News What political ideology do you follow, if any?

[Smurf]

Marx was born 1818. Proudhon was born 1809. Marx died a decade and a half after Proudhon did...Neither of them really proceeded the other.

Yes, some Anarchism takes many leftist ideas, but they're hardly communist. Those ideas were around well before Marx and well before Proudhon. A lot of Anarchist thought is extremely right-wing as well, and is completely different from any Marxist philosophy. "Anarchism" is not a single idea.

 

[Smurf]

There is a difference between intellctual opinions and rants and hard facts..

Which you seem to have completely ignored, it looks like.

 

[Anttech]

Which you seem to have completely ignored, it looks like.

Which facts have I ignored?

 

[Dawguard]

No, instead they targetted people who wanted to do other crazy things, like share.

Right, since when have charitable organizations been shut down in capitalist countries? Name one person who gave money away and was killed because of it? The Red Cross is famous and very well respected, United Way, etc., not to count the money governments give to foreign countries in aid programs. When the tsunamie devastaded Indonesia, billions and billions of dollars were donated to help set up camps, give food, send out rescue parties, and so on. Donations to charities are tax-decutable in order to promote the giving of money. Name me one example where people are penalized for sharing; let alone murdered simply becuase they didn't go along with the status quo of the government.
Also, if all the repressive governments that claim to be communist aren't, why is that? Why did Cuba, China, Russia and every other country that had a revelution and become communist end up as a repressive, totalitarian dictatorship? Perhaps the answer is that however applaudable the idea of communism is, it is immposible to actually construct. People are inherintly selfish and corrupt, so expecting everyone to work together is like expecting the Earth to stop spinning. There's a reason that Thomas More called his book Utopia, literally 'nowhere' in Greek. It was essentially a communist system where there was no private property, no religion, etc., but More also said that it could not exist. Plato's Republic was the same; a communist system, but at then end of the book he admitted that it might never be able to exist, and only time would tell. Well, time has told; every communist attempt has failed due to the inherent corruption of mankind.

 

[alexandra]

You are talking about marixism not communism... And a "Movement" is not a government is it. Anarchism is NOT communism, as Anarchism is a void between goverments, a transitional faze...

Just to add clarification to this point: Marxism is a theoretical perspective - a theoretical tool for analysis. It is not a political system as such, whereas socialism and communism are. If one uses a class basis with which to analyse and understand social formations (class defined in terms of ownership of the means of the production and the social relations that arise between classes as a result of this) then one is using a Marxist analysis. Marxist analyses can be used to analyse all sorts of societies, but primarily capitalist societies (that was the purpose Marx developed his system of analysis for: he wanted to understand capitalist society). Marxism is not a political system.

 

[alexandra]

Saying that corporatism is the hallmark of capitalism or it's inevitable end result is pretty much the same as saying that Stalinism and the like are the hallmark or inevitable end result of communism. Most people in the world may equate corporatism with capitalism but that same crowd also equates "Communist Russia" with communism.

You are truly a worthy 'opponent' when arguing, TSA. I recognised this flaw in my argument as I was constructing it, and wondered if anyone would pick it up. You did Nevertheless, I truly believe the corporatism is inevitable and that true communism/democracy is possible and does not have to degenerate into Stalinism - in a way, I have to believe this, just to survive - this capitalist system just can't be the best there is; if it is, humanity is doomed!

At least, as far as I know, there aren't any great capitalist revolutionaries that had people lined up and shot for such things as listening to rock and roll.

This is arguable, TSA. Perhaps they don't line them up openly and shoot them. They make people die slowly, through homelessness, starvation, exploitation - and then, there are also those detention centres all over Eastern Europe, not to mention Gitmo... and CIA operations and all that. Capitalism has killed and killed and is killing millions at this very moment.

alex

 

[Astronuc]

At least, as far as I know, there aren't any great capitalist revolutionaries that had people lined up and shot for such things as listening to rock and roll.

While this is true, some capitalists have employed violence to achieve their empires.

John D. Rockfeller's Standard Oil for example. Rivals' plants were sabotaged, and people were killed.

Look at the railroads when they were built. Out west rival gangs clashed to take property and people were killed.

Look at the mining industry, or at any heavy industry, were safey was ignored.

In the modern day, look at the despostic regimes or gangsters/militias supported by the western economies, while western businessmen and governments feign ignorance.

 

[alexandra]

Also, if all the repressive governments that claim to be communist aren't, why is that? Why did Cuba, China, Russia and every other country that had a revelution and become communist end up as a repressive, totalitarian dictatorship? Perhaps the answer is that however applaudable the idea of communism is, it is immposible to actually construct. People are inherintly selfish and corrupt, so expecting everyone to work together is like expecting the Earth to stop spinning. There's a reason that Thomas More called his book Utopia, literally 'nowhere' in Greek. It was essentially a communist system where there was no private property, no religion, etc., but More also said that it could not exist. Plato's Republic was the same; a communist system, but at then end of the book he admitted that it might never be able to exist, and only time would tell. Well, time has told; every communist attempt has failed due to the inherent corruption of mankind.

Cuba is truly not the repressive totalitarian society it is made out to be - if you're really interested in finding out about it, read some history on Cuba rather than the propaganda that comes out of the mouths of the middle class Cuban 'refugees' who 'escaped' to Florida and have, in collaboration with the US government and the CIA, done everything in their power to undermine the gains of the Cuban revolution (which has, I might add, prevailed nevertheless).

 

[Anttech]

Cuba is truly not the repressive totalitarian society it is made out to be - if you're really interested in finding out about it, read some history on Cuba rather than the propaganda that comes out of the mouths of the middle class Cuban 'refugees' who 'escaped' to Florida and have, in collaboration with the US government and the CIA, done everything in their power to undermine the gains of the Cuban revolution (which has, I might add, prevailed nevertheless).

I aggree Cuba isn't as bad as they make out.. But You couldn't say it was democratic could you? quite the opposite in fact

 

[alexandra]

I aggree Cuba isn't as bad as they make out.. But You couldn't say it was democratic could you? quite the opposite in fact

What is 'democratic'? Is the existence of multiple parties, two of which normally predominate in the major capitalist societies (and both of which represent the interests of the dominant ruling class) sufficient? Is this 'democracy'? If so, is this a 'good' system? In Cuba, there may be no 'democracy' as defined above - but there is an excellent health and education system and, if the Cubans didn't have to contend with covert operations against them all the time, and economic sanctions that have crippled their economy throughout their existence after the revolution, what could they have achieved?

Here are some links with articles interested people may find informative:
http://www.americas.org/region_25 (here's a good article to start with: http://www.americas.org/item_18815 )
http://www.cubamigo.com/
http://www.brianwillson.com/awolcuba.html

alex

 

[selfAdjoint]

What is 'democratic'? Is the existence of multiple parties, two of which normally predominate in the major capitalist societies (and both of which represent the interests of the dominant ruling class) sufficient? Is this 'democracy'?

Yes. That is the definition in spite of your hostile spin. If you think the opposing pariies in any "bourgeois" country stand for the same thing, you are dreaming.

If so, is this a 'good' system? In Cuba, there may be no 'democracy' as defined above - but there is an excellent health and education system

A pretty good medical system anyway. I won't give you the education system.

and, if the Cubans didn't have to contend with covert operations against them all the time, and economic sanctions that have crippled their economy throughout their existence after the revolution, what could they have achieved?

Don't forget that their economy was carried for many years by the Soviet Union, both through direct grants and through purchase of sugar at inflated prices.

 

[Entropy]

Theological. But I put none because my theology is politically neutral, also because you grouped it with authoritarian and fasmism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I truly believe the corporatism is inevitable and that true communism/democracy is possible and does not have to degenerate into Stalinism - in a way, I have to believe this, just to survive - this capitalist system just can't be the best there is; if it is, humanity is doomed!

I do believe that current economic systems will (or at least can) evolve into something better. If and when we achieve better more "cost" effective means of producing energy I think that will be (or should be) the turning point. I envision a sort of Technocratic-Socialist type model.

This is arguable, TSA. Perhaps they don't line them up openly and shoot them. They make people die slowly, through homelessness, starvation, exploitation - and then, there are also those detention centres all over Eastern Europe, not to mention Gitmo... and CIA operations and all that. Capitalism has killed and killed and is killing millions at this very moment.
____________________________________

Originally Posted by Astronuc
While this is true, some capitalists have employed violence to achieve their empires.
John D. Rockfeller's Standard Oil for example. Rivals' plants were sabotaged, and people were killed.
Look at the railroads when they were built. Out west rival gangs clashed to take property and people were killed.
Look at the mining industry, or at any heavy industry, were safey was ignored.
In the modern day, look at the despostic regimes or gangsters/militias supported by the western economies, while western businessmen and governments feign ignorance.

Admittedly my comment was mostly just a jab at the mention of Che Guevara. While I find it deplorable that the criminal actions mentioned were taken I find it even more so distainful when someone honoured as a hero had people imprisoned and sent to a firing squad for listening to a particular type of music.

 

[X-43D]

The problem with free-market capitalism is that competition is simply not always possible. Also jobs and resources are highly limited.

As a result people are forced to take manual jobs or simply stick to agriculture which doesn't bring enough income for their family, if any.

 

[Smasherman]

I've got a question: Is the political ideology one follows, in respect to this thread, the political ideology they advocate as the next in social evolution, or the one they consider the best ultimate solution of the choices currently within the mainstream and quasi-mainstream knowledge pool?

I ask because I doubt communism would work to any degree of what one might call success if implemented in the US immediately...

 

[Smurf]

I ask because I doubt communism would work to any degree of what one might call success if implemented in the US immediately...

Really? Does the fact that everyone there is brainwashed into blind hate have anything to do with it?

 

[alexandra]

Yes. That is the definition in spite of your hostile spin. If you think the opposing pariies in any "bourgeois" country stand for the same thing, you are dreaming.

Go on, then, selfAdjoint - educate me: What are the essential policy differences between the two major bourgeois parties in your country? How do their policies on the Iraq war differ? Is it not true that Kerry's election campaign policy was to continue the war in Iraq? As a party, do the Democrats claim they would withdraw if elected next time around? How do their policies on privatisation of social services differ? Which party is 'for' the poor, the homeless, the dispossessed (of which there are many in the US) rather than a protector of the interests of the rich? Who do the tax cuts favour? Would the Democrats dare to increase taxes on businesses?

 

[alexandra]

Admittedly my comment was mostly just a jab at the mention of Che Guevara. While I find it deplorable that the criminal actions mentioned were taken I find it even more so distainful when someone honoured as a hero had people imprisoned and sent to a firing squad for listening to a particular type of music.

TSA, are you claiming that Che Guevara imprisoned/sent to the firing squad people because of the particular type of music they listened to? You know, I've done heaps of reading on Cuban history, the Cuban revolution, and Che - having just re-read Jon Lee Anderson's detailed biography, Che Guevara - A Revolutionary Life, I have not come across a single reference to such an event.

Note that Anderson did not set out to present a biased view - for example, in his youth, Che had many qualities he himself later found repugnant (eg. individualism, selfishness, etc), and Anderson does not gloss over these. The only instances where Che executed people was when they threatened the revolution (traitors) in tangible ways (not by the sort of music they listened to). In fact, Che was incredibly fair and humane in his dealings with people (as one would expect a true, democratic socialist to be) - here's an extract you may find informative:

[Che’s] repulsion for the Communist party’s sectarianism was well known. Beginning with his selection of Jose Manresa, former Batista army sergeant, as his personal secretary, he had set forth a precedent, and thereafter stood up for anyone he felt was sincere and willing to work for the revolution despite their past jobs or affiliations. He had consistently made a home at the Ministry of Industries for purged or disgraced revolutionaries, whether the victims of the old Communists’ chauvinism or the casualties of Fidel’s own sometimes fickle purges of valuable cadres. (Anderson, J.L. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, 1997, p.607).

 

[Smasherman]

Really? Does the fact that everyone there is brainwashed into blind hate have anything to do with it?

Mostly I was referring to the mentality that playing dirty is OK if you don't get caught, as well as the mentality that making money is what's most important. Hate brain-washing works too, I suppose, though it didn't come to mind immediately.

 

[Dawguard]

Really? Does the fact that everyone there is brainwashed into blind hate have anything to do with it?

For a forum based on fact, this is a pretty ludicrous claim. My objection to communism has nothing to do with blind hate, but everything to dowith reason and logic. So what if some communist revelutionaries are genuinely good people? What matters is the end result, and never once has it been any good. When Mao took over China, 37 million people died. Think about that, 37 million! That's like another Holocaust, but I'm sure that there were people helping Mao that were disgusted by it. They thought they would be setting up an ideal government whose purpose would be to help the people, but as a result 37 million people died. Their good intentions were worth nothing.
Name one instance that America has caused death such as that. How you dare to compare the poor people in America to those who starve to death by the millions in Russia and China is beyond my comprehension. If Cuba is a good form of government, why do people risk their lives to get away from it? You con't run away from something that's good, so why do people flee their country? Could it be that America actually is better?
You can make all the idealistic claims you wish, but you still haven't once presented me with a case when communism worked. Nearly one hundred years and millions of deaths since it was first implemented in Russia, and you still claim it can work.
Do yourself a favor and take one look around you at where you live. Look at your job and everything you own. Ask youself, if capatilism is all that bad, how come I've got it so well of compared to people in China who are shot just for practicing their faith? You can do whatever you want, say whatever you want, go wherever you want. You could do none of these in a communist government. Do you notice anyone trying to censure your words or penalize you for disagreeing with the government? In Russia or China you would have been executed for so blatantly criticizing the government, and yet you sit in some comfortable chair, enjoying your life and moaning about how evil capatilism is.

 

[Amp1]

Dawguard,

Its hardly publicized but there are people starving in this good ole US, the most recent are some victims of Katrina. Noone wants the US to become a welfare state, however, there is not enough being done to assist the disenfranchised with education, vocational skills training, housing, health care and jobs. This isn't a rant - its reality. Social programs are under funded or discontinued and the difficulty of getting assistance is increased. Many programs are now of limited duration meaning individuals have sometimes unrealistic time limits set on how long they will receive support.

 

[Smurf]

For a forum based on fact, this is a pretty ludicrous claim. My objection to communism has nothing to do with blind hate, but everything to dowith reason and logic. So what if some communist revelutionaries are genuinely good people? What matters is the end result, and never once has it been any good. When Mao took over China, 37 million people died. Think about that, 37 million! That's like another Holocaust, but I'm sure that there were people helping Mao that were disgusted by it. They thought they would be setting up an ideal government whose purpose would be to help the people, but as a result 37 million people died. Their good intentions were worth nothing.
Name one instance that America has caused death such as that. How you dare to compare the poor people in America to those who starve to death by the millions in Russia and China is beyond my comprehension. If Cuba is a good form of government, why do people risk their lives to get away from it? You con't run away from something that's good, so why do people flee their country? Could it be that America actually is better?
You can make all the idealistic claims you wish, but you still haven't once presented me with a case when communism worked. Nearly one hundred years and millions of deaths since it was first implemented in Russia, and you still claim it can work.
Do yourself a favor and take one look around you at where you live. Look at your job and everything you own. Ask youself, if capatilism is all that bad, how come I've got it so well of compared to people in China who are shot just for practicing their faith? You can do whatever you want, say whatever you want, go wherever you want. You could do none of these in a communist government. Do you notice anyone trying to censure your words or penalize you for disagreeing with the government? In Russia or China you would have been executed for so blatantly criticizing the government, and yet you sit in some comfortable chair, enjoying your life and moaning about how evil capatilism is.

I'm not even trying to argue that Communism is desirable, you can look up my older arguments with Alexandria in which I quite clearly oppose the construction of a dictatorship of the proletariate. What I object to is the pathetic statement that "Communism won't work" and your ridiculous 'evidence' for it being a mere "It hasn't worked yet".

You havn't even explained what "Communism won't work" means (you probably don't even know). Maybe you just remember hearing it from one of your friends in high school (that was the first time you heard it) and thought it was a great way to shut up communists because most of the communists you encountered were some neo-punks who thought it'd be cool to wear hammers and sickles on their jackets and don't know anything?

The most literal meaning is that a communist government system is inherently unstable. That's just ridiculous as it is the USSR it's self lasted from 1917 to the late eighties, give or take depending on when you count from. The reason why it collapsed was affected by so many other powerfull forces such as the cold war and just plain incompetent leadership as to make that argument extremely problematic at best.

More likely what you meant was that was some twisted argument that Communism isn't communism because communism leads to non-communism regardless of wether the people who want communism/non-communism actually want communism/non-communism.

...

Of course, you don't usually say that, you usually use rhetoric that presupposes that point and hope no body realizes you havn't actually made any argument or given any evidence to support it. And then of course when poeople do ask you for evidence you break out the big whiney rhetoric like "When did someone here last get killed for disagreeing with the government" actually people do get killed in capitalist countries for disagreeing, but that's only if they're a real hassle, more likely we lock them up for assorted periods of time or take away a portion of their livlihood. We charge them with things like "Disrupting the electoral process" if they do anything with a ballot aside from vote. Oh, did I mention we're not allowed to talk about the election until it's over?
http://electionresultscanada.com/pr010530a.html
http://www.bccla.org/pressreleases/02edibleballot.html

(notice how you don't see this stuff on CBC - but of course, that's Canada. The US would never do anything that un-democratic. So, how are the Guantanamo prisoners doing these days? Given them fair trials yet?)

You say that 37 million people died in communist countries. You say that millions of people starved because of the government, but you don't count how many starve in the US. You say conditions are horrible in Chinese sweat shops, but your country is the one encouraging them and allowing your corporations to be the ones to set them up. You say I'm leaning back in a nice chair, but you don't count the thousands that arn't. You say I have the ability to get a job in any field I want. But you don't count the thousands that don't.

And you condemn me for saying that Capitalism is evil? I condemn you for thinking that just because someone else was worse, that you don't have problems.

Other things you're wrong (or decided not to talk) about:
-China is actually more capitalist than Canada. So really it IS capitalism that is killing people for disagreeing with the government. I mean, more so than happens in N. America.
-In Russia I would not have been killed for this. Russia has arguably more freedom of speech than the USA does. Apparently you don't realize that the Cold war is over. So much for embracing 'fact'.
-The only 37 million statistic I can find in relation to China is the extreme-high end of how many they lost in WW2. Civilian + Millitary. A handfull of Tobacco CEOs are responsible for more than that.

 

[X-43D]

Communism and capitalism are both "statist" social structures. Thus communism is based on equality, capitalism is based on hierarchy. In capitalism private business owners take the role of government in economic decisions without any concern for those in need. Capitalists are egoists, communists are altruists.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Communism and capitalism are both "statist" social structures. Thus communism is based on equality, capitalism is based on hierarchy. In capitalism private business owners take the role of government in economic decisions without any concern for those in need. Capitalists are egoists, communists are altruists.

Actual governments that called themselves communist have all been statist - actually party dictatorships. Whether that is a necessary part of communism as Marx taught it is stilll undetermined. The part of the "vanguard party" in decision making and the repressed snobbery of the middle class marxist intellectuals toward actual working people ("too dumb to know their own interests") has to be dealt with.

 

[EL]

I've heard definitions from the extremes of Sweden being a communist country

Lol. Really? How insulting! Who said so? (I will personally hunt them down...)
With that definition the whole western Europe must be communistic.

 

[Dawguard]

You havn't even explained what "Communism won't work" means (you probably don't even know). Maybe you just remember hearing it from one of your friends in high school (that was the first time you heard it) and thought it was a great way to shut up communists because most of the communists you encountered were some neo-punks who thought it'd be cool to wear hammers and sickles on their jackets and don't know anything?

First of all, I was homeshcooled so the idea I simply absorbed my ideas from friends is impossible. Second, I came the logical conclusion of the inherent impossibility of communism on my one. It is best articulated in Machiavelli's famous book, The Prince
Many have dreamed up republics and principalities which have never in truth been known to exist; the gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so wide that a man who neglects what is actually done for what should be done moves toward self-destruction rather then self-preservation. The fact is that a man who wants to act vituously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous.
This is essentially my argument; that no matter how honorable the intentions of communism it is practically impossible due to the majority of mankind's inherent corruption. This is proven by the number of communist revalution that end in tragedy.

[QOUTE=Smurf]You say that 37 million people died in communist countries. You say that millions of people starved because of the government, but you don't count how many starve in the US. You say conditions are horrible in Chinese sweat shops, but your country is the one encouraging them and allowing your corporations to be the ones to set them up. You say I'm leaning back in a nice chair, but you don't count the thousands that arn't. You say I have the ability to get a job in any field I want. But you don't count the thousands that don't.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that 37 million people died in communist countries, I said that was the number killed when Mao took over China. Counting the USSR that number is significantly higher when Stalin and Lenin's purges are taken into acount.
Also, I am not defending business using Chinese sweat shops to get cheap goods. In my opinion we, the US, should impose trade tariffs so that manufacturors are penalized for behavior such as this. Never once have I defended what is done by 'big business', all I have done is shown the impossibility of communism. As for poor in capitalist countries and those who have little chance to improve their life, I've never said that they do not exist. They do count, but compared to those in communist countries the numbers are far lower. While we in the US may have a long way to go before beoming a perfect system of government, I find it ludicrous to compare it to places that are so much worse.
For the third time, I ask you to show me a country that has adopted communism and have the result positive. Three times I ask you to show me an example, and yet I have seen none. All this does is convince me that Machiavelli and I are correct, and that these wonderful ideals are practicaly impossible.
By the way, when referring to Russia, I meant the USSR. I apologize for the confusion.

 

[Smasherman]

Dawguard, what were the conditions in Cuba before the revolution there?

 

[Dawguard]

Dawguard, what were the conditions in Cuba before the revolution there?

In my understanding, Cuba was pretty messed up before Castro took power, but he certanly didn't make it any better. Bear in mind, I am not arguing about Cuba only, I am making a much broader statement, that communism as thought of by idealists is impossible. Cuba is a dictatorship, and you cannot argue otherwise. The USSR was a dictatorship; China certanly was. This is not true communism as held by the ideas, it is something entirely different. It is despotism; a country ruled by a totalitarian dictator. There has never once been, nor do I believe ever will be, a true, unified, communist nation working together for the good of everyone.

 

[Smasherman]

In my understanding, Cuba was pretty messed up before Castro took power, but he certanly didn't make it any better. Bear in mind, I am not arguing about Cuba only, I am making a much broader statement, that communism as thought of by idealists is impossible. Cuba is a dictatorship, and you cannot argue otherwise. The USSR was a dictatorship; China certanly was. This is not true communism as held by the ideas, it is something entirely different. It is despotism; a country ruled by a totalitarian dictator. There has never once been, nor do I believe ever will be, a true, unified, communist nation working together for the good of everyone.

Ok. I suppose we'll see exactly how much of a dictatorship Cuba is when Castro dies (which won't be very long, it seems). I honestly don't know the real state of Cuba politically, since I'm not exactly involved in Cuba's political process. So, I won't argue because I don't really have data to hold a position.

My point really is that Cuba is, in my understanding, doing better than it was before Castro took power. If nothing else, Cuba is doing better than many of its neighbors, since they train Doctors in Cuba to practice in their native nations. Cuba is socialist, though, not communist. Communism is very much an absolute ideal, much like true free trade, so government under either would have to be nearly negligible (sp?).

I consider communism to be essentially enlightened anarchy. I question whether or not anarchy, even if humans weren't messing things up themselves, would be able to stand against external threats well (like an incoming meteor, an epidemic, etc).

 

[Anttech]

It is despotism; a country ruled by a totalitarian dictator. There has never once been, nor do I believe ever will be, a true, unified, communist nation working together for the good of everyone.

not totally true, there was a bunch of nomads living somewhere in africa years ago who were totally communist... or something like that :-)

Anyway I aggree.. Communism is like a badly designed network, it will work providing you don't try and scale it.. Communism works for a small amount of people, but doesn't scale well, as we have seen already numerous times...