Intelectual discussion part III (a break from religion) socialism and communism

[skinfan13]

heres part three. guys please, part II showed a lesser degree of inteligent discuson than in Part I. strictly discuss and debate on an intelectual level; we're all intelgigent adults and no one is going to change anyones mind, so just present your facts and refute others with evidence or expirience. please no personal atacks or defamations. "knowledge is better understanding, sharing knowledge is to understand" a platonian form of debate would be ideal, but i fear its too much to ask for;)

anyway on to the discusion; communism and socialism, is it really a "good system" in theory? are its designs and even its application good? the left tends to take the position that communism is the ideal form of human exsistance and the right proclaims it to be absolute evil. which is true? is it a little of both?


before you respond, heres a quote for thought,

"Having... scoffed at the Ten commandments and the sermon on the mount we ended a 70 year expiriment with socialism with little more to our credit than tens of millions of corpses."

-Eugene D. Genovese

[Enter Apotheosis]

In theory, nothing beats socialism. It is the ideal system to establish universal human equality. In theory...

In actuality, at it's core it goes against the very nature of humanity (and, for that matter, the nature of all life). An instinctual drive to compete for survival as well as the presence of greed and jealousy make true socialism on any sort of a large scale utterly impossible. What we saw in the USSR, in China, and in other places is NOT socialism... but a rigid class structure established under the GUISE of it. Socialism will NEVER be a permanent solution for governing a large body of people because it breaks down far too quickly.

[skinfan13]

In theory, nothing beats socialism. It is the ideal system to establish universal human equality. In theory...

In actuality, at it's core it goes against the very nature of humanity (and, for that matter, the nature of all life). An instinctual drive to compete for survival as well as the presence of greed and jealousy make true socialism on any sort of a large scale utterly impossible. What we saw in the USSR, in China, and in other places is NOT socialism... but a rigid class structure established under the GUISE of it. Socialism will NEVER be a permanent solution for governing a large body of people because it breaks down far too quickly. about 98% agreement.

my own addition (2%), "breaks down far too quickly... or was never really established in the first place"

[Enter Apotheosis]

about 98% agreement.

my own addition (2%), "breaks down far too quickly... or was never really established in the first place"

If you started with a small commune-type set up, you would likely be able to work it out quite nicely. However, as time goes on and/or as said commune expands cracks begin to show in the framework as a small group of people become the decision-makers and a general consensus among all inhabitants is no longer reachable. :2cents:

[skinfan13]

basically its becuase people can't agree on everything so the system doesnt work.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

EA was pretty much right on..... Socialism/Communism are concepts that only work in a Vacuume. They're wonderful concepts "IN THEORY", that once put into reality break down almost immediately because of the addition of an undefinable human element to the equation. That human element poisons the equation by adding elements of greed, jealousy, laziness, and many other base human instincts that the equation cannot account for. Those unaccounted for elements break the equation down at its base and destroy it rather quickly.

I think the line from "Animal Farm" sums it up best.... "All animals are equal, but pigs are more equal." (paraphrased).

[techboy]

heres part three. guys please, part II showed a lesser degree of inteligent discuson than in Part I.

Excuse me? ;)


before you respond, heres a quote for thought
"Having... scoffed at the Ten commandments and the sermon on the mount we ended a 70 year expiriment with socialism with little more to our credit than tens of millions of corpses."

-Eugene D. Genovese

You want a "break from religion", but you chose this quote?

Good luck...

[AJ_Skins]

Karl Marx based his entire framework of "predictions" on a premise-- that the entire history of human civilization is the history of "class struggle". It is a false premise. As a result you have a system of belief, and a political ideology, that is intrinsically myopic, flawed and inadequate. It is not a great idea that can't be implemented by flawed people. It's a flawed idea.

As a political ideology, socialism/communism values one ideal to the exclusion of all others: equality. Other ideals like freedom, prosperity or human rights are subordinate, if not meaningless.

As an economic system, it is not flawed because it doesn't line up with human nature. It is flawed because it is grossly inefficient, and leads to stagnation and poverty.

[Burgold]

Good post, EA. I really think it depends on the level. If you're talking about a relatively small unit that is mutually dependent for survival, it can work, grow it out and it falls apart. Even in business...

My Mom grew up in Soviet Poland and at one point when she was in college she was also working in a factory. They had two modes of pay. The hourly wage where everyone is paid the same regardless of output and a per piece model. The per piece model (which paid practically nothing per unit) people always wound up being 2-3 times more productive than the hourly folks and made more money.

The biggest grief though I had with their system was that by twelve they defined you and you could not ever escape that definition. If by 12 the aptitude tests said you were this smart, you were put on an academic track and otherwise on a labor track, then they continued to make your decisions for you as to what you should study, who you should become. It was pretty souless. The thing is, if there's a problem with the test, and no test is perfect, then society loses an incredible mind, a brilliant artist, an unbelievable opportunity. On top of that, if everything is equal, we lose our insentive to be inspired and break through walls.

[Burgold]

Karl Marx based his entire framework of "predictions" on a premise-- that the entire history of human civilization is the history of "class struggle". .

He also based it on the premise that the corporations would never adapt or compromise, viewed them as rigid tyrants. Many of Marx's good ideas we adopted: child labor laws, unions (well, they started out as a good idea not as sure about the modern union) etc. A large part of why the revolution never occurred here, was because the monopolists were taken on eventually, and corporate or class society changed.

[AJ_Skins]

I posted this here a while ago, but it fits the discussion. Ronald Reagan, from a radio commentary he did in the late 1970s:


November 16, 1976

A modern day little Red Hen may not appear to be a quotable authority on economics but some authorities on economics aren't worth quoting. I'll be right back.

[commercial break]

This is a little treatise on basic economics called "The Modern Little Red Hen".

Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'

"Not I, " said the cow.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the pig.
"Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.
"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.
"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for her neighbors to see.

They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."

"Excess profits," cried the cow.
"Capitalist leech," screamed the duck.
"I demand equal rights," yelled the goose.
And the pig just grunted.

And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and round the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen,

"You must not be greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

"Exactly," said the agent. "That's the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations the productive workers must divide their product with the idle."

And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful."

But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.

This is Ronald Reagan, thanks for listening.

[AJ_Skins]

He also based it on the premise that the corporations would never adapt or compromise, viewed them as rigid tyrants. Many of Marx's good ideas we adopted: child labor laws, unions (well, they started out as a good idea not as sure about the modern union) etc. A large part of why the revolution never occurred here, was because the monopolists were taken on eventually, and corporate or class society changed.

The only times revolutions have occurred, they have not been carried out by the great mass of people as Marx predicted. They have been carried out by militant ideologues, usually not from the working classes themselves, and have been imposed on the population through terror.

[Burgold]

Agreed. None of the "Communist" revolutions or governments have been "communist" based on the philosophy that Marx read.... (Mind you, I haven't read Marx in fifteen years and that was in a philosophy class, so my Marx is probably hazy)

[AJ_Skins]

Agreed. None of the "Communist" revolutions or governments have been "communist" based on the philosophy that Marx read.... (Mind you, I haven't read Marx in fifteen years and that was in a philosophy class, so my Marx is probably hazy)

Marx predicted (based on his flawed premise about human history being a history of class struggle) that it was inevitable that the great mass of people would rise up, throw off the shackles of their oppressors, and institute a socialist paradise. He predicted the first step would be a "dictatorship of the proletariat", but that it would eventually be followed by a "true" socialist utopia. He got the dictatorship part right, but that was about it.

Impatient acolytes of Marx, frustrated with the inability of the blind mass of "sheep" to recognize their condition, and their oppressors, and take action, decided it was their duty to take action themselves. Of course, a lot of blood letting and secret police were required to give the sheep what was best for them, but as Marx said, "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs". Same story in every communist country that has existed.

What is most disturbing is that the prevailing ideology in the modern Democratic Party is essentially Marxist in nature. Maybe you could call it "neo-Marxist". It is inherent in every policy and political appeal they make. Race-baiting, attacking business, their hatred for religion-- it's all about how you should be P.O.'ed because "the man" is trying to keep you down. Karl Marx 101.

What's more, it is very interesting to note that the "counter culture" of the 1960s in the U.S. coincided almost precisely with Mao's "cultural revolution" in China, the goal of which was to eradicate every vestige of traditional Chinese culture in an attempt to do away with lingering "bourgeois" influences and cement the allegiance of the public to the new system. Maybe bad ideas travel fast? :whoknows:

[Burgold]

Race-baiting, attacking business, their hatred for religion-- it's all about how you should be P.O.'ed because "the man" is trying to keep you down. Karl Marx 101.

Race-baiting is an equal opportunity sport, unfortunately. The supposed hatred of religion is a republican illusion. I can never decide if Republicans being POed about the man keeping them down is due to homophobia or jealousy.

This doesn't have to become a Repub vs. Dem thread, does it?

[AJ_Skins]

Race-baiting is an equal opportunity sport, unfortunately. The supposed hatred of religion is a republican illusion. I can never decide if Republicans being POed about the man keeping them down is due to homophobia or jealousy.

Wrong, on all counts.


This doesn't have to become a Repub vs. Dem thread, does it?

No.

[Midnight Judges]

skinfan13, how can you ask for intellectual conversation without insults and then unload this whopper:


the left tends to take the position that communism is the ideal form of human exsistance

[Bang]

EA was pretty much right on..... Socialism/Communism are concepts that only work in a Vacuume. They're wonderful concepts "IN THEORY", that once put into reality break down almost immediately because of the addition of an undefinable human element to the equation. That human element poisons the equation by adding elements of greed, jealousy, laziness, and many other base human instincts that the equation cannot account for. Those unaccounted for elements break the equation down at its base and destroy it rather quickly.

I think the line from "Animal Farm" sums it up best.... "All animals are equal, but pigs are more equal." (paraphrased).


Holy smokes!
I completely agree with MSF!

I'm going to the doctor....

~Bang

[DCsportsfan53]

skinfan13, how can you ask for intellectual conversation without insults and then unload this whopper:


I know, right? What's the best way to start a good, fair and intellectual converstaion? Why, with a loaded, condescending baiting question of course. And AJ, you're ridiculous.

As far as socialism goes, EA and MSF pretty much nailed it. It'll never work on any kind scale at all. You can make it work short term in a commune like enviornment but that's about it.

[Riggo-toni]

Communism is NOT a wonderful theory. People who say/think this have never actually read Marx, or don't understand some of its references. Marx preaches violent revolution to raise the status of proletariats. He essentially advocates the execution of entrepeneurs (aka bourgoisie) in the same manner the French Revolution guillotined nobles. Marx's belief was that the French Revolution sold out to the merchant class, and the next logical step was to wipe out/oppress business owners. This is a lousy theory in every respect. First, violent/vindictive revolutions never produce beneficial governments. One of Alexander Hamilton's many great acts in establishing our republic was to fend off retributive attacks on loyalists after we'd won the war. Secondly, the idea that you can have a successful economy after you've killed off the most successful generators of capital is completely devoid of reality. Even before communist revolutions, look at how Spain fell victim to inflation and monetary incompetence after it expelled its Jewish population during the Inquisition. Hitler and Stalin were both evil, but millions of Russians starved to death at a time when Germany's economy boomed, because Stalin killed off anyone who ever worked hard to get ahead, whereas Hitler bought off his country's industrialists.

As far as socialism goes, it might have had some merit 100 years ago when industry was largely low-tech, and the drop-off in knowledge/competence from private to public enterprise was not as acute as it is today. Ataturk probably improved Turkey's economy when he nationalised industries in the early 20th century, but those actions and the paradigm they created are largely responsible for the dysfunction of Turkey's economy today, as well as those of other Middle Eastern countries who emulated that model. In a high-tech global economy, governments are intrinsically too lethargic and incompetent to keep pace with rapidly evolving markets.

[Enter Apotheosis]

skinfan13, how can you ask for intellectual conversation without insults and then unload this whopper:

Actually, I thought it was pretty funny that he agreed with just about everythingI said. Including the concept that socialism is ideal if it were at all possible to sustain.

I'm quite sure that most liberals and conservatives with just a minimal amount of knowledge with regards to socialism hold it as somewhat of an unreachable ideal. For those who are well-off and hold up well in competition it may be undesirable, but it is impossible not to recognize that it is still the epitome of equality and fairness (in theory).

[dfitzo53]

I'm quite sure that most liberals and conservatives with just a minimal amount of knowledge with regards to socialism hold it as somewhat of an unreachable ideal. For those who are well-off and hold up well in competition it may be undesirable, but it is impossible not to recognize that it is still the epitome of equality and fairness (in theory).
It may be the epitome of equality, but fairness is subjective.

[Enter Apotheosis]

It may be the epitome of equality, but fairness is subjective.

Again, we're assuming perfect socialism. Obviously, even successful socialism on any scale is going to be equal but probably not fair. Perfection is an entirely different thing, though.

[Prosperity]

The human nature argument is on very weak foundations. The reason socialism has problems is because not only does the government lack perfect information, but there are too many outside factors (like protectionist or plain old ignorant constituents...business that have more political clout than others). If the government had really good information and only had to worry about making the best overall choices and not just political (or outright corrupt) choices then socialism could probably work on the larger scale.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Equality is overrated.

[Darth Tater]

Socialism fails because it can't calculate. Further, it has no ordering principle for relationships between disparate individuals.

[Darth Tater]

Karl Marx based his entire framework of "predictions" on a premise-- that the entire history of human civilization is the history of "class struggle". It is a false premise. As a result you have a system of belief, and a political ideology, that is intrinsically myopic, flawed and inadequate. It is not a great idea that can't be implemented by flawed people. It's a flawed idea.

As a political ideology, socialism/communism values one ideal to the exclusion of all others: equality. Other ideals like freedom, prosperity or human rights are subordinate, if not meaningless.

As an economic system, it is not flawed because it doesn't line up with human nature. It is flawed because it is grossly inefficient, and leads to stagnation and poverty.
Socialism is inherently flawed as an economic system (iit may be argued that it is not even an economic system) becase is does not line up with human nature. By nature, we humans act to optimize our own set of use-values. Since our use-values are individual and unknowable ex ante, the use-values of a set of 'supermen' MUST be implemented and this can only be done through the use of coercion.

[Darth Tater]

He also based it on the premise that the corporations would never adapt or compromise, viewed them as rigid tyrants. Many of Marx's good ideas we adopted: child labor laws, unions (well, they started out as a good idea not as sure about the modern union) etc. A large part of why the revolution never occurred here, was because the monopolists were taken on eventually, and corporate or class society changed.
Child labor laws were implemented as child labor became inefficient. Wage rate increases fell with the implementation of unions. Monopolies ONLY exist BECAUSE of government and government itself is the best example of monopoly.

[Darth Tater]

What's most disturbing is that both the Demipubs and the Republicrats at the core are socialists.

[Darth Tater]

skinfan13, how can you ask for intellectual conversation without insults and then unload this whopper:
Some on the left to tend towards communism but that's because they don't understand economics. Leftists that understand economics are much less likely to have socialist leanings than those on the right.

[Darth Tater]

The human nature argument is on very weak foundations. The reason socialism has problems is because not only does the government lack perfect information, but there are too many outside factors (like protectionist or plain old ignorant constituents...business that have more political clout than others). If the government had really good information and only had to worry about making the best overall choices and not just political (or outright corrupt) choices then socialism could probably work on the larger scale.

Human nature is to act to optimize that individuals use-values. To get 'perfect' information, the government would have to be able to know the use-values of each individual before those individuals know, they would have to be able to keep this information secret and they would have to be able to act on this information. Becuase of human nature, 'perfect' information can not be collected ex ante and this is why communism CANNOT be implemented. Human nature is the STRONGEST argument here. In fact, it is the foundation of any argument one can make against communism.

[Winslowalrob]

Well, I think I am the only socialist on the board, so I will try to give my 2 cents.
The I got from the masses!

The first, and most important distinction, is the difference between socialism and communism, as well as within the socialist and communist communities. As Skinsfan has already pointed out, there are a lot of you who have made up your mind already, and see socialism and communism as the same thing (probably evil and satanic). Communism is generally seen as the pinnacle of the revolution, socialism is just a step on to that revolution. Communism is probably the more hardcore of the two, and it actually has a manifesto (although the name of this "manifesto" escapes me at the moment ;)). Make no mistake, both are 19th century secular religions, in that they have the trappings of religion (an infallible worldview, a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects) Though like those very same secular religions (nationalism, populism, libertarianism, etc) they can and do coexist with "regular" religions. But wait, Winslowalrob, communism is inherently atheistic! Not quite, while the Communist Manifesto clearly disdains all form of organized religion (replacing it of course with Communism itself), not every communist has followed the Manifesto. I liken Communism of Christianity or Islam: they have a book, true, but what they take from the book and how much they behave according to its literal principles makes for all kinds of factions and splinter groups. Hence some Communist groups being religious as well (Look at some of the continental European socialist or communist parties of the 19th century, they were overtly Christian. And anti-semitic to boot.). Socialism has no real ultimate guide, though most point to the Communist Manifesto as what we should follow (Maybe if it was called the Socialist Manifesto it would get more traction from me ;)). There have been MANY different groups of Communists and Socialists, from Fabian socialists to communist priests. With that being said, a lot of Socialists and Communists have done bad things in the name of both, though like Christians and Muslims I do not condemn the mass of followers.

A second point is the belief that socialism has NEVER worked. Well, if we define "worked" as a self sustaining model of production that can be replicated, then there were socialist communes and factories that were pretty damn good (Robert Owen in southeast England during the 1830s I believe). However, the examples of it working are limited, especially when compared to the Soviet Union, Cuba, and South American populist "socialist" leaders. Well I never considered any of those guys socialist, when you repress and kill and sink large populations into poverty, I argue that you lose the label. Of course many take issue with that, because they consider socialism to be a system that kills, represses, and makes everyone poor, and I doubt that any argument from me, no matter how good or eloquent, would change their minds so I will not even try.

One of the inherent difficulties in running a socialist, communist, or any big government system is the need for information and how to get people what they need. One of the values in having the private sector do things is that the "invisible hand" is a lot more efficient in getting people to do the things necessary to keep a society functioning, from catching dogs to baking bread to selling shoes. This function is so difficult to understand and duplicate by planning that often times (some would argue all the time) it cannot be replicated by a government. But that is a debate for another time, currently socialist governments, no matter how benign, succeed in making everyone equal... equally poor, that is, and that is a major hurdle to overcome.

As for Marx and Marx's writings, he was actually a pretty intelligent guy, and the first guy to systematically see the link between technology and historical development. If any of you have ever thought that the gun was important, or the wheel, you owe a debt of gratitude to Marx. Heck even George Bush has paraphrased Marx (unknowingly I am sure) when talking about human development. He was an economist and a historian, amongst other things, though he was writing in a time when historians preferred to write broad, sweeping, theories of humanity and human development (some emphasize great men, others emphasize the masses, some emphasize technology, some race, and Marx was all about class struggle). As it stands his works have had some pretty good ideas and some pretty bad ones, like most great works of history (I am looking at you Ptolemy).

As for the human nature argument, I do not buy that we know enough about human nature to say whether ANY system of government or economics will never ever work. We have a tendency to look at the future and extrapolate from there, which is perfectly logical, though we also tend to get our predictions totally wrong. Everything from voting, to voting rights, to interracial couples, to choosing a spouse instead of having one picked for you, to class mobility, to mass literacy, to electricity, to cellular phones, to cars, to refrigeration, to sugar, to our low child mortality, to our great height and health, at different times, these were ALL thought to be counter to human nature. Democracy and representative government? Forget about it. Capitalism? Haha, thats crazy talk. A lot of the modern world, that Americans take for granted, were totally counter to perceived human nature at different times in history. And I strongly believe that our guesses about human nature are still wrong, that they will be corrected in the future as the next wave of impossible innovations materialize. And I believe that socialism will be one of the things that we are wrong about.

[Enter Apotheosis]

The human nature argument is on very weak foundations. The reason socialism has problems is because not only does the government lack perfect information, but there are too many outside factors (like protectionist or plain old ignorant constituents...business that have more political clout than others). If the government had really good information and only had to worry about making the best overall choices and not just political (or outright corrupt) choices then socialism could probably work on the larger scale.

Politics, corruption, protectionism, and ignorance... that can't possibly be the human psyche interfering in the creation of an "ideal" world can it? :rolleyes:


As for the human nature argument, I do not buy that we know enough about human nature to say whether ANY system of government or economics will never ever work. We have a tendency to look at the future and extrapolate from there, which is perfectly logical, though we also tend to get our predictions totally wrong.

Socialism will not work on a large scale without DRASTIC changes to the most primitive levels of human thought. When I say never I don't mean its entirely impossible, I just mean that it is not going to happen assuming certain current conditions continue to hold true.


Everything from voting, to voting rights, to interracial couples, to choosing a spouse instead of having one picked for you, to class mobility, to mass literacy, to electricity, to cellular phones, to cars, to refrigeration, to sugar, to our low child mortality, to our great height and health, at different times, these were ALL thought to be counter to human nature. Democracy and representative government? Forget about it. Capitalism? Haha, thats crazy talk. A lot of the modern world, that Americans take for granted, were totally counter to perceived human nature at different times in history. And I strongly believe that our guesses about human nature are still wrong, that they will be corrected in the future as the next wave of impossible innovations materialize. And I believe that socialism will be one of the things that we are wrong about.

I don't see how ANY of the stuff in that long list are even remotely related to basic human nature. In fact, the struggles and events that transpired to bring us those things just provide support for an existing "human nature" based very much on the concepts behind evolution and what we can observe throughout the animal kingdom.

I think you need to describe exactly what you consider human nature to be... because we clearly don't seem to be talking about the same thing here.

[Winslowalrob]

Socialism will not work on a large scale without DRASTIC changes to the most primitive levels of human thought. When I say never I don't mean its entirely impossible, I just mean that it is not going to happen assuming certain current conditions continue to hold true.



I don't see how ANY of the stuff in that long list are even remotely related to basic human nature. In fact, the struggles and events that transpired to bring us those things just provide support for an existing "human nature" based very much on the concepts behind evolution and what we can observe throughout the animal kingdom.

I think you need to describe exactly what you consider human nature to be... because we clearly don't seem to be talking about the same thing here.

All of those things were considered contrary to human nature. No joke. Electricity and electric lighting was considered "unnatural," and not to be accepted. Residents in cities would put broken shards of glass on the streets to screw up tires, because driving cars was not part of human nature. The great thing about the line "human nature" is that it means whatever people want it to mean, and it has been used and misused in so many ways that the definition itself is lost. Does it mean what happens in the natural world? Sure, a lot of people seem to think so. Does it mean human tendencies? Obviously :). Is it something that every human has in common? These are questions that basically must be answered first, but as of yet no philosopher has given a successful definition of human nature. What is human nature? I would pick human tendencies if I had to, what do you think human nature is?
Of course, when using any of the different definitions, all of the things I listed are all part of human nature and the human condition, so high child mortality, for example, is a huge part of human nature because for the majority of human history, humans naturally had high child mortality. People actually fought attempts to lower child mortality (usually on theological grounds that it ran counter to nature, human nature, etc.) Take slavery for example. For most of human history, slavery was a fact of life, though not necessarily the plantation slavery that automatically comes to mind when using such a loaded word. The very thought of having a society without slaves, for a majority of human history past city development, was unfathomable. Slaves were a natural part of human society, it was human nature to either own a slave, be a slave, or accept that slavery was an essential facet of life never to be changed. In many societies this was an immutable law of human nature, and the act of questioning it was foolish, because how can you change human nature? Now we believe that human nature is to be free, greedy, and to have some social contract with their government. Our notions of what constitutes human nature have changed dramatically, and they will continue to change (unless of course we are at the acme of societal evolution, and we are right and will never be wrong). The most primitive levels of human thought? There have been drastic changes to the most primitive levels of human thought since the time man first walked (or was created, pick whichever one you like). Lets make tools. Lets farm and make cities. Lets create government. Lets read. Lets use fire. Lets bury our dead and think about religion. The things that mark human developments also changed the way they thank. Drastically so. Not the way they lived, but they way they conceptualized the world. Right now we accept (some more grudgingly than others) that a nation-state government HAS to exist. A life with no government is just inconceivable: SOMEONE has to be in charge of large groups of people. Yet the concept of government itself is fairly recent when compared to how long humans have existed, and we think differently because of it. I hope that helped.

[AJ_Skins]

It's very simple. The Reagan story I posted earlier illustrates it.

Let's say, under an ideal socialist/communist system, that I and another person have the exact same job. I do my job twice as well as the other person, but we will receive the exact same pay and the same benefits. Let's say I'm someone who spent years working hard in school and became a scientist. I receive the same benefits and pay as a manual laborer. There is no incentive to work hard or accomplish anything under a socialist/communist system, except two, which have been the basis for every communist government that has existed-- ideological zeal and coercion. You have to brainwash people into thinking they are contributing to some great cause, and you have to punish them harshly if they slack off or ask questions. Plain and simple.

It is not an accident that the Soviet Union barely outlived its founders. It is an ill-conceived, immoral ideology, and it is unsustainable.

[Burgold]

It's very simple. The Reagan story I posted earlier illustrates it.

Let's say, under an ideal socialist/communist system, that I and another person have the exact same job. I do my job twice as well as the other person, but we will receive the exact same pay and the same benefits. Let's say I'm someone who spent years working hard in school and became a scientist. I receive the same benefits and pay as a manual laborer. There is no incentive to work hard or accomplish anything under a socialist/communist system...

What you forget is that there intrinsic rewards as well as extrinsic rewards. If it were simply about renumeration there would be no small theatre in America, no community threater, no Special Olympics, or any number of other things. Even with a standard job like teaching, some work harder because of a natural ethic or that there are certain intangible rewards (doing a good job, making the lightbulb go off, success, innovating, etc. ) which have as much value as money. People with the same pay rate often exhibit a different quality of work.

[Prosperity]

Politics, corruption, protectionism, and ignorance... that can't possibly be the human psyche interfering in the creation of an "ideal" world can it? :rolleyes:


Humans used to live in caves, **** on the floor and worship the Sun or the moon or whatever.

Human "nature" can change, and all those factors are also negatives when talking about capitalism, so it isn't a good argument the way you are presenting it. (though Darth Tater did a better job).

[Burgold]

Humans used to live in caves, **** on the floor and worship the Sun or the moon or whatever.

Human "nature" can change, and all those factors are also negatives when talking about capitalism, so it isn't a good argument the way you are presenting it. (though Darth Tater did a better job).

I'm missing something here. You're not really talking about human "nature," but about the human condition. Nature is more about our instincts: you know out capacity to love, hate, be selfless, selfish, help, hurt, etc. given a scenario.

[Prosperity]

I'm missing something here. You're not really talking about human "nature," but about the human condition. Nature is more about our instincts: you know out capacity to love, hate, be selfless, selfish, help, hurt, etc. given a scenario.

yeah, but same idea. We don't have the same extincts as before, and though there may be human instincts that don't work well with socialism they also won't work well with capitalism either. For example, humanist ideals of today are a lot different than our primitive instincts. It may possible be in our nature to be xenophobic, but that doesn't make it ok, and it doesn't mean that we can't be less xenophobic tomorrow.

Jealousy, deception, and nepotism will always keep capitalism limited as will selfishness, laziness keep socialism as limited.

The problem isn't human nature, there are ways to go around it and change it eventually. The problem is that a socialist government can't have all the information it wants, while the capitalist system doesn't need any manager. And because there is no way to get perfect information that opens up the path to things like corruption and theft. If the government knew exactly when and how much to increase expenditure like in a Keynesian system then that can make the downward cycles of the market much quicker and painless. An unregulated market would eventually get to the right place but it would take the market time to make corrections, and that time could be many years. Of course, the market will probably always eventually make the right decision, while the government is very liable to **** up.

[Darth Tater]

Socialism will not work on a large scale without DRASTIC changes to the most primitive levels of human thought. When I say never I don't mean its entirely impossible, I just mean that it is not going to happen assuming certain current conditions continue to hold true.

Actually, the appeal of socialism is based on the most primitive levels of human thought.

[Winslowalrob]

I'm missing something here. You're not really talking about human "nature," but about the human condition. Nature is more about our instincts: you know out capacity to love, hate, be selfless, selfish, help, hurt, etc. given a scenario.

If that is the definition of nature, then how do we know the capacity of every human being to do those things? What about the capacity of most human beings? There are very few truly "human" instincts, those that are unique only to humans and not to other animals. One of those human instincts is the capacity to help, to care for the sick and dying (though current research may enlarge that to include other animals, such as elephants). Outside of that, we do share many of the same instinctual characteristics of other animals (screwing, fighting over territory, protection of kin groups). These very same human instincts are actually being shaken out of modern American humans. We teach our children not to constantly procreate, not to rape, not to bully, that values such as kindness, charity, and sincerity are worthwhile virtues. Forget about incest (which was quite a large part of early human existence). If humans operated just on instinct there would be no way that society could function. As I said earlier, the very definition of human nature is pretty difficult to agree upon, which makes the viability of socialism pretty difficult to pinpoint.

[Winslowalrob]

It's very simple. The Reagan story I posted earlier illustrates it.

Let's say, under an ideal socialist/communist system, that I and another person have the exact same job. I do my job twice as well as the other person, but we will receive the exact same pay and the same benefits. Let's say I'm someone who spent years working hard in school and became a scientist. I receive the same benefits and pay as a manual laborer. There is no incentive to work hard or accomplish anything under a socialist/communist system, except two, which have been the basis for every communist government that has existed-- ideological zeal and coercion. You have to brainwash people into thinking they are contributing to some great cause, and you have to punish them harshly if they slack off or ask questions. Plain and simple.

It is not an accident that the Soviet Union barely outlived its founders. It is an ill-conceived, immoral ideology, and it is unsustainable.

Sovietism was truly evil. However I do not think it was either Communism or Socialism. Soviet scientists were pretty darned smart, so maybe your example does not quite apply to the Soviet model. Otherwise the Soviets would not have invented anything scientific or technological because there was no incentive to do so and smart people would have opted to not work hard for the same amount of pay. But if communist governments are all based on zeal and coercion, then there is incentive to work, and under your definition of communism, people both have no incentive to work and have two major incentives to work.

I am curious, is the duration of a system the best reason to adopt it? And, because I am a socialist, am I immoral?

[JohnLockesGhost]

It's very simple. The Reagan story I posted earlier illustrates it.

Let's say, under an ideal socialist/communist system, that I and another person have the exact same job. I do my job twice as well as the other person, but we will receive the exact same pay and the same benefits. Let's say I'm someone who spent years working hard in school and became a scientist. I receive the same benefits and pay as a manual laborer. There is no incentive to work hard or accomplish anything under a socialist/communist system, except two, which have been the basis for every communist government that has existed-- ideological zeal and coercion. You have to brainwash people into thinking they are contributing to some great cause, and you have to punish them harshly if they slack off or ask questions. Plain and simple.

It is not an accident that the Soviet Union barely outlived its founders. It is an ill-conceived, immoral ideology, and it is unsustainable.

AJ, you sound so much like me it's scary.

Just wanted to let you know you're killing it in this thread.

[techboy]

One of the inherent difficulties in running a socialist, communist, or any big government system is the need for information and how to get people what they need. One of the values in having the private sector do things is that the "invisible hand" is a lot more efficient in getting people to do the things necessary to keep a society functioning, from catching dogs to baking bread to selling shoes. This function is so difficult to understand and duplicate by planning that often times (some would argue all the time) it cannot be replicated by a government. But that is a debate for another time, currently socialist governments, no matter how benign, succeed in making everyone equal... equally poor, that is, and that is a major hurdle to overcome.

Uh, yeah... So... Why are you a socialist?

[Winslowalrob]

Uh, yeah... So... Why are you a socialist?

Not because I hate capitalism (though I did when I was just beginning, now I think capitalism is great and a close second behind a socialist system :)). I just grew up in places watching people work 14 hours a day after commuting 2 hours in the morning, all for the chance of living below the poverty line with a VERY slim chance of them ever getting above it, certainly not by working their buts off as much as nepotism or lots of luck, and I thought to myself that there has to be a better way. Currently most socialist systems are not that hot at wealth creation as much as wealth distribution, though there have been exceptions. I want to live in a world where if you work hard and play by the rules anyone in any country can succeed in life, and I honestly believe that socialism is the way to go.

[Coach Williams]

Just droppin' by to say THIS in theory is a religion thread BECAUSE communism is one of the 4 horseman of the Bible :laugh: The red one to be exact.

So much for the *break* huh?.....ok ok....I'll leave it alone, but I'll be back.....

P.S.~ If you are interested in HOW I know this shoot me a PM......

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Just droppin' by to say THIS in theory is a religion thread BECAUSE communism is one of the 4 horseman of the Bible :laugh: The red one to be exact.

So much for the *break* huh?.....ok ok....I'll leave it alone, but I'll be back.....

P.S.~ If you are interested in HOW I know this shoot me a PM......
I think the Republican Party is one of the four horsemen of the apocolypse. The red one to be exact. Red, get it? :rotflmao:

[skinfan13]

Sovietism was truly evil. However I do not think it was either Communism or Socialism. Soviet scientists were pretty darned smart, so maybe your example does not quite apply to the Soviet model. Otherwise the Soviets would not have invented anything scientific or technological because there was no incentive to do so and smart people would have opted to not work hard for the same amount of pay. But if communist governments are all based on zeal and coercion, then there is incentive to work, and under your definition of communism, people both have no incentive to work and have two major incentives to work.

I am curious, is the duration of a system the best reason to adopt it? And, because I am a socialist, am I immoral? the incentive was iminent death at the other end of faliure. if I were killed everytime i screwed up at my job id make sure i did one hell of a good days work.


Actually, I thought it was pretty funny that he agreed with just about everythingI said. Including the concept that socialism is ideal if it were at all possible to sustain.

I'm quite sure that most liberals and conservatives with just a minimal amount of knowledge with regards to socialism hold it as somewhat of an unreachable ideal. For those who are well-off and hold up well in competition it may be undesirable, but it is impossible not to recognize that it is still the epitome of equality and fairness (in theory). i tried to make that question as balanced as possible. from what i can see is that the lefts argumet is that the soviet union got the system wrong and that the system can work and is the ideal utopia or goal or whatever when implimented right.

i agreed with most of what you said, the only place i differ in opinion is not flawed implimentation, but in a flawed system. socialism is flawed becuase it is based off an idea that could never truly work.

actually i take it back, i 100% agree with your quote. its the perfect system for equality. total equality. everyone is equal, but it is not an epitome of fairness. not by a long shot. fair is being rewarded for good hard work and results. being equaly rewarded for slacking off when the former earned it is not fair. outside the context of "perfect" socialism being executed for faliure is not fair. not at all. not gettng an operation in time becuase of free health care is not fair.

socialism is contrary to the American ideal: you work hard you are rewarded. you don't and you've got yourself to blame. a small bit of gov't intervention is needed to regulate business just enough to not have a stranglehold, but the way i see it is this. our syste has worked, and will work, and when it needed to be tweaked it was. soooo if we have a good system why turn to something that has repeated failed, and will continue to fail?

other than those things, yea you got it. the one thing i dont agree with is that its not a perfect systme or idea at all. an idea that could never work is not perfect, it is flawed. example: cold fussion. great idea, but unobtainable, so investing in it would be plain stupid. as such the idea of cold fussion is flawed becuase it is not possible.


skinfan13, how can you ask for intellectual conversation without insults and then unload this whopper: do you deny it judges? i thought it was a fair question. plus its out of context. i took the two extremes; communism=perfect and communism=evil. i asked, well which is it? is it some of both? do al liberals think this? no. do a majority i know, hell yes. if you would like i could go all PC and change it for you, i would have no objections.

[PokerPacker]

the incentive was iminent death at the other end of faliure. if I were killed everytime i screwed up at my job id make sure i did one hell of a good days work.
if people were killed everytime the screwed up at their jon, there'd be no one left to screw up.

[AJ_Skins]

Sovietism was truly evil. However I do not think it was either Communism or Socialism.

Of course it was. It was the theory in practice. They did what they had to do. If you think Marx was against violence, you have not read him. "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs". That was his phrase.


Soviet scientists were pretty darned smart, so maybe your example does not quite apply to the Soviet model. Otherwise the Soviets would not have invented anything scientific or technological because there was no incentive to do so and smart people would have opted to not work hard for the same amount of pay.

What the Soviet Union did excel at was espionage, which allowed them to steal a lot of technology to keep up with the rest of the world.

[zoony]

What the Soviet Union did excel at was espionage, which allowed them to steal a lot of technology to keep up with the rest of the world.


You do realize that Lockhead's Skunkworks, the most brilliant think tank in the US military-industrial complex, got the idea for stealth technology from a research paper written by a Soviet physicist?


I could go on with other examples, but I don't want to embarass you.

The Soviets (and Russia) have a very rich history in scientific contributions... just because it chaps your ass that it came from a socialist state doesn't give you the right to diminish it.

.....

[AJ_Skins]

You do realize that Lockhead's Skunkworks, the most brilliant think tank in the US military-industrial complex, got the idea for stealth technology from a research paper written by a Soviet physicist?


I could go on with other examples, but I don't want to embarass you.

The Soviets (and Russia) have a very rich history in scientific contributions... just because it chaps your ass that it came from a socialist state doesn't give you the right to diminish it.

.....

If we lived in the Soviet Union, I'd rat you out to the secret police for trying to embarrass me.

And what I said is true. Not saying they didn't make some advances, but mostly they stole what they had. Nuclear weapons being the biggest example.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Humans used to live in caves, **** on the floor and worship the Sun or the moon or whatever.

Human "nature" can change, and all those factors are also negatives when talking about capitalism, so it isn't a good argument the way you are presenting it. (though Darth Tater did a better job).

Read the rest of my post, Einstein :rolleyes:

Human nature can change, but it really has not changed significantly at any point in the last 2500 or so years.


All of those things were considered contrary to human nature. No joke. Electricity and electric lighting was considered "unnatural," and not to be accepted. Residents in cities would put broken shards of glass on the streets to screw up tires, because driving cars was not part of human nature. The great thing about the line "human nature" is that it means whatever people want it to mean, and it has been used and misused in so many ways that the definition itself is lost.

You're listing things that were considered "unnatural" because we are not born equipped to use them. When I say human nature I refer to strictly the things that all (fully-functional) humans possess from birth. All of the stuff that is essentially derived from an instinctual drive to survive.


Actually, the appeal of socialism is based on the most primitive levels of human thought.

Indeed. But that's only because it eseentially guarantees the survival and propagation of our species.


I'm missing something here. You're not really talking about human "nature," but about the human condition. Nature is more about our instincts: you know out capacity to love, hate, be selfless, selfish, help, hurt, etc. given a scenario.

Bingo, we have a winner!


Outside of that, we do share many of the same instinctual characteristics of other animals (screwing, fighting over territory, protection of kin groups). These very same human instincts are actually being shaken out of modern American humans. We teach our children not to constantly procreate, not to rape, not to bully, that values such as kindness, charity, and sincerity are worthwhile virtues. Forget about incest (which was quite a large part of early human existence). If humans operated just on instinct there would be no way that society could function. As I said earlier, the very definition of human nature is pretty difficult to agree upon, which makes the viability of socialism pretty difficult to pinpoint.

Culture restricts human instinct to a degree. However, without certain controls by an 'alpha' group (government, religion, etc.)... there is nothing to prevent many of us from doing some of the things you listed. Frankly, though, even animals display varying degrees of "culture".

The base instincts that we have to consciously restrain comprise the core of human nature. Jealousy, greed, the drive to protect one's own at all costs (even if a threat is only perceived), etc. are all a part of human nature.


other than those things, yea you got it. the one thing i dont agree with is that its not a perfect systme or idea at all. an idea that could never work is not perfect, it is flawed. example: cold fussion. great idea, but unobtainable, so investing in it would be plain stupid. as such the idea of cold fussion is flawed becuase it is not possible.

The concept alone is perfect (it's kind of like a perpetual motion device, really). While it would be perfectly equal and fair under a very, VERY specific set of circumstances... those circumstances are simply not at all possible.

So, really, you do agree with me 100% even though you kept saying that you disagreed with me because you agreed with me ( :whoknows: ) in most of the rest of that post :silly:

[Prosperity]

Read the rest of my post, Einstein :rolleyes:

Human nature can change, but it really has not changed significantly at any point in the last 2500 or so years.

I really don't see how the rest of your post changes anything

[Burgold]

I don't know that I'm convinced that human nature can change. We certainly can change our habits and our philosophies, but have we changed our nature or is it window dressing? How much do our drives control us? It's a cool side question within this thread. In some ways, I think we've changed considerably in the last 3,000 years. In some ways, I think our lives our still about all the survival drives, the fight/flight reflex, sex drive, the food drive, the pack mentality, etc. I think we've learned, some have learned, to restrain the darker impulses of human nature, but I don't know that we've actually changed it.

[Prosperity]

I don't know that I'm convinced that human nature can change. We certainly can change our habits and our philosophies, but have we changed our nature or is it window dressing? How much do our drives control us? It's a cool side question within this thread. In some ways, I think we've changed considerably in the last 3,000 years. In some ways, I think our lives our still about all the survival drives, the fight/flight reflex, sex drive, the food drive, the pack mentality, etc. I think we've learned, some have learned, to restrain the darker impulses of human nature, but I don't know that we've actually changed it.

You don't think humans are a lot more individualistic than before? Isn't that part of human nature (apart from "following the pack") and if following the pack is part of human nature then don't you think that is a part of human nature that supports the Collectivist system? That is my point, not only is human nature mutable, but it isn't tailor made for either Capitalism or Communism. There are parts of our "nature" that can be seen as useful for either.

[Burgold]

You don't think humans are a lot more individualistic than before? Isn't that part of human nature.

I think that if you look at pack behavior there is always a struggle within the pack to be alpha and you may be able to relate a lot of the individualism on that. On the other hand, because (especially here in the U.S.) there is no desperatation to fulfill our basic drives, elements of personality, idiosyncrasies, and individuality are more acknowleded and more encouraged. I remember reading that marine biologists can follow a pod (not sure if that's the right term) of dolphins and eventually, they can recognize them by their actions, that gorillas very much have unique personalities. In addition, I think a key component of human nature is our ability to improvise or adapt.

Face it, humans are slow, weak, and relatively defenseless as a basic creature. What we have always relied on was pack behavior and intelligence (strategy and tools). So, human nature encourages improvisation and adaptation to a larger degree than found in most species, but that it has always been the case and just may be more pronounced now.



And yes, I think the collectivist mode of thought does fit within human nature. It is just at war with the instinct to be alpha. Which nature is stronger? The hunter or the gatherer? The gatherer is by socialist. The hunter is capatalist. (That analogy probably doesn't work, but I think it sounds good :D)

[Midnight Judges]

do you deny it judges? i thought it was a fair question. plus its out of context. i took the two extremes; communism=perfect and communism=evil. i asked, well which is it? is it some of both? do al liberals think this? no. do a majority i know, hell yes. if you would like i could go all PC and change it for you, i would have no objections.

You didn't say "extreme left," you said "left." If you think the majority of American liberals think communism is the perfect ideal, then you are sadly mistaken.

This is not about you being PC, this is about you being utterly misinformed.

[Enter Apotheosis]

I don't know that I'm convinced that human nature can change. We certainly can change our habits and our philosophies, but have we changed our nature or is it window dressing? How much do our drives control us? It's a cool side question within this thread. In some ways, I think we've changed considerably in the last 3,000 years. In some ways, I think our lives our still about all the survival drives, the fight/flight reflex, sex drive, the food drive, the pack mentality, etc. I think we've learned, some have learned, to restrain the darker impulses of human nature, but I don't know that we've actually changed it.

Well, I generally don't like to deny things I don't know for a fact. It is possible that human nature could change... it just hasn't done so notably thus far.

[skinfan13]

You didn't say "extreme left," you said "left." If you think the majority of American liberals think communism is the perfect ideal, then you are sadly mistaken.

This is not about you being PC, this is about you being utterly misinformed. misinformed? my history teachers had all throughout high school taught me that communism was the perfect ideal form of human exsistance. surely all 4 of them werent mad ultra-lefties were they? and what of the other liberals i know? a god majority of them say communism is a great idea that was implimented all wrong in the soviet union.

here are some quotes for you:

ill put them in chronological order for you.

-1919 "I have been over into the future, and it works!" Lincoln Steffens, liberal (modern sense) writter and reporter, on his visit to russia in 1919. historians say that he wrote that quote on his way to russia and was prepared to write it down no matter what he saw.


-1928 "I have never seen anywhere in the world such a large population of inteligent, happy, and intelligently occupied children." Progressive educator John Dewy.

- On the "New Deal" and other social programs, " The whole conception of a "social expiriment", the whole notion of planned human intervention into social processes to raise the welfare of the people, had become linked in the minds of America's intellectual and social leaders with the practices of the soviet union. this transofrmation of in American thought was largely the work of a small number of several hundreds of travelers to the soviet union during the previous decade. If there was no De Tocqueville among them, the reports which they published affected the American political conciusness more deeply nontheless than any other foriegn influence in history." Professor Lewis Feuer of the Univeristy of California at Berkley.

-between 1920-1939 abouts, "all, regardless of party, achknowledge that the revolution has awakened the millions, that the government, "dictatorship though it may be, has liberated their energies, animated them with an altogether unprecidented sense of personal dignity and inward worth, [and] opened to them hitherto sealed worlds of science and art and personal advancement." Social thinker Horace M. Kellen.

-1929, Oswalt Gariison Villard on answering questions about the soviet system, "such [a task] requires something more than timid or halfway reformers. [the Soviet] Dictatoriship isnt really so bad since the ruling party is working for the good of the masses [of workers]." Villard could not speak russian and had not met one russian outside of the ruling party in his visit.

-background history: Stalin starved the Ukranians into docility and submisivness. Walter Duranty, a prominent New York Times reporter and political and social liberal in ideology, covered up many of stalin's atrocities. 1932, "There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to ever be." 1933 when death was widspread in Ukraine, " the "famine" in largley bunk". august of 1933, "any report of a famine in russia is today an exageration or malignant propoganda." Malcolm Muggeridge, a great british journalist who atempted to report the truth about russia proclaimed of Duranty,"the greatest liar of any journalist I have met in fifty years of journalsim." Duranty wasnt stupid or ignorant, he was a blatant and manipulative liar. in private leers to other closet socialists he estimated the death toll in Ukraine alone to be aroud 7 million. inanother letter he estimated around 10 million. Duranty recieved praise from the leftist magazine the nation for writing, "the most enlightening, dispassionate and readable dispatched from a great nation in the making which apeared in the world." acording to Durantly, "stalin's Russia is a grat nation in the making." Dyranty recieved the pullitzer prize in 1931 for his reporting on the soviet union.

-Robert Conquest cites a communist in the US as saying, "The soviet union could hope to atract support from around the world for its marxist system only if the human costs of its policies were kept a secret from the public eye." as one pster said, you must break some eggs to make a omelet.

-on Stalin's guilt trials and their authenticity: in 1938 over 150 entertainment stars and representatives signed a voucher in support of the verdicts of the trials. it stated "by sheer weight of evidence established a clear presmption of the guilt of the defendents." why did hollywood and broadway feel a need to comment on this at all, and even so blatantly falsely? who knows, but acording to history these left leaning types werent really communists.

-1941, Joseph Davies, foriegn ambasador to the USSR for the US to the american gov't (he was later found to be a insider for the Soviets), "We see no reason to take the trial[s] at other than face value." Daves was, guess what, a liberal.

-Duranty (remeber him? new yourk times cover-up guy?) claimed in the newspaper that it was "unthinkable" that Stalin coud have etrayed friends and coleagues to their deaths "unless the proofs of uilt were overwhelming." he went on to state at the end of his article that "the confessions were true."

-Amerasia a popular pro-communist pro-left journal in the mid 40's to early 50's published a near verbatium report on classified American and British inteligence. in and FBi raid of their headquarters, they found nearly 1000 documents of American, British and french inteligence writen in english, french, and russian. in wiretaps released by the FBI in the 90's show, the magizine and three prominent liberal government employees, one as high as third undersecretary of the navy, had been sharing documents from the US and from russian inteligence. historians Harvey Klehr and Ronald Radosh: "Three government employees were meeting regularly with the magizine publisher, who had devoted his career to promoting pro-stalinist lines and who, as it turned out, had cultivated hese relationships in the first place to live out his lifesambition to become a full-fleged Soviet agent... One did not have to be a right-wing crank to find this unnaceptable and to feel isolated and suspicious when the whole mess was swept under the rug." the last part refers to a democratic conspiracy to cover up the incident becuase the three employees previously stated were, guess what? liberal democrats.

-lastly its interesting how the hippie movement coincided with china's cultural revolution. hmmmm.

-Robert Conquest, forementoned by myself, was/is an outstanding historian on the USSR. Leftists then and even some now (kennedy, cough), did/continue to minimize soviet crimes and uphold the idea that the theory is great, and the application was wrong. conquest said that the thoery was flawed and so the outsome was flawed. he was lambasted for it pre-berlin wall by the left. since he has been asked to re-publish some of his earlier works with additions taken straight from Soviet archives. his publishers asked for a new title for this collection. pondering for a second conquest stated in his raspy old voice, " how about this, 'i told you so you mother (explicative) fools.'"



all of this was half my own study and half taken from the studies of Professor Thomas E. Woods Jr. Ph.D.

liberalsim was deeply rooted in socialistic ideas. any liberals did and still do say that communism is a neat idea. to deny this is to deny history.

[ashburnskinsfan]

If we lived in the Soviet Union, I'd rat you out to the secret police for trying to embarrass me.

And what I said is true. Not saying they didn't make some advances, but mostly they stole what they had. Nuclear weapons being the biggest example.

Zoony is 100% correct here. And you are not. :)

Soviet scientists made breakthroughs in many fields during the communist era. Their pure science and theoretical work was among the very best in the world.

They were well treated relative to the general populace and their success was used to support the Soviet ideology, along with other endeavors such as certain sports and chess.

[Burgold]

I think that the left is linked with Socialism is inarguable in the broadest sense. My understanding of the left basic philosophy is that the role of government is to protect the little guy from bullies and to ensure an equal opportunity. Taken broadly, the ideals of socialism echo that. It's when you get into specifics or reality that the two begin to seperate and sometimes quite widely, but in theory, in theory they are close.

I have often thought that the main difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals tended to be idealistic and conservatives tended to be pragmatic. Even the approach to the Iraq war was pragmatic, remember pragmatic doesn't mean realistic or at least doesn't have to mean realistic.

[Midnight Judges]

I think that the left is linked with Socialism is inarguable in the broadest sense. My understanding of the left basic philosophy is that the role of government is to protect the little guy from bullies and to ensure an equal opportunity. Taken broadly, the ideals of socialism echo that. It's when you get into specifics or reality that the two begin to seperate and sometimes quite widely, but in theory, in theory they are close.

I have often thought that the main difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals tended to be idealistic and conservatives tended to be pragmatic. Even the approach to the Iraq war was pragmatic, remember pragmatic doesn't mean realistic or at least doesn't have to mean realistic.

Actually, pragmatic absolutely implies realism. And I disagree 100% that conservatives are pragmatic. Then again, the word conservative is so vague and varying in definition that it's basically useless. And from what I can tell there are no conservatives in power anyway.

[PokerPacker]

quit jabbering about which is better, left or right. everyone knows the true political philosophies come from up north where the libertarians sit.

[chomerics]

Any great system is a meld of all systems. I think the optimum system is one with less government, elimination of tarrifs and lower taxes. It is all in what a government should provide for its citizens. As in this country, we provide a safety net for the elderly and the poor, that is a good thing. We should provide some sort of basic standardized health care for our citizens, but I am have not seen a plan that will work.

You need to keep everything balanced, and it is hard to do. Things sway back and forth over time, and ideally we should keep everything in the middle, it is where we are the best. You need government to make sure corporatism does not grab hold of the political climate (which happened here for the past 6 years). You also need to make sure the poor and disadvantaged do not welsh off the system and actually strive to improve themselves. It is a constant push/pull match with elements of socialism, communisim, capitolism, and fascism in everything. If you can keep things in the center, you can thrive with both business and bringing up the lower class. It can be done, but you need the balance to do it.

[techboy]

quit jabbering about which is better, left or right. everyone knows the true political philosophies come from up north where the libertarians sit.

Canada?

[PokerPacker]

Canada?
north of the political spectrum, dummy. :silly:

[Winslowalrob]

Sigh, I screwed up and forgot to put up some definitions so we will not go around in circles taking potshots at each other instead of having an intellectual discussion (presuming that is what we actually want :)).

It seems the big four things that we cannot agree to are Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and Human Nature. We should try to get a working definition, and believe me, lots of people have no clue what any of these things are, especially amateur cold warriors. They would not know the definition of Capitalism if it bit them in the ass. Most of the definitions I am giving are used in academic circles for people that debate this stuff.

Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Capitalism, under this definition, is a fairly modern development (that is why historians and economists can go NUTS trying to find "the first capitalists." It is not a free market in and of itself, and it is not just making money.

Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Another, more often quoted definition is the following; "The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved." Many socialists are not Communists, and many socialists are not Marxists. They are not one and the same, and the concept of producing and distributing goods being owned collectively does not necessarily mean by a centralized planning government. On addendum to this definition: as mentioned earlier, socialism is a secular religion.

Communism: 1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
Notice the two definitions, and that one states the Marxist-Leninist version of Communism. While Marx may have written the Communist Manifesto, not all Communists follow it.

Human Nature:1. the psychological and social qualities that characterize humankind, esp. in contrast with other living things.
2. Sociology. the character of human conduct, generally regarded as produced by living in primary groups.
Now, pick either of these definitions to use when defining human nature vis a vis socialism or communism, because as I hope to have shown you already (and probably show you again), there are MANY things that we do, and have done, that are contrary to supposed human nature, or that human nature is so specific (in terms of biology) that both socialism and capitalism are outside of the realm of the discussion as to what constitutes human nature.

If you want further explanations I will be more than happy to clarify.

Oh, and just because I could not resist: hey Skins, do you know who Genovese is? Have you read any of his works? Maybe you agree with one of his quotes (like me hating Burke but liking one of his lines), but trust me dude, he is kind of nutty.

[skinfan13]

Sigh, I screwed up and forgot to put up some definitions so we will not go around in circles taking potshots at each other instead of having an intellectual discussion (presuming that is what we actually want :)). it is what we SHOULD want ;)
Oh, and just because I could not resist: hey Skins, do you know who Genovese is? Have you read any of his works? Maybe you agree with one of his quotes (like me hating Burke but liking one of his lines), but trust me dude, he is kind of nutty. know and deispise his guts, i just think its funny how he came up with that qoute all on his own; its a good quote from a rubbish man:)

[Winslowalrob]

know and deispise his guts, i just think its funny how he came up with that qoute all on his own; its a good quote from a rubbish man:)

Cheers mate, and yes, it is a pretty good good quote.