whole (*could change)

@Shawn it goes Capitalism -> Socialism -> Communism. Also, the main problem is that many people (apparently including yourself) see communism as a way to govern, when in reality, it is no such thing. Why? Different communisms can have governments that look completely different, yet still be communism. Also, communism focuses on the economy. It's like trying to say Democracy is an economic system. it just doesn't make sense.

Joon · May 20, 2005, 12:40 AM // 00:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManadartheHealer

Not have become , they are becoming more like that as they gather more power (not necessarily "terrorist-like" I suppose, but if things degrade enough, then yes, they will). Also, the problem with the KGB, etc. unlike the named intelligence agencies of the US is that ours are separated into different factions, and therefore have less power on the whole (*could change)
.

I agree to a certain extent. However, at certain times I do believe that these agencies should be powerful and "big-brother"-like. Ofcourse, if I was on the other side of the rope and I was going to jail or something to the like for something I never even did...I would be pretty pissed haha...but ideologically speaking, yeah.

I do not remember much about the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, etc. to say much about this. But I would have to agree that a factioned "secret service agency" would probably be better.

ManadartheHealer · May 20, 2005, 12:47 AM // 00:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joon

...these agencies should be powerful and "big-brother"-like...

That is where we differ...

While I agree there are some benefits, the risks generally outweigh these, and therefore, it isn't worth it (my opinion, of course

)

I like to think I have a certain amount of freedom (usually this belief is false)... whatever helps me sleep at night I suppose

ChristopherKee · May 20, 2005, 05:15 PM // 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by blythe

The only downside to anarchy is mankind losing its safety in numbers policy. Big cities won't do so well so people will spread out, and learn to live off the land. Sure, one group may form and take over a chunk of land, but it WILL eventually fall, if not from inside then from outside influences (just like Canada. It may keep it's nose where it belongs but other people won't be as considerate, and will invade for glory, resources, or both, eventually).

My two cents...

Hate to burst your bubble, but this is how the world exists now. Rome fell "americans" split from europe to "live off the land" USSR fell.. blah blah blah. The world is already in Anarchy. It's just those who rise up take over and those who like to follow, follow.