Communism Is The Only Way Forward

[Camikaze]

But it demonstrably does do the exact opposite. It's not like there is a shortage of evidence for government initiatives helping those who otherwise would not be able to access help.

 

[Seon]

It was an utter and complete disagreement, Abegweit.

Which "state" do you speak of?

Do you speak of the "United States Government?" If so, then I disagree. It has never been the purpose of the state to be an institution to enable "theft" by the powerful. Why the hell would it be?!

 

[Tee Kay]

I really REALLY am frustrated by lefty twits who believe they that can somehow use an institution whose purpose has always and ever been to enable theft by the powerful from the powerless to magically do the exact opposite.

You have not offered any proof this statement ie that the sole purpose of all states and government institutions over the last (checks watch) 5,000 years or so have been to enable theft by the powerful from the weak. You've listed all the horrible things people in power have done over the years and I'm not disputing that, but that still doesn't discredit the idea of government as something that only exists for the purpose of oppression and exploitation. I'll say it again, The State is a tool, like a baseball bat. I can use it in a baseball game, or I can use it to hit random passerbys. Granted, most people in power have been using it to bash people's heads in.

 

[Ajidica]

Ferdinand Lassalle argues that the state is instrumental in the triumph of the Proletariat.

 

[Abegweit]

Government is like medicine. There are a lot of types and a lot of ways to apply it. Take too few and you're still sick. Overdose and it poisons you. Take the wrong medicine and it wrecks havoc with your body. What you are saying is like claiming medicine is poison - and indeed many are, in enough quantities, but if applied correctly a few can enhance human life rather than blight it. And any medicine affect different parts of the body in different ways, and not necessarily in a beneficial manner (sideeffects, if you will). "The State" or rather any other type of governmental authority is therefore multifaceted, and merely a tool for people to use, and not necessary for good or evil

Why did you feel the need to put "The State" in quotes? And to capitalize it on top of that?

You are right that there are many forms of government. And that there are many forms of medicine. Some forms of "medicine", take blood-sucking, will make you sicker. Some forms of "government", take the state, will deal death and destruction. Some people survive despite both. It does not imply that either are healthy for anyone but parasites. Leeches live off blood-sucking. Thieves live off the state. Are you seriously claiming that leeches and thieves are anything other than parasites or that parasites are, to quote your words, "merely a tool for people to use, and not necessary for good or evil"????

 

[Traitorfish]

Ferdinand Lassalle argues that the state is instrumental in the triumph of the Proletariat.

And Bakunin argues that the state is a load of old cobblers. Opinions, they are divided!

 

[civver_764]

Karl Marx himself agrees with Bakunin on that point.

 

[Seon]

Why did you feel the need to put "The State" in quotes? And to capitalize it on top of that?

You are right that there are many forms of government. And that there are many forms of medicine. Some forms of "medicine", take blood-sucking, will make you sicker. Some forms of "government", take the state, will deal death and destruction. Some people survive despite both. It does not imply that either are healthy for anyone but parasites. Leeches live off blood-sucking. Thieves live off the state. Are you seriously claiming that leeches and thieves are anything other than parasites or that parasites are, to quote your words, "merely a tool for people to use, and not necessary for good or evil"????

4 Question marks is a sure sign of insanity.

"The State" is probably in quotes and capitalized because Talcinus felt like putting it in quotes and capitalizing it. Just like i just felt like putting a capital letter before Question.

And are you seriously claiming that the United States Government has done nothing but be leech with which the rich and powerful used to suck the blood out of the poor and weak?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Ferdinand Lassalle argues that the state is instrumental in the triumph of the Proletariat.

Lassalle was an interesting character. One the one hand, he was a hero for the common man, and actively argued against both Marx and Bakunin in the First International. One the other hand, he was a womanizer of upper class broads, who was personal friends with Bismarck and a dandy to the last. I see him as a latter-day Rousseau in all these regards, with a touch of that aristocratic concern for the good of the lower class that only old guardsmen like de Tocqueville can posess.

 

[Tee Kay]

Why did you feel the need to put "The State" in quotes? And to capitalize it on top of that?

Because there is no single entity "The State" in the manner that you use the term ie that have existed, constant and unchanging, throughout human history. There are only states, plural. They don't operate in the same manner.

You are right that there are many forms of government. And that there are many forms of medicine. Some forms of "medicine", take blood-sucking, will make you sicker. Some forms of "government", take the state, will deal death and destruction. Some people survive despite both. It does not imply that either are healthy for anyone but parasites. Leeches live off blood-sucking. Thieves live off the state. Are you seriously claiming that leeches and thieves are anything other than parasites or that parasites are, to quote your words, "merely a tool for people to use, and not necessary for good or evil"????

No, I said government is a tool. Our parasites are human. The state is not human but something operated by humans, who may or may not be thugs and thieves. That I feel is an important distinction. By the way, I use "state" in the sense of "institution of government". It appears you use "state" in the sense of "any violent, oppressive and parasitic form of government" which I believe is not how the vast majority of people define the term.

 

[Traitorfish]

Lassalle was an interesting character. One the one hand, he was a hero for the common man, and actively argued against both Marx and Bakunin in the First International. One the other hand, he was a womanizer of upper class broads, who was personal friends with Bismarck and a dandy to the last. I see him as a latter-day Rousseau in all these regards, with a touch of that aristocratic concern for the good of the lower class that only old guardsmen like de Tocqueville can posess.

Hey, we all have our part to play in overthrowing the bourgeoisie- some take their factories, some their offices, some their girlfriends. Lassalle got their first, so it's only fair that he gets first pick.

 

[Abegweit]

It was an utter and complete disagreement, Abegweit.

Which "state" do you speak of?

I thought I was quite clear. The sole purpose of all states is a monopoly of power.

Do you speak of the "United States Government?" If so, then I disagree.

No. I didn't speak of the "United States Government?". I spoke of all states.

It has never been the purpose of the state to be an institution to enable "theft" by the powerful.

Crap. Do you seriously claim that the Mongols conquered China (to take one of a thousand examples) to benefit the people who fought against their subjunction?

Why the hell would it be?!

Work on the answer, dude. Seriously work on it. To repeat: Do you seriously claim that the Mongols conquered China (to take one of a thousand examples) to benefit the people who fought against their subjunction?

 

[innonimatu]

Come back when you've figured out how to make a centrally planned economy less environmentally damaging than a well-regulated mixed market one.

Just in case you case you didn't notice, environment protection rules in mixed market economies are centrally imposed, therefore part of the "central planning" aspect of the mixed economy. They most definitely do not arise from the free market aspect.

 

[Ajidica]

Lassalle was an interesting character. One the one hand, he was a hero for the common man, and actively argued against both Marx and Bakunin in the First International. One the other hand, he was a womanizer of upper class broads, who was personal friends with Bismarck and a dandy to the last. I see him as a latter-day Rousseau in all these regards, with a touch of that aristocratic concern for the good of the lower class that only old guardsmen like de Tocqueville can posess.

Did not know that about him. I still like 'The Working Mans Programme' though. He delivers one of the best and easiest to understand rebukes against Libertarianism I have read. A bit too idealistic, but a nice counterweight to Marx.

 

[Seon]

I thought I was quite clear. The sole purpose of all states is a monopoly of power

No. I didn't speak of the "United States Government?". I spoke of all states.

Oh suuuuuure.

Crap. Do you seriously claim that the Mongols conquered China (to take one of a thousand examples) to benefit the people who fought against their subjunction?

Irrelevant, is every government in this world even remotely similiar to Mongolian government?

Work on the answer, dude. Seriously work on it. To repeat: Do you seriously claim that the Mongols conquered China (to take one of a thousand examples) to benefit the people who fought against their subjunction?

Are you seriously claiming that Mongols were richer than the Chinese before they conquered China? It seems to me that the barbarian Mongols used its organization and military power to usurp power from Chinese who were getting lazy and decadent from its own riches.

 

[Abegweit]

4 Question marks is a sure sign of insanity.

Four question marks are more likely to be a sign of a heavy right-hand. Anyway...

And are you seriously claiming that the United States Government has done nothing but be leech with which the rich and powerful used to suck the blood out of the poor and weak?

Oh indeed I am. There has been the occasional example, Grover Cleveland comes to mind, where the level of blood-sucking was lowered. Still... give me one example in the last 150 years - just one - where the US Government actually repealed blood-sucking.

 

[Traitorfish]

blood-sucking

Reminded me of:

 

[Seon]

Oh indeed I am. There has been the occasional example, Grover Cleveland comes to mind, where the level of blood-sucking was lowered. Still... give me one example in the last 150 years - just one - where the US Government actually repealed blood-sucking.

Here ya go.

 

[innonimatu]

Ummm. I just pointed it out. Let me repeat: The purpose of the state is to enable the parasites to legally live off the productive.

That has ever and always been the state's sole purpose and sole objective (well, aside from satisfying the universal human desire to control other people). Ten thousand years of thieves living off decent folk by force of arms. Ten thousand years of death and destruction. Ten thousand years of slavery. Ten thousand years of lies. Ten thousand years of waste, of ruin, of warfare, of everything which is the opposite to justice and law.

You've been reading too much Samuel Finer or what?
Well, apart from that " the opposite to justice and law". He would never fall into the trap of considering that justice and law have meaning without the structures (however primitive) of a state.

During all this time the thieves and killers arrogantly claimed that they were superior to their victims. They were the Sons of the Gods. Or so they said. Thus their theft and their killing was the Mandate of Heaven. They were the Nobles. Their victims were mere commoners. Thus their theft and their killing was the natural consequence of their station in life.

Now we reach the stage of the democratic state. No longer can the thieves and the killers claim to steal and murder because of a God-given right. Now instead, they claim to do it to protect their victims!!!

And Michel Foucault, too?

So tell me again. What precisely is the purpose of legalized control over peoples' lives... except legalized control over peoples' lives?

And theft. And slavery. That's just the baggage which goes along. Right?

Ok, your objections above have been raised many times, and there's truth to them. However, there's also another, inescapable, truth: in any human society a hierarchy always arises. That hierarchy is a government, for it always ends up holding the powers which define "government" or "state". From a stone-age to the largest nation state, we look at the hierarchy and recognize it as "government" consistent with what you complain about above. You just cannot get rid of government, humans remaining humans. You can only choose the less damaging forms of government, controlled governments. But if you go too far in trying to dismantling a government and its state bureaucracy, you'll immediately discover the that the new void is already being occupied by other power structures. More likely than not worse that our typical contemporary political government and state bureaucracy.

There is still use ion drawing attention to those negative aspects of government, and to its history as an exploitative force serving its own extortion machinery (typically, military power) and ruling classes. It is important to keep that in mind when trying to pick, shall we say, the "lesser evil", the better form of government. But it is pointless to complain about this, or to rant about "thieves" (particularly when thieving only has meaning in relation with the laws of the state - no state, no property rights, no thieving possible). You might as well rant about water being wet.

What would be your "solution" to the government problem anyway?

 

[Abegweit]

Are you seriously claiming that Mongols were richer than the Chinese before they conquered China?

Oh quite the contrary.

It seems to me that the barbarian Mongols used its organization and military power to usurp power from Chinese who were getting lazy and decadent from its own riches.

Indeed. That is ever and always the purpose (and the success) of the state - to steal. You seem to think this was about the Mongols vs. the Chinese.

Wrong.

The Mongols had mobilized a better way to steal from the Chinese peasants than their former rulers. Peasants vs. various gangs of thieves. Do you really think that the robbed cared who robbed them?