PDA

View Full Version : A question for Wei Wu Wei



CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-01-2011, 09:29 AM
Wei:

You've often stated that you support either Socialism, or full on Communism (you've never made it quite clear which). You've vehemently denied that you'd want to see a revival of the Communistic regimes of the USSR, Mao's China or Castro's Cuba--you seem to feel they were failed experiments in Communism, but something different for the 21st century. However, you've never been quite clear as to how this neo-Communism you support would differ from the totalitarian regimes of the past, or even how it would be structured at all.

So, out of curiosity, I want to ask you: What is your ideal kind of Socialism or Communism, your ideal political system? If it's not the USSR or Mao route, what is it? How would it work/be structured? Could you please explain it?

Bailey
03-01-2011, 09:36 AM
Wei:

You've often stated that you support either Socialism, or full on Communism (you've never made it quite clear which). You've vehemently denied that you'd want to see a revival of the Communistic regimes of the USSR, Mao's China or Castro's Cuba--you seem to feel they were failed experiments in Communism, but something different for the 21st century. However, you've never been quite clear as to how this neo-Communism you support would differ from the totalitarian regimes of the past, or even how it would be structured at all.

So, out of curiosity, I want to ask you: What is your ideal kind of Socialism or Communism, your ideal political system? If it's not the USSR or Mao route, what is it? How would it work/be structured? Could you please explain it?


I'd be happy if one socialist/communist would point out one communist country that wasn't malevolent. Sorry just wanted this question to be seen by wewe

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-01-2011, 09:45 AM
I'd be happy if one socialist/communist would point out one communist country that wasn't malevolent. Sorry just wanted this question to be seen by wewe

I do too, and that's my point. He claims this system--whatever it is--would somehow be different from EVERY SINGLE OTHER ATTEMPT AT SOCIALISM. I'm not usually a betting man, but I'd say the odds weigh heavily against there ever being a Communist or Socialist society which isn't defined by repression, mass murder, and intense hardship and poverty amongst the people which Communists claim to be the servants of.

Wei strikes me as an intellectual type, philosopher what have you--In the communistic regimes under Stalin and Mao he'd have been shot for expressing his beliefs.

Conservatives may disagree with Liberals intensely, but I as a liberal don't support mass murder, religious repression or repression of thought, and I'm not against Capitalism. I just view Liberalism as I guess you could say the best of both worlds, but even so, I don't agree every piece of Liberal agenda proposed, nor do I agree in lockstep with social liberalism and I am VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to multiculturalism and I believe in staunch border control and very limited gun control laws.

My form of Liberalism would be similar to the kind endorsed by men like Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon, and Teddy Roosevelt--all believed in America and in American society, were patriotic, and were very different from modern liberals in many ways. Even FDR was different in many ways from those who claim to be his ideological heirs--they are not, but use bits of his ideology, twist it and try to make it their own. My views have gotten me labelled as a neo-con by modern Liberals--that should say something.

Wei Wu Wei
03-01-2011, 10:33 AM
I don't support utopian visions of communism, I am no utopian dreamer.

I think at the best, what the USSR did for communism was to highlight the terrible mistakes that can be made. You have to remember that communism is a movement that must be reborn again and again, and each of it's incarnations will depend on the context which predicated it's genesis. The 20th century age of imperialist modernism speaks to this truth through the horrors of the Soviet Gulags.

When you dare to venture off the beaten path, people are going to relentlessly mock you and tell you you're crazy. When you try to climb a mountain they are going ot tell you it is foolish, and look to you to fail in order to justify their blind pessimism.

I have no interests in reviving the Soviet Union. I have no interests in re-creating the Soviet Union.

As the "end of history" becomes more and more apparent as a misnomer, as capitalist hegemony and exploitation increase, so will the resistence to it.


Often times, doing the right thing means you have to take a step before you can see the entire path that you are stepping on. Sometimes if there is no path, you carve it as you step, meaning you cannot know in advance what all could happen.

My opinions about capitalism and communism don't come from the Soviet Union or Cold War propaganda but there are a lot of mistakes to learn from in the old Soviet Union.

We must begin again from the beginning.

The revolutionary process is not a gradual progression, it's a series of repetitions of a revolutionary event.

Try again. Fail again. Fail better.


There is nothing utopian about communism, what is utopian is believing that our capitalist mode of production (a system dependend on perpetual growth and expansion) can go on forever in a finite world.

There are existing antagonisms within the capitalist hegemony, and there doesn't seem to be anything within capitalist logic to address them, and in time, they will bring about a destabalizing of the system.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-01-2011, 10:43 AM
I don't support utopian visions of communism, I am no utopian dreamer.

I think at the best, what the USSR did for communism was to highlight the terrible mistakes that can be made. You have to remember that communism is a movement that must be reborn again and again, and each of it's incarnations will depend on the context which predicated it's genesis. The 20th century age of imperialist modernism speaks to this truth through the horrors of the Soviet Gulags.

When you dare to venture off the beaten path, people are going to relentlessly mock you and tell you you're crazy. When you try to climb a mountain they are going ot tell you it is foolish, and look to you to fail in order to justify their blind pessimism.

I have no interests in reviving the Soviet Union. I have no interests in re-creating the Soviet Union.

As the "end of history" becomes more and more apparent as a misnomer, as capitalist hegemony and exploitation increase, so will the resistence to it.


Often times, doing the right thing means you have to take a step before you can see the entire path that you are stepping on. Sometimes if there is no path, you carve it as you step, meaning you cannot know in advance what all could happen.

My opinions about capitalism and communism don't come from the Soviet Union or Cold War propaganda but there are a lot of mistakes to learn from in the old Soviet Union.

We must begin again from the beginning.

The revolutionary process is not a gradual progression, it's a series of repetitions of a revolutionary event.

Try again. Fail again. Fail better.


There is nothing utopian about communism, what is utopian is believing that our capitalist mode of production (a system dependend on perpetual growth and expansion) can go on forever in a finite world.

There are existing antagonisms within the capitalist hegemony, and there doesn't seem to be anything within capitalist logic to address them, and in time, they will bring about a destabalizing of the system.

You still haven't answered my question:
What is your ideal or favored economic/political system?

Wei Wu Wei
03-01-2011, 10:45 AM
I'd be happy if one socialist/communist would point out one communist country that wasn't malevolent. Sorry just wanted this question to be seen by wewe

It doesn't work if you judge malevolence on the whims of the capitalist class. However, let me give you an example:

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)

The poor people living in guatemala were suffering under a "Banana Republic", where domestic policy and labor laws were dictated by the whims of fruit companies that were stationed there to get cheap labor. only 2% of the population owned most of the land and they were using it in ways that were best for profits, even though it was severely hurting the people.

The people decided they were being exploited and wanted to make their own land their own. They elected a Democratic Socialist, who promised to make reforms for the people of the country, and take the powerfrul oppressive grip of the fruit companies away.

Is this good or bad? Well it depends on who you talk to. For all the poor people living in guatemala it was wonderful, they were allowed to use their own land to grow their own food with their own labor and enjoy the literal fruits of their own labor.

So what happened? the United Fruit Company decided this was bad. The United States gets involved,and sends some CIA rascals to ubvade their fucking country, and overthrow their democratically-elected government, then put it somebody who was sympathetic to the United Fruit Company

There was extreme propaganda used during this time, with the CIA lying to Americans telling them first that guatemala was a soviet outpost (it wasn't, it was independent of the soviet union), and then claiming that the CIA-coup was "a revolution of the people". Straight up direct lies and covert military operations to topple other governments because those people decided to make a good decision? Please. All this time the US government was claiming that it was necessary to invade countries and fight wars to "protect freedom and democracy", even though we were toppling democratically elected governments.



hopefully this should show that using cold-war American standards to judge these movements is a very poor measuring stick

Calypso Jones
03-01-2011, 10:45 AM
is this more of that Karl Marx theory BS that you were spouting and obviously knew nothing about? :) You really are such a little goat for believing this stuff without doing your own investigation or at the very least getting an alternate view. Note that i didn't say sheep. Sheep are actually a lot smarter than many people think they are.

Rockntractor
03-01-2011, 10:48 AM
It doesn't work if you judge malevolence on the whims of the capitalist class. However, let me give you an example:

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)

The poor people living in guatemala were suffering under a "Banana Republic", where domestic policy and labor laws were dictated by the whims of fruit companies that were stationed there to get cheap labor. only 2% of the population owned most of the land and they were using it in ways that were best for profits, even though it was severely hurting the people.

The people decided they were being exploited and wanted to make their own land their own. They elected a Democratic Socialist, who promised to make reforms for the people of the country, and take the powerfrul oppressive grip of the fruit companies away.

Is this good or bad? Well it depends on who you talk to. For all the poor people living in guatemala it was wonderful, they were allowed to use their own land to grow their own food with their own labor and enjoy the literal fruits of their own labor.

So what happened? the United Fruit Company decided this was bad. The United States gets involved,and sends some CIA rascals to ubvade their fucking country, and overthrow their democratically-elected government, then put it somebody who was sympathetic to the United Fruit Company

There was extreme propaganda used during this time, with the CIA lying to Americans telling them first that guatemala was a soviet outpost (it wasn't, it was independent of the soviet union), and then claiming that the CIA-coup was "a revolution of the people". Straight up direct lies and covert military operations to topple other governments because those people decided to make a good decision? Please. All this time the US government was claiming that it was necessary to invade countries and fight wars to "protect freedom and democracy", even though we were toppling democratically elected governments.



hopefully this should show that using cold-war American standards to judge these movements is a very poor measuring stick

So basically you have no idea what you would like for a government but you know what is wrong with every other government, You are a typical leftist, no one else drives to your liking but give you the wheel and you are lost.

Gingersnap
03-01-2011, 10:49 AM
Yes, I'm interested too. You've taken a stab at identifying one failed regime that you don't want to recreate (although you haven't detailed your specific objections) but you haven't identified the system you do want. :confused:

Wei Wu Wei
03-01-2011, 10:56 AM
You still haven't answered my question:
What is your ideal or favored economic/political system?

A Utopian vision of an ideal system would be pure stateless Communism. However the question is never whether this ideal system can exist and function right now (it cannot).

If you're asking what would be my ideal system right now - it would be a system that is in motion.

Every system is perpetually changing, so at best I can only describe favorable directions, changes that hold true to the Communist Idea but I'm not about to sit here and claim that any arrangement of policy would work the way we want it to.

You can arrange any idealistic economic/political system and in a few weeks or months it will already be changing into something else. What fuels this change is the antagonisms that exist within every system, and the resolution of these antagonisms is communism.

There is no perfect system, and this imperfection is what constantly changes and moves systems towards their eventual evolution - into communism.

Wei Wu Wei
03-01-2011, 10:57 AM
is this more of that Karl Marx theory BS that you were spouting and obviously knew nothing about? :) You really are such a little goat for believing this stuff without doing your own investigation or at the very least getting an alternate view. Note that i didn't say sheep. Sheep are actually a lot smarter than many people think they are.

I post here every day and watch right-wing "news" every day as well, how is that not getting an alternate view?

Wei Wu Wei
03-01-2011, 10:57 AM
Yes, I'm interested too. You've taken a stab at identifying one failed regime that you don't want to recreate (although you haven't detailed your specific objections) but you haven't identified the system you do want. :confused:

Sometimes every option is wrong and you are forced create new options armed only with the knowledge of what was wrong before.

Ginger you yourself posted an article recently explaining the importance of taking action even when all of the details are not worked out. Sometimes it's not as easy as sitting and thinking until you figure it out. Sometimes you need to accept that the answers are not there and you must work to formulate them yourself.

Fidelity to the communist Idea is not about having some pre-planned government structure in your wallet.




Also, reading the posts in here I think a lot of people cannot seperate cold war propaganda images of the Soviet Union from the idea of communism. That is a problem.

Wei Wu Wei
03-01-2011, 11:12 AM
Conservatives may disagree with Liberals intensely, but I as a liberal don't support mass murder, religious repression or repression of thought, and I'm not against Capitalism.

Lol mass murder and repression of thought have been part of Capitalism for as long as anyone on this forum has been alive.




I just view Liberalism as I guess you could say the best of both worlds, but even so, I don't agree every piece of Liberal agenda proposed, nor do I agree in lockstep with social liberalism and I am VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to multiculturalism and I believe in staunch border control and very limited gun control laws.

Why are you 'vehemently opposed' to multiculturalism?

I don't generally like multiculturalist struggles because I feel it misidentifies the problems of society as personal problems of "Tolerance" rather than recognizing the root economic antagonisms that create inter-cultural problems in the first place. I have many criticisms of multiculturalism but my criticisms are that they don't look far enough, they try to personalize everything, depoliticize everything, and reduce social antagonisms to personal problems like being 'intolerant'.






My form of Liberalism would be similar to the kind endorsed by men like Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon, and Teddy Roosevelt--all believed in America and in American society, were patriotic, and were very different from modern liberals in many ways. Even FDR was different in many ways from those who claim to be his ideological heirs--they are not, but use bits of his ideology, twist it and try to make it their own. My views have gotten me labelled as a neo-con by modern Liberals--that should say something.

It says you are like most liberals who define their own "leftism" as being able to have a gay friend. That's not leftism.

Odysseus
03-01-2011, 11:19 AM
I don't support utopian visions of communism, I am no utopian dreamer.
There are two visions of communism: The utopian fantasy and the horrific reality. If you believe that it can be done without mass murder, poverty and totalitarian horror, then you are a fantasist.


I think at the best, what the USSR did for communism was to highlight the terrible mistakes that can be made. You have to remember that communism is a movement that must be reborn again and again, and each of it's incarnations will depend on the context which predicated it's genesis. The 20th century age of imperialist modernism speaks to this truth through the horrors of the Soviet Gulags.
Why must it be reborn again and again, except to repeatedly drive home the lessons of the terrible mistakes that are inevitable under it?


When you dare to venture off the beaten path, people are going to relentlessly mock you and tell you you're crazy. When you try to climb a mountain they are going ot tell you it is foolish, and look to you to fail in order to justify their blind pessimism.
If you venture off of the beaten path and end up in a ditch, or a mass grave, you deserve mockery. Communists don't climb mountains, they build them out of piles of corpses.


Often times, doing the right thing means you have to take a step before you can see the entire path that you are stepping on. Sometimes if there is no path, you carve it as you step, meaning you cannot know in advance what all could happen.
In other words, blind faith. How does an atheist justify that?


My opinions about capitalism and communism don't come from the Soviet Union or Cold War propaganda but there are a lot of mistakes to learn from in the old Soviet Union.

We must begin again from the beginning.
So that we can repeat those mistakes.


The revolutionary process is not a gradual progression, it's a series of repetitions of a revolutionary event.

Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
To all of you people who died in the revolution, who were impoverished and starved, whose lives were blighted by the oppressive dictatorship of the proletariat, take heart! The next failure will be better!


There is nothing utopian about communism, what is utopian is believing that our capitalist mode of production (a system dependend on perpetual growth and expansion) can go on forever in a finite world.
Better a system of perpetual economic stagnation, misery and death than one of perpetual growth and expansion. You're right, there's nothing utopian about that.


There are existing antagonisms within the capitalist hegemony, and there doesn't seem to be anything within capitalist logic to address them, and in time, they will bring about a destabalizing of the system.
Wishful thinking. The antagonisms that you are referring to are called "competition" and they result in better products, greater productivity and higher standards of living for the vast majority. The socialist logic of central planning and collective ownership stifles innovation and produces perpetual stagnation and failure. Oh, I forgot, we're failing better this time.

So, how many of us have to die in each failure to get to your final utopia that is not a utopia?

Wei Wu Wei
03-01-2011, 11:36 AM
There are two visions of communism: The utopian fantasy and the horrific reality. If you believe that it can be done without mass murder, poverty and totalitarian horror, then you are a fantasist.

The problem is that you are equating the idea of communism with the state policies of specific nations.

And by the way, not everything they did was terrible. The Soviet Union went from a peasant-farmer society to being the first men in the history of the world to leave Earth.
This all in just a few decades.

If I only looked at the negative consequences of Capitalism (and there are PLENTY), and claimed that those negative things = Capitalism, you'd claim I was being disingenuous by only looking at part of the picture.





Why must it be reborn again and again, except to repeatedly drive home the lessons of the terrible mistakes that are inevitable under it?

The communist struggle will be different depending on the social circumstances which generate it, not to mention the differences in philosophy, technology, politics, and knowledge of history.

Are we to look at the first 50 years of the United States, where it began and say because it was an abyssal moral hellscape filled with Native Genocide and institutionalized slavery, is it fair to say that the United States is an evil country because this is what happened when the founding fathers first created it?






If you venture off of the beaten path and end up in a ditch, or a mass grave, you deserve mockery. Communists don't climb mountains, they build them out of piles of corpses.

When the current path is riddled with millions of dead bodies and crushed dreams and flowing with the blood and tears of slaves or wage-slaves, sometimes you need to have the balls to get off the path, even if the last guy who did it fell into a ditch.





In other words, blind faith. How does an atheist justify that?

Easily. Faith is needed, but not faith in Some Thing - no-matter what we cannot change our mind. I mean faith in a direction, faith in the unknown.





So that we can repeat those mistakes.


To all of you people who died in the revolution, who were impoverished and starved, whose lives were blighted by the oppressive dictatorship of the proletariat, take heart! The next failure will be better!

Yes.





Better a system of perpetual economic stagnation, misery and death than one of perpetual growth and expansion. You're right, there's nothing utopian about that.

Bullshit.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) stated that it would only take $30 billion a year to launch the necessary agricultural programs to completely solve global food insecurity.

it takes $30 billion a year to totally end world hunger? How much do we spend on bank bailouts again? How much did the top 1% save in tax's thanks to the tax cuts for the wealthy?

We're not living in 1911 anymore, the technology available today makes it possible to entirely eradicate world hunger, but people won't work for $2 dollars a week if they aren't about to starve to death so that's not an option.

Capitalism sustains itself off of keeping people poor and in hardship, if we got the drop in the bucket pocket change needed to end world hunger, profits would drop, so that's way it doesn't happen. If this isn't a blatant obvious problem then you need to do some introspection.





Wishful thinking. The antagonisms that you are referring to are called "competition" and they result in better products, greater productivity and higher standards of living for the vast majority. The socialist logic of central planning and collective ownership stifles innovation and produces perpetual stagnation and failure. Oh, I forgot, we're failing better this time.

You keep trying to take my words, and like a slow child trying desperately to force the square peg into the round hole, you force my words into your butchered understanding.

No "antagonisms" does not mean "competition". You don't have any clue what even words mean but you won't even bother to ask because you are more concerned in sustaining your piece-meal fantasy world than having a discussion.


So, how many of us have to die in each failure to get to your final utopia that is not a utopia?

All of you.

Rockntractor
03-01-2011, 11:58 AM
The problem is that you are equating the idea of communism with the state policies of specific nations.

And by the way, not everything they did was terrible. The Soviet Union went from a peasant-farmer society to being the first men in the history of the world to leave Earth.
This all in just a few decades.

If I only looked at the negative consequences of Capitalism (and there are PLENTY), and claimed that those negative things = Capitalism, you'd claim I was being disingenuous by only looking at part of the picture.






The communist struggle will be different depending on the social circumstances which generate it, not to mention the differences in philosophy, technology, politics, and knowledge of history.

Are we to look at the first 50 years of the United States, where it began and say because it was an abyssal moral hellscape filled with Native Genocide and institutionalized slavery, is it fair to say that the United States is an evil country because this is what happened when the founding fathers first created it?







When the current path is riddled with millions of dead bodies and crushed dreams and flowing with the blood and tears of slaves or wage-slaves, sometimes you need to have the balls to get off the path, even if the last guy who did it fell into a ditch.






Easily. Faith is needed, but not faith in Some Thing - no-matter what we cannot change our mind. I mean faith in a direction, faith in the unknown.






Yes.






Bullshit.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) stated that it would only take $30 billion a year to launch the necessary agricultural programs to completely solve global food insecurity.

it takes $30 billion a year to totally end world hunger? How much do we spend on bank bailouts again? How much did the top 1% save in tax's thanks to the tax cuts for the wealthy?

We're not living in 1911 anymore, the technology available today makes it possible to entirely eradicate world hunger, but people won't work for $2 dollars a week if they aren't about to starve to death so that's not an option.

Capitalism sustains itself off of keeping people poor and in hardship, if we got the drop in the bucket pocket change needed to end world hunger, profits would drop, so that's way it doesn't happen. If this isn't a blatant obvious problem then you need to do some introspection.






You keep trying to take my words, and like a slow child trying desperately to force the square peg into the round hole, you force my words into your butchered understanding.

No "antagonisms" does not mean "competition". You don't have any clue what even words mean but you won't even bother to ask because you are more concerned in sustaining your piece-meal fantasy world than having a discussion.



All of you.

That's great Wei, you have enlightened us all with your philosophy, now back to the question.
How would your idea of communism be different than all the failed models, how would you structure your new government to avoid the abuses of the past?

Wei Wu Wei
03-01-2011, 12:06 PM
It's not top-down Stalinism. I don't have a government to dictate, the very form of your question presupposes Stalinist authoritarianism.

Rockntractor
03-01-2011, 12:18 PM
It's not top-down Stalinism. I don't have a government to dictate, the very form of your question presupposes Stalinist authoritarianism.

You fail miserably, you can't even begin to answer the question put to you because you have no idea, it is easier to ramble like a druggie taking acid than to answer specific questions put to you. I have been told you have value here because you promote stimulating intelligent conversation,This is a fine example, you contribute nothing but pipe dreams.

Wei Wu Wei
03-01-2011, 12:33 PM
Not a single person on this retarded forum could be the leader of a nation, including myself. I'm not going to sit here and pretend to have a blueprint for the perfect society. That's just stupid.

What I can do is sit here and analyze concepts, find different ways to look at problems, and find nuggets of truth buried deep within contradictions. I can have discussions and certain different insights than most conservatives might miss because I'm looking at it froma different perspective.

However, my inability to create a utopian society (something I never claimed to be able to do) does nothing to discredit Marxist analysis of capitalism or any of my own criticisms that I post on this forum.

Does my inability to create a perfect society discredit my critcisisms of this society? Does your inability to graduate from Harvard Law and become President discredit your criticisms of Obama?

We have people here who've never even read Marx aside from a blurb in sociology 101, who try to lecture me about "what Marx didn't understand". It's ridiculous.

Gingersnap
03-01-2011, 12:41 PM
You must have some model of what this could look like based on the current status of society. Pick an area and tell us what this could look like. Simply saying that every plan changes over time is both obvious and pointless; the statement doesn't help to clarify your direction.

Rockntractor
03-01-2011, 12:58 PM
Not a single person on this retarded forum could be the leader of a nation, including myself. I'm not going to sit here and pretend to have a blueprint for the perfect society. That's just stupid.

What I can do is sit here and analyze concepts, find different ways to look at problems, and find nuggets of truth buried deep within contradictions. I can have discussions and certain different insights than most conservatives might miss because I'm looking at it froma different perspective.

However, my inability to create a utopian society (something I never claimed to be able to do) does nothing to discredit Marxist analysis of capitalism or any of my own criticisms that I post on this forum.

Does my inability to create a perfect society discredit my critcisisms of this society? Does your inability to graduate from Harvard Law and become President discredit your criticisms of Obama?

We have people here who've never even read Marx aside from a blurb in sociology 101, who try to lecture me about "what Marx didn't understand". It's ridiculous.
Fantastic, everyone on the forum is retarded because you can't answer the question!
Having nothing but criticism and zero answers shows you for what you are, nothing more than a communist agitator.

Odysseus
03-01-2011, 01:06 PM
The problem is that you are equating the idea of communism with the state policies of specific nations.
No, the problem is that you are separating the idea of communism from the inevitable results.


And by the way, not everything they did was terrible. The Soviet Union went from a peasant-farmer society to being the first men in the history of the world to leave Earth.
This all in just a few decades.
And the Nazis pioneered the rockets that they used. Is that a ringing endorsement of National Socialism?


If I only looked at the negative consequences of Capitalism (and there are PLENTY), and claimed that those negative things = Capitalism, you'd claim I was being disingenuous by only looking at part of the picture.
You do, and we do.


The communist struggle will be different depending on the social circumstances which generate it, not to mention the differences in philosophy, technology, politics, and knowledge of history.
But the results have always been the same.


Are we to look at the first 50 years of the United States, where it began and say because it was an abyssal moral hellscape filled with Native Genocide and institutionalized slavery, is it fair to say that the United States is an evil country because this is what happened when the founding fathers first created it?
No, because at the time of those first 50 years, the United States was actually the most liberal democracy in the world. The nations of Europe were engaged in far worse activities and the non-European states, such as the Arab and Asian nations, were far more barbaric by just about every standard. We cannot judge nations through the lense of modern standards, but only in comparison with what was around them. The communist states, OTOH, have destroyed freedom and racked up their body counts during periods in which other nations were at peace with themselves and their neighbors. They have always been the worst nations in the world to live in, not just compared to current states, but compared to their contemporaries.

When the current path is riddled with millions of dead bodies and crushed dreams and flowing with the blood and tears of slaves or wage-slaves, sometimes you need to have the balls to get off the path, even if the last guy who did it fell into a ditch.
That would be the path of communism, which enslaves every population that has the misfortune to encounter it, murders those who dissent (or, for that matter, who are merely more productive than their neighbors) and starves the remainder.


Easily. Faith is needed, but not faith in Some Thing - no-matter what we cannot change our mind. I mean faith in a direction, faith in the unknown.
In other words, the blindest possible faith, in something that has never worked, but might work in the future, if you just fail often enough to work out the bugs, and bummer about all of the eggs that were broken in the previously indigestible omelets.


Yes.
And in the meantime, the failures destroy millions, impoverish billions and threaten the lives of everyone. Not exactly a brilliant cost/benefit ratio there.


Bullshit.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) stated that it would only take $30 billion a year to launch the necessary agricultural programs to completely solve global food insecurity.

it takes $30 billion a year to totally end world hunger? How much do we spend on bank bailouts again? How much did the top 1% save in tax's thanks to the tax cuts for the wealthy?

We're not living in 1911 anymore, the technology available today makes it possible to entirely eradicate world hunger, but people won't work for $2 dollars a week if they aren't about to starve to death so that's not an option.

Capitalism sustains itself off of keeping people poor and in hardship, if we got the drop in the bucket pocket change needed to end world hunger, profits would drop, so that's way it doesn't happen. If this isn't a blatant obvious problem then you need to do some introspection.
And who will the money come from? Why, the capitalists! And where is the global hunger? Hmmm... Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, China... why, in all of the places where they reject capitalism! Notice a correlation there? The capitalist states have surpluses of capital and food, and the socialist states are impoverished. They don't need handouts, they need property rights, the rule of law and the freedom to feed themselves.


You keep trying to take my words, and like a slow child trying desperately to force the square peg into the round hole, you force my words into your butchered understanding.

No "antagonisms" does not mean "competition". You don't have any clue what even words mean but you won't even bother to ask because you are more concerned in sustaining your piece-meal fantasy world than having a discussion.
You have the gall to call my world a fantasy? What color is the sky in your world, Wei? The one where a failed system will suddenly, after centuries of failure, produce the utopian social order that you claim isn't utopian?


All of you.

Never doubted it for a minute. But you'll pardon us if we fight for our lives, won't you? Or does Marx demand that we quietly accept our termination in the name of your glorious future?

txradioguy
03-01-2011, 01:14 PM
Fantastic, everyone on the forum is retarded because you can't answer the question!
Having nothing but criticism and zero answers shows you for what you are, nothing more than a communist agitator.

Or wilburs sockpuppet.

txradioguy
03-01-2011, 01:16 PM
No, the problem is that you are separating the idea of communism from the inevitable results.


And the Nazis pioneered the rockets that they used. Is that a ringing endorsement of National Socialism?


You do, and we do.


But the results have always been the same.


No, because at the time of those first 50 years, the United States was actually the most liberal democracy in the world. The nations of Europe were engaged in far worse activities and the non-European states, such as the Arab and Asian nations, were far more barbaric by just about every standard. We cannot judge nations through the lense of modern standards, but only in comparison with what was around them. The communist states, OTOH, have destroyed freedom and racked up their body counts during periods in which other nations were at peace with themselves and their neighbors. They have always been the worst nations in the world to live in, not just compared to current states, but compared to their contemporaries.

That would be the path of communism, which enslaves every population that has the misfortune to encounter it, murders those who dissent (or, for that matter, who are merely more productive than their neighbors) and starves the remainder.


In other words, the blindest possible faith, in something that has never worked, but might work in the future, if you just fail often enough to work out the bugs, and bummer about all of the eggs that were broken in the previously indigestible omelets.


And in the meantime, the failures destroy millions, impoverish billions and threaten the lives of everyone. Not exactly a brilliant cost/benefit ratio there.


And who will the money come from? Why, the capitalists! And where is the global hunger? Hmmm... Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, China... why, in all of the places where they reject capitalism! Notice a correlation there? The capitalist states have surpluses of capital and food, and the socialist states are impoverished. They don't need handouts, they need property rights, the rule of law and the freedom to feed themselves.


You have the gall to call my world a fantasy? What color is the sky in your world, Wei? The one where a failed system will suddenly, after centuries of failure, produce the utopian social order that you claim isn't utopian?



Never doubted it for a minute. But you'll pardon us if we fight for our lives, won't you? Or does Marx demand that we quietly accept our termination in the name of your glorious future?

This is like a PoliSci class.

Any way I can get credits towards my degree for what you're teaching here sir?

Odysseus
03-01-2011, 01:24 PM
This is like a PoliSci class.

Any way I can get credits towards my degree for what you're teaching here sir?

Unfortunately, the only accredited teacher here is Wei, although he refuses to tell us what subject he teaches. If that isn't an indictment of our education system, I don't know what is.

txradioguy
03-01-2011, 01:25 PM
Unfortunately, the only accredited teacher here is Wei, although he refuses to tell us what subject he teaches. If that isn't an indictment of our education system, I don't know what is.

That is frightening.

Bailey
03-01-2011, 01:28 PM
Unfortunately, the only accredited teacher here is Wei, although he refuses to tell us what subject he teaches. If that isn't an indictment of our education system, I don't know what is.

I pity the poor young minds that fall under this assholes guidance

Odysseus
03-01-2011, 02:22 PM
I pity the poor young minds that fall under this assholes guidance

I pity the parents who paid the tuition for those kids.

Odysseus
03-01-2011, 02:34 PM
And here's the latest in a long line of failures:

http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/12/10/sjs7yrly4o.jpg

Calypso Jones
03-01-2011, 03:05 PM
You fail miserably, you can't even begin to answer the question put to you because you have no idea, it is easier to ramble like a druggie taking acid than to answer specific questions put to you. I have been told you have value here because you promote stimulating intelligent conversation,This is a fine example, you contribute nothing but pipe dreams.

now that's funny.

Odysseus
03-01-2011, 03:14 PM
A Utopian vision of an ideal system would be pure stateless Communism. However the question is never whether this ideal system can exist and function right now (it cannot).

If you're asking what would be my ideal system right now - it would be a system that is in motion.

Every system is perpetually changing, so at best I can only describe favorable directions, changes that hold true to the Communist Idea but I'm not about to sit here and claim that any arrangement of policy would work the way we want it to.

You can arrange any idealistic economic/political system and in a few weeks or months it will already be changing into something else. What fuels this change is the antagonisms that exist within every system, and the resolution of these antagonisms is communism.

There is no perfect system, and this imperfection is what constantly changes and moves systems towards their eventual evolution - into communism.

http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2011/01/06/ch0x2fs7tu.jpg


Often times, doing the right thing means you have to take a step before you can see the entire path that you are stepping on. Sometimes if there is no path, you carve it as you step, meaning you cannot know in advance what all could happen.

We must begin again from the beginning.

The revolutionary process is not a gradual progression, it's a series of repetitions of a revolutionary event.

Try again. Fail again. Fail better.

http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/12/27/gjfk6jxlei.gif

Rockntractor
03-01-2011, 03:38 PM
This is going nicely!:D
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/laugh-dog.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
03-01-2011, 07:09 PM
lol

I know already that posters like odyssius and others have no intention of having a discussion. For example, CITM here in the OP, despite his having different opinions, is willing to momentarily for the sake of discussion withold his preconceptions so that he can better understand my perspective. He may not agree with my perspective but he is willing and able to suspend his preconceptions in order to see how I view communism.

This is a discussion, this is how we can develop our understandings, and without it, it turns into a stupid crap-flinging contest. CITM is one of the best posters here for his ability to do just this.

On the other hand, we have posters like Ody, who starts every post with these initial presuppositions:

1. Communism and anything related to communism is evil.
2. Capitalism is the light, and is necessary for, if not equal to Freedom.

He then totally refuses, even for the sake of argument, to suspend these presuppositions and thus we get the phenomenon of posting in circles. Ody has no interest in developing or changing his understanding, or even coming to objectively see my understanding, instead his sole mission is to reaffirm those two initial presuppositions.

When you take that route, there is no hope for discussion, and the most that can happen is getting a headache because in the end it's really only those 2 points that you are trying to make, while I am talking about something totally different.

I can elaborate on why those two presuppositions are not firmly grounded in reality, but they will fall on deaf ears.

I don't expect people here to agree with me, but there must be at least a first step of suspending your presuppositions even if only for the sake of discussion, otherwise we end up using the same terms like "communism" even though we are talking about drastically different things from drastically different perspectives.



A few questions:

How many Americans starved during the Great Depression?
How many people have died in America's wars since WWII?

By what standard do you consider communism a failure, and using that same standard, how do those astonishingly high death tolls under Capitalism not equal a failure to you?

If world hunger can be eradicated with $30 billion a year and banks/wall street are bailed out by American taxpayers for hundreds of billions of dollars, how can you say the system that creates this contradiction is a success?

By what metric is capitalism a success? If you are only looking at the positive aspects and ignoring the imperialism and global exploitation, then when you examine the Soviet Union you can only look at the positive aspects and ignore the bad sides of that system.


Let me make this clear: The USSR was not what I call communism, it was a form of socialist government based on authoritarian state control and central economic planning and both many great wonderful things and many terrible horrific things came from that. However, that is not communism.

Rockntractor
03-01-2011, 07:20 PM
lol

I know already that posters like odyssius and others have no intention of having a discussion. For example, CITM here in the OP, despite his having different opinions, is willing to momentarily for the sake of discussion withold his preconceptions so that he can better understand my perspective. He may not agree with my perspective but he is willing and able to suspend his preconceptions in order to see how I view communism.

This is a discussion, this is how we can develop our understandings, and without it, it turns into a stupid crap-flinging contest. CITM is one of the best posters here for his ability to do just this.

On the other hand, we have posters like Ody, who starts every post with these initial presuppositions:

1. Communism and anything related to communism is evil.
2. Capitalism is the light, and is necessary for, if not equal to Freedom.

He then totally refuses, even for the sake of argument, to suspend these presuppositions and thus we get the phenomenon of posting in circles. Ody has no interest in developing or changing his understanding, or even coming to objectively see my understanding, instead his sole mission is to reaffirm those two initial presuppositions.

When you take that route, there is no hope for discussion, and the most that can happen is getting a headache because in the end it's really only those 2 points that you are trying to make, while I am talking about something totally different.

I can elaborate on why those two presuppositions are not firmly grounded in reality, but they will fall on deaf ears.

I don't expect people here to agree with me, but there must be at least a first step of suspending your presuppositions even if only for the sake of discussion, otherwise we end up using the same terms like "communism" even though we are talking about drastically different things from drastically different perspectives.



A few questions:

How many Americans starved during the Great Depression?
How many people have died in America's wars since WWII?

By what standard do you consider communism a failure, and using that same standard, how do those astonishingly high death tolls under Capitalism not equal a failure to you?

If world hunger can be eradicated with $30 billion a year and banks/wall street are bailed out by American taxpayers for hundreds of billions of dollars, how can you say the system that creates this contradiction is a success?

By what metric is capitalism a success? If you are only looking at the positive aspects and ignoring the imperialism and global exploitation, then when you examine the Soviet Union you can only look at the positive aspects and ignore the bad sides of that system.


Let me make this clear: The USSR was not what I call communism, it was a form of socialist government based on authoritarian state control and central economic planning and both many great wonderful things and many terrible horrific things came from that. However, that is not communism.
You have no desire to answer the question, you just want to spew talking points.
Once again, how would your idea of communism be different than all the failed models, how would you structure your new government to avoid the abuses of the past?

Wei Wu Wei
03-01-2011, 07:46 PM
Regimes in the past have tried to reach communism by putting the State structure into the hands of the proletariat. However, the problem with his logic is obvious in that the government party leaders who claim to represenent the proletariat then become a new ruling class - as happened in the USSR.

Instead, there needs to be a new conception of the proletariat, one which aims to eradicate itself as a class in the fullfillment of their formation. The proletariat cannot become the ruling class as a proletariat, obviously, because the position of the proletariat can only exist within a structure of class exploitation.

Likewise, the State cannot function as an arm of the people (in an advanced socialist state), because the state apperatus simply becomes another means of exploitation when the class position of the people change (allowing things like Party members becoming a ruling class of their own).

Communism would have to be stateless, which means any state structure developed in hopes of reaching communism must be a state destined to kill itself, a state with it's own withering built into it. The state must facilitate the transition to no-state, so the very form and function of the State must change from what has been tried in the past.

Rockntractor
03-01-2011, 07:51 PM
Regimes in the past have tried to reach communism by putting the State structure into the hands of the proletariat. However, the problem with his logic is obvious in that the government party leaders who claim to represenent the proletariat then become a new ruling class - as happened in the USSR.

Instead, there needs to be a new conception of the proletariat, one which aims to eradicate itself as a class in the fullfillment of their formation. The proletariat cannot become the ruling class as a proletariat, obviously, because the position of the proletariat can only exist within a structure of class exploitation.

Likewise, the State cannot function as an arm of the people (in an advanced socialist state), because the state apperatus simply becomes another means of exploitation when the class position of the people change (allowing things like Party members becoming a ruling class of their own).

Communism would have to be stateless, which means any state structure developed in hopes of reaching communism must be a state destined to kill itself, a state with it's own withering built into it. The state must facilitate the transition to no-state, so the very form and function of the State must change from what has been tried in the past.
That would basically be an anarchical system.

Wei Wu Wei
03-01-2011, 07:53 PM
nah

Rockntractor
03-01-2011, 08:00 PM
nah

Here, go practice.
http://www.nationstates.net/

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-01-2011, 08:22 PM
lol

I know already that posters like odyssius and others have no intention of having a discussion. For example, CITM here in the OP, despite his having different opinions, is willing to momentarily for the sake of discussion withold his preconceptions so that he can better understand my perspective. He may not agree with my perspective but he is willing and able to suspend his preconceptions in order to see how I view communism.

This is a discussion, this is how we can develop our understandings, and without it, it turns into a stupid crap-flinging contest. CITM is one of the best posters here for his ability to do just this.

On the other hand, we have posters like Ody, who starts every post with these initial presuppositions:

1. Communism and anything related to communism is evil.
2. Capitalism is the light, and is necessary for, if not equal to Freedom.

He then totally refuses, even for the sake of argument, to suspend these presuppositions and thus we get the phenomenon of posting in circles. Ody has no interest in developing or changing his understanding, or even coming to objectively see my understanding, instead his sole mission is to reaffirm those two initial presuppositions.

When you take that route, there is no hope for discussion, and the most that can happen is getting a headache because in the end it's really only those 2 points that you are trying to make, while I am talking about something totally different.

I can elaborate on why those two presuppositions are not firmly grounded in reality, but they will fall on deaf ears.

I don't expect people here to agree with me, but there must be at least a first step of suspending your presuppositions even if only for the sake of discussion, otherwise we end up using the same terms like "communism" even though we are talking about drastically different things from drastically different perspectives.



A few questions:

How many Americans starved during the Great Depression?
How many people have died in America's wars since WWII?

By what standard do you consider communism a failure, and using that same standard, how do those astonishingly high death tolls under Capitalism not equal a failure to you?

If world hunger can be eradicated with $30 billion a year and banks/wall street are bailed out by American taxpayers for hundreds of billions of dollars, how can you say the system that creates this contradiction is a success?

By what metric is capitalism a success? If you are only looking at the positive aspects and ignoring the imperialism and global exploitation, then when you examine the Soviet Union you can only look at the positive aspects and ignore the bad sides of that system.


Let me make this clear: The USSR was not what I call communism, it was a form of socialist government based on authoritarian state control and central economic planning and both many great wonderful things and many terrible horrific things came from that. However, that is not communism.

1) You bring up how many have died in our wars. But war is not a product of capitalism. War is a natural state of mankind, sadly, and has existed for all of humanity's history. War would still exist whether we were under capitalism, communism, or any sort of political system.

I consider Communism a failure due to the fact that every nation which has tried it has fallen very quickly int tyranny and dictatorship; I see it as a failure due to the body counts incurred by communist governments during peacetime. Such things don't happen in our system, and I don't know of any capitalistic government in the modern age that has engaged in mass murder for purely ideological ends.

Why should it be our job--the US' job--to cure world hunger? I'd love to see hunger and poverty cured here, but I don't think it's possible. LBJ's War on Poverty was a good idea and it did drop the poverty rates dramatically (and thus was in some ways IMO a success), but even it couldn't eradicate poverty or hunger. Like war, poverty and hunger are simply sadder parts of the human condition. In one order for one person to be full, another needs to be hungry. We can put safeguards in there like the modern welfare state, which I support, to ensure that all don't go hungry, but not everyone can be saved. It's just the way things are.

Human nature can't be changed by force of law, and that's what communism seeks to do--change human nature, change some very fundamental (albeit negative) aspects of us as human beings. And that's exactly why it leads to repression, because not everyone is going to voluntarily accept being on a level playing field with everyone else, and so those people--the free thinkers--have to be repressed in order for a Communistic government to work. Look at how all of the intellectuals were repressed and eventually killed in Stalin's and Mao's regimes.

The only system I support is regulated capitalism, or a mixed economy, the same sort of very successful system we've had here for over 100 years now. A fine balance needs to be kept to keep our system from drifting too far to either side; Where that line should lie is up to one's own judgment. For some, Universal Healthcare is going too far, for others we went too far by having any regulations period. I prefer the middle ground in that--I don't support UHC but I also don't support going back to the way things were in 1900 either. I also see both Laissez-Faire capitalism, and communism, as destructive and morally wrong forces. But that's just my own perspective.

Wei Wu Wei
03-01-2011, 10:46 PM
1) You bring up how many have died in our wars. But war is not a product of capitalism. War is a natural state of mankind, sadly, and has existed for all of humanity's history. War would still exist whether we were under capitalism, communism, or any sort of political system.

"War" in the abstract sense is not a product of capitalism but the American wars fought to protect capitalist interests certainly are. military history has been a long series of people with money and power sending the poor to die for their gain. It becomes wrapped in in mythical imagery and cultural importance but it still is what it is.

There have been some just wars, but you cannot separate the influence of money on politics.

People try to separate political , military, economic spheres but they overlap so much that once you separate them you are talking about a different thing that doesn't really exist.



I consider Communism a failure due to the fact that every nation which has tried it has fallen very quickly int tyranny and dictatorship; I see it as a failure due to the body counts incurred by communist governments during peacetime. Such things don't happen in our system, and I don't know of any capitalistic government in the modern age that has engaged in mass murder for purely ideological ends.

Extraordinary death tolls don't count if they weren't explicitly done in the name of an ideology? Fighting stupid wars that lead to hundreds of thousands of killed civilians isn't something you can just write off just because those people aren't bleeding out in our streets.

What do you mean by mass murder? Do you mean starvation or state-sanctioned killings?

If it's starvation you should check out how many people in the USA died during the depression. It's about 12 Million, that's how many americans were starving to death thanks to Capitalism (see how easy it is to pin it solely on a system?)

If it's the gulags you are referring to consider that The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html)

Also, in the American Southern states, forced labor was reportedly used in a similar way to the gulags against blacks and political dissidents until the 1950's.



Why should it be our job--the US' job--to cure world hunger? I'd love to see hunger and poverty cured here, but I don't think it's possible. LBJ's War on Poverty was a good idea and it did drop the poverty rates dramatically (and thus was in some ways IMO a success), but even it couldn't eradicate poverty or hunger. Like war, poverty and hunger are simply sadder parts of the human condition. In one order for one person to be full, another needs to be hungry. We can put safeguards in there like the modern welfare state, which I support, to ensure that all don't go hungry, but not everyone can be saved. It's just the way things are.

How is it not possible? 30 Billion a year could end world hunger and in a nation where 400 individuals own 1.5 Trillion dollars combined, you're saying we cannot solve domestic poverty?

No, that's not impossible, it's just ideological. It is perfectly possible if you take away all the political stuff, it's not possible in our system because of the nature of our system. This is one reason to realize that our system is flawed at a fundamental level.






Human nature can't be changed by force of law, and that's what communism seeks to do--change human nature, change some very fundamental (albeit negative) aspects of us as human beings. And that's exactly why it leads to repression, because not everyone is going to voluntarily accept being on a level playing field with everyone else, and so those people--the free thinkers--have to be repressed in order for a Communistic government to work. Look at how all of the intellectuals were repressed and eventually killed in Stalin's and Mao's regimes.

Human nature isn't a middle class American lifestyle in 2011. Human nature, if by that you mean one's seemingly natural impulses and predispositions is incredibly fluid and changes with the changes in the environment he lives in, including his social/economic environment.

Do you think man's ancestors crawled down from the trees and stood up because it is in his nature to work 14 hours a day in a sweatshop? The only reason we aren't doing this today is because of the American socialists, communists and other labor movement participators who forced a small semblance of power from the hands of the capitalists and established what we take for granted today.

The "human nature" argument was all the rage back a century ago too.



The only system I support is regulated capitalism, or a mixed economy, the same sort of very successful system we've had here for over 100 years now. A fine balance needs to be kept to keep our system from drifting too far to either side; Where that line should lie is up to one's own judgment. For some, Universal Healthcare is going too far, for others we went too far by having any regulations period. I prefer the middle ground in that--I don't support UHC but I also don't support going back to the way things were in 1900 either. I also see both Laissez-Faire capitalism, and communism, as destructive and morally wrong forces. But that's just my own perspective.

lol okay what I find funny though is where you put "middle ground". In most industrialized nations even conservatives talk about how important their health care system is.

You put up a crazy ridiculous laughable far-right lunatic position next to your average republican position and call it "fair and balanced" because "both sides" are represented.

Rockntractor
03-01-2011, 11:00 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/trancommiesmall.jpg

Odysseus
03-02-2011, 01:29 PM
lol

I know already that posters like odyssius and others have no intention of having a discussion. For example, CITM here in the OP, despite his having different opinions, is willing to momentarily for the sake of discussion withold his preconceptions so that he can better understand my perspective. He may not agree with my perspective but he is willing and able to suspend his preconceptions in order to see how I view communism.
I'm perfectly willing to have a discussion. I'm just not willing to concede that communism works.


This is a discussion, this is how we can develop our understandings, and without it, it turns into a stupid crap-flinging contest. CITM is one of the best posters here for his ability to do just this.
And, after reading your responses, he decides that you're wrong, will he be another crap flinger?


On the other hand, we have posters like Ody, who starts every post with these initial presuppositions:

1. Communism and anything related to communism is evil.
2. Capitalism is the light, and is necessary for, if not equal to Freedom.

He then totally refuses, even for the sake of argument, to suspend these presuppositions and thus we get the phenomenon of posting in circles. Ody has no interest in developing or changing his understanding, or even coming to objectively see my understanding, instead his sole mission is to reaffirm those two initial presuppositions.

When you take that route, there is no hope for discussion, and the most that can happen is getting a headache because in the end it's really only those 2 points that you are trying to make, while I am talking about something totally different.

I can elaborate on why those two presuppositions are not firmly grounded in reality, but they will fall on deaf ears.
This is rich. Your presuppositions are:
1. Capitalism and anything related to capitalism is evil.
2. Communism is the light, and is necessary for, if not equal to Freedom.

And you refuse to suspend them. The difference is, whenever you run into factual evidence that demonstrates that the previous failures of communism predict its future failures, you move the goalposts and embrace failure.


I don't expect people here to agree with me, but there must be at least a first step of suspending your presuppositions even if only for the sake of discussion, otherwise we end up using the same terms like "communism" even though we are talking about drastically different things from drastically different perspectives.
Why must we suspend our most basic beliefs when you won't? This is like Democrats who demand bipartisanship when they are out of power, but lock out the opposition when they are in power.


A few questions:

How many Americans starved during the Great Depression?
No one actually knows, but the numbers that we do have are illustrative.

But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger.
So, at the height of the Depression, in the largest city in the US, with a population of over 7 million, 110 people died from hunger. If apply the same rate to the US population as a whole (123,188,000), we get 1,936 people. Let's go with 2,000 per year, muliplied by the ten years of the Depression, and you get 20,000 people, an apallingly high number for America, but nothing compared with the 20 million who starved in the USSR during the same period. In other words, during the worst financial crisis in history, the starvation toll in the US was 1/1,000th of the toll in the USSR, when they were supposedly building the workers' paradise.


How many people have died in America's wars since WWII?
America's wars? Did the US invade South Korea? Did the US seek to conquer South Vietnam? Did the US just happen to find itself in Grenada after the Soviets took it over through their Cuban proxies? Those were wars of communist agression, and laying the body count at the feet of the US is specious nonsense.


By what standard do you consider communism a failure, and using that same standard, how do those astonishingly high death tolls under Capitalism not equal a failure to you?

If world hunger can be eradicated with $30 billion a year and banks/wall street are bailed out by American taxpayers for hundreds of billions of dollars, how can you say the system that creates this contradiction is a success?
Apples and oranges. Using just one example, the Ethiopian famine, we find that the Marxist regime of Mengistu, as Soviet ally, had destroyed the subsistence farming of the rural people in order to consolidate power and starve the rebel provinces of Eritrea and Tigre into submisison. The western response, a massive infusion of aid by private organizations, failed, because the regime wasn't interested in alleviating the famine. They charged exorbitant amounts to permit unloading of food shipments, and then let them rot on the docks while Soviet weapons shipments were given priority for transportation. The issue was not that capitalism caused hunger, it was that communists used hunger as a weapon, and the good intentions of capitalist entertainers and others, who mobilized hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, were defeated by the evil intentions of communists.


By what metric is capitalism a success? If you are only looking at the positive aspects and ignoring the imperialism and global exploitation, then when you examine the Soviet Union you can only look at the positive aspects and ignore the bad sides of that system.
By every metric. Let's start with food, since you're obsessing on world hunger:
Total Coarse Grain Area, Yield, and Production:
Total number of hectares in millions:

World--313.22
United States--36.94
Total Foreign 276.27

Our total acreage devoted to grains is 11.8% of the global total. However, our yields per hectare are far higher:
Yield (Metric tons per hectare):

World --3.54
United States --8.82
Foreign --2.84
That's right, our yields are almost three times greater than the rest of the world's. Which means that with only 1/10th of the global farmland in production, we produce what percentage of total grains?
Production (Million metric tons):

World --1,109.40
United States --325.87
Total Foreign --783.54
Roughly 1/3. That's right, Wei, America, evil, exploitive, capitalist America, feeds the world. China, with 32.23 million hectares in play, has a yield of 5.35 metric tons per hectare, for an anemic 172.41 million metric tons. And the numbers for the rest of the communist world are even more dismal. The former USSR states have the worst yields, despite having some of the most fertile arable land in the world (the Ukraine is at least as fertile as the American plains). We have similar differences in dairy (the EU 27 countries are actually higher in output than the US in total, but those are still quasi-capitalist states, as opposed to the former communist states, which produce single digit percentages of global output), meat, poultry, you name it. What's the difference? Capitalism.


Let me make this clear: The USSR was not what I call communism, it was a form of socialist government based on authoritarian state control and central economic planning and both many great wonderful things and many terrible horrific things came from that. However, that is not communism.
Let's make this clear: You can claim what you like, but the USSR called itself a communist state. So did China. So did the Eastern European slave states, Cuba, the various Southest Asian states that fell after Vietnam, you name it. If we accept your argument, there has never been a communist state, therefore we cannot judge the effects of communism. This is patently obvious BS. That loud shockwave that we're feeling is the sonic boom from you moving the goalposts at mach 1.


Regimes in the past have tried to reach communism by putting the State structure into the hands of the proletariat. However, the problem with his logic is obvious in that the government party leaders who claim to represenent the proletariat then become a new ruling class - as happened in the USSR.

Instead, there needs to be a new conception of the proletariat, one which aims to eradicate itself as a class in the fullfillment of their formation. The proletariat cannot become the ruling class as a proletariat, obviously, because the position of the proletariat can only exist within a structure of class exploitation.
So, in order to empower the proletariat, we have to redefine it out of existence?


Likewise, the State cannot function as an arm of the people (in an advanced socialist state), because the state apperatus simply becomes another means of exploitation when the class position of the people change (allowing things like Party members becoming a ruling class of their own).

Communism would have to be stateless, which means any state structure developed in hopes of reaching communism must be a state destined to kill itself, a state with it's own withering built into it. The state must facilitate the transition to no-state, so the very form and function of the State must change from what has been tried in the past.

But communist states have been trying to kill themselves for decades, through war, famine, economic failure, etc. The only difference between that and what you are proposing is semantics.

txradioguy
03-02-2011, 01:44 PM
I'm perfectly willing to have a discussion. I'm just not willing to concede that communism works.


And, after reading your responses, he decides that you're wrong, will he be another crap flinger?


This is rich. Your presuppositions are:
1. Capitalism and anything related to capitalism is evil.
2. Communism is the light, and is necessary for, if not equal to Freedom.

And you refuse to suspend them. The difference is, whenever you run into factual evidence that demonstrates that the previous failures of communism predict its future failures, you move the goalposts and embrace failure.


Why must we suspend our most basic beliefs when you won't? This is like Democrats who demand bipartisanship when they are out of power, but lock out the opposition when they are in power.


No one actually knows, but the numbers that we do have are illustrative.

So, at the height of the Depression, in the largest city in the US, with a population of over 7 million, 110 people died from hunger. If apply the same rate to the US population as a whole (123,188,000), we get 1,936 people. Let's go with 2,000 per year, muliplied by the ten years of the Depression, and you get 20,000 people, an apallingly high number for America, but nothing compared with the 20 million who starved in the USSR during the same period. In other words, during the worst financial crisis in history, the starvation toll in the US was 1/1,000th of the toll in the USSR, when they were supposedly building the workers' paradise.


America's wars? Did the US invade South Korea? Did the US seek to conquer South Vietnam? Did the US just happen to find itself in Grenada after the Soviets took it over through their Cuban proxies? Those were wars of communist agression, and laying the body count at the feet of the US is specious nonsense.


Apples and oranges. Using just one example, the Ethiopian famine, we find that the Marxist regime of Mengistu, as Soviet ally, had destroyed the subsistence farming of the rural people in order to consolidate power and starve the rebel provinces of Eritrea and Tigre into submisison. The western response, a massive infusion of aid by private organizations, failed, because the regime wasn't interested in alleviating the famine. They charged exorbitant amounts to permit unloading of food shipments, and then let them rot on the docks while Soviet weapons shipments were given priority for transportation. The issue was not that capitalism caused hunger, it was that communists used hunger as a weapon, and the good intentions of capitalist entertainers and others, who mobilized hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, were defeated by the evil intentions of communists.


By every metric. Let's start with food, since you're obsessing on world hunger:
Total Coarse Grain Area, Yield, and Production:
Total number of hectares in millions:

World--313.22
United States--36.94
Total Foreign 276.27

Our total acreage devoted to grains is 11.8% of the global total. However, our yields per hectare are far higher:
Yield (Metric tons per hectare):

World --3.54
United States --8.82
Foreign --2.84
That's right, our yields are almost three times greater than the rest of the world's. Which means that with only 1/10th of the global farmland in production, we produce what percentage of total grains?
Production (Million metric tons):

World --1,109.40
United States --325.87
Total Foreign --783.54
Roughly 1/3. That's right, Wei, America, evil, exploitive, capitalist America, feeds the world. China, with 32.23 million hectares in play, has a yield of 5.35 metric tons per hectare, for an anemic 172.41 million metric tons. And the numbers for the rest of the communist world are even more dismal. The former USSR states have the worst yields, despite having some of the most fertile arable land in the world (the Ukraine is at least as fertile as the American plains). We have similar differences in dairy (the EU 27 countries are actually higher in output than the US in total, but those are still quasi-capitalist states, as opposed to the former communist states, which produce single digit percentages of global output), meat, poultry, you name it. What's the difference? Capitalism.


Let's make this clear: You can claim what you like, but the USSR called itself a communist state. So did China. So did the Eastern European slave states, Cuba, the various Southest Asian states that fell after Vietnam, you name it. If we accept your argument, there has never been a communist state, therefore we cannot judge the effects of communism. This is patently obvious BS. That loud shockwave that we're feeling is the sonic boom from you moving the goalposts at mach 1.


So, in order to empower the proletariat, we have to redefine it out of existence?



But communist states have been trying to kill themselves for decades, through war, famine, economic failure, etc. The only difference between that and what you are proposing is semantics.

Wee Wee has spent too much time in the class room spouting this drivel.

Which proves that just because it sounds good and works in theory in the vacuum of Academia...doesn't mean it survives reality.

Communism has never succeeded in the real world.

Odysseus
03-02-2011, 02:49 PM
Wee Wee has spent too much time in the class room spouting this drivel.

Which proves that just because it sounds good and works in theory in the vacuum of Academia...doesn't mean it survives reality.

Communism has never succeeded in the real world.

It can't succeed. It's like trying to come up with a theory of flight that assumes that the law of gravity is simply oppressive politics.

Wei Wu Wei
03-02-2011, 02:54 PM
I'm perfectly willing to have a discussion. I'm just not willing to concede that communism works.


And, after reading your responses, he decides that you're wrong, will he be another crap flinger?

Here's the difference. CITM may disagree with me, but he takes the first step of saying "okay for the sake of argument, let me try to hold my preconceptions at bay so that I can attempt to understand the issue from your perspective".

You, on the other hand, have no desire to hold any preconceptions at bay, but rather just repeat them ad nauseum until it becomes clear that you aren't even reading my posts, but instead arguing against a strawman of your own creation.




This is rich. Your presuppositions are:
1. Capitalism and anything related to capitalism is evil.
2. Communism is the light, and is necessary for, if not equal to Freedom.

No they aren't. After much analysis I am able to conclude that the problems faced within capitalism, both economic and also political/military/social, ect. are rooted in the core antagonisms within the capitalist mode of production.

it's nothing about evilness it's nothing about communism being the light. it's not even a starting point, the starting point, as best as i am able to, must be "i don't know, let's examine the facts", and through a lot of analysis the picture becomes clear after the fact.

People today confuse opinions with knowledge, and they think that if you have an opinion, and hold onto it for dear life, it's the same thing as knowing it. That's just not true.

I know you havne't read any Marx (unless you read a blurb in highschool) because you keep asserting what you believe Marx did and didn't know, even though so much of your claims can be easily shown false just by reading the FIRST CHAPTER of Capital. You haven't read it, yet you still assert "what Marx knew" or "what Marx didn't know".

It's stupid. There is ignorance, and there is stupidity. Everyone is ignorant, but stupidity is when you base your self-confidence on that ignorance and fight to the death to preserve it.

I know it's pointless to actualyl try to explain how Marx saw it (as best that I can understand it, because I don't even come close to fully understanding Marx, I'm still a baby scholar in this area and I admit my limitations here, something you should try doing now and then), because you have no interest in seeing how Marx saw it, only proving that HE IS WRONG - which somehow you think you can prove by proving that I am wrong (which doesn't work, my own ignorance and limitations say nothing about Marx's).




And you refuse to suspend them. The difference is, whenever you run into factual evidence that demonstrates that the previous failures of communism predict its future failures, you move the goalposts and embrace failure.

No I don't, by all means lay out your very best support of Capitalism, I will accept many of your faulty presuppositions as a given and show you how they lead to absurd conclusions.

What is the evidence that past events predict future events? The 20th century was a different time, a time of empires, a time of industrial expansion, a time of World Wars, a time of technological innovation unmatched by any period of time in human history. There were unique global social circumstances during that century and the events that took place were rooted in those unique circumstances. To claim that events in the 21st century must follow the same pattern, despite the entire world being a different place in a different era with different consciousness is absurd.

To claim that something that happened in the 20th century is doomed to happen for all eternity just by virtue of sharing the same name is foolish.




Why must we suspend our most basic beliefs when you won't? This is like Democrats who demand bipartisanship when they are out of power, but lock out the opposition when they are in power.

I post on this crazy right wing conservative forum, and you're telling me I am unable to unwedge myself from my own echo chamber? :rolleyes:



No one actually knows, but the numbers that we do have are illustrative.

So, at the height of the Depression, in the largest city in the US, with a population of over 7 million, 110 people died from hunger. If apply the same rate to the US population as a whole (123,188,000), we get 1,936 people.

Except you can't do that because the US population as a whole is not living in the largest city in the US and everyone knows rural conditions are different from urban conditions.


Let's go with 2,000 per year, muliplied by the ten years of the Depression, and you get 20,000 people, an apallingly high number for America, but nothing compared with the 20 million who starved in the USSR during the same period. In other words, during the worst financial crisis in history, the starvation toll in the US was 1/1,000th of the toll in the USSR, when they were supposedly building the workers' paradise.

Yes with faulty data and a silly analysis process you get a number that doesn't mean anything.




America's wars? Did the US invade South Korea? Did the US seek to conquer South Vietnam? Did the US just happen to find itself in Grenada after the Soviets took it over through their Cuban proxies? Those were wars of communist agression, and laying the body count at the feet of the US is specious nonsense.

There sure was a lot of bullets shot, lives lost, and money spent for wars that America was apparently not part of.





Apples and oranges. Using just one example, the Ethiopian famine, we find that the Marxist regime of Mengistu, as Soviet ally, had destroyed the subsistence farming of the rural people in order to consolidate power and starve the rebel provinces of Eritrea and Tigre into submisison. The western response, a massive infusion of aid by private organizations, failed, because the regime wasn't interested in alleviating the famine. They charged exorbitant amounts to permit unloading of food shipments, and then let them rot on the docks while Soviet weapons shipments were given priority for transportation. The issue was not that capitalism caused hunger, it was that communists used hunger as a weapon, and the good intentions of capitalist entertainers and others, who mobilized hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, were defeated by the evil intentions of communists.

You didn't address my point. World hunger (let alone American poverty) could be easily eradicated but we spend dozens more than that price to bail out bankers and wall street executives. This is our capitalist system. How can you call a system that produces these types of contradictions a success?




By every metric. Let's start with food, since you're obsessing on world hunger:
Total Coarse Grain Area, Yield, and Production:
Total number of hectares in millions:

World--313.22
United States--36.94
Total Foreign 276.27

Our total acreage devoted to grains is 11.8% of the global total. However, our yields per hectare are far higher:
Yield (Metric tons per hectare):

World --3.54
United States --8.82
Foreign --2.84
That's right, our yields are almost three times greater than the rest of the world's. Which means that with only 1/10th of the global farmland in production, we produce what percentage of total grains?
Production (Million metric tons):

World --1,109.40
United States --325.87
Total Foreign --783.54
Roughly 1/3. That's right, Wei, America, evil, exploitive, capitalist America, feeds the world. China, with 32.23 million hectares in play, has a yield of 5.35 metric tons per hectare, for an anemic 172.41 million metric tons. And the numbers for the rest of the communist world are even more dismal. The former USSR states have the worst yields, despite having some of the most fertile arable land in the world (the Ukraine is at least as fertile as the American plains). We have similar differences in dairy (the EU 27 countries are actually higher in output than the US in total, but those are still quasi-capitalist states, as opposed to the former communist states, which produce single digit percentages of global output), meat, poultry, you name it. What's the difference? Capitalism.

Do you know that private companies buy up huge swaths of land in third world countries and don't even use them to their full capacity because it keeps their profits higher? All that unused land could be feeding starving people who live on that land but nope that's not good for profits.

You aren't even looking at the processes of capitalism, you aren't even looking at privatization of land and resources, you are simply looking at these terms in the abstract: "Capitalism vs Communism", and seeing which countries who use those titles make the most money or produce the most food. Capitalism is imperialistic and allows first-world countries to offshore the exploitation so that people here can have relative wealth while exploiting the labor of millions of workers.

Socialist governments have nationalized unused private land and used it to feed the people who live there, rather than trying to dominate the market for higher profit margins.

Wei Wu Wei
03-02-2011, 02:55 PM
Let's make this clear: You can claim what you like, but the USSR called itself a communist state. So did China. So did the Eastern European slave states, Cuba, the various Southest Asian states that fell after Vietnam, you name it.

So you're saying the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a Democratic People's Republic?

Wow you make this all so simple!


If we accept your argument, there has never been a communist state, therefore we cannot judge the effects of communism. This is patently obvious BS. That loud shockwave that we're feeling is the sonic boom from you moving the goalposts at mach 1.

Just because the ruling party of a state calls itself the communist party doesn't suddenly make their actions true to the communist idea.

There are ways to judge various non-capitalist structures, but to lump everything with a close sounding name and call it "communism" is silly.,





So, in order to empower the proletariat, we have to redefine it out of existence?

Redefine into a new existence which constitutes it's own negation.






But communist states have been trying to kill themselves for decades, through war, famine, economic failure, etc. The only difference between that and what you are proposing is semantics.

I'm the one playing with semantics? You took the idea of a state designed to transition into no state and redefined it as states who suffer from poverty. I'm going to hope you recognize that this is clearly not what I meant.

If that is accurate, then you should vote Democrat because they are going ot break the government and you hate government right? hurrrfff durffff

Bailey
03-02-2011, 02:56 PM
I'm perfectly willing to have a discussion. I'm just not willing to concede that communism works.


And, after reading your responses, he decides that you're wrong, will he be another crap flinger?


This is rich. Your presuppositions are:
1. Capitalism and anything related to capitalism is evil.
2. Communism is the light, and is necessary for, if not equal to Freedom.

And you refuse to suspend them. The difference is, whenever you run into factual evidence that demonstrates that the previous failures of communism predict its future failures, you move the goalposts and embrace failure.


Why must we suspend our most basic beliefs when you won't? This is like Democrats who demand bipartisanship when they are out of power, but lock out the opposition when they are in power.


No one actually knows, but the numbers that we do have are illustrative.

So, at the height of the Depression, in the largest city in the US, with a population of over 7 million, 110 people died from hunger. If apply the same rate to the US population as a whole (123,188,000), we get 1,936 people. Let's go with 2,000 per year, muliplied by the ten years of the Depression, and you get 20,000 people, an apallingly high number for America, but nothing compared with the 20 million who starved in the USSR during the same period. In other words, during the worst financial crisis in history, the starvation toll in the US was 1/1,000th of the toll in the USSR, when they were supposedly building the workers' paradise.


America's wars? Did the US invade South Korea? Did the US seek to conquer South Vietnam? Did the US just happen to find itself in Grenada after the Soviets took it over through their Cuban proxies? Those were wars of communist agression, and laying the body count at the feet of the US is specious nonsense.


Apples and oranges. Using just one example, the Ethiopian famine, we find that the Marxist regime of Mengistu, as Soviet ally, had destroyed the subsistence farming of the rural people in order to consolidate power and starve the rebel provinces of Eritrea and Tigre into submisison. The western response, a massive infusion of aid by private organizations, failed, because the regime wasn't interested in alleviating the famine. They charged exorbitant amounts to permit unloading of food shipments, and then let them rot on the docks while Soviet weapons shipments were given priority for transportation. The issue was not that capitalism caused hunger, it was that communists used hunger as a weapon, and the good intentions of capitalist entertainers and others, who mobilized hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, were defeated by the evil intentions of communists.


By every metric. Let's start with food, since you're obsessing on world hunger:
Total Coarse Grain Area, Yield, and Production:
Total number of hectares in millions:

World--313.22
United States--36.94
Total Foreign 276.27

Our total acreage devoted to grains is 11.8% of the global total. However, our yields per hectare are far higher:
Yield (Metric tons per hectare):

World --3.54
United States --8.82
Foreign --2.84
That's right, our yields are almost three times greater than the rest of the world's. Which means that with only 1/10th of the global farmland in production, we produce what percentage of total grains?
Production (Million metric tons):

World --1,109.40
United States --325.87
Total Foreign --783.54
Roughly 1/3. That's right, Wei, America, evil, exploitive, capitalist America, feeds the world. China, with 32.23 million hectares in play, has a yield of 5.35 metric tons per hectare, for an anemic 172.41 million metric tons. And the numbers for the rest of the communist world are even more dismal. The former USSR states have the worst yields, despite having some of the most fertile arable land in the world (the Ukraine is at least as fertile as the American plains). We have similar differences in dairy (the EU 27 countries are actually higher in output than the US in total, but those are still quasi-capitalist states, as opposed to the former communist states, which produce single digit percentages of global output), meat, poultry, you name it. What's the difference? Capitalism.


Let's make this clear: You can claim what you like, but the USSR called itself a communist state. So did China. So did the Eastern European slave states, Cuba, the various Southest Asian states that fell after Vietnam, you name it. If we accept your argument, there has never been a communist state, therefore we cannot judge the effects of communism. This is patently obvious BS. That loud shockwave that we're feeling is the sonic boom from you moving the goalposts at mach 1.


So, in order to empower the proletariat, we have to redefine it out of existence?



But communist states have been trying to kill themselves for decades, through war, famine, economic failure, etc. The only difference between that and what you are proposing is semantics.

I feel very sorry for we we's parents for wasting money on his education. Whats it like we we to get schooled everytime you lock horns with the major? :D

Arroyo_Doble
03-02-2011, 03:03 PM
Do you know that private companies buy up huge swaths of land in third world countries and don't even use them to their full capacity because it keeps their profits higher? All that unused land could be feeding starving people who live on that land but nope that's not good for profits.

You aren't even looking at the processes of capitalism, you aren't even looking at privatization of land and resources, you are simply looking at these terms in the abstract: "Capitalism vs Communism", and seeing which countries who use those titles make the most money or produce the most food. Capitalism is imperialistic and allows first-world countries to offshore the exploitation so that people here can have relative wealth while exploiting the labor of millions of workers.

Socialist governments have nationalized unused private land and used it to feed the people who live there, rather than trying to dominate the market for higher profit margins.

Decided to go that route rather than the obvious one: Subsidy.

Rockntractor
03-02-2011, 04:09 PM
So you're saying the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a Democratic People's Republic?

Wow you make this all so simple!



Just because the ruling party of a state calls itself the communist party doesn't suddenly make their actions true to the communist idea.

There are ways to judge various non-capitalist structures, but to lump everything with a close sounding name and call it "communism" is silly.,






Redefine into a new existence which constitutes it's own negation.







I'm the one playing with semantics? You took the idea of a state designed to transition into no state and redefined it as states who suffer from poverty. I'm going to hope you recognize that this is clearly not what I meant.

If that is accurate, then you should vote Democrat because they are going ot break the government and you hate government right? hurrrfff durffff
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/sinking_ship.jpg

Odysseus
03-02-2011, 04:12 PM
So you're saying the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a Democratic People's Republic?

Wow you make this all so simple!
We've been over this before. You failed then, and you fail now.

Just because the ruling party of a state calls itself the communist party doesn't suddenly make their actions true to the communist idea.

There are ways to judge various non-capitalist structures, but to lump everything with a close sounding name and call it "communism" is silly.,
Again, an evasion. Rather than admit that communism has failed over and over, you pretend that no one has ever done it correctly, just as the Islamists claim that the current poverty and failure in the Islamic world is the result of Allah's displeasure with their lack of piety and adherence to "true" Islam.


Redefine into a new existence which constitutes it's own negation.

ROFLOL! Redefined into a new existence that is not existence! That shouldn't be too hard, now should it? :rolleyes:


I'm the one playing with semantics? You took the idea of a state designed to transition into no state and redefined it as states who suffer from poverty. I'm going to hope you recognize that this is clearly not what I meant.
No, you clearly meant a state that is powered by unicorn farts and whose legal tender currency is pixie dust. You took the idea of a state that has never and can never exist, and complain that I keep pointing you back to reality.


If that is accurate, then you should vote Democrat because they are going ot break the government and you hate government right? hurrrfff durffff
I don't hate government. I hate people who use government to destroy liberty. I don't want to break our government, I want to pare it back to its Constitutional limits. Again, you demonstrate that you don't have a clue, but don't let it stop you from trying to plan a new world.

Decided to go that route rather than the obvious one: Subsidy.
Obvious, and wrong. The US doesn't subsidize agriculture to the same extent that most other countries do, especially socialist states whose entire agricultural output is dictated by fiat (and is thus entirely dependent upon government money). In fact, subsidies in US agriculture don't increase productivity, they decrease it. Our subsidies pay people not to grow food, or to divert it to other uses (ethanol, for example).

Nice try, though.

Arroyo_Doble
03-02-2011, 04:22 PM
Obvious, and wrong. The US doesn't subsidize agriculture to the same extent that most other countries do, especially socialist states whose entire agricultural output is dictated by fiat (and is thus entirely dependent upon government money). In fact, subsidies in US agriculture don't increase productivity, they decrease it. Our subsidies pay people not to grow food, or to divert it to other uses (ethanol, for example).

With the exception of the last bit of the last sentence, none of that was accurate. And even then, it is marginal.

Farm policy in the United States since shortly before the Great Depression has been anything but a free market. It is not Adams' invisible fist that guides our farms' output.

Odysseus
03-02-2011, 05:55 PM
With the exception of the last bit of the last sentence, none of that was accurate. And even then, it is marginal.

Farm policy in the United States since shortly before the Great Depression has been anything but a free market. It is not Adams' invisible fist that guides our farms' output.

What wasn't accurate? US agricultural subsidies were about $20 billion last year, with the lion's share going to ethanol. The EU, which produces far less, spent twice as much (€39 billion) on direct subsidies, and still came in way behind the US in yields per hectare and total output. In fact, it can be argued that American farmers are productive in spite of subsidies, rather than because of them, but if you want an even more damning example, just look at the Soviet Union, where a minute percentage of land owned privately outproduced the rest of the Soviet economy. Private plots were never more than 4% of the arable land in the USSR, but produced roughly a quarter to a third of agricultural produce, despite the fact that the remaining 96% of agricultural land "benefitted" from the full support of the state.

And, let's remember that some of our most productive land is further shackled by government. The current drought in California,for example, is the direct result of a refusal by greens to allow farmers to access the water that they need (and pay for) to irrigate their fields. Enviro-whackism and government control do more damage than locusts.

Rockntractor
03-03-2011, 12:41 AM
Six pages and Wei never did directly answer the question put to him, and he claims to be a teacher!:rolleyes:

Odysseus
03-03-2011, 10:56 AM
Six pages and Wei never did directly answer the question put to him, and he claims to be a teacher!:rolleyes:

Can you imagine being one of his students?

Scene I: Daytime, INT classroom. A teacher in a Che-T-shirt is standing in front of a special ed class. The teacher is speaking in a hyper-kinetic rush of words.


Mr. Wei
(Speaking very quickly)
A Utopian vision of an ideal system would be pure stateless Communism. However the question is never whether this ideal system can exist and function right now (it cannot). If you're asking what would be my ideal system right now - it would be a system that is in motion. Every system is perpetually changing, so at best I can only describe favorable directions, changes that hold true to the Communist Idea but I'm not about to sit here and claim that any arrangement of policy would work the way we want it to. You can arrange any idealistic economic/political system and in a few weeks or months it will already be changing into something else. What fuels this change is the antagonisms that exist within every system, and the resolution of these antagonisms is communism. There is no perfect system, and this imperfection is what constantly changes and moves systems towards their eventual evolution - into communism.

Student 1
(raising hand)
Mr. Wei, I only have an IQ of 60, but that sounds really stupid to me. Why do you think that communism is inevitable if it has never succeeded before?

Mr. Wei
Uhhh.... (thumbs frantically through book)
We keep failing upward!

Student 1
Huh?

Mr. Wei
We fail, and fail, and fail, until we eventually succeed at failing!

Student 1
That makes no sense!

Mr. Wei
That's because you haven't read Marx and don't understand the dialectic process! You can't understand that communism isn't an endstate, it's a process... a process that leads to an endstate, which is where the state withers away, but the functions of the state still get done, because the process of the state's statelessness is the endstate, as I've stated...

Student 1
(aside to Student 2)
...And they say we're retarded...

Rockntractor
03-03-2011, 10:59 AM
Outstanding!:D:D:D

Wei Wu Wei
03-03-2011, 11:05 AM
[CENTER]Mr. Wei
(Speaking very quickly)
A Utopian vision of an ideal system would be pure stateless Communism. However the question is never whether this ideal system can exist and function right now (it cannot). If you're asking what would be my ideal system right now - it would be a system that is in motion. Every system is perpetually changing, so at best I can only describe favorable directions, changes that hold true to the Communist Idea but I'm not about to sit here and claim that any arrangement of policy would work the way we want it to. You can arrange any idealistic economic/political system and in a few weeks or months it will already be changing into something else. What fuels this change is the antagonisms that exist within every system, and the resolution of these antagonisms is communism. There is no perfect system, and this imperfection is what constantly changes and moves systems towards their eventual evolution - into communism.

Student 1
(raising hand)
Mr. Wei, I only have an IQ of 60, but that sounds really stupid to me.

lmao this is literally what it's like every day at CU. the amount of truth accidentally shown here is hilarious

Rockntractor
03-03-2011, 11:30 AM
It went over his head Odie. Weible wobbled, and then fell down.:D

Wei Wu Wei
03-03-2011, 11:34 AM
I should change this to my new sig:

"Mr. Wei, I only have an IQ of 60, but that sounds really stupid to me."

Rockntractor
03-03-2011, 11:35 AM
I should change this to my new sig:

"Mr. Wei, I only have an IQ of 60, but that sounds really stupid to me."

Go for it brain stem!:D

Odysseus
03-03-2011, 11:59 AM
Outstanding!:D:D:D
Thanks.

lmao this is literally what it's like every day at CU. the amount of truth accidentally shown here is hilarious
You mean, when you spout BS and people that you hold in contempt repeatedly school you? I agree.

I should change this to my new sig:

"Mr. Wei, I only have an IQ of 60, but that sounds really stupid to me."

You missed the end, where he points out that even with an IQ of 60, he's still not as retarded as you.