Well...at least in the "not really communism but since they called it communism, we will too" system, at least my few rights would be protected...and only one "boss" would be coming for my stuff....and not everyone.
Anarchy or Communism
- Thread starter Narz
- Start date
Depends wheter I'll be building a garage or having a picnic.
Thadlerian
Dreamin' of a RED X-mas!
Definitely the cement block. It's robust and sturdy, and generally difficult to toss around.
I would prefer Communism first, as I believe the society has to go through some healthy, cleaning system, before it's ready to handle the enormous challenges of Anarchy.
allan2
Gone Fishing
You really don't get that language changes with usage, do you? What the Soviets CALLED "communism" BECAME a definition of communism, because it is a widely-used definition.
Now the ORIGINAL definition of communism still exists, but Narz wanted to clarify, IN HIS FIRST POST, that he meant the other one.
"The Soviet government was communist" IS a true statement, when you use the second definition. Words CAN have more than one definition, I shouldn't have to spell that out for you....
****
As for your actual point, not "everyone" would necessarily be after your stuff, unless of course there was mass starvation or something--but the same would happen if there were mass starvation under ANY government.
And the "one boss" isn't one person, but a honed and efficient organization. If "the boss" sends one of his agents, and you shoot him in defense of your person and property, they will send another one--actually probably a whole elite squad at that point, to avoid repeating their earlier incompetence.
All those are basically the same point. Well I disagree that police and other governmental mechanisms of protection to the citizens are as inefficient as you think. Its just that crimes that are prevented, or that arent even tried due to the everlasting guard exercised by the society well, they do not make headlines.
Originally posted by allan2
You just keep having to make that point, don't you ?It's important to you that I understand this. I DO understand what you are saying--but it doesn't matter, in this thread.
I have introduced the relevance of it to this thread. The original poster was inaccurate and it made the question unfair. Im clearing it out. So, since you agree that its an established point, as soon as we start dealing with it that way, Ill stop repeating it.
.Originally posted by allan2
Actually, in China, IIRC, the interior countryside is collectivized and still run by more old-school Maoists in general. They don't enjoy the "increasing freedoms" of Shanghai, Guangdong, or Hong Kong.
And ask a 90-year-old Ukrainian farmer (if you can find one) about "feeling the heavy hand of the marxists" in the 1930s. I would suspect that he felt that hand on his stomach, after the "Marxists" from Moscow forbade him from storing grain for himself until he exceeded their quotas (and this WAS enforced quite efficiently, if Solzhenytsyn's and others' accounts of the time are correct).
But I see what you're saying. Absent this kind of thing (which may or may not be carried out to Stalin's extremes), you can pretty much live as you did--but in anarchy if a "boss" comes around wanting your grain you can shoot him.
Just because China is changing, and the changes takes longer to reach countryside. Its likely that the effective rule their took longer to come than in the cities, and its also likely that it was never as strong than in the cities.
But about the Ukrainian situation, you have got that the term countryside is incidental, as it was just assumed to mean isolationism (that was the point of RMSharpes approach). If Ukrainian tyrants had their eyes in the countryside, the logic I applied would be true about anywhere they did not had their eyes at.
Oh, well, no need to argue about that. You had already got it.
Originally posted by allan2
Here we go again. By "communism", Narz was using a different definition than you are. Since both definitions are IN USE by English speakers, both are valid, like it or not--and that is why, for clarity, he specified the definition used by "real life" governments who have called themselves communists.
I am answering the question under the parameters that Narz tried to clarify. You are merely trying to muddy the waters at this point. How lawyerly of you
....
We're talking in circles around each other. Do you ENJOY this?
Hehehehe. If I didnt enjoy pointless arguing, Id not be a lawyer or a forum lurker.
Anyway, I have an objective disagreement with you here. I dont think that repeating an error eternally makes it right. If that understanding of communism is common in USA, all it proves is that USA needs to improve the teaching of politics in the school.
Regards
.
Example of communism that best applies: Lenin's death with the posibility of Stalin comming to power.
allan2
Gone Fishing
Originally posted by FredLC
I have introduced the relevance of it to this thread. The original poster was inaccurate and it made the question unfair. Im clearing it out. So, since you agree that its an established point, as soon as we start dealing with it that way, Ill stop repeating it.
(sigh) How is it "unfair" to use one definition of a word, rather than another? Because you don't LIKE the definition used? Oh waaah....
Anyway, I have an objective disagreement with you here. I dont think that repeating an error eternally makes it right. If that understanding of communism is common in USA, all it proves is that USA needs to improve the teaching of politics in the school.
Regards
BOTH definitions were taught in my history classes. We discussed Marx's theories in some detail, and we discussed the Soviet system, and we even compared and contrasted the two. Yet, BECAUSE OF USAGE NOT JUST IN THE USA, BUT AROUND THE ENTIRE WORLD, what the Soviets did HAS become one definition of communism. And Narz, knowing that these two definitions exist (probably because he's seen these kinds of arguments in other threads), wanted to clarify that he was using the second one.
One word that has two definitions. This phenomenon exists rather commonly in the English language, you know. How is using one instead of the other "unfair", especially if you go out of your way to explain that that is what you're doing?
Why do you CARE so much WHICH definition is used?
Start your own poll, using the other definition, if it really matters that much to you. I PROMISE I won't call it "unfair".
allan2
Gone Fishing
From my Merriam-Webster dictionary [emphasis mine]:
Happy now?
It actually has THREE definitions. And sorry, Narz, for having to use two pages of your thread to explain (and then help legitimize) what you tried to clarify in the opening post.
Hope it won't happen again anytime soon....
Happy now?
It actually has THREE definitions. And sorry, Narz, for having to use two pages of your thread to explain (and then help legitimize) what you tried to clarify in the opening post.
Hope it won't happen again anytime soon....
Hehehehe. Well, I have to agree that bringing the Merrian-webster IS a good support to your point.
One thing, tough... It's funny that the definition says that communism is based in the revolutionary marxism doctrine, and not vice-versa. Seens to me that this definition was added as the misinterpretation of the original term became spread enough to be considered an actual meaning to that word. Well, languages are living things, so i suppose it's a valid thing.
Anyway, as I said, I am talking about the original meaning of the term. that's why I was not being arbitrary, I was talking about it in reference of what it was originally supposed to mean.
One way or another, despite being a lawyer, I'm not sttuborn. The webster is for me prove enough that such angle is legitimate in the english language. I'd like to add one thing, though; if the term communism have indeed turned into something else due to the spread misuse of it, than also anarchy deserve such privilege.
Ladies and gentleman, communism means dictatorship and anarchy mean mess. How about that?
Regards.
One thing, tough... It's funny that the definition says that communism is based in the revolutionary marxism doctrine, and not vice-versa. Seens to me that this definition was added as the misinterpretation of the original term became spread enough to be considered an actual meaning to that word. Well, languages are living things, so i suppose it's a valid thing.
Anyway, as I said, I am talking about the original meaning of the term. that's why I was not being arbitrary, I was talking about it in reference of what it was originally supposed to mean.
One way or another, despite being a lawyer, I'm not sttuborn. The webster is for me prove enough that such angle is legitimate in the english language. I'd like to add one thing, though; if the term communism have indeed turned into something else due to the spread misuse of it, than also anarchy deserve such privilege.
Ladies and gentleman, communism means dictatorship and anarchy mean mess. How about that?
Regards
.
allan2
Gone Fishing
Originally posted by FredLC
Ladies and gentleman, communism means dictatorship and anarchy mean mess. How about that?
Regards
Those are the two definitions that Narz said he was using, and I accepted the clarification and answered the question based on the meaning he stated. I had no problem with either the definitions of "communism" or "anarchy" that he specified, because he was just trying to ask us a question.
It's like me asking in a poll: "should cats be pets? And for the sake of clarification, I mean big cats, not common house cats." And then you go and argue that I should have asked the question to mean house cats, and us going on and on for two pages about it. I mean, WHAT DOES IT MATTER, in terms of the thread, that I used the definition you didn't want me to use? Why not just answer the question, bearing in mind the meaning I stated, and use another thread to argue whether or not lions and tigers should be considered "cats"? Why not start another poll, if you want it to be about house cats? And obviously, we couldn't just say "I mean both definitions", as the poll would cease to have meaning at that point.
I've spent two pages trying to explain this. I'm going to go now and rest. When I come back, I sure hope you're still not bellyaching over this totally peripheral (because he explained what he meant, that's ALL that matters in terms of this poll) non-issue!
Well, as I said, I rested and accepted that defiition.
allan2
Gone Fishing
I came back online to edit a smilie into my last post
Meant it that way when I wrote it, really. I know you "rested" counselor, and I only meant the last post in a light way
. I was just getting all exasperated--I really DID wonder why it was such a great deal to you, in terms of this thread (whereas it certainly could in another thread, maybe you can start a discussion on the divergence of the meaning of "communism", I may even chime in if I wanna argue with a lawyer again 
), when he simply said, "use this meaning to answer this question"--and I say, fair enough, I know what you're asking, I'll answer. Anyway, no biggie, but while I'm back here:
I believe I've read articles that indicated that China was "holding back" on reforming large parts of the interior--and this actually includes many interior cities as well as rural areas. Some theorize that this is an "insurance policy" by Beijing against the day when momentum for change by the people in the East goes a little faster than the party brass want it to--IIRC, the bulk of the Chinese military also comes from the interior, in these areas "kept back" from the economic semicapitalist EXPERIMENT (this is still what it is to the Chinese Gov't, I believe) going on in the East.
But in terms of what we were talking about, this is of course an area specifically targeted (albeit a BIG one encompassing pretty much any decent rural area), like Stalin's Ukraine, in a way. Hell, but what if my Northern Minnesota became the target of some experiment of the Soviet-communist government? THEN I'd be f*cked.
But we can discuss what China's doing, if you'd like, in another thread. Maybe I'll start that one when I come back, unless you want to first.
I'll go see if I can find those articles then.Regards
allan2
Can't someone just answer the question without saying "oh, but, that's not communism! What we mean by 'communism' is a great big lollypop on the moon where everyone's happy and the streets are paved with gold!"
Quit living in La La Land and just answer the question! Sheesh!
Quit living in La La Land and just answer the question! Sheesh!
I suppose that in this forums someone can do it. But only because an aswer here will lack the depth required in a good, scientific, conscientious and well written essay on the theme.
The answer on the terms required here is misleading, if not technically incorrect.
Anyway, be careful about the La la land thing; you find out to be far closer to it than you think.
Originally posted by allan2
I came back online to edit a smilie into my last post
I know you "rested" counselor, and I only meant the last post in a light way
No problem. Truth is, despite I give in that the question is not technically incorrect, it's misleading. And when we are used to deal with technical terms, we learn to value precision, because it's the only way we can really differenciate things that look alike but have in fact serious differences.
So, I was not in fact pointing it out because I love that matter; I was using a principle that is important in scientific discussions. perhaps here is where the problem existed. CFC is not a place for scientific debates, so I guess we have to deal with generalizations here.
Really, this point is not as important to me is it might have looked like.
Regards
.
allan2
Gone Fishing
No, like I said, we can ask: "would you rather live in a dictatorship (communist, fascist, whatever floats the Commandante's boat), or lawlessness", and it would pretty much be the same question. And that question WOULD mean something, albeit something different from the question YOU had in mind. You just objected to his terminology, no doubt because you have overriding concern about how people use the word "communism" (I can tell by our last exchange
). Which is fine, but in answering Narz's question I didn't want to be bothered by such concern--we've had other threads about it already, and no doubt we'll have more. But I didn't feel such a discussion mattered in THIS thread, and it was distracting.... Anyhow, it depends on what definition of communism you use in the essay
. But I think we should wrap this up now. Narz wanted us to essentially compare two specific things, and he explained them to us. That you would have rather discussed two (or one?) DIFFERENT things was, well, a matter of another thread and poll I guess. Or at least, we should have kept the semantic quibble short. And I'm as much at fault as you in this I guess, I can be quite argumentative sometimes too . I think we understand each other. It's all good. Right?
P.S. Should we use "Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist Socialism" instead of the more popular (and shorter) name used worldwide? You knew what he meant, either way. Didn't you?
On the other hand, at the same time we WERE comparing Soviet-style communism to lawless anarchy, in other parts of our posts. Perhaps we can continue that.
Well, I guess a good essay would have to look at ALL possible meanings of the word.
But we do understand each other. Let's just go drink some good La la beers and leave it alone.
But we do understand each other. Let's just go drink some good La la beers and leave it alone
.
allan2
Gone Fishing
Originally posted by FredLC
Well, I guess a good essay would have to look at ALL possible meanings of the word.
But we do understand each other. Let's just go drink some good La la beers and leave it alone
Cheers!
--"La La!" --
allan2
Gone Fishing
Back to the on-topic part of our discussion:
Lawlessness would at least indicate a process of becoming something else--i.e. the time of revolution--so there would be hope of steering the revolution towards a JUST government (as I see it, of course ). It is the struggle to become... something. And we can still work and fight to shape it.
Dictatorship is when the revolution's over, and we all got screwed by it. And maybe soon, the people will "choose" lawlessness again, in their fight to overthrow the dictator. Good thing Narz said this decision would take but a year, lol.)
I guess that's another way of looking at it....
Lawlessness would at least indicate a process of becoming something else--i.e. the time of revolution--so there would be hope of steering the revolution towards a JUST government (as I see it, of course
). It is the struggle to become... something. And we can still work and fight to shape it. Dictatorship is when the revolution's over, and we all got screwed by it.
And maybe soon, the people will "choose" lawlessness again, in their fight to overthrow the dictator. Good thing Narz said this decision would take but a year, lol.)I guess that's another way of looking at it....
Similar threads
- Poll
