Discussion in 'Politics' started by United for Communism, Aug 5, 2011.
Everything I needed to know about what you're missing is in that paragraph
Boldface accent added.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
"Why are people against Communism?" someone asks here.
The not-famous-enough philosopher Eric Voegelin (1901-1985) once quipped:
"I was a Communist -- for about 15 minutes; then I learned basic economics."
no, you are not
it is an eminently reasonable speculation
Communism have been shown time and time again not to function in history.
It sounds like an interesting thread topic. How do you make a successful large society where it's inhabitants want their own monocultures?
give it to them?
Have you investigated Jewish Kibbutz:shrug: ?
The Kibbutz is not a large-scale community.
Gawd, Kibbutz's are so fail. They rely on their external economic counterparts to fund them (*disdain directed at kibbutz's not you*).
Oh my, dictionary.com is so 80's. We're all using www.thefreedictionary.com nowadays (j/k). But in all seriousness (well as serious as I can be after a massive infusion of patrone silver), you didn't ask the right question. If you want specific information then you have to declare the granularity you are after. Your question was analogous to asking me "what is an apple?" and then complaining that it was too generic because I didn't give you specific atomic configurations.
I think all methods can offer different truth across different angles of the subject until the point where the hard sciences emerge from these different methods and become dominant.
Our backgrounds are indeed different and this is going to result in us butting heads a lot. But that's part of debate. If everyone agrees with you then you're going to have to settle for social entertainment exclusively with very little substance. I personally like to have both.
I am unaware of any set of known behavior / value combinations in any culture that could make it a success (not to say that such a thing doesn't exist, it's simply that I am not privy to it, but you would think communism enthusiests would have jumped all over it by now if it really did exist... so I have my doubts).
Very cool indeed.
I do agree that the context of an existing society can influence whether or not a change can be successful or not.
It's probably why pure -isms aren't actually utilized. Sometimes the obligation is just too unrealistic to even entertain conceptualy. Maybe the success of an -ism can correlate to how much effort people perceive any existing obligations to make it work?
UFC does keep the target moving that's for sure. As you have noted we were working consistently working under the same context.
As far as Anarcho-syndicalism is concerned, wow... it's like mess after mess after mess; however, a gem did come out of it. It produced businesses that didn't pay wages but instead distributes profits amongst all the co-owners (who were also the workers). I wish I could say that this was a pure product of Anarcho-syndicalism; however, there are several companies across the world who do just that and have been highly successful. I saw a show a few years back about a bread company in the U.S. that does this and it was amazing.
All the while I wonder if Wesmorris got an answer that made sense to him.
I admit, my reasons for trying to clear this up were personal.
Namely, your style of thinking/writing is very much different than mine. Sometimes, as an exercise, I engage in conversation with someone who communicates very differently than I do. A convenient entry point is when that person is in conflict of some kind with another - so there is a clear indication that there is something to clear up.
The model for that seems to be the traditional family business.
I suppose this may be one of the driving forces behind space exploration (note the utopian character of both).
Namely, to prepare new large geographical locations with suitable resources for life, and then designate each such location as being for Christians, another for capitalists, another for communists, another for humanists etc. - and then move the current populations of Earth to the desired location each.
Because reversing multiculturalism on Earth seems impossible.
I'm not even sure Tiassa knows what a strawman is; in a nutshell, an argument introduced in order to deliberately misrepresent the position of another.
I'm still waiting for him to clear up why he thinks I presented a strawman... unless, of course, he's currently engaged in one of his own.
Seems to me what I wrote is in no way misrepresenting the op nor his follower, other than in the "all" I already admitted to being out of place. When asked to clarify, Tiassa has attempted to use his own arguments as a counter. Not those of the op. Therefore, he hasn't presented any counter at all, merely repeated his own opinion.
Ironic, considering some of the things he's accused me of.
I even tried feigning sympathy in order to see if he'd modify his position a little, but received little more than a eager seizure of a few words he thought made his position stronger.
Tiassa's a wordy hound, that much is true... and that can be deceptive. But it's been two pages of obfuscation now, still no clear explanation of the strawman he accuses me of, and no sign of one forthcoming.
So. Will the real Straw Shady please stand up?
The same logical fallacy can be either genuine (born out of lacking information) or deliberate (ie. a sophism).
Simply from reading, it is hard to tell which exactly is the case.
We must be careful when assuming less than noble intentions on the part of the speaker.
See my prior point in this thread.
Indeed, your approach has proven so confusing to me that I must now doubt my own perceptions of reality. I checked with a friend who has looked in on this thread, and her advice was so foreign to my perception of things that I'm not entirely certain where to go next.
But, yes, see my prior post.
• • •
Well, the fact that you need to attempt to rub in a point that is clearly erroneous only speaks to your fundamental dishonesty. That same friend tells me you're not so bad a chap. Too bad she's mistaken about that; oh, well, none of us are perfect.
The fact that, after all these little hints, you still can't move beyond your own insistence regarding what we're discussing only shows how blind, angry, judgmental, and ignorant you are.
So here's the thing, Marquis: Don't bother responding unless you can (A) have a relevant point, and (B) be honest.
You don't think I know what a straw man is? I don't think you know what honesty or decency are, sir.
that is absurd
we are supposed to indulge the bigotry of the christian polygamist, the muslim capitalist and gay wiccan by relocating them?
Looking to History, or Depending on It?
Its sense of realism. To borrow Piaget as a metaphor, the question is whether the current generation of any group so scrutinized is capable of reasonably accommodating and assimilating reality.
The Fourth International is still focused on the sort of top-down revolution that comes with building popular support until they win the government and a mandate for complete overhaul.
In other words, the state of the Communist Party in general, and especially in the case of the American versions, is not particularly inspired. Now is not Marxism's time to emerge and save the world.
Communism will come about despite Communists. That is the best hope, and they had best get used to it. Certainly they can change the equation, but I don't think people who judge twenty-first century communism according to the inevitable failures of hopeless revolutions wrongly framed are really even allowing such considerations to come to the surface, except perhaps in general contempt. It doesn't really matter what communists are doing wrong, in that sense. Marxism is held in such contempt that not only is it acceptable to disdain it for reasons not founded in any specific fact, but can also be dangerous for one to know enough about it to object. Maybe you bought a communist newspaper once, and decided upon reading it that they were crazy. Was a time when that was sufficient to bar your employment in any federal capacity. That is how afraid of communism the United States is. It took me into my mid-twenties, at least, before I started shaking off the definitions of my anti-communist upbringing and started looking at Marx through new eyes. Maybe even my thirties, since my outlook has undergone a reasonably dramatic revision in recent years.
One thing that kills me, though, is that people don't really read anymore. I don't speak to their capabilities, but, rather, their choices. I quoted a bit earlier from one of my blogs. It's always a question what to quote, because how many people read the source material? And, besides, it's a pretentious little bit I wrote when I first started blogging. But it tells me that I've been on this bit for at least four years, and it doesn't really matter. Nobody's actually paying attention.
But yes, communism in the twenty-first century is a desolate realm right now. Conveniently, many are happy to remain in a twentieth-century paradigm, ready to slug it out on everybody else's terms. Hugo Chavez, with all that had come before him, couldn't figure out to trust the revolution. He put form before cause.
The problem I have is that as various sympathetic voices discuss communism's track record, nobody wants to move beyond it. Take a look at The Marquis:
• Communists suffer a general lack of perspective regarding human nature.
• No communist can have anything intelligent to say.
• Considerations of communism that do not conform to the first rule are not communist.
∴ No communist can have anything intelligent to say.
With several considerations on the record about the communist failure to account for the human nature issue, The Marquis doesn't seem to care what's on the record. Rather, he wants to demand it anew ("Perhaps you'd care to try?") while precluding even a simple reiteration of the answers on record (" This should indicate to you that there is little you've said that I disagree with, and that I understand you are not a "proponent of communism".) because it cannot possibly be in advocacy of communism.
Which brings us back to your consideration of judgment. It is one thing to note prior results. It is another to insist on them to the point of rejecting new developments.
While communists have enough problems figuring out their own shortcomings, it would seem that there are many people who would prefer they didn't, if only to raise one more demon with which to scare themselves.
I said the idea was utopian.
It seems that you and Marquis have a history together.
Why should that history concern me and other readers when it is aired in an open-forum thread?
Separate names with a comma.