No, you prefer the agenda, as shown by the fact that you think Russia and North Korea are/were communist.
[/quote]
I just have to point out the irony here. You deride someone by saying that their position could be dumbed down to semantics such as: “That’s not real capitalism!”. Then when someone names two of the most (in)famous self-proclaimed communist countries in history, you proclaim “That’s not real communism!”.[/quote]
The difference is, the so-called communist countries have none of the qualities contained in the definition of communism.
[/quote]
So, you don’t account for the practical application of philosophical theories? I mean, they have none of the qualities of communism? How about positive obligations? Opposition to Capitalism? What would you define them as if not socialism (which as you said is a stepping stone to communism)?
No, you prefer the agenda, as shown by the fact that you think Russia and North Korea are/were communist.
[/quote]
I just have to point out the irony here. You deride someone by saying that their position could be dumbed down to semantics such as: “That’s not real capitalism!”. Then when someone names two of the most (in)famous self-proclaimed communist countries in history, you proclaim “That’s not real communism!”.[/quote]
The difference is, the so-called communist countries have none of the qualities contained in the definition of communism.
[/quote]
So, you don’t account for the practical application of philosophical theories? I mean, they have none of the qualities of communism? How about positive obligations? Opposition to Capitalism? What would you define them as if not socialism (which as you said is a stepping stone to communism)?[/quote]
It would also be interesting how communism is a good thing if it requires socialism first which so often leads to mass starvation and death camps and never seems to make it to the communism stage.
So far the only thing “inevitable” seems to be mass murder.
It’s not that I discount the application of theory, far from it. However, the central tenet of socialism has always been communal (as in society-wide) ownership and control of society’s productive resources. It has nothing to do with government ownership, which is only socialism if the government is truly democratic (ours is not, Soviet Russia’s was not, and a dictatorship can never be socialism–it is fundamentally opposed to socialism). If you take control of industry out of the hands of one small group and place it in the hands of another, it’s still a problem, whether the latter group is the Communist party or not.
In short, socialists aren’t stupid. They don’t imagine you can solve society’s problems simply by giving the government control over the economy. Far from being socialism, this would simply be “hyper-capitalism,” in which there is only one huge monopoly. The goal is to transform the totality of the relations of production, not simply give them a facelift.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:I have a whole library of history books that I crack open on a weekly basis, so please do not think that your little snark remark has much weight with me. The Federal Reserve has not be successful at anything except making depressions deeper and longer, unless your stabilization is equivalent to instead of a quick stroke of the straight razor to shave off a man’s stubble you take a slow deep stroke to the bone.
A Libertarian knows that “the market” is not stable, only efficient markets are stable, and since there is no way to have an efficient market it will also not be stable. However undue regulations by state governments, Central Banks, &c. do not help stabilize markets, but actually push it farther away from a stable environment.
[/quote]
Rant all you want, history is clear: people used to take to the streets and set things on fire during economic downturns. They tend not to these days. That pretty much sums things up.
[/quote]
You are right, history is clear. Recessions have occurred at various times in the U.S, but you ignore the fact of how quickly the markets recovered. Why? Because the government largely allowed the market to correct itself. You’ll point to that sumbitch FDR for his government intervention as the reason the economy was stabilized after the Great Depression, but again ignore that because of his policies, the depression lasted for nearly a generation. It was only because of WWII that the economy rebounded.
Oh, come now. Since when do you have a problem with mass murder? You develop a conscience as soon as socialism is brought up?
[/quote]
Well, most of the people who keep telling you that you are doing it wrong are quite consistent in their political/economic stance, Orion being one of them.
Not sure how mass murder has to do with anything other than those failed states you adore.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:I have a whole library of history books that I crack open on a weekly basis, so please do not think that your little snark remark has much weight with me. The Federal Reserve has not be successful at anything except making depressions deeper and longer, unless your stabilization is equivalent to instead of a quick stroke of the straight razor to shave off a man’s stubble you take a slow deep stroke to the bone.
A Libertarian knows that “the market” is not stable, only efficient markets are stable, and since there is no way to have an efficient market it will also not be stable. However undue regulations by state governments, Central Banks, &c. do not help stabilize markets, but actually push it farther away from a stable environment.
[/quote]
Rant all you want, history is clear: people used to take to the streets and set things on fire during economic downturns. They tend not to these days. That pretty much sums things up.
[/quote]
You are right, history is clear. Recessions have occurred at various times in the U.S, but you ignore the fact of how quickly the markets recovered. Why? Because the government largely allowed the market to correct itself. You’ll point to that sumbitch FDR for his government intervention as the reason the economy was stabilized after the Great Depression, but again ignore that because of his policies, the depression lasted for nearly a generation. It was only because of WWII that the economy rebounded. [/quote]
He probably didn’t know that the recession lasted much longer than it should have because of the man, FDR, or that unemployment never went lower than 14 and some change% during his liberal policy days.
[quote]Dustin wrote:Well, most of the people who keep telling you that you are doing it wrong are quite consistent in their political/economic stance, Orion being one of them.
Not sure how mass murder has to do with anything other than those failed states you adore.[/quote]
Simply that he ignores all the mass murders committed for capitalism. Unless he contends that, since the states which perpetrated those actions were not “pure capitalist,” the criticism doesn’t apply, but then I can just as easily and with just as much validity (moreso, even) claim the same thing. The point is that, here again, orion is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
Yes I knew that. But you probably didn’t know that it was the raising of taxes and decrease in spending (because of, surprise, deficit hawks’ constant whining–where have I seen that before?) that caused the economy to relapse.
[quote]Dustin wrote:Well, most of the people who keep telling you that you are doing it wrong are quite consistent in their political/economic stance, Orion being one of them.
Not sure how mass murder has to do with anything other than those failed states you adore.[/quote]
Simply that he ignores all the mass murders committed for capitalism. Unless he contends that, since the states which perpetrated those actions were not “pure capitalist,” the criticism doesn’t apply, but then I can just as easily and with just as much validity (moreso, even) claim the same thing. The point is that, here again, orion is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
[/quote]
Mass murder for capitalism? Governments carry out wars. I fail to see what their particular economic system has to do with it.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
It’s not that I discount the application of theory, far from it. However, the central tenet of socialism has always been communal (as in society-wide) ownership and control of society’s productive resources. It has nothing to do with government ownership, which is only socialism if the government is truly democratic (ours is not, Soviet Russia’s was not, and a dictatorship can never be socialism–it is fundamentally opposed to socialism). If you take control of industry out of the hands of one small group and place it in the hands of another, it’s still a problem, whether the latter group is the Communist party or not.[/quote]
What is a democracy if not a government? Is it still not a group that has a monopoly on coercion and force? Also, out of curiosity, what separates socialism from the final “product” that is communism if they both constitute the communal ownership of the means of production? Isn’t it the use of the state in the socialist stage? And, finally, how come almost all of the major countries that self-identified as socialist or communist seem then to have had dictatorships or at least oligarchies?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:I have a whole library of history books that I crack open on a weekly basis, so please do not think that your little snark remark has much weight with me.
The Federal Reserve has not be successful at anything except making depressions deeper and longer, unless your stabilization is equivalent to instead of a quick stroke of the straight razor to shave off a man’s stubble you take a slow deep stroke to the bone.
A Libertarian knows that “the market” is not stable, only efficient markets are stable, and since there is no way to have an efficient market it will also not be stable. However undue regulations by state governments, Central Banks, &c. do not help stabilize markets, but actually push it farther away from a stable environment.
[/quote]
Rant all you want, history is clear: people used to take to the streets and set things on fire during economic downturns. They tend not to these days. That pretty much sums things up.
[/quote]
You are right, history is clear. Recessions have occurred at various times in the U.S, but you ignore the fact of how quickly the markets recovered. Why? Because the government largely allowed the market to correct itself.
You’ll point to that sumbitch FDR for his government intervention as the reason the economy was stabilized after the Great Depression, but again ignore that because of his policies, the depression lasted for nearly a generation. It was only because of WWII that the economy rebounded. [/quote]
Actually I would say there is more like 2-3 recessions during the span of the “great depression” and for historical sake just lump it into one big financial fall. I do not know how WWII helped us out of the recession, but with all those men coming back to work things got cheaper and after they government dropped all the regs around 45, 46 came around to be the most productive year in American history.
It is, but in this case, the interests of the ruling class are the same as the interests of society in general, because they are the same people.
Yes, there is still a state in the phase of socialism, in addition to money and wage labor (though both the state and wage labor take on different characteristics than they have under capitalism). Once the transition to communism has been completed, the formal state dissolves, as there is no need for it in the free, egalitarian communist society, and all work is done voluntarily for the good of society.
This stage is not possible for several generations, at least, because class antagonisms (and class itself) must be given time to disappear, and society’s productive capacity must be further increased.
[quote]And, finally, how come almost all of the major countries that self-identified as socialist or communist seem then to have had dictatorships or at least oligarchies?
[/quote]
For one, they tend to come about during or as a result of armed conflict, and so the military naturally governs at first. This is reasonable to a certain extent, as capitalists are always hostile to any form of socialist movement and will attempt to strangle it in its cradle.
Second, the “socialist” societies we have seen so far have generally been Leninist, that is, socialism was established by a committed group of revolutionaries, instead of established through the collective exertions of society at large, as in the classical Marxist analysis.
This means that a small group ends up controlling the government, usually to the detriment of the people. You cannot impose socialism, society at large must realize that it is in their interest.
It is, but in this case, the interests of the ruling class are the same as the interests of society in general, because they are the same people.
Yes, there is still a state in the phase of socialism, in addition to money and wage labor (though both the state and wage labor take on different characteristics than they have under capitalism). Once the transition to communism has been completed, the formal state dissolves, as there is no need for it in the free, egalitarian communist society, and all work is done voluntarily for the good of society.
This stage is not possible for several generations, at least, because class antagonisms (and class itself) must be given time to disappear, and society’s productive capacity must be further increased.
[quote]And, finally, how come almost all of the major countries that self-identified as socialist or communist seem then to have had dictatorships or at least oligarchies?
[/quote]
For one, they tend to come about during or as a result of armed conflict, and so the military naturally governs at first. This is reasonable to a certain extent, as capitalists are always hostile to any form of socialist movement and will attempt to strangle it in its cradle.
Second, the “socialist” societies we have seen so far have generally been Leninist, that is, socialism was established by a committed group of revolutionaries, instead of established through the collective exertions of society at large, as in the classical Marxist analysis.
This means that a small group ends up controlling the government, usually to the detriment of the people. You cannot impose socialism, society at large must realize that it is in their interest.
[/quote]
[quote]Dustin wrote:Well, most of the people who keep telling you that you are doing it wrong are quite consistent in their political/economic stance, Orion being one of them.
Not sure how mass murder has to do with anything other than those failed states you adore.[/quote]
Simply that he ignores all the mass murders committed for capitalism. Unless he contends that, since the states which perpetrated those actions were not “pure capitalist,” the criticism doesn’t apply, but then I can just as easily and with just as much validity (moreso, even) claim the same thing. The point is that, here again, orion is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
[/quote]
Mass murder for capitalism? Governments carry out wars. I fail to see what their particular economic system has to do with it.
[/quote]
You should look up some of the history on the US basically fucking the entire continent of South America in the ass, partly to make money for their businesses.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Dustin wrote:Mass murder for capitalism? Governments carry out wars. I fail to see what their particular economic system has to do with it.[/quote]
No, I’m telling you that wars are an action of the state, no matter what its economic system might be. Mass murder is mass murder.
Whatever the aforementioned failed states did to their own citizenry is a different topic. I was focusing more on your comment of “mass murder for capitalism.”
“Socialism” ala the Soviet Union can be blamed for gulags, forced collectivization, and any of the other cool stuff that goes along with a police state. I’m pretty sure that is Orion was referring to as well.
[quote]Dustin wrote:Well, most of the people who keep telling you that you are doing it wrong are quite consistent in their political/economic stance, Orion being one of them.
Not sure how mass murder has to do with anything other than those failed states you adore.[/quote]
Simply that he ignores all the mass murders committed for capitalism. Unless he contends that, since the states which perpetrated those actions were not “pure capitalist,” the criticism doesn’t apply, but then I can just as easily and with just as much validity (moreso, even) claim the same thing. The point is that, here again, orion is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
[/quote]
Mass murder for capitalism? Governments carry out wars. I fail to see what their particular economic system has to do with it.
[/quote]
You should look up some of the history on the US basically fucking the entire continent of South America in the ass, partly to make money for their businesses. [/quote]
So corporations carry weapons now and kill government leaders of other countries?
You should not be so blind to the relationship between the state and big business. I believe it is called fascism.