Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marxism vs Socialism vs Communism vs Totalitarianisms
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 45 (746387)
01-06-2015 10:33 AM


From the Are you Racist? Homophobic? etc thread starting with Message 410 moving here because off-topic there
RAZD writes:
YES! It's totally false analysis.
Love the data that shows this is fact instead of fiction and opinion.
Marxism - Wikipedia
quote:
According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between highly productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership and private appropriation of the surplus product in the form of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat, social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies, culminating in a social revolution. ...
Is that or is that not what we are seeing with increasing income inequality and increasing unrest in the US? Be honest ... replace bourgeoisie with 1%ers and proletariat with 99%ers.
Well, there you are again with the Marxist party line, "never has been a real Marxist communist government." Oh sure there has, ...
Where? From wiki again:
quote:
... The eventual long-term outcome of this revolution would be the establishment of socialism — a socioeconomic system based on cooperative ownership of the means of production, distribution based on one's contribution, and production organized directly for use. Karl Marx hypothesized that, as the productive forces and technology continued to advance, socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development. Communism would be a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
So where did this happen? Where was there a "socioeconomic system based on cooperative ownership of the means of production" and where did it evolve into "a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of lFrom each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'..." ... what country was that?
... it just didn't turn out the way utopian Marxism said it would so they rationalize that it was never really tried. They fail to grasp that Marxism is false and that's why it doesn't work, it unleashes violent forces in society that destroy all law and order, it puts the worst of the worst in power and it promotes the murder of all those who dissent from its policies. That IS Marxism, that is where Marxism ALWAYS leads, and it's just blind adherence to a crazy unrealistic theory based on pernicious false classism that denies it.
No, it didn't turn out that way because it was usurped by totalitarianism, run by an oligarchy. It was used as a promise for the oligarchs to fool the gullible into allowing them to take over.
... it puts the worst of the worst in power and it promotes the murder of all those who dissent from its policies. ...
Unlike our current corrupt government run by the greedy money hoarders that bribe officials and write the laws for them to pass? Like the treatment of Snoden, Asange, Manning and other whistleblowers ...
Czarism could not possibly have been anywhere near as bad as the Marxist Revolution that overthrew it, but I'm not defending Czarist practices, I'm condemning Marxism as evil.
Czarism was feudal with serf as virtual slaves starving in the streets propping up extravagant palaces (I've seen the palace in Petersburg with one huge ballroom trimmed in gold and a second one trimmed in silver) ... not much different from Versailles and similar.
Sure, as long as you deny that Marxism HAS been tried, you'll never see the destruction it has caused. ...
As long as you cannot provide actual documented evidence of any state actually being run on pure Karl Marx principles (ie -- real marxism) I will continue to say that there have been none. You have a chance to prove me wrong, can you do it?
... The destruction of the nations of the Soviet Union, their economic failure that had people standing in lines for minimal rations and often nothing, their murders galore of dissidents and in fact anybody who could be construed as a threat to the power elite, the destruction of China where dissidents are harassed and murdered to keep their version going too, I'm thinking of Christians being persecuted now but when it first started they murdered intellectuals and everybody else that opposed them. IT DOESN'T WORK. You cannot change human nature as Marxism thinks you can, all you do is unleash the violence that is in all of us, and you always put the least worthy people in charge, the criminal mentality.
And those were not marxist states. Look up Leninism and Stalinism, look up Maoism, and others (Castro?) ... they are totalitarian governments, not a "socioeconomic system based on cooperative ownership of the means of production" nor did they evolve into "a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of lFrom each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'..."
They were usurped by the new totalitarian oligarchs. This is the usual result of revolution: replace one group of totalitarian leaders with another. Rarely does it result in a progressive change in governments. We got lucky, France not so much, South America and Africa less.
True progress is not achieved by revolution but by evolution of government. That is how democracies arise, and the best examples are from the use of non-violent protests (aka Ghandi, Dr Martin Luther King and the like). The abolition movement in Europe and then in the US, womens suffrage in the US, the Civil Rights amendment -- these were accomplished by non-violent protests (the violence was on the side of the oppressors).
The US Constitution may not be perfect, but it does provide means for changing it where it needs changing, and it was based on a realistic assessment of fallen human nature that they saw needed to be constantly opposed, such as by the idea of checks and balances in government. There is NO human class that is immune to the misuse of power, so you have to prevent letting power accumulate in the hands of any particular group. ...
Agreed (though I would have said suppressed instead of oppressed). It evolved out of their several colonies with local democracies, the example of native indian councils (yes I have factual data on that influencing Ben Franklin among others) and the regrouping after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. But they did not foresee one thing: the economic power of large national and international corporations and their ability to corrupt politics.
... That was always the danger in monarchies and it took Constitutional efforts like the Magna Carta to restrain it, and the US Constitution was meant to be the kind of Law that would restrain the accumulation of power. ...
Umm, the "Magna Carta" was England, 1215 CE. We inherited that and the tradition of English law in the English colonies (not so much in the Dutch colonies like New York).
So power in the hands of the 1% rich corporate oligarchs is now corrupting the system unchecked.
Maybe a 3rd time will be more successful ... (3rd times the charm eh?)
... Marxism PROMOTES the accumulation of power in the hands of murderous barbarians. ...
Show me where. That "murderous barbarians" took over after revolutions in Russia, France, China, Cuba, South America, Africa, etc is not disputed -- what is disputed is that this necessarily follows from Marxist theory rather than being the result of a totalitarian system filling the vacuum of government created by revolution by a bunch of "murderous barbarians" taking advantage of the turmoil and instability.
... There could at least be benevolent kings, but the barbarian mentality unleashed by Marxism promotes nothing but murder. ...
Benevolent kings (or generals etc) is a relative term, they still lived in palaces surrounded by serfs ... they just kept the poorest from starving (and why is the starvation of poor in the US so high?).
Is that because we are a non- benevolent democracy?
... "Marxism hasn't been tried." Give me a break.
And yet you have not provided a single example where it was tried, just a bunch of totalitarian opportunists filling the vacuums following the revolutions ... somehow I am not surprised.
COULD be in some circumstances but that test and Marxist thinking in general doesn't improve such situations, it just points the finger, blames people who are not to blame, ...
Not people, it is the economic system that stratifies the population and always will. Even with minimum living wages, mandatory overtime and unions there will still be a rich class, a poor class and a middle class, it is the nature of capitalism, built in via the "profit motive" to ensure that people will try to steal value from workers if they can enhance their wealth by doing so, as long as wealth is valued above other social attributes.
Jesus understood this and threw out the money changers yes?
... it just points the finger, blames people who are not to blame, ...
Actually that would be the poor, born and kept in stifling oppressive economic ghettos.
... You act as if the civil rights movement never happened. ...
Curiously I was there in the 60's and got tear-gassed for it. Sadly most of the gains we realized have recently been taken back by the Supreme Court (one of those checks and balances built into the constitution) because of judges owned by the corporations?
... There are more opportunities now for all races and classes than there ever were before, but you want to restructure society in a direction that can only destroy those gains. ...
No Faith, I want them restored to the people: the right to petition, to assemble ... the right to form unions and the right to a living wage for an honest 40 hours of work, the right to overtime pay when it exceeds 40 hours and the right to just and equitable treatment by the law.
... First make sure you are talking about people who WANT to have productive jobs. ...
Someone who works two jobs at minimum wage because that is what is available to them and that is what they need to do to provide a living income for their families. The majority of people on food stamps are working parents, the vast majority of people working at minimum wage are parents with children. Or elderly retired people trying to scrape by in this economy, or disabled, or vets.
Who are you thinking about?
... If the community promotes a criminal mentality that justifies stealing and a lack of respect for work and for education you aren't going to get improvement, ...
Again I agree, but I stipulate the media and the socio-economic system for "community." Parents in these economic social ghettos actually want the laws enforced.
... and a lack of respect for work ...
That would be the people paying less than a living wage for minimum wage workers.
... and for education ...
That would be the system ensuring that education in the socio-economic ghettos was suppressed because of the way it is (under)funded.
... you aren't going to get improvement, ...
Again I agree -- without access to a job that pays a living wage and without access to an education that allows one to get a higher paying job you will not get improvement.
... you're going to get what Marxism always promotes, the triumph of barbarianism and thuggery over the best any society has to offer.
No, you get what power always promotes, which is corruption and the triumph of barbarianism and thuggery over the rest any society, the corporate fascism, with private security forces for the rich, with militarized police serving the status quo of corporate dominance over all aspects of society.
You mix up Marxism with totalitarianism and terrorism of the population for control. Curiously I don't blame you for mixing this up, this demagoguery has been employed by the right wing for decades (McCarthy rode the wave after the second world war). The rich and powerful had to denigrate the social and community base of Marx's theories in order to remain rich and powerful. Look at what the Roosevelts had to deal with.
There is nothing innately evil in cooperative ventures, and in fact there are many successful coop corporations that are owned by the workers and which thrive even in the current economy. There is nothing innately evil in communes, such as the Israeli Kibbutzes.
There is something innately evil in worshiping the accumulation and hoarding of vast wealth at the expense of others. From each according to their vulnerability to each according to their greed ...
But this is all off-topic for this thread.
Enjoy
Faith writes:
Message 411:
According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between highly productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership and private appropriation of the surplus product in the form of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat, social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies, culminating in a social revolution. ...
Is that or is that not what we are seeing with increasing income inequality and increasing unrest in the US? Be honest ... replace bourgeoisie with 1%ers and proletariat with 99%ers.
Proletariat, bourgeoisie, what quaint unreconstructed Marxism there. Marxist theory is not an "analysis" of capitalism, it's a caricature, a parody, a straw man, a stupid stupid case of pure theory that bears just about no relation to reality. In reality, Marxism itself CREATES the "social unrest" it hypothesizes by going out and drumming it up, and it pushes aggressively for that supposedly spontaneous "social revolution." It was aggressively promoted in Russia, it didn't just spontaneously arise from the "proletariat," and it was certainly idiotically promoted in the sixties in America. Marxism is a pack of lies that can only be violently and murderously forced on a society, which it always is.
It is most possible that any current widening of the gap between rich and poor in the west is CAUSED BY Marxist style thinking, which we've been subjected to by the idiot left for decades now. The tax rate on those who are barely economically surviving to pay for the top-heavy socialist government entitlements is enough to sink the economic ship right there, making the poor poorer.
Capitalism produces wealth, Marxism destroys it. Capitalism when it produces huge monopolies needs to be restrained but that can be done by laws, also laws that protect the workers. You don't think we have enough of that?
As usual, any social unrest due to the economic situation we're experiencing is trumped up, and many think the economic situation itself has been trumped up to destroy the nation. It has nothing to do with Capitalism.
You continue with more insane Marxist theory that bears no relation to reality. Perhaps I'll come back to it.
Tangle to Faith writes:
Message 412: Hi Faith, I asked you elsewhere if you thought Jesus would own a gun but you declined to answer.
I'm just wondering now if you think Jesus would be in favour of sharing wealth equally amongst people or in favour of wealth and opportunity being concentrated with a few?
Jon to RAZD writes:
Message 413:
quote:
According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between highly productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership and private appropriation of the surplus product in the form of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat, social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies, culminating in a social revolution. ...
Is that or is that not what we are seeing with increasing income inequality and increasing unrest in the US? Be honest ... replace bourgeoisie with 1%ers and proletariat with 99%ers.
Inequality has been even worse in the past. And yet the revolution you speak of didn't come. It's almost as if it never will.
So where did this happen? Where was there a "socioeconomic system based on cooperative ownership of the means of production" and where did it evolve into "a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of lFrom each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'..." ... what country was that?
Interesting that you bring this up, and the rest of your post pretty much deals with this same principlethat no state has been truly socialist in this Marxist sense. You argue, therefore, that we can say nothing of the feasibility of Marxism because it has never been faithfully attempted.
But this argument pulls the old 'no true Scotsman' to extreme lengths. The fact remains that numerous states have supposedly attempted Communism, and they have all ended in the same disastrous way, which tells me (and other reasonable people) that Communism either always evolves, and quickly so, into these other systems or that it is for some reasons simply an unnatural and therefore unworkable socioeconomic system that never even gets off the ground.
Either way, it makes reasonable people really question the sanity of folks who still see Communism as a social and economic system workable on a national level.
But this is all off-topic for this thread.
You'd know... It is your thread.
Jon
I'll start my responses in replies to this.
Thanks.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 01-06-2015 12:01 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2015 12:29 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2015 2:24 PM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2 of 45 (746397)
01-06-2015 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-06-2015 10:33 AM


Would Jesus support capitalism or communism?
I'll start with Tangle's Message 412:
Tangle to Faith writes: Hi Faith, I asked you elsewhere if you thought Jesus would own a gun but you declined to answer.
Jesus wouldn't carry a gun because He came with a special mission to save the world, but that doesn't mean He would oppose the carrying of guns for self-defense in this fallen world where we are still vulnerable to all kinds of dangers and threats against us. That is, we still live in an Old Testament world although the New Testament reign of grace is now available to believers. In the Old Testament fallen world of today there are plenty of reasons to be armed against dangers to ourselves and our families. Even war on a national scale is sometimes necessary, although a nation imbued with Christian principles, as the US was in the past, would go to war only for the best reasons of self defense or defense of others, which we did in WWII, and I think the arguments in favor of the American Revolution are also biblical.
I'm just wondering now if you think Jesus would be in favour of sharing wealth equally amongst people or in favour of wealth and opportunity being concentrated with a few?
This question poses a false dichotomy. The Bible, which is of course God's word, and Jesus is God, supports capitalist principles of individual work to support one's own by the use of whatever abilities and talents one has. To this extent it supports free enterprise. The Virtuous Wife of Proverbs 31 maybe says it best: she works hard to take care of her family, and sells the extra linen that she makes, goes out and buys a field and plants a vineyard. This is basic free enterprise in action.
She also considers the poor and helps them.
One of the Levitical laws is that the owner of a field of grain must leave the corners of the field unharvested so that the poor can take what they need from there. Those on the other hand who deprive the poor or take advantage of them, of widows and orphans for instance, or by demanding more collateral for a loan than they can afford and so on, are condemned.
Greed is condemned in the Bible.
Isaiah 5:8 Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!
This is a condemnation of those who hog the resources of the land, "the means of production?", so that others get no benefit from them.
In Luke 12:15-21 Jesus tells a parable about a rich man who expanded his storage to accumulate more of the produce of his land and then considered himself wealthy enough to sit back and enjoy it all. But God "required his soul" so that he couldn't enjoy it as he planned, and Jesus' point is that spending this life in accumulating wealth for your own benefit is not a good idea. He goes on in verse 22 to say
And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on.... Consider the lilies...
It's more a teaching about spiritual values, trust in God, of course, than about economic matters as such, but it demonstrates the biblical view of material accumulation.
So: There is a support for hard work and for personal right to the fruits of your labor, whether it brings in barely a living or great wealth. At the same time the Bible gives moral principles for taking care of those who have less than you have. There is no notion whatever of REQUIRING the wealthy to give up what they've earned, but there is certainly a strong condemnation of hoarding and selfishness. Then there are the commandments against coveting and stealing. These apply to rich and poor alike. To demand that the rich provide for the poor is stealing, but they are strongly commanded to be generous.
Jesus also said "The poor you shall have with you always" which certainly implies that He had no socialist program to offer.
I don't see any role in any of this for government telling people what to do with their earnings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2015 10:33 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ringo, posted 01-06-2015 12:17 PM Faith has replied
 Message 7 by Tangle, posted 01-06-2015 1:56 PM Faith has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 3 of 45 (746398)
01-06-2015 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Faith
01-06-2015 12:01 PM


Re: Would Jesus support capitalism or communism?
Faith writes:
Jesus wouldn't carry a gun because He came with a special mission to save the world, but that doesn't mean He would oppose the carrying of guns for self-defense in this fallen world where we are still vulnerable to all kinds of dangers and threats against us.
quote:
Matthew 5:38-39 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 01-06-2015 12:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 01-06-2015 12:32 PM ringo has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 4 of 45 (746399)
01-06-2015 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-06-2015 10:33 AM


at Faith
Faith writes:
Message 411:
According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between highly productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership and private appropriation of the surplus product in the form of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat, social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies, culminating in a social revolution. ...
Is that or is that not what we are seeing with increasing income inequality and increasing unrest in the US? Be honest ... replace bourgeoisie with 1%ers and proletariat with 99%ers.
Proletariat, bourgeoisie, what quaint unreconstructed Marxism there. ...
And how is this relevant to the increasing inequality and increasing unrest in the US with the 1%ers and the 99%ers?
You do realize that denigrating the terminology is not a refutation of the argument but an indication of cognitive dissonance, yes?
... Marxist theory is not an "analysis" of capitalism, it's a caricature, a parody, a straw man, a stupid stupid case of pure theory that bears just about no relation to reality. ...
Which is why the wikipedia article I quoted from is all full of smilies ... oh wait it wasn't. Nor was it from the Onion.
Let me simplify it for you: conflict arises due to inequalities in the distribution of profit from work being done. As the inequality in distribution increases, and becomes increasingly apparent to the workers, when they are not being paid a fair share for their effort, social unrest between the taking and the making classes occurs and intensifies, culminating in a social revolution. ...
Social revolution doesn't have to be bloody, as we have seen progress in this country made via non-violent protests, and we see evidence of social unrest in the Occupy movement, in the strikes for increased minimum wages, in states that raise minimum wages, and also in the Black Lives Matter protests that are about inequalities in justice between makers and takers. You can also review what Ghandi did in India.
Such social revolution has also occurred in the past in the US with the labor riots in the 30's and there have been riots since the founding of the country between takers and makers.
... In reality, Marxism itself CREATES the "social unrest" it hypothesizes by going out and drumming it up, and it pushes aggressively for that supposedly spontaneous "social revolution." ...
Gee, I didn't realize that these movements listed above were because the US is a marxist state ... even before Marx was born ...
You ever try to get somebody to protest when they are happy with the way things are?
... It was aggressively promoted in Russia, it didn't just spontaneously arise from the "proletariat," ...
You can't light a fire without fuel Faith. The people were unhappy, very unhappy ... they didn't needed to be goaded.
... and it was certainly idiotically promoted in the sixties in America ...
Indeed, but talking about possibilities for better social equality doesn't necessarily mean that there were no people unhappy with the income inequalities at that time (and which is much worse now). There was a lot of social unrest in the sixties, but marxist (and maoist) ideologies were a rather minor element, not one fostering the unrest.
Ideology is what the founding of the US was based on, ideology of freedom, liberty justice, equality and opportunity for all to pursue happiness.
... Marxism is a pack of lies that can only be violently and murderously forced on a society, which it always is.
You haven't made the case that marxist ideology necessarily operates and ends this way. Claims are just opinions when they are not based on facts.
It is most possible that any current widening of the gap between rich and poor in the west is CAUSED BY Marxist style thinking, which we've been subjected to by the idiot left for decades now. ...
WOW. I mean just WOW. Cognitive dissonance Faith?
Is this how right wing thinking works? Income inequality is increasing, the liberal left is bad, therefore they are responsible for the growing income gap? Really?
The tax rate on those who are barely economically surviving to pay for the top-heavy socialist government entitlements is enough to sink the economic ship right there, making the poor poorer.
The poor don't pay income tax -- they don't earn enough to "qualify" -- but the republican tax cuts to the rich mean that corporations do not pay taxes and that the rich takers pay minimum taxes on income they can't hide in tax shelters (which are unavailable to the normal citizen). The republican have been slashing welfare programs federally and in states, so less is available to the poor than before. Minimum wages have been stagnant for decades so $7/hr no longer provides a living wage, and republicans want to eliminate minimum wage not raise it ... and the liberals are responsible for the increasing economic gap????
Really???
Capitalism produces wealth, Marxism destroys it. ...
Capitalism and (ideological) marxism distribute the benefits of production differently, capitalism concentrates it in the pockets of the takers and grudgingly eeks out as little as possible to give to the makers. Ideological marxism would distribute the profits equally.
I'm not saying that equal distribution is necessarily better, just that this is what the ideology says -- and my claim is that such distribution has never been done in any national state on earth that I am aware of. It has been done in some communes, like the kibbutzes in Israel, but not on a national scale. Nor am I aware that all the kibbutzes and other communes declined into violent anarchy.
But I do think that there is some middle ground, some mixing, that would be better than either alone. This mixing of ideologies in the government programs is behind the several successful social democracies in Europe.
... Capitalism when it produces huge monopolies needs to be restrained but that can be done by laws, also laws that protect the workers. You don't think we have enough of that?
Such as regulations on banks and investment companies, progressive tax rates and laws like Dodd-Frank and the Glass Steagall Act of 1933? The ones the GOP are trying to gut and deregulate or repeal?
Laws such as ones for minimum wage, mandatory overtime for all workers working more than 40 hours/week, freedom for workers to form and join unions, mandatory health and safety regulations for workers, anti-child labor laws etc etc etc ... which are under attack by the GOP and that were brought to you by unions, by people working together for their common good.
So you might be able to argue that unions are also an expression of marxist ideology in the US that arose in response to the social unrest between the takers and the makers during the sometimes bloody protests for better working conditions and better wages. Allowing unions defused the conflict back then -- it was an evolution of the socio-economic system rather than an all out bloody revolution, and again it shows that your claim marxist ideology creates the unrest -- because that unrest predates the ideology -- and that it ends in violence and the destruction of wealth.
As usual, any social unrest due to the economic situation we're experiencing is trumped up, and many think the economic situation itself has been trumped up to destroy the nation. It has nothing to do with Capitalism.
So the bank failure was created by liberal leftists intent on destroying the country ...
The foreclosing of mortgages on poor and low income people is just trumped up to destroy the country but doesn't really exist. Just because there are more empty houses from foreclosures than there are individual homeless people is not due to sound economic and social policy but some liberal conspiracy to destroy the country ...
The loss of jobs because of the economic collapse is just a myth by liberals to destroy the country ...
The fact that home loss, job loss, etc fall unequally on those least able to survive, on the poor and low income people does not create social unrest, it takes someone waving a red flag to make the unrest occur ...
You continue with more insane Marxist theory that bears no relation to reality. Perhaps I'll come back to it.
Says the person who denies reality every day and on virtually every topic.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2015 10:33 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 45 (746400)
01-06-2015 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ringo
01-06-2015 12:17 PM


Re: Would Jesus support capitalism or communism?
That's the best argument against self defense of course, and clearly we are to obey it individually. However, note that the context is not about life-threatening injury. In fact being slapped on the cheek isn't even a physical injury, it's merely an insult. Also, you can perhaps deny yourself self defense, if only your own wellbeing is at stake, but how do you justify denying your protection to your children? I don't see that Jesus is requiring this of us. Perhaps a spiritual titan could do this, trusting God to take care of them, as John Bunyan did in prison, realizing he wouldn't be there to work to support them. But again, this isn't about danger from violence. Remember too, that Jesus never told the Roman soldiers who came to Him to give up their profession.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ringo, posted 01-06-2015 12:17 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 01-06-2015 6:37 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 18 by ringo, posted 01-07-2015 10:46 AM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 6 of 45 (746402)
01-06-2015 12:55 PM


...Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 7 of 45 (746407)
01-06-2015 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Faith
01-06-2015 12:01 PM


Re: Would Jesus support capitalism or communism?
So you think that Jesus would be comfortable with gun ownership and the excesses of capitalism. Funny, that's not the image of gentle Jesus, meek and mild, defender of the poor, condemner of the rich and turner of cheeks that I suspect the rest of us understood him to be.
I'm guessing you'd say he also votes Republican?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 01-06-2015 12:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 01-06-2015 2:00 PM Tangle has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 45 (746408)
01-06-2015 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tangle
01-06-2015 1:56 PM


Re: Would Jesus support capitalism or communism?
I defended my points biblically. Sounds like you are relying on your personal feelings rather than a standard, really a sentimental nonbiblical false portrait of Jesus.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tangle, posted 01-06-2015 1:56 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 01-06-2015 2:29 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 11 by Tangle, posted 01-06-2015 4:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 45 (746411)
01-06-2015 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-06-2015 10:33 AM


at Jon
Jon writes:
Message 413:
quote:
According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between highly productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership and private appropriation of the surplus product in the form of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat, social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies, culminating in a social revolution. ...
Is that or is that not what we are seeing with increasing income inequality and increasing unrest in the US? Be honest ... replace bourgeoisie with 1%ers and proletariat with 99%ers.
Inequality has been even worse in the past. And yet the revolution you speak of didn't come. It's almost as if it never will.
Curiously I do not speak of revolution, but of the evolution of government to adapt to resolve problems when they arise. "Social revolution" isn't necessarily bloody. This is part of the constitutional process that allows amendments, which have changed the government so that women can vote, blacks can vote, votes are no longer discounted (2/3rd) based on who you are, and citizens who can vote are no longer limited to white male land-owners (the ones who grabbed massive tracts of land both in the original forming of the colonies and later as the country expanded) -- the original US 1%ers.
More of interest to the topic though, is that there have been many revolts, demonstrations and protests reaching all the way back to the articles of confederation, of people dissatisfied with the (then) status quo, and which have resulted in changes. (see reply to Faith and the link to revolts and riots)
So where did this happen? Where was there a "socioeconomic system based on cooperative ownership of the means of production" and where did it evolve into "a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'..." ... what country was that?
Interesting that you bring this up, and the rest of your post pretty much deals with this same principlethat no state has been truly socialist in this Marxist sense. You argue, therefore, that we can say nothing of the feasibility of Marxism because it has never been faithfully attempted.
Well an untested theory IS an untested theory isn't it? And if you do a test that isn't a real test of the theory that isn't properly testing the theory is it?
And I specifically said country for a reason. If you want to look at places where marxist ideology was used you can look at the Israel Kibbutzes and other communes (some of which predate Marx ... ).
... The fact remains that numerous states have supposedly attempted Communism, and they have all ended in the same disastrous way, which tells me (and other reasonable people) that Communism either always evolves, and quickly so, into these other systems or that it is for some reasons simply an unnatural and therefore unworkable socioeconomic system that never even gets off the ground.
So the failure of a totalitarian oligarchy that calls itself a communist country is a test of the ideology of Marx regarding the evolution of government through socialistic cooperatives to a communist state, when the totalitarian government took over as soon as the revolution ended? Really?
Note that the terms socialism and communism predate Marx (and Engels), and that his theory was about how socio-economic systems evolve. The French revolution gave us the "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" (before they were taken over by a repressive bloody government before evolving into modern France). When we look at France now we see a functioning democracy with many socialist elements. It has evolved and adapted to a more equitable government than they had under the kings.
If you want to say that his theory is false, you would have to say that it is because the specific evolution of government that he predicted did not occur in the specific way he predicted, not that communism was a failure. He didn't invent communism.
And even then I would disagree, because we do see the evolution process happening as countries adapt socialist programs like universal health care, minimum living wages, mandatory overtime, job safety, and steep progressive tax codes with very few loopholes, etc etc etc ... programs that reduce the inequalities and thus lessen the conflict. The evolution is just slower and more adaptive than he predicted -- that would mean an adjustment to the theory not that it is invalid.
Further. the failure of governments to actually follow the specific path he predicted also does not mean that his analysis of unbridled capitalism inevitably resulting in social unrest due to increasing and unjust economic inequality was flawed\inaccurate\wrong. Just that he had not anticipated a slower more adaptive intermediate approach.
We may never arrive at his envisioned communistic utopia with no rulers ... nor do we need to end up there ... as long as the evolution of the socio-economic system progresses in ways acceptable to all participants.
Either way, it makes reasonable people really question the sanity of folks who still see Communism as a social and economic system workable on a national level.
Again, you are confusing and conflating totalitarian oligarchies that called themselves communist with actual communism. see communism, Origins of Communism, Early Forms and Theories and History of Communism, Pre-Marxist Communism.
Rational and critical thinking would mean being aware of the differences between the actual definition of (various forms of) communism, the historical background, and what was actually practiced in various countries like Russia and China and Cuba, and that we should also look at socialist countries.
They should also be able to recognize that Marx\Engels theoretical analysis of the evolution of government from primitive joint ownership tribes to capitalism, socialism and communism is not necessarily advocating any one form of government ...
What we have, especially in the US, is a lot of post war paranoia and hype, heavily propagated by McCarthy era propaganda and fear mongering, where communism was demonized by the rich (who had much to lose) and the religious (because it was godless ... ), and as a result you can't say "communism" without people thinking USSR type oppressive totalitarianisms. Look at the way Faith froths at the mouth about it (Sorry Faith, but your reaction is emotional not rational).
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2015 10:33 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2015 4:51 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 45 (746412)
01-06-2015 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
01-06-2015 2:00 PM


Re: Would Jesus support capitalism or communism?
Well according to the Bible Jesus lived in a communistic community but was unable to abide by the rules and so used luxuries for himself instead of the poor. The account is found in Matthew, Mark and John. Luke has a somewhat different version of the story.
But communism and gun ownership are totally unrelated so I have no idea how the two concepts ever got conflated.
From the Bible stories it seem Jesus would have espoused Communism over Capitalism but would likely not have the moral capability to follow through.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 01-06-2015 2:00 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 01-07-2015 12:32 PM jar has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 11 of 45 (746421)
01-06-2015 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
01-06-2015 2:00 PM


Re: Would Jesus support capitalism or communism?
Faith writes:
I defended my points biblically. Sounds like you are relying on your personal feelings rather than a standard, really a sentimental nonbiblical false portrait of Jesus.
Yes, it was interesting to see you cherry pick your biblical 'evidence' to support your own personal view. Nevertheless, it's more usual to talk of eyes of needles when quoting Jesus on wealth isn't it? In fact, I've never heard anyone preach that Jesus would support gun ownership and capitalism - have you? Really? I
realise you spend your life here justifying phoney positions but really?? Is that the image of Jesus that you think fits the man described in the bible?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 01-06-2015 2:00 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-06-2015 5:30 PM Tangle has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 45 (746427)
01-06-2015 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tangle
01-06-2015 4:40 PM


Re: Would Jesus support capitalism or communism?
Nevertheless, it's more usual to talk of eyes of needles when quoting Jesus on wealth isn't it?
Well, there is that ridiculous Protestant Prosperity theology thing:
Prosperity theology - Wikipedia
Its really pathetic though.
(not that Catholics aren't rich as fuck)
Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tangle, posted 01-06-2015 4:40 PM Tangle has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 13 of 45 (746430)
01-06-2015 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
01-06-2015 12:32 PM


Re: Would Jesus support capitalism or communism?
That's the best argument against self defense of course, and clearly we are to obey it individually. However, note that the context is not about life-threatening injury. In fact being slapped on the cheek isn't even a physical injury
That's hilarious. Surely death on the cross resulted in enormous physical injury. I wonder what Jesus did when his life was on the line. Reach for his gat?
quote:
When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him
quote:
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 01-06-2015 12:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 14 of 45 (746433)
01-06-2015 6:51 PM


NOT A GUN CONTROL TOPIC
Unless gun control is somehow directly connected to Marxism vs Socialism vs Communism vs Totalitarianisms considerations. And even then, it would probably be better in the Gun Control Again topic.
This is an official warning - Admin slamming of offenders might follow.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 15 of 45 (746436)
01-06-2015 7:44 PM


Leon Trotsky
Too often it seems that opposition to communism is based not on reality or even the writings of those who developed the concept and just like the support for "Biblical Christianity" not what is actually written but rather fantasies.
One of the most prolific of the Communist philosophy was Leon Trotsky and fortunately much of what he wrote are available in ebook format and by date.
His writings are particularly important since they serve as clear indicators of the differences between Communism and Stalinism.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2015 9:53 AM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024