PDA

View Full Version : North Korea unveils heir, Kim Jong-un, and its military might



Rockntractor
10-10-2010, 09:27 AM
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/north-korea-unveils-heir-kim-jong-un-and-its-military-might/story-e6frg6so-1225936840052

NORTH Korea unleashed a huge display of military might at a 65th anniversary parade, overseen by heir-apparent Kim Jong-un.

As the regime celebrated its longevity and plans for leadership succession, news emerged of the death of one of the Stalinist state's most senior defectors, Hwang Jang-yop, the target of assassination attempts by North Korea.

South Korean police said the 87-year-old's death was not suspicious, but a report in the Korea Herald said intelligence authorities in Seoul were investigating the possibility of assassination.

At the parade in Pyongyang's enormous Kim Il-sung Square, thousands of soldiers marched in square formations before the regime's elite, and foreign diplomats and officials from China, to celebrate the 65th anniversary of the Korean Workers' Party.

Missile trucks, tanks, artillery pieces and armoured personal carriers also rumbled through the square during the parade, which was televised live by North Korea's state-run media. Unusually, selected international television networks were invited to broadcast the parade in a sign of the regime's desire to emphasise its military strength and the successful implementation of its leadership succession.



The telecast included close-up shots of the dictator, Kim Jong-il, and his son on the balcony overseeing the parade. Kim Jong-il, who is believed to have suffered a stroke in 2008, appeared more robust, although he was limping slightly.

Dressed in his standard khaki Mao suit, the dictator occasionally clapped and raised his right hand to salute the thousands of goose-stepping troops. His portly son, clad in a dark Mao suit, also clapped and saluted.




You just want to pinch those fat little cheeks!

m00
10-10-2010, 10:39 AM
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2010/10/10/1225936/803647-kim-jong-un.jpg

his son looks like a bond villain.

Odysseus
10-10-2010, 11:09 AM
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2010/10/10/1225936/803647-kim-jong-un.jpg

his son looks like a bond villain.
His dad met almost all of the criteria for being a Bond villain:


Jumpsuit: Check
Army of obedient drones: Check
Nuclear weapons program: Check
Penchant for kidnapping beautiful women: Check
Isolated hideout: Check
Fluffy white cat: X


He was just one fluffy white cat away.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-10-2010, 05:47 PM
I dont know if I would call the DPRK a Stalinist state. That seems like a little bit of a reach.

m00
10-10-2010, 05:51 PM
I dont know if I would call the DPRK a Stalinist state. That seems like a little bit of a reach.

Well, it's a Democratic People's Republic. What else would it be. Liberal Socialism? Social Liberalism? Okay, I can buy that. :D

hampshirebrit
10-10-2010, 05:52 PM
I dont know if I would call the DPRK a Stalinist state. That seems like a little bit of a reach.

You have to be kidding.

The DRPK is the only surviving Stalinist state on the planet. Why would you think that's "a reach"?

KhrushchevsShoe
10-10-2010, 05:56 PM
You have to be kidding.

The DRPK is the only surviving Stalinist state on the planet. Why would you think that's "a reach"?

I dont think there are any Stalinist states left, and there may have only ever been one.

The communist party structure in the DPRK is very different than what it was in the USSR. The Red Army never had the political power the People's Army has. That's not to say it didn't have influence, it just wasn't a wing of the party itself.

Rockntractor
10-10-2010, 06:07 PM
You have to be kidding.

The DRPK is the only surviving Stalinist state on the planet. Why would you think that's "a reach"?

You stand a better chance of having an intelligent conversation with a bag of lawn clippings than you do with KhrushchevsShoe.

hampshirebrit
10-10-2010, 06:08 PM
It's a Stalinist mausolocracy. They worship dead Kims.

Will you settle for that?

Whatever. Your precious DRPK is a basket case.

Someone who's smarter and stronger than the rest of NK society has co-opted and perverted an entire country into perpetual worship of a monster and his family, using communism as a shield.

Doesn't say much for communism, does it, that that could happen.

m00
10-10-2010, 06:09 PM
It's a Stalinist mausolocracy. They worship dead Kims.

Will you settle for that?

Whatever. Your precious DRPK is a basket case.

Someone who's smarter and stronger than the rest of NK society has co-opted and perverted an entire country into perpetual worship of a monster and his family, using communism as a shield.

Doesn't say much for communism, does it, that that could happen.

Communism is the victim here.

hampshirebrit
10-10-2010, 06:10 PM
Communism is the victim here.

No, communism is the enabler, not the victim.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-10-2010, 06:11 PM
It's a Stalinist mausolocracy. They worship dead Kims.

Will you settle for that?

Whatever. Your precious DRPK is a basket case.

Someone who's smarter and stronger than the rest of NK society has co-opted and perverted an entire country into perpetual worship of a monster and his family, using communism as a shield.

Doesn't say much for communism, does it, that that could happen.

If the DPRK were Stalinist it wouldn't be so much of a failure, and that's not meant to give much credit (if any) to Stalin himself. They took Soviet policies that by and large didn't work and made them worse. The only thing that keeps them from being a failed state is how ruthless they are dealing with any sort of dissent.

hampshirebrit
10-10-2010, 06:20 PM
If the DPRK were Stalinist it wouldn't be so much of a failure, and that's not meant to give much credit (if any) to Stalin himself. They took Soviet policies that by and large didn't work and made them worse. The only thing that keeps them from being a failed state is how ruthless they are dealing with any sort of dissent.

Bullshit. You are not well versed in your chosen subject. Stalinism is a personality cult.

The more Stalinist the state becomes, the bigger the failure it will be.

The DPRK is a living laboratory. Daily, the state confirms failure. Daily, people in the DPRK starve to death.

If it helps you to avoid the truth, then call it Kim-ism. It is the same thing.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-10-2010, 06:57 PM
Bullshit. You are not well versed in your chosen subject. Stalinism is a personality cult.

The more Stalinist the state becomes, the bigger the failure it will be.

The DPRK is a living laboratory. Daily, the state confirms failure. Daily, people in the DPRK starve to death.

If it helps you to avoid the truth, then call it Kim-ism. It is the same thing.

Oh, I thought you meant Stalinism outside the context of the Cold War. Like actual politics of these countries.

I dont care about the other meaning, its kind of stupid.

Odysseus
10-10-2010, 07:29 PM
I dont think there are any Stalinist states left, and there may have only ever been one.

The communist party structure in the DPRK is very different than what it was in the USSR. The Red Army never had the political power the People's Army has. That's not to say it didn't have influence, it just wasn't a wing of the party itself.
Hmmm... How shall we define Stalinist, then?

Wikipedia: "Stalinism, when used in its common derogatory sense, refers to socialist states that use secret police, propaganda, and bureaucratic central planning of the economy, to enforce their rule."
Encyclopedia Britannica, "Stalinism is associated with a regime of terror and totalitarian rule."

By either definition, North Korea fits the bill, as does Cuba. Zimbabwe and Venezuela also fit the bill.

If the DPRK were Stalinist it wouldn't be so much of a failure, and that's not meant to give much credit (if any) to Stalin himself. They took Soviet policies that by and large didn't work and made them worse. The only thing that keeps them from being a failed state is how ruthless they are dealing with any sort of dissent.
No, they are a failed state, by every objective measure. What they are not is an anarchic state.

Oh, I thought you meant Stalinism outside the context of the Cold War. Like actual politics of these countries.

I dont care about the other meaning, its kind of stupid.
How does the DPRK not meet your definition? What in their policies does not conform to Stalin's policies? Kim Il Sung was put in power by Stalin. He based his governing structures on the structures in place in the Soviet Union at the time, and the only difference is that when Kim Il Sung died, there was no Khrushchev waiting in the wings to take power and denounce him. Instead, Kim Jong Il maintained the same government structure and personality cult. If anything, the Norks may be more Stalinist than Stalin, owing to how much longer the Kims have been perpetuating the same policies.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-11-2010, 01:16 AM
Hmmm... How shall we define Stalinist, then?

Wikipedia: "Stalinism, when used in its common derogatory sense, refers to socialist states that use secret police, propaganda, and bureaucratic central planning of the economy, to enforce their rule."
Encyclopedia Britannica, "Stalinism is associated with a regime of terror and totalitarian rule."

By either definition, North Korea fits the bill, as does Cuba. Zimbabwe and Venezuela also fit the bill.

No, they are a failed state, by every objective measure. What they are not is an anarchic state.

How does the DPRK not meet your definition? What in their policies does not conform to Stalin's policies? Kim Il Sung was put in power by Stalin. He based his governing structures on the structures in place in the Soviet Union at the time, and the only difference is that when Kim Il Sung died, there was no Khrushchev waiting in the wings to take power and denounce him. Instead, Kim Jong Il maintained the same government structure and personality cult. If anything, the Norks may be more Stalinist than Stalin, owing to how much longer the Kims have been perpetuating the same policies.

What are the means of power succession in the DPRK? Because I dont think you've figured it out just yet.

Sonnabend
10-11-2010, 02:15 AM
What are the means of power succession in the DPRK? Because I dont think you've figured it out just yet.

Cold blooded murder, as in Stalin's time and method. The DPRK has its secret police, the USSR had the NKVD..and SMERSH.

Zathras
10-11-2010, 02:33 AM
They took Soviet policies that by and large didn't work and made them worse. The only thing that keeps them from being a failed state is how ruthless they are dealing with any sort of dissent.

So you're saying that they took all of the Soviet policies then.

noonwitch
10-11-2010, 08:37 AM
Well, it's a Democratic People's Republic. What else would it be. Liberal Socialism? Social Liberalism? Okay, I can buy that. :D


A large scale version of Jonestown, Guyana.

Odysseus
10-11-2010, 11:10 AM
What are the means of power succession in the DPRK? Because I dont think you've figured it out just yet.

ROFLOL!!! You're seizing on the one difference, that, unlike Stalin, the Kims designate their own heirs, rather than allowing the top thugs to slug it out? Would that make it a monarchy in your book, rather than a communist dictatorship?

Too funny. You pick up on the most superficial difference in order to make the case that North Korea isn't a Stalinist regime. Meanwhile, the fundamental similarities, the mass terror, the personality cult around the leadership, the use of famine as a tool to suppress dissent, the totalitarian security apparatus, etc., none of that matters.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-11-2010, 05:45 PM
ROFLOL!!! You're seizing on the one difference, that, unlike Stalin, the Kims designate their own heirs, rather than allowing the top thugs to slug it out? Would that make it a monarchy in your book, rather than a communist dictatorship?

Too funny. You pick up on the most superficial difference in order to make the case that North Korea isn't a Stalinist regime. Meanwhile, the fundamental similarities, the mass terror, the personality cult around the leadership, the use of famine as a tool to suppress dissent, the totalitarian security apparatus, etc., none of that matters.

I would say how you chose the next ruler of a country is pretty important stuff, or at least more than superficial. But yea you kind of figured it out there, it's a monarchy more than a communist regime.

Arguing with you over this is pretty much useless. You dont know what the hell communism actually is; how having heirs to what amounts to a throne is about as "un"-communist as you can possibly get. You never will, you've poisoned yourself with the stupid.

Your girlfriend is gonna bust into this thread with his usual psychotic rant pretty shortly after this post, so...

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/4/25/129167157391801999.jpg

KhrushchevsShoe
10-11-2010, 05:45 PM
Cold blooded murder, as in Stalin's time and method. The DPRK has its secret police, the USSR had the NKVD..and SMERSH.

WRONG!

Wei Wu Wei
10-11-2010, 05:48 PM
Dude these people graduated from Glenn Beck University.

What is Communism?
A. No freedom
B. Taking away my stuff
C. The bad guy in Rocky IV
D. Nazis
E. All of the Above.

Well done! Now go out and fight for your freedoms!

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-11-2010, 05:52 PM
Dude these people graduated from Glenn Beck University.

What is Communism?
A. No freedom
B. Taking away my stuff
C. The bad guy in Rocky IV
D. Nazis
E. All of the Above.

Well done! Now go out and fight for your freedoms!

No, communism is choice A.
That is ultimately what it leads to.
This country will NEVER go communist voluntarily, so there's either two ways it will go:

1) Through force or reduction of the population.
2) Through softening communism to make it appear gentler and nicer than it is.

It seems neo-communists like yourself have chosen the second option--Gradualism, along with propaganda about the ''evils'' of capitalism. Once option 2 is accomplished and the masses are swayed, you will move to option A to deal with any of the remaining skeptics. I see the gameplan here.

Communism is still communism, no matter how much you try to gloss it over. It is anti-human in that the very nature of capitalism is against our nature as described by Darwin.

Wei Wu Wei
10-11-2010, 05:54 PM
Yes young grasshopper. Communism is communism.

Now take the real radical leap and see how communism isn't.


edit: also a joke about The Prophet Darwin and His Revelation on Human Nature

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-11-2010, 05:57 PM
Yes young grasshopper. Communism is communism.

Now take the real radical leap and see how communism isn't.

You guys had your chance, in the USSR, in Cuba, in China, it has been tried; it has failed. It failed with the early colonists of this country who attempted to try a communal way of living. It will not, and cannot, work in a country with over 300 million, so therefore you and the other neo-communists would probably try and move to reduce the population to make it a more "communist friendly" population level.
Communism only works in small groups, and even then eventually fails.

hampshirebrit
10-11-2010, 05:58 PM
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/4/25/129167157391801999.jpg

LOL :D

No need to bail so soon, surely.

Calm down, chaps, please. :D

Odysseus
10-11-2010, 06:57 PM
I would say how you chose the next ruler of a country is pretty important stuff, or at least more than superficial. But yea you kind of figured it out there, it's a monarchy more than a communist regime.
And what you fail to see is that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Arguing with you over this is pretty much useless. You dont know what the hell communism actually is; how having heirs to what amounts to a throne is about as "un"-communist as you can possibly get. You never will, you've poisoned yourself with the stupid.
Well, from your point of view it's useless, because you've got nothing to bring to the argument. Clearly, one of us doesn't know what communism is, and I'm betting that it's the guy who still thinks that it's viable. But, let's go back to first principles. What is communism? First and foremost, communism is an economic doctrine. It entails state ownership of the means of production under a dictatorship of the proletariat, but there is nothing in Marx about how that is to be passed on. In other words, a state that owns everything that is run by the son of the previous ruler can be just as Marxist as a state run by the survivor of the scramble for power after the death of the previous thug. The critical thing is not how the thug in chief is chosen, it is that the thug in chief runs a state that owns everything and imposes terror on everyone. Second, even the Soviets had inherited privileges. The communists in the USSR always ensured that their kids had the best of everything, including first crack at universities, jobs, apartments, you name it. Communism in theory was about elimination of privilege, but in practice, it was about entrenching it, and the refusal to see that is how you have internalized the stupid.

Your girlfriend is gonna bust into this thread with his usual psychotic rant pretty shortly after this post, so...

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/4/25/129167157391801999.jpg
In the words of the only Marx worth quoting (Groucho), "We got rid of one of them, and one like that is worth three normal ones."

Dude these people graduated from Glenn Beck University.

What is Communism?
A. No freedom
B. Taking away my stuff
C. The bad guy in Rocky IV
D. Nazis
E. All of the Above.

Well done! Now go out and fight for your freedoms!
Do it every day, thanks. And yours, too.

As for what communism is, I stand by my definition above. But Reagan had a superb line about the difference between communists and anti-communists:

"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

But, you also had a telling comment on communism, or as you put it, socialism. Perhaps you need a refresher?


Let me say unequivocally, as many liberals have said, that the 20th century experiment of actual socialism was an absolute political ,economic, ethical, and social FAILURE!
Absolutely.
No one is talking about going back to the USSR or starting a new Leninist party.
Not anyone.
You're arguing against dead ideas and I agree that those policies failed and we should learn from those failures.

The first thing to learn from failure is not to repeat it.

LOL :D

No need to bail so soon, surely.

Calm down, chaps, please. :D

Oh, let him go. It's not like it's that far from his computer to his refrigerator.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-11-2010, 08:10 PM
Frankly I just couldn't resist.


Clearly, one of us doesn't know what communism is, and I'm betting that it's the guy who still thinks that it's viable.
Never said policies enacted by the Soviet Union or DPRK were viable. In fact I said the opposite, because they didn't work. I'm not a communist. I'm not a Soviet-sympathizer or whatever. I'm not a monarchist.

I'm not any of those. You, or somebody else, inevitably will insist that I fit this caricature that Glenn Beck or whoever has brainwashed you into believing exists around every corner. Just remember that I'm none of those things no matter how badly you want me to be.


But, let's go back to first principles. What is communism? First and foremost, communism is an economic doctrine. It entails state ownership of the means of production under a dictatorship of the proletariat, but there is nothing in Marx about how that is to be passed on. In other words, a state that owns everything that is run by the son of the previous ruler can be just as Marxist as a state run by the survivor of the scramble for power after the death of the previous thug.

Nope communism is not a economic doctrine. You may be thinking of socialism? That often the economic to communism's political. When a communist party is created it is often supposed to represent the workers as a political entity. How they typically intend to fulfill these policy goals is some form of socialism. Do you understand the difference here? Communist=Political and Socialist=Economic.

Two very different things politics and economics.

You know, I've actually read some Karl Marx and there is strikingly little about how a state should be run. Its more about the toil of the working class and how revolution is inevitable in all industrialized countries. He thinks capitalism is unsustainable, and reading him you kind of start to agree with it. So while he's eager to make a diagnosis of the problem he doesn't really fill out a prescription. Its a user-generated solution, the Soviets decided to create a bloated federation of corrupt republics and bureaucracies. That doesn't mean that Marx wanted it that way, he never stipulated how you would go about creating your new worker's paradise just that you had a big ole revolution against the capitalists and figured something out. Its a political book and not so much economic. This kind of fits my distinction between communists and socialists.


The critical thing is not how the thug in chief is chosen, it is that the thug in chief runs a state that owns everything and imposes terror on everyone. Second, even the Soviets had inherited privileges. The communists in the USSR always ensured that their kids had the best of everything, including first crack at universities, jobs, apartments, you name it

Oh yeah... this is like the tip of the iceberg. You could bribe a bureaucrat for just about anything. Living in Latvia but born to parents who are Kazakh and Russian? Getting discriminated against by those Latvian's sure does suck, luckily you can just pay the guy in the passport office to become Latvian! Then you're purged or something because Stalin didn't like Latvians that day, I dont know. It was fucked up.

But lets not forget that certain members of certain political families get into certain Ivy League schools because a certain dad knows certain people.


As for what communism is, I stand by my definition above. But Reagan had a superb line about the difference between communists and anti-communists:

"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

DOHOHOHO. Reagan understood one thing: Borrow money to buy ridiculous weapons systems because he knew the Soviets couldn't afford butter and bullets. Its depressing because that idea has done more to hurt America than it did to knock out the Soviets.


The first thing to learn from failure is not to repeat it.

This is something nobody in this thread is asking for. You're just imagining it.

m00
10-11-2010, 09:13 PM
Dude these people graduated from Glenn Beck University.

What is Communism?
A. No freedom
B. Taking away my stuff
C. The bad guy in Rocky IV
D. Nazis
E. All of the Above.

Well done! Now go out and fight for your freedoms!

Didn't you post a thread with a video where a guy talked about how property shouldn't be a right?

Wei Wu Wei
10-11-2010, 09:28 PM
Frankly I just couldn't resist.

It's always refreshing to hear some sense around these parts.



Never said policies enacted by the Soviet Union or DPRK were viable. In fact I said the opposite, because they didn't work. I'm not a communist. I'm not a Soviet-sympathizer or whatever. I'm not a monarchist.

I'm not any of those. You, or somebody else, inevitably will insist that I fit this caricature that Glenn Beck or whoever has brainwashed you into believing exists around every corner. Just remember that I'm none of those things no matter how badly you want me to be.

Just let them form their crazy image of you. Before long you're a molotive-holding, unemployed, white-slave-having LSD-tripping gay revolutionary teacher of Sharia Law (in a public school mind you)



Nope communism is not a economic doctrine. You may be thinking of socialism? That often the economic to communism's political. When a communist party is created it is often supposed to represent the workers as a political entity. How they typically intend to fulfill these policy goals is some form of socialism. Do you understand the difference here? Communist=Political and Socialist=Economic.

Two very different things politics and economics.

Finally someone is actually talking about real things.


You know, I've actually read some Karl Marx and there is strikingly little about how a state should be run. Its more about the toil of the working class and how revolution is inevitable in all industrialized countries. He thinks capitalism is unsustainable, and reading him you kind of start to agree with it. So while he's eager to make a diagnosis of the problem he doesn't really fill out a prescription. Its a user-generated solution, the Soviets decided to create a bloated federation of corrupt republics and bureaucracies. That doesn't mean that Marx wanted it that way, he never stipulated how you would go about creating your new worker's paradise just that you had a big ole revolution against the capitalists and figured something out. Its a political book and not so much economic. This kind of fits my distinction between communists and socialists.

and, in the opinion of some, this is exactly why the idea of radical emancipation at the core of Marx's theory survives even as different methods of bringing it to fruition are tried and failed. The idea needs to be reinvented with learned lessons from the past. No one is arguing about bring back the USSR but for some reason that's the only thing people want to tlak about.




But lets not forget that certain members of certain political families get into certain Ivy League schools because a certain dad knows certain people.

lol no the entrance exam is a pair of boots, the straps of which you must use to pull yourself up a standard height.



This is something nobody in this thread is asking for. You're just imagining it.

Half the time they're posting like mad and writing long posts arguging against things that were never said by anyone here.

Articulate_Ape
10-11-2010, 09:30 PM
I dont think there are any Stalinist states left, and there may have only ever been one.

The communist party structure in the DPRK is very different than what it was in the USSR. The Red Army never had the political power the People's Army has. That's not to say it didn't have influence, it just wasn't a wing of the party itself.

I am amazed that you can type and breathe at the same time.

Rockntractor
10-11-2010, 09:32 PM
It's always refreshing to hear some sense around these parts.




Just let them form their crazy image of you. Before long you're a molotive-holding, unemployed, white-slave-having LSD-tripping gay revolutionary teacher of Sharia Law (in a public school mind you)




Finally someone is actually talking about real things.



and, in the opinion of some, this is exactly why the idea of radical emancipation at the core of Marx's theory survives even as different methods of bringing it to fruition are tried and failed. The idea needs to be reinvented with learned lessons from the past. No one is arguing about bring back the USSR but for some reason that's the only thing people want to tlak about.





lol no the entrance exam is a pair of boots, the straps of which you must use to pull yourself up a standard height.




Half the time they're posting like mad and writing long posts arguging against things that were never said by anyone here.

I hate to interrupt your circle jerk but why don't you two get a room or join a progressive site?:confused:

Rockntractor
10-11-2010, 09:35 PM
I am amazed that you can type and breathe at the same time.
I'm betting he wears adult diapers while he is posting.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-12-2010, 12:06 AM
I am amazed that you can type and breathe at the same time.

If those are your standards of amazement you must live an incredibly happy life.

Rockntractor
10-12-2010, 12:11 AM
If those are your standards of amazement you must live an incredibly happy life.

He is right, your really not very well suited for this.
Maybe they could give you a different job like plugging campaign signs into lawns or cleaning up after rallies.
I am starting to feel sorry for you, you don't seem to know.

Articulate_Ape
10-12-2010, 12:51 AM
http://www.firstshowing.net/img/pixar-up-carl-russell-cci-img.jpg

Sonnabend
10-12-2010, 02:25 AM
Cold blooded murder, as in Stalin's time and method. The DPRK (http://www.nytimes.com/info/north-korea/) has its secret police, the USSR had the NKVD..and SMERSH.Exactly what is wrong. Cold blooded murder?

Stalin killed millions.

The NKVD? Was real. Is now the KGB.

Does the DPRK have its secret police? Yes.

Did SMERSH exist? Yes. (oh wait, KS is going to tell me SMERSH never existed. More fool him.)

Was it responsible for murders? Yes.

Zathras
10-12-2010, 08:52 AM
It's always refreshing to hear some sense around these parts.

Yeah, but too bad for idiots like you it's always in response to moronic postings by you, KS and Gator.

noonwitch
10-12-2010, 10:36 AM
Exactly what is wrong. Cold blooded murder?

Stalin killed millions.

The NKVD? Was real. Is now the KGB.

Does the DPRK have its secret police? Yes.

Did SMERSH exist? Yes. (oh wait, KS is going to tell me SMERSH never existed. More fool him.)

Was it responsible for murders? Yes.



The crimes committed by North Korea over the years are pretty awful. They kidnapped japanese kids and raised them as spies, they starve their own people, they live in the dark ages, and there's just no justification for any of it.

Look at how they held Lisa Ling's sister for all those months, probably because they were mad about the story Lisa did for ABC about how horrible their country is. The whole time she was there, she and her crew were followed around by the secret police. They got it all on camera.

Odysseus
10-12-2010, 01:37 PM
Frankly I just couldn't resist.
Never said policies enacted by the Soviet Union or DPRK were viable. In fact I said the opposite, because they didn't work. I'm not a communist. I'm not a Soviet-sympathizer or whatever. I'm not a monarchist.

I'm not any of those. You, or somebody else, inevitably will insist that I fit this caricature that Glenn Beck or whoever has brainwashed you into believing exists around every corner. Just remember that I'm none of those things no matter how badly you want me to be.
I really don't care what you are politically, but I find it hard to believe that you picked the name KhrushchevsShoe without knowing that it was allusion to his promise that communism would bury the west, which means that you tacitly support that position. Or, you could just have a bizarre fetish for 1950s Soviet Men's footwear. I'd bet on the former, although the latter is, if creepier, at least not as morally obtuse.


Nope communism is not a economic doctrine. You may be thinking of socialism? That often the economic to communism's political. When a communist party is created it is often supposed to represent the workers as a political entity. How they typically intend to fulfill these policy goals is some form of socialism. Do you understand the difference here? Communist=Political and Socialist=Economic.

Two very different things politics and economics.
You really love to split hairs, don't you? Communism's textbook definition is "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state." The basis of the organization of a communist state is not its political system, but the fact that the system is ordered on economic criteria, namely that all property is commonly owned. To say that a communist state which calls itself a communist state, in which the state owns all property in accordance with communist doctrine is not, in fact, a communist state because the thug-in-chief designated his son as his heir instead of putting it before the Politburo is idiotic. And you have the nerve to call anyone else stupid?


You know, I've actually read some Karl Marx and there is strikingly little about how a state should be run. Its more about the toil of the working class and how revolution is inevitable in all industrialized countries. He thinks capitalism is unsustainable, and reading him you kind of start to agree with it. So while he's eager to make a diagnosis of the problem he doesn't really fill out a prescription. Its a user-generated solution, the Soviets decided to create a bloated federation of corrupt republics and bureaucracies. That doesn't mean that Marx wanted it that way, he never stipulated how you would go about creating your new worker's paradise just that you had a big ole revolution against the capitalists and figured something out. Its a political book and not so much economic. This kind of fits my distinction between communists and socialists.

Marx wrote more than one book, you know. Of these, the Communist Manifesto is somewhat more focused on Marx's polticial fantasies, but his economic fantasies are the focus of Das Kapital (as in, capitalism). Oh, and what Marx wanted in terms of his philosophy is less important that what invariably come out of it. The Soviets, Chinese, North Koreans, Cubans, etc., all built bloated bureaucracies, even if they weren't in the federation of slave states. When you centrally plan an economy and have government making millions of decisions daily, you either have to decentralize so that the people can make their own decisions, or you have to have a massive bureaucracy to make, implement and determine the outcomes of those decisions.


Oh yeah... this is like the tip of the iceberg. You could bribe a bureaucrat for just about anything. Living in Latvia but born to parents who are Kazakh and Russian? Getting discriminated against by those Latvian's sure does suck, luckily you can just pay the guy in the passport office to become Latvian! Then you're purged or something because Stalin didn't like Latvians that day, I dont know. It was fucked up.
This paragraph is completely incoherent. Your meaning was lost in the translation from Idiot to English and I doubt that it made much sense before the translation. Feel free to try again.


But lets not forget that certain members of certain political families get into certain Ivy League schools because a certain dad knows certain people.
Yes, but that doesn't make the US a monarchy, either. Instead, this is just a silly aside that doesn't make your argument or undermine mine.


DOHOHOHO. Reagan understood one thing: Borrow money to buy ridiculous weapons systems because he knew the Soviets couldn't afford butter and bullets. Its depressing because that idea has done more to hurt America than it did to knock out the Soviets.
As I recall, Reagan left office with the US economy humming, the armed forces at the height of our strength and the Soviets on the verge of collapse. I don't see that hurting America, but then, I don't see many of the things that you hallucinate.


This is something nobody in this thread is asking for. You're just imagining it.
Sorry, but Wei and a few other Proglodytes are trying to continually reintroduce socialism. Wei has even admitted that it failed, but insists on coming back to it in some new, improved form that will eliminate the "mistakes" of the past failures, as if the flaws were in the marketing or packaging, rather than the basic product.


It's always refreshing to hear some sense around these parts.
If having you agree with him doesn't convince KS that he's wrong, nothing will.


Just let them form their crazy image of you. Before long you're a molotive-holding, unemployed, white-slave-having LSD-tripping gay revolutionary teacher of Sharia Law (in a public school mind you)
Actually, we think that you're an arrogant elitist who has been educated beyond his intelligence, and who some highly negligent school administrator has put in a postion where you can corrupt young minds in a subjet which you have made it a point not to disclose, despite being asked repeatedly. If you won't tell us what you teach, we'll have to speculate. Based on your posts and what we can infer about your qualifications, I'm guessing that your education involved a tire swing and bananas.


Finally someone is actually talking about real things.
If you consider KS' fantasy construct of communism to be a "real thing" then you clearly have not got the chops to teach history, or anything else of substance.


and, in the opinion of some, this is exactly why the idea of radical emancipation at the core of Marx's theory survives even as different methods of bringing it to fruition are tried and failed. The idea needs to be reinvented with learned lessons from the past. No one is arguing about bring back the USSR but for some reason that's the only thing people want to tlak about.
No, we are happy to talk about China, Cuba, Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua and every other communist hellhole where Marx's theories have failed over and over again, leaving tens of millions dead and billions of lives blighted by poverty and waste, in support of a theory that cannot and will not ever work. But, you keep focusing on only one regime (admittedly, one of the largest and most brutal regimes), and pretending that it hasn't failed everywhere that it has been tried. Your belief in the ultimate validity of Marx's theories is ironic, considering how much you deride those who believe in God, but a Marxist state that doesn't brutalize its people and gradually descend into chaos would be a true miracle.


lol no the entrance exam is a pair of boots, the straps of which you must use to pull yourself up a standard height.
I'm guessing that your SAT scores didn't measure up to the tops of most people's bootstraps.


Half the time they're posting like mad and writing long posts arguging against things that were never said by anyone here.
Actually, we rebut you pretty effectively, mostly be quoting you and pointing out the essential wrongness of your positions. You'd know it if you ever actually read our posts, but that would require that you think of us as anything beyond "knuckle-dragging idiots" (something that you did say).

KhrushchevsShoe
10-12-2010, 04:01 PM
I really don't care what you are politically, but I find it hard to believe that you picked the name KhrushchevsShoe without knowing that it was allusion to his promise that communism would bury the west, which means that you tacitly support that position. Or, you could just have a bizarre fetish for 1950s Soviet Men's footwear. I'd bet on the former, although the latter is, if creepier, at least not as morally obtuse.

You just cant let go can you? You seriously have no way of arguing with somebody who doesn't fit this mold you've bred yourself to fight against. The second you have to improvise at all against an opponent you dont expect you totally collapse, as we are about to see:


Communism's textbook definition is "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state."

Textbook or dictionary.com definition? This right here is so indicative of how little you know, there are two ways you could have thought looking up communism in the dictionary is in any way useful.

1) You didn't know what communism was, and since you obviously dont appreciate academia, you had to look it up in the dictionary.

2) You have an idea of what communism is that has been fed to you since you were like 12, but you never actually bother to verify how accurate it is. Now you've been pressed on what you actually think communism is and the most thought provoking definition you can muster is a one sentence blurb from dictionary.com. Most political theory and/or economic textbooks are a little bit more nuanced than a dictionary. You obviously wouldn't know that, because you haven't read any.


The basis of the organization of a communist state is not its political system, but the fact that the system is ordered on economic criteria, namely that all property is commonly owned. To say that a communist state which calls itself a communist state, in which the state owns all property in accordance with communist doctrine is not, in fact, a communist state because the thug-in-chief designated his son as his heir instead of putting it before the Politburo is idiotic. And you have the nerve to call anyone else stupid?

How you pick the next leader of your country is extremely important. America could have this gorgeous free market, free press, free religion and all this other stuff we like to lump into the word "democracy." But if we had a King who chose his son as heir we wouldn't be a democracy. You understand this example because you understand what a democracy is as a political and social institution, but you cannot understand how it applies to communism because you either refuse to or are not capable of understanding communism in any way whatsoever.


Marx wrote more than one book, you know. Of these, the Communist Manifesto is somewhat more focused on Marx's polticial fantasies, but his economic fantasies are the focus of Das Kapital (as in, capitalism). Oh, and what Marx wanted in terms of his philosophy is less important that what invariably come out of it. The Soviets, Chinese, North Koreans, Cubans, etc., all built bloated bureaucracies, even if they weren't in the federation of slave states. When you centrally plan an economy and have government making millions of decisions daily, you either have to decentralize so that the people can make their own decisions, or you have to have a massive bureaucracy to make, implement and determine the outcomes of those decisions.

What I bolded speaks volumes of your ignorance. You cannot blame the writer when people screw up and interpret his work poorly. That's not how it works, you blame the idiots who read it wrong.

Either way, what happened was not the Soviets, Chinese and Cubans all working seperately to fulfill different interpretations of Marxism. Until the 1970's the Chinese modeled themselves after the Soviet Union in almost every facet of government, from ethnic policy to military doctrine. Cuba was a puppet regime, they had less autonomy from the Moscow than the republics did.

Marx didn't call for this stuff and even though you read the title's of two of his books doesn't mean you have any understanding of what's inside them. Marx was a political theorist, not an economic one. You have to understand this if you want to get anywhere understanding the distinction between communism and socialism. Until you do, well, you'll keep sounding like some blowhard on the radio.


Yes, but that doesn't make the US a monarchy, either. Instead, this is just a silly aside that doesn't make your argument or undermine mine.
You act like it was because of the Soviet's social and economic policies that people got favors for being politically connected. That's not how it works, you get favors regardless in any country if you're politically connected. This is not unique to socialism or even the Soviets.


the Soviets on the verge of collapse
Elaborate.


you're an arrogant elitist who has been educated beyond his intelligence
Here's the problem Ody, I dont think you've been educated at all in what you're talking about it. Maybe you've tried to teach yourself this shit but your arguments are so sloppy and winding there's no way you could have been sat down and forced to understand this stuff.

I mean a dictionary definition. Come on, even you are better than that.

Sonnabend
10-12-2010, 05:44 PM
So what was wrong with my post, KS?

Waiting.

Odysseus
10-12-2010, 08:56 PM
You just cant let go can you? You seriously have no way of arguing with somebody who doesn't fit this mold you've bred yourself to fight against. The second you have to improvise at all against an opponent you dont expect you totally collapse, as we are about to see:

Or, maybe you can't admit that you fit a mold that you don't like? Let's see how I "collapse."


Textbook or dictionary.com definition? This right here is so indicative of how little you know, there are two ways you could have thought looking up communism in the dictionary is in any way useful.

1) You didn't know what communism was, and since you obviously dont appreciate academia, you had to look it up in the dictionary.

2) You have an idea of what communism is that has been fed to you since you were like 12, but you never actually bother to verify how accurate it is. Now you've been pressed on what you actually think communism is and the most thought provoking definition you can muster is a one sentence blurb from dictionary.com. Most political theory and/or economic textbooks are a little bit more nuanced than a dictionary. You obviously wouldn't know that, because you haven't read any.

Or, dealing with a simplistic tool, I picked the simplest definition available. Having read Marx, I know not only his definition of communism, but also the common factors between the various states that call themselves communist. as well as the various non-Marxist forms of communism (there are a number of communist movements that predate Marx, you know). But, if you really want to play that, no problem. Let's stick to Marx. There are three major tenets to Marxist communist theory:


Human history is a struggle between groups who are categorized by economic class. Marx claimed that as productivity increased, the class struggle would evolve, and that capitalism was simply a stage in that evolution. This is known as the dialectical and materialist concept of history, which was derived from Hegelian dialectics, which I'm going to assume that you are as familiar with as you claim to be about Marxism, not because I think that you understand it, but because I don't feel like doing that much typing.

Capitalism is a conflict between the bourgeoisie (literally, "town dwellers", but in Marxist thought, the upper class of property owners) and the proletariat (derived from that Latin world proletarius, the lowest class of citizens). Marx believed that this state kept the society from further development, and that a revolution of the proletariat was necessary to move from capitalism to collective ownership, which would eliminate all forms of inequality and everyone would have rainbows, puppies and unicorns as far as the eye could see.

Marx's third tenet was his advocacy of the above revolution. Still with me?

So, that's Marx in a nutshell. The failures of this philosopjNow, each state that has called itself communist has used this as a starting point (and generally used famine and mass murder as an endpoint). There's Marxist-Leninism, Maoist Marxism, Cuban Marxism, Cambodian Marxism, even Groucho Marxism, but each of these is based on Marxist ideology, and the philosophy of Juche, which is the North Korean governing philosophy, and which was developed as a reaction against Krushchev's de-Stalinazation program.


How you pick the next leader of your country is extremely important. America could have this gorgeous free market, free press, free religion and all this other stuff we like to lump into the word "democracy." But if we had a King who chose his son as heir we wouldn't be a democracy. You understand this example because you understand what a democracy is as a political and social institution, but you cannot understand how it applies to communism because you either refuse to or are not capable of understanding communism in any way whatsoever.
You make my case for me. A monarchy can be economically capitalist or socialist. The transition mechanism doesn't change that. North Korea is a state based on Marxist principles. Don't take my word for it, take theirs. They freely admit it.

What I bolded speaks volumes of your ignorance. You cannot blame the writer when people screw up and interpret his work poorly. That's not how it works, you blame the idiots who read it wrong.
No, it just proves your naivete. My six-year-old daughter would like a world in which nobody was ever mean to anyone else (except to her little sister), and she can articulate it as well as any child her age, but if I implemented her plan, it would fail miserably. Marx wanted freedom, but his basic philosopical approach was completely wrong and ended up causing untold misery. It wasn't that the idiots were reading him wrong, it was that the idiots were following him at all after previous idiots had tried his system and failed.


Either way, what happened was not the Soviets, Chinese and Cubans all working seperately to fulfill different interpretations of Marxism. Until the 1970's the Chinese modeled themselves after the Soviet Union in almost every facet of government, from ethnic policy to military doctrine. Cuba was a puppet regime, they had less autonomy from the Moscow than the republics did.

Marx didn't call for this stuff and even though you read the title's of two of his books doesn't mean you have any understanding of what's inside them. Marx was a political theorist, not an economic one. You have to understand this if you want to get anywhere understanding the distinction between communism and socialism. Until you do, well, you'll keep sounding like some blowhard on the radio.
Of course Marx called for this stuff. Didn't you read the part about proletarian revolutions? What do you think happens when the masses rise up and take over the means of production, overthrowing all law, convention and norms? When Marx called for economic upheaval (and it was economics that drove his social theories, regardless of your claims to the contrary), what did he think was going to happen?


You act like it was because of the Soviet's social and economic policies that people got favors for being politically connected. That's not how it works, you get favors regardless in any country if you're politically connected. This is not unique to socialism or even the Soviets.
No, but Marx promised a classless society. Didn't happen, did it?


Elaborate.
Say "please."

Here's the problem Ody, I dont think you've been educated at all in what you're talking about it. Maybe you've tried to teach yourself this shit but your arguments are so sloppy and winding there's no way you could have been sat down and forced to understand this stuff.
Your problem is that you don't think. Period. I actually had to take classes in the history and culture of China as an undergrad, and got a heavy does of Marxist BS from the profs who, like you, were true believers. I'm sure that when the Berlin Wall came down, they were truly bummed, but soon decided that communism hadn't failed, it just hadn't been tried correctly.


I mean a dictionary definition. Come on, even you are better than that.
Dictionaries are considered neutral means of getting a quick definition. Given my audience, I figured that it wouldn't trigger a rant. Clearly, I was wrong to assume that you would argue the merits and not seize on a trivial data source as a pretext for a tantrum. For that, I apologize, not to you, but to everyone else who had to read your tedious whining.

Wei Wu Wei
10-12-2010, 10:32 PM
This is known as the dialectical and materialist concept of history, which was derived from Hegelian dialectics, which I'm going to assume that you are as familiar with as you claim to be about Marxism, not because I think that you understand it, but because I don't feel like doing that much typing. .

Please do. Normally I'll comment on most parts of a post but I have a significant interest in Hegelian dialectics and I by no means find it easy or accessible to most people, including myself most of the time (unless i'm really ready to sit and do the WORK required to even begin making quasi-accurate interpretations of even single pages of Hegel's works).

What I'm saying is, Hegel is rather complex and I'm trying my hardest to understand him, so please, since you (as I) identify Hegelian thought as closely related to emancipatory gestures like Marx's analysis of capitalism (at his time), please, as a charitable act, elaborate your interpretation of hegelian dialectics and it's significance.

Wei Wu Wei
10-12-2010, 10:41 PM
You make my case for me. A monarchy can be economically capitalist or socialist. The transition mechanism doesn't change that. North Korea is a state based on Marxist principles. Don't take my word for it, take theirs. They freely admit it.

North Korea also calls itself The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Do you accept that North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic because they freely call themselves that?


No, it just proves your naivete. My six-year-old daughter would like a world in which nobody was ever mean to anyone else (except to her little sister), and she can articulate it as well as any child her age, but if I implemented her plan, it would fail miserably. Marx wanted freedom, but his basic philosopical approach was completely wrong and ended up causing untold misery. It wasn't that the idiots were reading him wrong, it was that the idiots were following him at all after previous idiots had tried his system and failed.

If the failures of Really Existing Communism are a result of the inherent nature of Marxist thought, then why are all of your arguments against nations, rather than the principles or arguments of Marxist thought themselves?

I can say that the problem is with the failed interpretations of Marxist thought, manifested in the USSR and elsewhere, but you say that the problem is with Marxist thought itself, if that is truly the case, you should be presenting arguments against Marxist thought, not the nations which tried and failed to implement it. I can always say they weren't truly Marxist enough, so your job is to explain why Marxist thought itself is the problem, instead of arguing against the "bad apples" that failed at bringing Marxist theory to fruition.


So tell me, what do you consider the flaws in Marx's theory? What do you consider the flaws in contemporary Neo-Marxist theory?



Of course Marx called for this stuff. Didn't you read the part about proletarian revolutions? What do you think happens when the masses rise up and take over the means of production, overthrowing all law, convention and norms? When Marx called for economic upheaval (and it was economics that drove his social theories, regardless of your claims to the contrary), what did he think was going to happen?

Do not confuse your initial assumptions with the intention of the Author. Marx predicted proletarian revolution, which would, eventually lead to classless society. However, how people would go about doing it, including their failures and lessons learned, were not able to be predicted by Marx.



No, but Marx promised a classless society. Didn't happen, did it?

Not yet, but I cannot imagine how this should NOT be the ideal of every person.



Say "please."

Come on bud, neither him, I nor yourself are being childish and this discussing is proving very interesting. Let's keep it going.


Your problem is that you don't think. Period. I actually had to take classes in the history and culture of China as an undergrad, and got a heavy does of Marxist BS from the profs who, like you, were true believers. I'm sure that when the Berlin Wall came down, they were truly bummed, but soon decided that communism hadn't failed, it just hadn't been tried correctly.

lol don't count on that. While a university degree is a good route to information, it's really been a starting pad for myself to go on and learn more about things. Independent study is the only real route to learning about what's going on today (and historically).




Dictionaries are considered neutral means of getting a quick definition. Given my audience, I figured that it wouldn't trigger a rant. Clearly, I was wrong to assume that you would argue the merits and not seize on a trivial data source as a pretext for a tantrum. For that, I apologize, not to you, but to everyone else who had to read your tedious whining.

I too am not cool with dictionary definitions. Usually when we are talking about really specific issues, dictionary definitions rarely catch the connotative meanings associated with the words.

But to eaqch his own.

Sonnabend
10-12-2010, 10:44 PM
please, as a charitable act, elaborate your interpretation of hegelian dialectics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegelian_dialectics) and it's significance.

the babendersnatch gets fouled up in the rath and the cable thenm galumphs so it tripped the snozzle, then he ramshackled the doippelganger and bent on a snarek with a chortniskag an d smackled the oliigattery wiuth a funched up takaleh and snikgorgled the utterklakh so what ytou need to do is vorpall the snmiallakok and dudelsak the guttergungear so the ukleagak doesnt tik the moklapwk.

That's Hegel's "dialectic" in its entirety.

Complete and utter gobbledegook.

Rockntractor
10-12-2010, 10:50 PM
Please do. Normally I'll comment on most parts of a post but I have a significant interest in Hegelian dialectics and I by no means find it easy or accessible to most people, including myself most of the time (unless i'm really ready to sit and do the WORK required to even begin making quasi-accurate interpretations of even single pages of Hegel's works).

What I'm saying is, Hegel is rather complex and I'm trying my hardest to understand him, so please, since you (as I) identify Hegelian thought as closely related to emancipatory gestures like Marx's analysis of capitalism (at his time), please, as a charitable act, elaborate your interpretation of hegelian dialectics and it's significance.
In later years, a fellow German, Adolf Hitler, rose to this Hegelian bait. If one needs an example of a philosophy which can lead millions of people into ruin, then one need look no further than the philosophy of Hegel; it has been "the justification of extremist authoritarian creeds from Fascism to Communism."
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Hegel.htm

You like Hegal so this means you are a nazi and a racist. This is worse than dressing up and being an actor, you admire the way nazi's think by your own admission!

m00
10-13-2010, 01:23 AM
So tell me, what do you consider the flaws in Marx's theory? What do you consider the flaws in contemporary Neo-Marxist theory?


I don't know a guy called "Neo-Marx" (was he in the Matrix?). But seriously, I am not up to speed on modern day communist theories. :D

So lets discuss Marx. It's been a long time, and I am not sitting in front of a Marx for Dummies website (aka I'm arguing from knowledge I had before I started this post). So correct me if I'm wrong here - but Marx's big theme seems to be that the middle/upper class "revolution" which occurred in western societies whereby the middle class gained self-determination and a measure of control over their own governance, would inevitably be repeated by the working class. As I recall, one big debate between Soviet and Maoist Marxism is whether the "true worker" was the factory worker or the farmer.

Now I can definitely appreciate the above from a philosophical perspective.

I can also appreciate the argument that work is its own reward. I work in an industry that isn't paid as much as other highly related industries (I could switch jobs and double my salary), but I love what I do. So I get this on a fundamental level - work has intrinsic value. I also have enough to live and eat and not really worry about money, since I don't have any cocaine or boat or new car or clothes habits.

So let me define what I think would be the features of a communist society:


People are rewarded from the act of doing a good job at work, in a job they like doing (and not with money)
Because all jobs are rewarded equally, even if you have private property it won't matter because everyone will basically have the same stuff. In fact you don't even need money at this point, people should just be able to take what they need and contribute what they can.


So I am going to insert a note here that I consider Marxism to be economic-political theory, rather than strict political theory, based on the bullet above.

But the above only works if the following are true:

Everybody is good at *something,* and people are good at the thing they like and want to do.
The administrative body can accurately select & determine who is good at what
People aren't in love with the idea of owning stuff
People aren't competitive (or at least, use facets of consumerism as surrogate competition).


So my real criticism with Marx is really two-fold.

The first is that only certain personality types can work under communism. Communism is unique in that it's a system of organizing humans that has to be voluntary in order to work. And communes can, and do work, generally in small numbers where everyone wants to be there. This is another interesting point, the more "detached" you are from the product of your work, the less fulfilling it is. If I make 5 shoes a day and everyone in the village wears my shoes, I'm fulfilled. If I make 100 shoes and ship them to administrative prefect #37 which is 200 miles away, I'm not very fulfilled. This is a core problem with Marxist theory, but it's only a problem of scale - it means working Communism has to be local. And everyone has to agree & want to be in it. 1 parasite can really screw you up.

The second one is that humans aren't really good at judging other humans. For example, I'm good at my job. How do I know? I make products that people voluntarily pay a lot of money for, and I read the forums around such products. Plenty of times in my life others have thought they were perhaps better than me, but their projects crashed and burned. The free market is the ultimate subjective measuring stick. If a random committee of "experts" got to decide who was good at what, this would be the end of human innovation. I see this all the time in my profession (where the "experts" are biz-dev/producers :D) It's the same reason there hasn't been any good music made for 2 decades, we now have a bunch of experts telling us what good music is. Whereas the free market taps into the "wisdom of crowds" (to use a phrase that was hot 4 years ago).

So the real problem with Marxist Communism is that it's just not suited to organizing humans. Humans are selfish, petty, and competitive. If we could distill out political communism from economic communism, in the realm of the hypothetical there might be something workable out there, by merging political communism with economic capitalism (hello, China). But strictly in terms of Marx, I think the political and economic theory are too closely woven together. Once you have humans trying to make decisions that only a free market is equipped to make (aka, in the realm of the subjective, what has "value"), you've already lost.

Sonnabend
10-13-2010, 05:29 AM
So what was wrong with my post, KS?

Waiting.

Odysseus
10-13-2010, 12:21 PM
Please do. Normally I'll comment on most parts of a post but I have a significant interest in Hegelian dialectics and I by no means find it easy or accessible to most people, including myself most of the time (unless i'm really ready to sit and do the WORK required to even begin making quasi-accurate interpretations of even single pages of Hegel's works).

What I'm saying is, Hegel is rather complex and I'm trying my hardest to understand him, so please, since you (as I) identify Hegelian thought as closely related to emancipatory gestures like Marx's analysis of capitalism (at his time), please, as a charitable act, elaborate your interpretation of hegelian dialectics and it's significance.
You're asking for charity from a Republican?

I don't identify Marx's philosophy as emancapatory. I identify it as oppressive. And you can research your own term papers. Hegel bored the hell out of me in college, and frankly, I have serious problems with the whole dialectic process. A thesis and antithesis may produce a synthesis in some circumstances, but it's hardly a universal rule. If it were, every chess game would end with a bunch of grey pieces in the center of the board.

North Korea also calls itself The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Do you accept that North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic because they freely call themselves that?
No, because even if it were true, a Democratic People's Republic is an internal contradiction. A republic constrains democratic impulses through the imposition of blocks on popular sentiment. It's not particularly well thought out, much like Marx's theories. But, let's say that North Korea isn't a communist state. What do you call a one-party state with a centralized command economy based on Marxist principles of expropriation of private property and state ownership of all industry?


If the failures of Really Existing Communism are a result of the inherent nature of Marxist thought, then why are all of your arguments against nations, rather than the principles or arguments of Marxist thought themselves?
Because the proof of a theory is the result of its application. If it is viable, it works in practice. If not, it fails. The record of universal failure of Marxism in application should demonstrate to any rational person that it is unworkable.


I can say that the problem is with the failed interpretations of Marxist thought, manifested in the USSR and elsewhere, but you say that the problem is with Marxist thought itself, if that is truly the case, you should be presenting arguments against Marxist thought, not the nations which tried and failed to implement it. I can always say they weren't truly Marxist enough, so your job is to explain why Marxist thought itself is the problem, instead of arguing against the "bad apples" that failed at bringing Marxist theory to fruition.

Actually, my "job" is to build PowerPoint briefings that our CG uses to beat our nation's enemies into submission, but I can play. But remember, you asked for it.

Let's start with the most basic Marxist maxim, "From each, according to his ability. To each, according to his need." Sounds peachy, right? But how do you determine someone's ability? You can sometimes measure potential, but ultimately, that doesn't tell you what someone's output will be on a given day, nor does it take into account the effects of education, physical fitness, motivation, personality, or even just transitory moods (depression can severely impact ability). In short, ability is too vague a criteria to determine output expectations.

Need is also a problematical concept. First, let's remember that there are two ways to motivate people, reward and punishment. If the compensation is restricted to need, then there is no reward for harder or more innovative work, thus there is no reason for someone to work except avoiding punishment. How do we determine how much compensation you need vs. how much I need? Does the kind of work that I do determine how much food I need? If I pursue a physically intensive hobby, do I have a greater need for calories than a sedentary lump? How does a state determine that? It can't. So, we cannot measure need accurately.

The result is that Marxists expect people to put out maximum effort, but without any improvement in their material condition unless their "needs" increase (an odd position for a materialist philosophy, when you think about it). A worker's only motivation to work is therefore to avoid punishment, while his output is expected to be... what, exactly? You end up with a system of work quotas that treats every profession the same way, with people doing just enough work to avoid punishment. Naturally, nothing gets accomplished under such a system, and the owners of the means of production, the proletariat, or their representatives in the revolutionary vanguard, end up having to impose more draconian punishments in order to get results. A system in which people work as hard as they can in order to avoid increasingly vicious punishments, with no reward or potential of reward, is slavery.

So, on a fundamental level, Marx's most basic theory runs contrary to human nature. QED


So tell me, what do you consider the flaws in Marx's theory? What do you consider the flaws in contemporary Neo-Marxist theory?

You've cited a doozy below.


Do not confuse your initial assumptions with the intention of the Author. Marx predicted proletarian revolution, which would, eventually lead to classless society. However, how people would go about doing it, including their failures and lessons learned, were not able to be predicted by Marx.

So, Marx could predict an endstate, which contradicted every other social and economic organization in human history, but the means by which that endstate occurred were not predictable to him? My six-year-old believes that she will grow up to marry a prince and live happily ever after, and when questioned, she has lots of interesting theories on how this will occur. But, when those predictions are measured against objective reality, it seems far more likely that she's going to need some marketable job skills. Marx's utopian predictions are based on similar magical thinking. He wanted a classless society (one in which people who spent their lives in squalor while resenting the successes of others, i.e., people like him, would be on top), so he predicted it. But the devil is in the details, and the implementation of Marx's unworkable, grandiose theories has ruined more lives and nations than any force in history, including disco.


Not yet, but I cannot imagine how this should NOT be the ideal of every person.
So, you don't believe that a person should be able to improve their material situation through their own efforts? That they should be able to move from poverty to success or, if they squander their inheritance, move from success to poverty? A classless society is a static society, in which achievers are seen by the state the same way that nails are seen by a hammer. The goal of any person who seeks a just society should be the mobility of people from one class to another by their own efforts, something that will happen anyway, because some people will be smarter than others or better looking. Some will be happy and content, while some will be curious and restless. A society that demands equality of result suprresses initiative and destroys creativity. People have different talents. If they didn't, there'd be no point in dividing labor. Some people are going to be artists, some will be writers, some will be mechanics.


Come on bud, neither him, I nor yourself are being childish and this discussing is proving very interesting. Let's keep it going.
When somebody accuses me of ignorance and then orders me to explain myself, my first thought entails a certain gesture with which I am sure you are familiar. If KS wants me to elucidate, he can ask, rather than command.


lol don't count on that. While a university degree is a good route to information, it's really been a starting pad for myself to go on and learn more about things. Independent study is the only real route to learning about what's going on today (and historically).

Okay, but let's recall that KS claims that I am ignorant of Marxism and communism and that I am regurgitating Glenn Beck's talking points. Clearly, that is not the case.


I too am not cool with dictionary definitions. Usually when we are talking about really specific issues, dictionary definitions rarely catch the connotative meanings associated with the words.

But to eaqch his own.

When I was reading about some court cases in the early 1800s, I was surprised to learn that when the definitions of terms was a point of contention, judges would defer to the dictionary, as a neutral and authoritative source. If either side objected, it was the burden of the objecting party to demostrate that the definition was invalid. KS has not done so. Neither have you.

Wei Wu Wei
10-13-2010, 12:25 PM
the babendersnatch gets fouled up in the rath and the cable thenm galumphs so it tripped the snozzle, then he ramshackled the doippelganger and bent on a snarek with a chortniskag an d smackled the oliigattery wiuth a funched up takaleh and snikgorgled the utterklakh so what ytou need to do is vorpall the snmiallakok and dudelsak the guttergungear so the ukleagak doesnt tik the moklapwk.

That's Hegel's "dialectic" in its entirety.

Complete and utter gobbledegook.

lol you could just as easily say "I don't get it", trust me, not many people do. Hegel is very difficult I just got another book on Hegel and I'm struggling with it. Trying to read Hegel's works directly, such as phenomenology of spirit...well...yeah sometimes it can seem like gibberish but it just takes effort.

Wei Wu Wei
10-13-2010, 12:26 PM
In later years, a fellow German, Adolf Hitler, rose to this Hegelian bait. If one needs an example of a philosophy which can lead millions of people into ruin, then one need look no further than the philosophy of Hegel; it has been "the justification of extremist authoritarian creeds from Fascism to Communism."
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Hegel.htm

You like Hegal so this means you are a nazi and a racist. This is worse than dressing up and being an actor, you admire the way nazi's think by your own admission!

This guy doesnt' know what he's talking about either he admits it":

"This, in my short study, is the best I can make of Hegel, and if these statements are confusing to you, - you have company: "Hegelian terminology is cumbersome and defies analysis, except on its own terms.""


He doesn't say ANYTHING about hegelian dialectics, he just says it is linked to Hitler without explaining a single tenet of the philosophy or method.

Odysseus
10-13-2010, 12:32 PM
I don't know a guy called "Neo-Marx" (was he in the Matrix?). But seriously, I am not up to speed on modern day communist theories. :D

He was the Sixth Marx Brother, after Harpo, Groucho, Chico, Zeppo and Karl. He appeared in the little-known classic, A Night at the Matrix, in which he uttered the immortal line, "Well, Art is Art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know. " :D

Rockntractor
10-13-2010, 12:32 PM
This guy doesnt' know what he's talking about either he admits it":

"This, in my short study, is the best I can make of Hegel, and if these statements are confusing to you, - you have company: "Hegelian terminology is cumbersome and defies analysis, except on its own terms.""


He doesn't say ANYTHING about hegelian dialectics, he just says it is linked to Hitler without explaining a single tenet of the philosophy or method.
There are many more scholars than this one that make the link.

m00
10-16-2010, 01:03 AM
I'm sorry Wei Wei but this is why you get on my nerves. Why do I waste my time reading and replying to your posts, if you are just going to bail on the topic and make a new thread?

You asked "So tell me, what do you consider the flaws in Marx's theory? What do you consider the flaws in contemporary Neo-Marxist theory?"

That's a very deep topic. In two sentences, you ask a question that requires much thought and many paragraphs. And I'm happy to engage in debate if you actually stick around. But seriously, I should just start posting lolcats.

Rockntractor
10-16-2010, 01:08 AM
I'm sorry Wei Wei but this is why you get on my nerves. Why do I waste my time reading and replying to your posts, if you are just going to bail on the topic and make a new thread?

You asked "So tell me, what do you consider the flaws in Marx's theory? What do you consider the flaws in contemporary Neo-Marxist theory?"

That's a very deep topic. In two sentences, you ask a question that requires much thought and many paragraphs. And I'm happy to engage in debate if you actually stick around. But seriously, I should just start posting lolcats.

It would be a better use of your time and more entertaining using the lol cats, you would have better luck debating a bag of lawn clippings.

Sonnabend
10-16-2010, 01:52 AM
lol you could just as easily say "I don't get it", trust me, not many people do. Hegel is very difficult I just got another book on Hegel and I'm struggling with it. Trying to read Hegel's works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel%27s_Works) directly, such as phenomenology of spirit...well...yeah sometimes it can seem like gibberish but it just takes effort.I did a high school thesis on the book, read the damned thing from cover to cover, several times. I understand phenomenology (the basics anyway) as I also read Zen philosophy as an interest.

That was when I began to dimly understand zen..and the intricacies of existence.

My experiences with the dying were part of that. Wei, I don't mean to be nasty(and I am not, I mean it), but unless you have been there in palliative care and nursing, that's an area you cannot understand.

..and in retrospect, there are times I wish I hadn't been there either.:(