I apologize for the anti-intellectual tone of the post, but I get soooooo tired of the "there hasn't been true communism yet" crap.
Communism Is The Only Way Forward
- Thread starter Stiefel
- Start date
civver_764
Deity
Are people not allowed to use facts?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
But it's entirely accurate, even in layman's terms, as any Soviet citizen could have told you- Marxism, remember, draws a distinction between socialism, which they see as statist, and communism, which is anarchistic, hence the label "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Whether or not you dive into the debate as to whether socialism has ever been achieved, acknowledging that Marxist communism has not is plain to see. That Westerners insist on garbling the terminology really is neither here nor there.
Every time someone set out to start a communist utopia, it went bloody. REAL WORLD reality of attempted communism is just that, blood and oppression and terror. Might as well acknowledge what it will lead to and call the real world results of the attempts communism.
And hey, it's not like I am alone in this. The whole free world called the USSR communist.
And hey, it's not like I am alone in this. The whole free world called the USSR communist.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
When has that ever actually happened, though? The Soviets, Chinese and so forth specifically intended to create authoritarian socialist states, and none of the Anarcho-Communists ever really got a chance to try it out.
You can't just keep saying "attempted communism" when nobody actually attempted it. You may as well look at a pizza and call it an "attempted flying machine". It's just silly.
And it called Franco's Spain "the free world". It clearly had a rather flimsy grasp on terminology.
civver_764
Deity
I do think Lenin genuinely wanted a libertarian state, he just had way too much *censored* to deal with. Maybe I'm naive though.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Well, perhaps. Either way, by the time Uncle Joe clawed his way into power, authoritarianism was the explicit goal.
I suppose there's also the Hungarian Soviet Republic, which, if I recall, held on for about six months and managed a few (ultimately doomed) reforms in that time. Not sure if there's anything much to be learned from it.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
In a capitalist society my pay is not equal to everyone elses, allowing me to rise above the communist utopia and afford luxuries that I want. The state will not subsidize everything for you and even the things they promise they can't afford because they lack the capital. Capitalism allows you to have more income than someone else who doesn't work as hard, thats why the system is superior. Humans are not equal, some are NOT born with the brains for wealth and they shouldn't have it. Those who can think their way out of poverty are truly worthy.
Seon
Not An Evil Liar
You forgot all the other times in which capitalist society suffered from a depression and came through.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I said "demonstrate", not "talk about why capitalism is just so awesome, you guys". Without a substantial comparison to socialism- and when I say socialism, I mean something a bit more than the usual half-understood mish-mash of Barracks Communism and European Social Democracy- which justifies your initial assertion, i.e. that capitalism allows the average citizen to obtain luxuries that socialism does not, you have demonstrated nothing.
Bast
Protector of Cats
Capitalism ensures that those who do actually have the brains to think their way out of anything in life is still trapped in poverty by psychological and physical bondages. If you are born without brains, but in a wealthy family, you can still get a fantastic private school education, a degree (can be bought) and a career (with connections). Wealth will be inherited and everything will be fine because your parents will ensure that.
If you are smart but born to a working class family in a bad neighbourhood, you will go to a public school that lacks funding and will meet and be influenced by difficult people. You will be lucky if you survive that stage alive.
So no, your statement is not true AT ALL.
Capitalism is all about who owns the capital. It's not about how hard you're willing to work or how intelligent you are. It also encourages people to build wealth at any cost without principles or morals or without regard for anyone or anything except themselves.
lutzj
The Last Thing You See
Capitalism doesn't encourage people to make any more money than they need (want), because that would require more work.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
But not necessarily on the part of the capitalist, which is sort of the problem.
Seon
Not An Evil Liar
And how would that be a problem?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Exploitation seems self-evidently problematic.
lutzj
The Last Thing You See
The economy is not a zero-sum game. If I make two widgets instead of one you can still make a widget.
Seon
Not An Evil Liar
What do you suggest would be an explotive behavior?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Not if the Widget-barons control the world's supply of Widgonium, I can't. I have to go and work in the Widget mills, which is more than can be said for the Widget-barons themselves.
Obtaining wealth for which one did not labour.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
Ignoring the abuse of the terms liberal and conservative, this analysis is spot on the money. The rich are almost uniformly in favour of the redistributive state while the middle class and poor are split on the issue. This really is not very difficult to understand because the proper way of understanding class is not rich vs. poor but rather parasite vs. productive.
The purpose of the state is to enable the parasites to legally live off the productive. Most all of the rich, including virtually all of those who have inherited their wealth, have gained (or maintained) their position through the medium of state-enacted advantages. Whether this be through rules and regulations which advantage established powers, corrupt bureaucracies, stacked courts, rigged "markets" or any one of a whole host of other mechanisms, the rich benefit from state control. It is not surprising in the least that they support it.
The rich also seem to support state theft from the general population. I can only conclude that this comes from a sort of guilt complex which compels them to give back a small fraction of the ill-gotten gains. Because they refuse to admit the fundamental basis on which their fortunes are established, they insist on extending the theft to taking money from those who actually earned it.
As for the middle class and the poor, they are divided into two classes - those who live off state theft and those who don't. The former, bureaucrats being the quintessential example, invariably support thieves like themselves who happen to be much richer - people like John Kerry, John Edwards, John Kennedy. Filthy rich nobodies - one married an heiress, the second was an ambulance chaser and the third the son of a bootlegger. Interestingly they don't seem to appreciate the thieves on the other side of the aisle. George Bush, the twit with the silver spoon in his mouth, Dick Cheney, the war profiteer. However, they are quite happy to steal to together with the other side when the opportunity arises.
The second class consists of those who actually work for a living and those who have been thrown on the scrap heap of society. Whether reasonably well-to-do like architects and computer programmers, those barely scraping by like burger flippers and clothing salesmen or those just trying to survive like convicts and beggars, they all know that the thieving state gives them nothing and they reject its lies for what they are.
Similar threads
