Marxism

Back in the real world, what I actually did was point out that you were wrong.Your hysteria seems disproportionate.

Do you have ANY idea how patronizing that is? I'm almost up to my 68th birthday -- not that that should make a big difference of course but surely it makes some that I've pretty much lived my life -- and I've always been basically a thinker and I've always been recognized for that.You're projecting the hypocrisy and self-righteousness on my words, truly you are, and why shouldn't it be YOU who has the epiphany about that? I'm not going to try to defend myself morally. I can be self righteous, I can be a hypocrite, but I certainly don't think my arguments on this thread are anywhere near examples of that.But I've given up, no more to say.=====================
Oh right, just like Dr A was merely "pointing out" that I'm wrong while picking apart my character, that is, the figment of his imagination that is my character.And now he's saying I'm hysterical although I'm no such thing.See, there's no point in answering such nonsense. It's endless here. Have it your way. There's nobody to stop you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

To us it sounds that way.... You aren't making sense to us. Wasn't that the point of this? You wanted us to defend ourselves morally and when we do so without using feelings you respond with no argument and only feelings... You've not justified your stance other then "I think it's stealing" I'm sure.... Yeah we're bad people

Actually I do and I am glad that this shocks you. I wish it would shock you to your senses but I am not holding my breath. Age does not make people any more correct. It does not even give them more experience in a specific subject. One can be 80 and have no understanding of the world around them. I am not saying this is your case, I am just making a point. How am I a hypocrite? Can you give an example where I have contradicted myself? As far as being self-righteous, there are many times in this forum that I have admited mistakes and have even openly apoligized. I am sure there are people on this forum that will vouch for me on that. Epiphany about what? What do you want me to have an epiphany about? That I think the government is "stealing" money out of my pocket to give to people like you? Ok, don't. Nobody is forcing you to post here. All human beings are to one degree or another. What is it? "To err is human..." Faith, you are right there are some people that are more hypocritical and self-righteous than you. You are mild compared to some people I have met (including in my own family). Take care.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

I only want to answer this much: Sorry, I didn't mean by "projecting" that you are that way and making me that way instead although I realize that is how the word is usually used. I simply meant that you are seeing things in me that aren't there. It's coming from you, not me, is the point. About how you are the one who has been misreading this communication, not me.Cheers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith,If it is any consolation I will try to be less of a jerk and not patronize you. Sometimes my sarcasm does not come across well on here. Again I do not think I am better than you. Please accept my apology.DJ

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Got it. That makes more sense.I do have a question, do you not think there are any benefits to the welfare system we have in place. I understand it is not perfect and people abuse this system. But honestly does not the benefits of this system outweigh its vices? Would like to hear your side of this.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Hi Rahvin, Agreed. As I pointed out in my first post to this thread, Message 77: Welfare is another boogeyman term, because the dogmatic conservatives have demonized it beyond reason, so it too is impossible to discuss with these hard core conservatives, as they will have an emotional response before they will have a reasonable response. Faith is upset, not only because we don't buy into her mantra that welfare is stealing, but because she finds she needs welfare to make ends meet, causing extreme cognitive dissonance and anger.You cannot discuss any topic rationally with people that have a hate response to the terms in the discussion, regardless of political stripe. The essential problem is that Marxism has not really been tried, it is a term that has been ridden hard and misused by both ends of the political spectrum. All the countries that have called themselves communist or marxist are really repressive authoritarian oligarchies. Some call themselves democracies too, but the names don't define the actual governments. There is an interesting effect of cognitive dissonance, when an argument is too much at odds with the worldview of a person, that person has severe trouble reading and understanding the argument. The mind turns away.Another is to come to the conclusion that anyone that suggests that the position is false are craazy or involved in some conspiracy (birthers?)Think of learning a foreign name the first time, how hard it is to get the sounds right, and how some never seem to fit your way of speaking: this is how cognitive dissonance affects understanding.When you understand these effects, then you can see them in yourself, and perhaps open your mind to possibilities you had not previously considered valid.enjoy.

---

I had very strong beliefs and I had no problems with this. If I'm shown to be wrong or shown a new way to look at something it intrigues me. I don't understand how others can't.

Hey DC. This is the understanding which comes with being an open minded individual. Some, like you, it seems, or like me (if I may be so bold), have it.Others ... do not. Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

And yet another problem with cognitive dissonance is that the more the evidence piles up that your beliefs are wrong, the more invested you are in clinging to them at all costs. It's much easier to admit that you were wrong to buy a pair of of green and purple corduroy pants than it is to admit that you're gay and just wasted thirty years of your life as an anti-gay crusading evangelist.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John LydonWhat's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

Faith,Maybe you should consider the personal benefits that you may derive from the type of forced secular collectivist government that your adversaries on this thread seem to promote.When you meet someone who needs assistance, just write down the phone number of whatever government agency is appropriate and give it to them. Maybe even let the needy person use your cell phone. Then you can be on your way! Hopefully, a government employee will distribute your resources in a more efficient, responsible, and compassionate manner then you ever could and you wouldn’t need to be personally burdened with any individual responsibility toward others! You can feel good about yourself knowing that you’re a caring person through the good works of a government bureaucrat employee. No muss, no fuss!Be of good cheer Faith. Historical evidence clearly and unequivocally endorses your position.Capitalism is an economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy (like Marxism). Capitalism isn’t perfect but it beats a centralized command economy every time - without exception.Unless an open mind is constrained by severe myopia, it’s abundantly evident throughout history that free markets with resources channeling through and among passionate entrepreneurs delivers the most goods and services for the poorest among them.By comparison, forced collectivism (whatever flavor) historically stifles incentive and misses opportunities through innovation, hard work, and efficient use of resources to provide more for the poor. It generally results in more misery and oppression over time rather than additional goods and services.Consequently, no one is trying to escape the US for Michael Moore’s purported medical oasis of Cuba, Hugo's Venezuela, or any other example of excessive government control and limited personal freedom. According to some opinions in this thread - the reason that’s true is only because no one has quite mastered how to properly administer forced collectivism with an outcome that the people thrive (or even sustain themselves) over time.One might wander whether some great mind has prescribed functional precepts for a successful secular collectivist government and command economy somewhere in time and history. Maybe it’s some little known book like The Epistle to the Roman Government or Maximizing the Good for the Most Governed or even the more widely known My Struggle (originally in German and a springboard for National Socialists). Unfortunately, there is no successful implementation (when compared to capitalism) that I know of.But some will continue to proclaim a moral superiority of forced collectivism in spite of the abundant and repeated evidence of its failure. The downside may come whenever some really smart persuasive person in authority (with a wide-open mind) thinks they’ve finally figured out how to properly administer a forced collectivist policy in our country for the maximum benefit to the most people. These enlightened policies may require some tough decisions as undesirable elements historically must be dealt with (for the good of the people, of course - see history). In that case, you may find yourself in a re-education facility (or worse) to ameliorate those inconvenient yet persistent religious beliefs and alleviate that terrible case of cognitive dissonance!Watch out for those baaad Boogy Men too, Faith! Some are practically invisible and some have been reported on this board to be hiding among the Bushes! (Big Grin with one eyebrow slightly raised)There appear to be some good folks on this board who hold a wide variety of beliefs and dispositions — and I like that. There is some value here. I seek out views and evidence that oppose my beliefs so that I can either strengthen or change my own convictions (I’ve been wrong plenty). In control system design theory, that’s known as a negative feedback loop and it maximizes accuracy and stability over time. However, I don’t have the time to engage in threads like this - but I just wanted to commend your effort. Someday I may jump in a debate topic with both feet but not able to do it justice now.Enlightenment through historical perspective with tough lessons about human nature could eventually affect those who profess open minds (while glibly discussing your imputed cognitive dissonance). I suspect other lurkers can appreciate this thread of intelligence and irony.Perhaps you would receive more consideration by spending your time influencing and helping those in your local community - the same applies for me.An interesting read is How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas DiLorenzo. I loaned my copy to a recent college grad and his views shifted toward capitalism with enthusiasm. I wandered what the heck that college curriculum taught!Common sense often isn’t. Sometimes really smart people don’t understand everything they know - so I wouldn’t be overly concerned about your supposed odious dissonance malady in this thread!Back to occasional lurking. Others are welcome to have the last word.All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Hi Eye-Squared-R, a bit of confusion here I think. Bold my emphasis.
Marxism does not advocate a government-controlled economy any more than it advocates a capitalist economy. Corporate ownership would be in the collective hands of the workers. This is not what occurred in the Soviet Union or China or any other totalitarian state that has claimed it is Communist or socialist; some even call themselves democracies, but words do not make it so. This was observed by a recent poster in this thread; RAZD I think. I appreciate that this is a very lengthy thread but it might help you to have a scan for the discussions here of what pure Marxism and socialism actually are. Example please? There aren't any from countries that have historically called themselves Communist because they have been, as you observed, command economies. I seem to remember reading something about Puritan communities in America in the 1600s and 1700s that more closely reflected pure Marxism (predating the definition of the system of course), and yes people did not have the incentive to work as hard because there was less in it for them personally. I think you will find no one on this thread who believes that pure Marxism should be implemented in our society; but you will also find very few who believe that the worst consequences of pure capitalism should be allowed to go unchecked. As is usually the case, some sort of middle ground would seem to be the best goal to aim for.Continuing with your erroneous understanding of Marxism as synonymous with a totalitarian command economy, you then compare it to Hitler's Nazis (yawn) and Orwell's 1984-style brainwashing (yawn). The fact of the matter remains that a purely Marxist economy has never existed on a large scale, and so we don't know how that would work out, though there are societies on smaller scales such as Israeli kibbutzes. Erm . . . you lost me completely there. Cool. There's an even stronger effect when you actively engage in a debate, though that's your choice of course. I "lurk" a lot myself because it can take a lot of time to put together well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence, especially when there are a lot of posts to reply to. The only irony I'm aware of here is that Faith believes that the needy are benefitting from the evil "stealing" by the tax system from the pockets of the rich, and the former includes her. Maybe you would like to explain the other ironies you see? Maybe you can explain the gist of this as it relates to the topic of this thread?
To repeat, most of us on this thread aren't against capitalism; we just want safeguards in place that ensure the protection of those who are exploited by the system. Wiki on socialism: Yet government intervention can curb these excesses. It can allow the formation of unions, a minimum wage, and provide social programmes designed to prevent people from falling permanently into destitution. Essential services can be nationalised. We used to have a nationalised transport network here in the UK which was lost in the Thatcher years, and many people are still bitter about this because in many cases it has resulted in higher prices for reduced services. Fortunately no one has been brave (or stupid) enough yet to try to privatise our national health service. Faith believes that it is "stealing" (and thus immoral) for the government to use taxes to, as she sees it, take money from the pockets of the "haves" and give it to the "have nots." She wishes the system were different but has no alternative to propose. She has consistently refused to see any good that comes out of this because in her moral system of absolutes, stealing is always wrong and welfare will always be stealing. She therefore must see herself as a participant in an evil system, though curiously she has rejected invitations to take herself out of the system voluntarily.If you would like to defend these thoughts and try to find some logic or practicality in them, you are more than welcome.

But your stance on this is incredible. You are the reciever of benefits. Yet you cite such as "stealing". Why don't you morally refuse to claim these benefits if that is your genuine belief? If you did not receive these benefits where would you be? And is not that the entire point your opponents are making?In the UK benefits are tied (In theory - and ever increasingly in practise) to seeking work. The benefits office and the job centre are one and the same thing. The costs of "welfare" are intrinsically linked to those of finding people work. In theory at least.More generally - Whatever one may think of the current UK Labour government it's greatest achievement (IMHO) is in transforming a culture of unemployment where one expected to be unemployed for some time in the 1990s to one where unemployment is rare and temporary for most who experience it. My whole family were unemployed "scroungers" for most of the 90s and yet are all productive members of society now. I do not think this is co-incidence.But I stray from the topic at hand....

I did not imagine your posts, and I own myself incapable of really imagining what internal flaws produce such ludicrous and disgusting external manifestations. If one were to call it "Faith's disease", that would be a name, but it would scarcely constitute an explanation.