Total Posts:143|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Contradictory anti-socialist arguments

Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 10:46:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Commonly people will attack socialism on the grounds that the people, the 'bewildered herd', are idiots, and this is why communism 'doesn't work'; how does that make any sense when these same people vehemently argue that the 'communist states' of the Cold War are good examples of socialism, when they were all strict authoritarian dictatorships?

It's also often said that socialism benefits weak and lazy parasites and will endlessly persecute the rich and powerful in the interests of 'equality'. Again, how exactly was that exhibited in those 'communist societies'? Those countries were ruled by a small elite who held what can be called absolute power. There was no equality there. They were also the ones who enjoyed all the economic benefits and alone had the power to make decisions about the economy. This bears no resemblance to the definition of socialism previously attacked.

A theory which states that there should be no classes is obviously irreconcilable with examples of states which have featured extreme hierarchies. Arguing that socialism places too much importance on equality makes absolutely no sense when the examples you refer to are societies of extreme inequality. It honestly strikes me as incredibly stupid to think that socialists are being disingenuous when they claim the USSR was not socialist, because of how ridiculously obvious it is that it was not. Socialism is not defined by a large government, high taxes or large amounts of regulation. It's always stood for taking control of the economy out of the hands of elites and into the hands of the people, and replacing Tsars and businessmen with dictators and political appointees does absolutely nothing to give the people control of the economy.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 4:58:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 10:54:03 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Wocambs, go to bed dude. We'll worry about it in the morning.

Lol. No one ever responds to me when I make these. Either these posts are so convoluted as to make no sense to anyone or the f*ckers can't think of one good response. I'm trying to educate people here!
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 5:11:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 10:46:12 PM, Wocambs wrote:
Commonly people will attack socialism on the grounds that the people, the 'bewildered herd', are idiots, and this is why communism 'doesn't work'; how does that make any sense when these same people vehemently argue that the 'communist states' of the Cold War are good examples of socialism, when they were all strict authoritarian dictatorships?

It's also often said that socialism benefits weak and lazy parasites and will endlessly persecute the rich and powerful in the interests of 'equality'. Again, how exactly was that exhibited in those 'communist societies'? Those countries were ruled by a small elite who held what can be called absolute power. There was no equality there. They were also the ones who enjoyed all the economic benefits and alone had the power to make decisions about the economy. This bears no resemblance to the definition of socialism previously attacked.

A theory which states that there should be no classes is obviously irreconcilable with examples of states which have featured extreme hierarchies. Arguing that socialism places too much importance on equality makes absolutely no sense when the examples you refer to are societies of extreme inequality. It honestly strikes me as incredibly stupid to think that socialists are being disingenuous when they claim the USSR was not socialist, because of how ridiculously obvious it is that it was not. Socialism is not defined by a large government, high taxes or large amounts of regulation. It's always stood for taking control of the economy out of the hands of elites and into the hands of the people, and replacing Tsars and businessmen with dictators and political appointees does absolutely nothing to give the people control of the economy.

I totally agree with you, it's just insipid when people think that the USSR, China, everything bad in the world, etc. is socialism or communism, and that everything nice and cuddly in the world is capitalism, etc. I also just love how they like to completely disregard any historical analysis of these 'communist societies' and just listen to whatever bourgeois education tells them.

However, the sad part is that we have an unpopular opinion on the issue. So I really don't think that anyone (at least, no one on this site) is actually going to respond with an intelligent comment, or even a comment at all. Which is really just tragic, because I would love to have an actually intelligent conversation about socialism in the forums, but they usually just end with "no, you're wrong, socialism is evil and capitalism is the greatest ever".

F*cking morons.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:12:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 5:11:40 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 1/25/2015 10:46:12 PM, Wocambs wrote:
Commonly people will attack socialism on the grounds that the people, the 'bewildered herd', are idiots, and this is why communism 'doesn't work'; how does that make any sense when these same people vehemently argue that the 'communist states' of the Cold War are good examples of socialism, when they were all strict authoritarian dictatorships?

It's also often said that socialism benefits weak and lazy parasites and will endlessly persecute the rich and powerful in the interests of 'equality'. Again, how exactly was that exhibited in those 'communist societies'? Those countries were ruled by a small elite who held what can be called absolute power. There was no equality there. They were also the ones who enjoyed all the economic benefits and alone had the power to make decisions about the economy. This bears no resemblance to the definition of socialism previously attacked.

A theory which states that there should be no classes is obviously irreconcilable with examples of states which have featured extreme hierarchies. Arguing that socialism places too much importance on equality makes absolutely no sense when the examples you refer to are societies of extreme inequality. It honestly strikes me as incredibly stupid to think that socialists are being disingenuous when they claim the USSR was not socialist, because of how ridiculously obvious it is that it was not. Socialism is not defined by a large government, high taxes or large amounts of regulation. It's always stood for taking control of the economy out of the hands of elites and into the hands of the people, and replacing Tsars and businessmen with dictators and political appointees does absolutely nothing to give the people control of the economy.

I totally agree with you, it's just insipid when people think that the USSR, China, everything bad in the world, etc. is socialism or communism, and that everything nice and cuddly in the world is capitalism, etc. I also just love how they like to completely disregard any historical analysis of these 'communist societies' and just listen to whatever bourgeois education tells them.

However, the sad part is that we have an unpopular opinion on the issue. So I really don't think that anyone (at least, no one on this site) is actually going to respond with an intelligent comment, or even a comment at all. Which is really just tragic, because I would love to have an actually intelligent conversation about socialism in the forums, but they usually just end with "no, you're wrong, socialism is evil and capitalism is the greatest ever".

F*cking morons.

Thanks Chi. Good to know you're around.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:22:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The biggest problem with socialism (which isn't really a problem with socialism per se) is that not many socialist theorists pay much attention to the actual mechanics of government, and how they evolve historically over time. The result is that they don't balance power properly in their pursuit of an ideological motive, and the whole system goes to hell very quickly. Russia was doomed from the get go, for example, because of the centralized power required to control a demographically fractious empire, and the fact that geography and military considerations made the maintenance of their territory a necessity. Socialism also tends to disintegrate into charismatic dictatorship because it isn't pragmatic enough when it divides power. In order to survive, socialists have to compromise their principles a bit; perfect political egalitarianism is a disaster waiting to happen. When they are willing to do so, the system can work. It's ideological purity which ruins everything.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:21:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Not a contradiction here. One critique deals with the theory. The other deals with the examples of practical applications. Each reveal problems. Some overlap. Other's don't.
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 9:43:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Socialism is not defined by a large government, high taxes or large amounts of regulation. It's always stood for taking control of the economy out of the hands of elites and into the hands of the people, and replacing Tsars and businessmen with dictators and political appointees does absolutely nothing to give the people control of the economy.

How can't socialism require high taxes or strict regulation if the endgame is equality? If you take the power from the elites as you say and give it to the people without controlling events after that point, you'll probably see elites develop all over again. To avoid this, you need heavy intervention, and I think that heavy intervention can lead more easily to the kinds of things we saw in the USSR.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 10:10:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:43:05 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
Socialism is not defined by a large government, high taxes or large amounts of regulation. It's always stood for taking control of the economy out of the hands of elites and into the hands of the people, and replacing Tsars and businessmen with dictators and political appointees does absolutely nothing to give the people control of the economy.

How can't socialism require high taxes or strict regulation if the endgame is equality? If you take the power from the elites as you say and give it to the people without controlling events after that point, you'll probably see elites develop all over again. To avoid this, you need heavy intervention, and I think that heavy intervention can lead more easily to the kinds of things we saw in the USSR.

If your question is a rephrasing of 'If you distributed all the money in the world equally, the next day it would be just as unequal', then, yes, obviously if the same systems remain intact, then the result will be the same. It would be an incredibly stupid plan to simply reset the scores and not change the game. The fact that the game creates problems and appears to require constant intervention seems to be clear evidence that the game needs to change.

The point I was trying to make is that characterising people who advocate more state control of the economy as socialists makes no sense unless those people also advocate a more democratic state, or, as I do, the abolition of the state and private property. The reason businessmen are typically the targets of socialist criticism is that this system of controlling the economy is in principal undemocratic. Your authority over your property is, in theory, unquestionable. What the state does, however, is in theory something that the people can question. When there is a dictator, the system is in no way better, and probably even worse, because there are even fewer people with even more power controlling the economy. With governments like ours, they at least have to make sure that they win the election despite endlessly ignoring us or stabbing us in the back. It's called socialism because we believe the economy is a social issue, not a game for personal profit, and not something for politicians to govern for us.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 10:24:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 10:46:12 PM, Wocambs wrote:
Commonly people will attack socialism on the grounds that the people, the 'bewildered herd', are idiots, and this is why communism 'doesn't work'; how does that make any sense when these same people vehemently argue that the 'communist states' of the Cold War are good examples of socialism, when they were all strict authoritarian dictatorships?

It's also often said that socialism benefits weak and lazy parasites and will endlessly persecute the rich and powerful in the interests of 'equality'. Again, how exactly was that exhibited in those 'communist societies'? Those countries were ruled by a small elite who held what can be called absolute power. There was no equality there. They were also the ones who enjoyed all the economic benefits and alone had the power to make decisions about the economy. This bears no resemblance to the definition of socialism previously attacked.

A theory which states that there should be no classes is obviously irreconcilable with examples of states which have featured extreme hierarchies. Arguing that socialism places too much importance on equality makes absolutely no sense when the examples you refer to are societies of extreme inequality. It honestly strikes me as incredibly stupid to think that socialists are being disingenuous when they claim the USSR was not socialist, because of how ridiculously obvious it is that it was not. Socialism is not defined by a large government, high taxes or large amounts of regulation. It's always stood for taking control of the economy out of the hands of elites and into the hands of the people, and replacing Tsars and businessmen with dictators and political appointees does absolutely nothing to give the people control of the economy.

I do agree with a lot of what you said however I generally try to avoid large scale economic systems. I believe that each state or region requires a different economic system which would be tailored to its situation.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 11:10:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 10:24:47 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 1/25/2015 10:46:12 PM, Wocambs wrote:
Commonly people will attack socialism on the grounds that the people, the 'bewildered herd', are idiots, and this is why communism 'doesn't work'; how does that make any sense when these same people vehemently argue that the 'communist states' of the Cold War are good examples of socialism, when they were all strict authoritarian dictatorships?

It's also often said that socialism benefits weak and lazy parasites and will endlessly persecute the rich and powerful in the interests of 'equality'. Again, how exactly was that exhibited in those 'communist societies'? Those countries were ruled by a small elite who held what can be called absolute power. There was no equality there. They were also the ones who enjoyed all the economic benefits and alone had the power to make decisions about the economy. This bears no resemblance to the definition of socialism previously attacked.

A theory which states that there should be no classes is obviously irreconcilable with examples of states which have featured extreme hierarchies. Arguing that socialism places too much importance on equality makes absolutely no sense when the examples you refer to are societies of extreme inequality. It honestly strikes me as incredibly stupid to think that socialists are being disingenuous when they claim the USSR was not socialist, because of how ridiculously obvious it is that it was not. Socialism is not defined by a large government, high taxes or large amounts of regulation. It's always stood for taking control of the economy out of the hands of elites and into the hands of the people, and replacing Tsars and businessmen with dictators and political appointees does absolutely nothing to give the people control of the economy.

I do agree with a lot of what you said however I generally try to avoid large scale economic systems. I believe that each state or region requires a different economic system which would be tailored to its situation.

I don't really know what you mean. I think every single person wants their part in the economy to be something they can appreciate, and different groups of people are going to want to do things differently. I think if the world was such that people and groups could do their work their way, it would be a much happier world. I see that as a completely socialist desire. I don't know what good it would do though to play around with what 'justice' means in different areas though.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 3:52:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The thing about Communism is that somebody or some organization/government must be controlling the economy, otherwise inequalities will emerge.
Whoever is in control has power over the people and, depending on their moral character, they may game the system which they control for their own benefit. That is, in a communist state there will still be a group of wealthy elites.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 6:16:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 3:52:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The thing about Communism is that somebody or some organization/government must be controlling the economy, otherwise inequalities will emerge.

What? What do you mean, 'otherwise inequalities will emerge'? Can you give an explanation as to why?

Whoever is in control has power over the people and, depending on their moral character, they may game the system which they control for their own benefit. That is, in a communist state there will still be a group of wealthy elites.

Again, why exactly would that happen?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 8:36:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 6:16:44 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 1/28/2015 3:52:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The thing about Communism is that somebody or some organization/government must be controlling the economy, otherwise inequalities will emerge.

What? What do you mean, 'otherwise inequalities will emerge'? Can you give an explanation as to why?

When people are left to their own devices, some people will become more successful than others. Constant regulation by Government would be required to prevent this.

Whoever is in control has power over the people and, depending on their moral character, they may game the system which they control for their own benefit. That is, in a communist state there will still be a group of wealthy elites.

Again, why exactly would that happen?

I just showed why inequalities would emerge without Government. Or rather, are you asking why the Government officials would abuse their power?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 9:13:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 8:36:50 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/28/2015 6:16:44 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 1/28/2015 3:52:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The thing about Communism is that somebody or some organization/government must be controlling the economy, otherwise inequalities will emerge.

What? What do you mean, 'otherwise inequalities will emerge'? Can you give an explanation as to why?

When people are left to their own devices, some people will become more successful than others. Constant regulation by Government would be required to prevent this.

Not to be rude, but I don't think you understand the term 'equality' in the communist context. Just because someone may have be better at something or have a certain talent, doesn't mean a society is socially unequal. Communists more view inequality in the terms of dividing society into classes (specifically in the context of those who own capital, capitalists, and those who must work it for a wage, the working class). Commies want 'equality' in the sense that we want the class system itself abolished, in favor of a system that is classless.

Also, I don't really get exactly what you mean by 'more successful'. Do you mean they would make more money or become an 'entrepreneur'? Because that wouldn't happen in commie land because a) there is no money, and b) the means of production are controlled by the workers, so 'entrepreneurs' in the capitalistic sense wouldn't exist.

And I don't see how classes could emerge in a communist society when people are class-conscious and don't wish to be wage-slaves. Just like people today wouldn't want to be slaves or serfs.


Whoever is in control has power over the people and, depending on their moral character, they may game the system which they control for their own benefit. That is, in a communist state there will still be a group of wealthy elites.

Again, why exactly would that happen?

I just showed why inequalities would emerge without Government. Or rather, are you asking why the Government officials would abuse their power?

I'm really just asking why a government would emerge in a communist society in the first place (since it is stateless), and why it would end up with an economic class system (even though it is classless).
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 11:02:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 3:52:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The thing about Communism is that somebody or some organization/government must be controlling the economy, otherwise inequalities will emerge.
Whoever is in control has power over the people and, depending on their moral character, they may game the system which they control for their own benefit. That is, in a communist state there will still be a group of wealthy elites.

This is quite a hypocritical argument you're putting forward, no? You accuse communism of being susceptible to inequalities and wealthy elites who 'game the system'. I don't see how accusing us of the same injustices your favoured system is so clearly capable of producing is a valid argument for retaining your beliefs. In any case, as Chimera said, we aren't anarcho-capitalists, so I don't see why you're claiming that 'inequalities will emerge'. The whole point of a communist economy is that any participant controls it as much as any other participant. I think I made the point in my original post that it's pointless from a socialist perspective replacing the owner of a business with a politician who will have the same control.
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 8:01:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 6:16:44 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 1/28/2015 3:52:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The thing about Communism is that somebody or some organization/government must be controlling the economy, otherwise inequalities will emerge.

What? What do you mean, 'otherwise inequalities will emerge'? Can you give an explanation as to why?

Whoever is in control has power over the people and, depending on their moral character, they may game the system which they control for their own benefit. That is, in a communist state there will still be a group of wealthy elites.

Again, why exactly would that happen?

I think what Vox_Veritas is saying is that there won't be complete equality in communism. Just because it is intended to get rid of social classes doesn't mean it will, there are multiple communist societies that don't have equality. The group that is in power will often favor some more than others and those more favored by the government in a communist society are often given more. What it comes down to is your success is no longer determined by how hard you work or the choices you make, but how loyal you are to the government.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 11:37:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 8:01:06 AM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 1/28/2015 6:16:44 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 1/28/2015 3:52:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The thing about Communism is that somebody or some organization/government must be controlling the economy, otherwise inequalities will emerge.

What? What do you mean, 'otherwise inequalities will emerge'? Can you give an explanation as to why?

Whoever is in control has power over the people and, depending on their moral character, they may game the system which they control for their own benefit. That is, in a communist state there will still be a group of wealthy elites.

Again, why exactly would that happen?

I think what Vox_Veritas is saying is that there won't be complete equality in communism. Just because it is intended to get rid of social classes doesn't mean it will, there are multiple communist societies that don't have equality. The group that is in power will often favor some more than others and those more favored by the government in a communist society are often given more. What it comes down to is your success is no longer determined by how hard you work or the choices you make, but how loyal you are to the government.

I don't think you understand. There are no specifically communist societies alive today. If you are referring to the DPRK, Cuba, etc. then I can tell you that they don't even identify as communist. They identify as socialist (and even then, they don't really fit much if any of the criteria for a socialist society).

Within communism, there is no state, there are no classes, and workers have democratic control of the means of production. So, I don't see how a communist society would have a government, or any wealthy elite in power for that matter.
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 11:40:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 11:37:21 AM, Chimera wrote:
At 1/30/2015 8:01:06 AM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 1/28/2015 6:16:44 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 1/28/2015 3:52:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The thing about Communism is that somebody or some organization/government must be controlling the economy, otherwise inequalities will emerge.

What? What do you mean, 'otherwise inequalities will emerge'? Can you give an explanation as to why?

Whoever is in control has power over the people and, depending on their moral character, they may game the system which they control for their own benefit. That is, in a communist state there will still be a group of wealthy elites.

Again, why exactly would that happen?

I think what Vox_Veritas is saying is that there won't be complete equality in communism. Just because it is intended to get rid of social classes doesn't mean it will, there are multiple communist societies that don't have equality. The group that is in power will often favor some more than others and those more favored by the government in a communist society are often given more. What it comes down to is your success is no longer determined by how hard you work or the choices you make, but how loyal you are to the government.

I don't think you understand. There are no specifically communist societies alive today. If you are referring to the DPRK, Cuba, etc. then I can tell you that they don't even identify as communist. They identify as socialist (and even then, they don't really fit much if any of the criteria for a socialist society).

Within communism, there is no state, there are no classes, and workers have democratic control of the means of production. So, I don't see how a communist society would have a government, or any wealthy elite in power for that matter.

I don't mean anything, i was just saying what i thought Vax_Veritas's point was.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 11:45:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 11:40:19 AM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:37:21 AM, Chimera wrote:
At 1/30/2015 8:01:06 AM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 1/28/2015 6:16:44 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 1/28/2015 3:52:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The thing about Communism is that somebody or some organization/government must be controlling the economy, otherwise inequalities will emerge.

What? What do you mean, 'otherwise inequalities will emerge'? Can you give an explanation as to why?

Whoever is in control has power over the people and, depending on their moral character, they may game the system which they control for their own benefit. That is, in a communist state there will still be a group of wealthy elites.

Again, why exactly would that happen?

I think what Vox_Veritas is saying is that there won't be complete equality in communism. Just because it is intended to get rid of social classes doesn't mean it will, there are multiple communist societies that don't have equality. The group that is in power will often favor some more than others and those more favored by the government in a communist society are often given more. What it comes down to is your success is no longer determined by how hard you work or the choices you make, but how loyal you are to the government.

I don't think you understand. There are no specifically communist societies alive today. If you are referring to the DPRK, Cuba, etc. then I can tell you that they don't even identify as communist. They identify as socialist (and even then, they don't really fit much if any of the criteria for a socialist society).

Within communism, there is no state, there are no classes, and workers have democratic control of the means of production. So, I don't see how a communist society would have a government, or any wealthy elite in power for that matter.

I don't mean anything, i was just saying what i thought Vax_Veritas's point was.

I know, and I was replying to your post to tell you why I think the argument is ridiculous. Sorry if I came off as a little bit hostile though.
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 12:00:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 11:45:55 AM, Chimera wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:40:19 AM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:37:21 AM, Chimera wrote:
At 1/30/2015 8:01:06 AM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 1/28/2015 6:16:44 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 1/28/2015 3:52:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The thing about Communism is that somebody or some organization/government must be controlling the economy, otherwise inequalities will emerge.

What? What do you mean, 'otherwise inequalities will emerge'? Can you give an explanation as to why?

Whoever is in control has power over the people and, depending on their moral character, they may game the system which they control for their own benefit. That is, in a communist state there will still be a group of wealthy elites.

Again, why exactly would that happen?

I think what Vox_Veritas is saying is that there won't be complete equality in communism. Just because it is intended to get rid of social classes doesn't mean it will, there are multiple communist societies that don't have equality. The group that is in power will often favor some more than others and those more favored by the government in a communist society are often given more. What it comes down to is your success is no longer determined by how hard you work or the choices you make, but how loyal you are to the government.

I don't think you understand. There are no specifically communist societies alive today. If you are referring to the DPRK, Cuba, etc. then I can tell you that they don't even identify as communist. They identify as socialist (and even then, they don't really fit much if any of the criteria for a socialist society).

Within communism, there is no state, there are no classes, and workers have democratic control of the means of production. So, I don't see how a communist society would have a government, or any wealthy elite in power for that matter.

I don't mean anything, i was just saying what i thought Vax_Veritas's point was.

I know, and I was replying to your post to tell you why I think the argument is ridiculous. Sorry if I came off as a little bit hostile though.

Yeah, but i am not a fan of either socialism or communism.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 12:48:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 10:46:12 PM, Wocambs wrote:
Commonly people will attack socialism on the grounds that the people, the 'bewildered herd', are idiots, and this is why communism 'doesn't work';

Anarchism is attacked on the grounds that society need laws.

how does that make any sense when these same people vehemently argue that the 'communist states' of the Cold War are good examples of socialism, when they were all strict authoritarian dictatorships?

In Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, it Karl Marx wrote that each country will adopt a communist state, which by his own description would be despotic in nature. Only after every country has adopted communism, did Karl Marx believe these noble despots would willingly dissolve their dictatorships to make way for global anarchism.

I'm pretty sure he was smoking something when he wrote his manifesto.

It's also often said that socialism benefits weak and lazy parasites and will endlessly persecute the rich and powerful in the interests of 'equality'. Again, how exactly was that exhibited in those 'communist societies'? Those countries were ruled by a small elite who held what can be called absolute power. There was no equality there. They were also the ones who enjoyed all the economic benefits and alone had the power to make decisions about the economy. This bears no resemblance to the definition of socialism previously attacked.

For the average Joe, Communism benefited the weak. The inner party had special privileges, not available to the outer party. Classes were determined by socio-politics, not socio-economics. Communism only seeks to abolish socio-economic classes.

A theory which states that there should be no classes is obviously irreconcilable with examples of states which have featured extreme hierarchies. Arguing that socialism places too much importance on equality makes absolutely no sense when the examples you refer to are societies of extreme inequality. It honestly strikes me as incredibly stupid to think that socialists are being disingenuous when they claim the USSR was not socialist, because of how ridiculously obvious it is that it was not. Socialism is not defined by a large government, high taxes or large amounts of regulation. It's always stood for taking control of the economy out of the hands of elites and into the hands of the people, and replacing Tsars and businessmen with dictators and political appointees does absolutely nothing to give the people control of the economy.

Again, communism only seeks to abolish socio-economic classes, along with private ownership. Only after every country has adopted a communist regime, does Marx envision socio-political equality.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 5:07:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 12:48:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/25/2015 10:46:12 PM, Wocambs wrote:
Commonly people will attack socialism on the grounds that the people, the 'bewildered herd', are idiots, and this is why communism 'doesn't work';

Anarchism is attacked on the grounds that society need laws.

Anarchism is against rulers, not laws.


how does that make any sense when these same people vehemently argue that the 'communist states' of the Cold War are good examples of socialism, when they were all strict authoritarian dictatorships?

In Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, it Karl Marx wrote that each country will adopt a communist state, which by his own description would be despotic in nature. Only after every country has adopted communism, did Karl Marx believe these noble despots would willingly dissolve their dictatorships to make way for global anarchism.

I'm pretty sure he was smoking something when he wrote his manifesto.

1) Marx's manifesto hardly has anything to do with a communist society. Rather, it outlines Marx's theory of historical materialism (Chp. 1) then short term goals that Marx thinks are the precursors to a communist society (which he states will be stateless and classless, but gives no major detail as to what it would look like) (Chp. 2). He and Engels then go on to denounce other socialist movements as reformist (Chp. 3), then says Germany is on the eve of revolution, and they have made an alliance with the social democrats (who, ironically, have fizzled out into a reformist movement) and then he famously states, "Workers of the world, unite!". Nowhere in the book (besides a small amount of chapter 2) does he talk about communism, let alone communism having a state.

2) Marx wasn't an anarchist, and opposed anarchists like Bakunin in the First International. He also critiqued Proudhon in 'The Poverty of Philosophy', and Max Stirner in 'The Holy Family' and 'The German Ideology'.

3) The book was actually written as a programme for the Communist League, and is basically just Proto-Marxist propaganda.

4) Marx doesn't represent all communists, and neither does Engels.

I personally think you were smoking something when you wrote this post.


It's also often said that socialism benefits weak and lazy parasites and will endlessly persecute the rich and powerful in the interests of 'equality'. Again, how exactly was that exhibited in those 'communist societies'? Those countries were ruled by a small elite who held what can be called absolute power. There was no equality there. They were also the ones who enjoyed all the economic benefits and alone had the power to make decisions about the economy. This bears no resemblance to the definition of socialism previously attacked.

For the average Joe, Communism benefited the weak. The inner party had special privileges, not available to the outer party. Classes were determined by socio-politics, not socio-economics. Communism only seeks to abolish socio-economic classes.

Um, no. It seeks to abolish all classes.


A theory which states that there should be no classes is obviously irreconcilable with examples of states which have featured extreme hierarchies. Arguing that socialism places too much importance on equality makes absolutely no sense when the examples you refer to are societies of extreme inequality. It honestly strikes me as incredibly stupid to think that socialists are being disingenuous when they claim the USSR was not socialist, because of how ridiculously obvious it is that it was not. Socialism is not defined by a large government, high taxes or large amounts of regulation. It's always stood for taking control of the economy out of the hands of elites and into the hands of the people, and replacing Tsars and businessmen with dictators and political appointees does absolutely nothing to give the people control of the economy.

Again, communism only seeks to abolish socio-economic classes, along with private ownership. Only after every country has adopted a communist regime, does Marx envision socio-political equality.

Again, communism seeks to destroy all classes. Not just socio-economic ones. Even Marx stated that communism is classless and stateless.

Also, Marx and Engels ideas on socialism (that being, that a socialist state must wither away into a communist society), is not held by all communists, and definitely not held by all socialists.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 5:08:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 12:00:03 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:45:55 AM, Chimera wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:40:19 AM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:37:21 AM, Chimera wrote:
At 1/30/2015 8:01:06 AM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 1/28/2015 6:16:44 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 1/28/2015 3:52:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The thing about Communism is that somebody or some organization/government must be controlling the economy, otherwise inequalities will emerge.

What? What do you mean, 'otherwise inequalities will emerge'? Can you give an explanation as to why?

Whoever is in control has power over the people and, depending on their moral character, they may game the system which they control for their own benefit. That is, in a communist state there will still be a group of wealthy elites.

Again, why exactly would that happen?

I think what Vox_Veritas is saying is that there won't be complete equality in communism. Just because it is intended to get rid of social classes doesn't mean it will, there are multiple communist societies that don't have equality. The group that is in power will often favor some more than others and those more favored by the government in a communist society are often given more. What it comes down to is your success is no longer determined by how hard you work or the choices you make, but how loyal you are to the government.

I don't think you understand. There are no specifically communist societies alive today. If you are referring to the DPRK, Cuba, etc. then I can tell you that they don't even identify as communist. They identify as socialist (and even then, they don't really fit much if any of the criteria for a socialist society).

Within communism, there is no state, there are no classes, and workers have democratic control of the means of production. So, I don't see how a communist society would have a government, or any wealthy elite in power for that matter.

I don't mean anything, i was just saying what i thought Vax_Veritas's point was.

I know, and I was replying to your post to tell you why I think the argument is ridiculous. Sorry if I came off as a little bit hostile though.

Yeah, but i am not a fan of either socialism or communism.

Um, I never implied that you were?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 11:14:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 12:48:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/25/2015 10:46:12 PM, Wocambs wrote:
Commonly people will attack socialism on the grounds that the people, the 'bewildered herd', are idiots, and this is why communism 'doesn't work';

Anarchism is attacked on the grounds that society need laws.

You gonna try to prove that? Society needs organisation, i.e. 'in order for society to function, it needs to function'. Such a truism hardly proves the bizarre, religiously dogmatic assertion that 'society needs laws'.

how does that make any sense when these same people vehemently argue that the 'communist states' of the Cold War are good examples of socialism, when they were all strict authoritarian dictatorships?

In Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, it Karl Marx wrote that each country will adopt a communist state, which by his own description would be despotic in nature. Only after every country has adopted communism, did Karl Marx believe these noble despots would willingly dissolve their dictatorships to make way for global anarchism.

I'm not a Marxist.

I'm pretty sure he was smoking something when he wrote his manifesto.

Many fine works have been written while smoking something.

It's also often said that socialism benefits weak and lazy parasites and will endlessly persecute the rich and powerful in the interests of 'equality'. Again, how exactly was that exhibited in those 'communist societies'? Those countries were ruled by a small elite who held what can be called absolute power. There was no equality there. They were also the ones who enjoyed all the economic benefits and alone had the power to make decisions about the economy. This bears no resemblance to the definition of socialism previously attacked.

For the average Joe, Communism benefited the weak. The inner party had special privileges, not available to the outer party. Classes were determined by socio-politics, not socio-economics. Communism only seeks to abolish socio-economic classes.

That last statement is exactly why I made the comment that it is completely contradictory for a socialist to want to replace owners with politicians. As I think I said earlier, it is nothing but propaganda or ignorant stupidity to claim that the USSR was genuinely communist. I also struggle to see how your argument here could possibly lead to the conclusion that "Communism benefited the weak". I mean seriously, look at how schizophrenic your argument is: 'Communism benefits the weak, because communism benefits those with political power'. If you don't see that as entirely contradictory, then please explain how it is 'weakness' to become an elite member of a dictatorial government.

A theory which states that there should be no classes is obviously irreconcilable with examples of states which have featured extreme hierarchies. Arguing that socialism places too much importance on equality makes absolutely no sense when the examples you refer to are societies of extreme inequality. It honestly strikes me as incredibly stupid to think that socialists are being disingenuous when they claim the USSR was not socialist, because of how ridiculously obvious it is that it was not. Socialism is not defined by a large government, high taxes or large amounts of regulation. It's always stood for taking control of the economy out of the hands of elites and into the hands of the people, and replacing Tsars and businessmen with dictators and political appointees does absolutely nothing to give the people control of the economy.

Again, communism only seeks to abolish socio-economic classes, along with private ownership. Only after every country has adopted a communist regime, does Marx envision socio-political equality.

I prefer to read Kropotkin and Bakunin. There is no socialism without anarchism, and no anarchism without socialism. In the USSR, the politicians were the owner of the economy; in the US the owners of the economy are your politicians. Someone who supports the USSR may as well support the US too, unless they are particularly hung up on what kind of machiavellianism you should have to perform to become powerful. Instead of reading Marx like some kind of socialist Bible maybe you should address some other ideas on the matter.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 11:22:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 5:10:27 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Herd instincts are fear instincts.

Most people don't like to live in fear.

Oh, missed your comment there parrot.

What kind of argument are you trying to make here? We currently live under great fear - that is how you maintain power when you so clearly act against the interests of your people. Be afraid, little parrot, of rapists, murderers, terrorists, immigrants, communists, anarchists and dictators. Only the government can save you from them. Be afraid, little parrot, of poverty. Only the rich can save you from that. Your fear will make you meek, obedient and selfish, and you won't see that the interests of the rich and powerful are directly antagonistic to yours, because they cannot be rich and powerful unless everyone else is poor and powerless.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 11:23:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 8:01:06 AM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 1/28/2015 6:16:44 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 1/28/2015 3:52:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The thing about Communism is that somebody or some organization/government must be controlling the economy, otherwise inequalities will emerge.

What? What do you mean, 'otherwise inequalities will emerge'? Can you give an explanation as to why?

Whoever is in control has power over the people and, depending on their moral character, they may game the system which they control for their own benefit. That is, in a communist state there will still be a group of wealthy elites.

Again, why exactly would that happen?

I think what Vox_Veritas is saying is that there won't be complete equality in communism. Just because it is intended to get rid of social classes doesn't mean it will, there are multiple communist societies that don't have equality. The group that is in power will often favor some more than others and those more favored by the government in a communist society are often given more. What it comes down to is your success is no longer determined by how hard you work or the choices you make, but how loyal you are to the government.

'There is no socialism without anarchism, and no anarchism without socialism. In the USSR, the politicians were the owner of the economy; in the US the owners of the economy are your politicians. Someone who supports the USSR may as well support the US too, unless they are particularly hung up on what kind of machiavellianism you should have to perform to become powerful. Instead of reading Marx like some kind of socialist Bible maybe you should address some other ideas on the matter'

'Your fear will make you meek, obedient and selfish, and you won't see that the interests of the rich and powerful are directly antagonistic to yours, because they cannot be rich and powerful unless everyone else is poor and powerless'
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 11:36:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 11:22:00 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/26/2015 5:10:27 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Herd instincts are fear instincts.

Most people don't like to live in fear.

Oh, missed your comment there parrot.

What kind of argument are you trying to make here? We currently live under great fear - that is how you maintain power when you so clearly act against the interests of your people. Be afraid, little parrot, of rapists, murderers, terrorists, immigrants, communists, anarchists and dictators. Only the government can save you from them. Be afraid, little parrot, of poverty. Only the rich can save you from that. Your fear will make you meek, obedient and selfish, and you won't see that the interests of the rich and powerful are directly antagonistic to yours, because they cannot be rich and powerful unless everyone else is poor and powerless.

I disagree.