Communism Is The Only Way Forward

[Joecoolyo]

Oh quite the contrary.

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?

You think the entire point of the Mongol conquests of China was to steal from the peasants? If so, why did they end up killing most of them off?

In fact, the reasons the Mongols invaded the Jin (Northern China at the time) was because of all the abuse the Jin had done to the tribes of Mongolia (supporting the tribes against one another, and capturing tribes as prisoners and enslaving them), the Jin claiming all of Mongolia as a vassal state after defeating one of the tribes, and well, just the Jin generally being a bunch of dicks to the Mongols. The Mongols in their conquest of China certainly weren't out to just "exploit" peasants as you so readily claim, but rather, for as a result of a tangled history of abuse by the Jin.

 

[Ajidica]

The Mongols also had an interest in getting loot. Whether that entails exploiting the peasants or killing off the nobles varies.

 

[Joecoolyo]

That seemed to be the case after Genghis' conquest of the Jin. In fact, he didn't even want to go to war with the Jin in the first place, they declared war on him, after he refused to accept a diplomatic convoy of sorts.

 

[innonimatu]

Anyway, these two videos should settle the discussion about the state:

What Have The Romans...
Monty Python's The life of Brian - I want to be a woman

Ranting against the existence of the "state" is like that, a struggle against reality!

 

[classical_hero]

Well there are legitimate reason for use to rail against the state, especially after the last century where state authorised violence was at an all time during the last century. Well millions of people died because the activities of the state. But of course when it gets it right, it can be a force for great good also.

 

[BasketCase]

Capitalism has had its shot and failed. People say that the Soviet Union failed, but that's just a load of poppycock. The Soviet Union ended because they spent way too much money on the military, which was ultimately the American's fault.

For Communism to succeed, it must be able to defend itself against all who would destroy it. As you just said in the VERY FIRST POST, the Soviet Union was unable to defend itself. You can't win a social revolution if you're dead.

 

[TopDog]

Communism will never work. It hasn't ever 'worked.' Maybe true communism hasn't ever been tried, but when/if it is, it too will fail.

But calling the state a villainous bunch of thieves is just wrong. A strong government is a requirement of a civilised society. It just should not be controlling or planning the economy

 

[Tee Kay]

Can we stop slapping labels on everything?

 

[Masada]

In many ways the ECW was a trial run for Liberalism. It gave us the Protectorate.

Vague sweeping statements based on faith do not an argument make. Prove it was a Liberal(istic/ish) Revolution.

Did the failure of Liberalism in the ECW invalidate the philosophy of Liberalism?

I dunno, I don't really care; I just take issue with bad historical examples. I wouldn't have said anything if you had invoked the Revolution(s) of 1848 or something. Its kinda lame.

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.

Right, because that's totally what happened.

You think the entire point of the Mongol conquests of China was to steal from the peasants? If so, why did they end up killing most of them off?

Because that's totally what happened.

In fact, the reasons the Mongols invaded the Jin (Northern China at the time) was because of all the abuse the Jin had done to the tribes of Mongolia (supporting the tribes against one another, and capturing tribes as prisoners and enslaving them), the Jin claiming all of Mongolia as a vassal state after defeating one of the tribes, and well, just the Jin generally being a bunch of dicks to the Mongols. The Mongols in their conquest of China certainly weren't out to just "exploit" peasants as you so readily claim, but rather, for as a result of a tangled history of abuse by the Jin.

... Jin = China?


Moderator Action: Please do share your wisdom instead of (t)rolling your eyes.
- Mathilda

 

[Tee Kay]

... Jin = China?

Yes, yes it was. Northern China, anyhow.

 

[Masada]

Yes, yes it was. Northern China, anyhow.

Your missing the point. That doesn't explain the rest of China in the least. Hell, it doesn't even explain that other dynasty in the North.

 

[Alassius]

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.

Wait, that's Karl Marx's line.

Oh the irony.

 

[Abegweit]

Here ya go.

Oh good Lord! What is it about lefties that make them worship them scum of the earth? Imperialists? Racists? Believers in their own infallibility? Arrogant turds who embrace the notion they are God's gift to the worthless ignorant peons everywhere.

Roosevelt wasn't quite as bad as Wilson but that's only because he was the path-breaker. Kinda like Lenin wasn't as bad as Stalin.

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.



And Michel Foucault, too?



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?

You seem to think that government is necessarily a synonym for theft. It isn't.

that's Karl Marx's line.

No it's not. He stole it from the Classical Liberals and twisted it into a caricature of the proper analysis of exploiter and exploited.

He was a forerunner of the modern lefty twit. Like them he was a petit bourgeois guilty about his origins and completely ignorant of economics.

 

[Abegweit]

@Masada Kindly do not put words in my mouth in the future. OK? I did not say this and, in fact, I argued against it.

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.

It's statist crud that conflates the Chinese with their rulers.

 

[Masada]

Sorry, misquote. To be fair, you seem to have missed Chinese history 101 as well.

 

[Seon]

Oh good Lord! What is it about lefties that make them worship them scum of the earth? Imperialists? Racists? Believers in their own infallibility? Arrogant turds who embrace the notion they are God's gift to the worthless ignorant peons everywhere.

Roosevelt wasn't quite as bad as Wilson but that's only because he was the path-breaker. Kinda like Lenin wasn't as bad as Stalin.

And you think I'm a leftist?

But that's no the point here, I am afraid. You asked for a policy in the U.S. Governmen that favored the poor over the large corporations, and I've given it to you. And since you said that all governments enable the rich to commit theft on the poor, I believe one example is sufficient to falsify your theory.

 

[Alassius]

No it's not. He stole it from the Classical Liberals and twisted it into a caricature of the proper analysis of exploiter and exploited.

He was a forerunner of the modern lefty twit. Like them he was a petit bourgeois guilty about his origins and completely ignorant of economics.

Except that hardly any classical liberals were anarchists. Starting with Adam Smith: "But those exertions of natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical."

Modern mainstream left-wing is much closer to Adam Smith than Marx. The irony is that these days attacking central-right classical liberal positions using extreme left Marxist arguments would count as extreme right.

 

[Abegweit]

And you think I'm a leftist?

I have no idea what you think you are. Obviously some sort of statist.

But that's no the point here, I am afraid. You asked for a policy in the U.S. Governmen that favored the poor over the large corporations, and I've given it to you. And since you said that all governments enable the rich to commit theft on the poor, I believe one example is sufficient to falsify your theory.

But you are clearly utterly deluded if you think that Teddy Roosevelt, a scion of old New York wealth and a leader of the thieves, ever did anything to protect to protect the poor from scum like himself.

God save me from self-styled "progressives" who, in their arrogance, believe that they know better what is good for me than I do myself. Dear old Teddy was the first in a long line of demagogues making the bizarre claim that they are the saviors who will protect the common man from scum like themselves. Curiously a huge fraction of people actually buy into this lie.

The poor don't need protection from corporations (how did this become about corporations anyway?). What they need is get the monkey off their backs.

 

[Patroklos]

But in the real world, the world of starving millions, famine, drought, war and murder, people cannot live their lives like they ought to able to, with a home, a real job, a good wage and a place to live.

Wow, the real world looks a whole lot like everyplace communism has been tried. Interesting that.

 

[Abegweit]

Except that hardly any classical liberals were anarchists. Starting with Adam Smith: "But those exertions of natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical."

Indeed this is true. The classical liberals believed that it was somehow possible to restrain the state and to limit it to the role of protecting peoples' rights. Jefferson's worship of the American constitution is probably the archetype. He, and many others of his generation, believed that mere words on bits of paper could stop tyranny. Well, we all know how that turned out.

Anarchism started in the nineteenth century, well after the foundations of classical liberalism were in place. The early anarchists, notably Proudhon, were properly outraged at the depravity of the state but had little answer to it. True anarchist theory is an outgrowth of classical liberal thought but more rigorous in its repudiation of power.

Modern mainstream left-wing is much closer to Adam Smith than Marx. The irony is that these days attacking central-right classical liberal positions using extreme left Marxist arguments would count as extreme right.

Modern mainstream left-wing thought is completely and utterly incoherent and has little to do with either Smith or Marx. It is based on the notion that you can use a system whose purpose is to enable the powerful to steal from the powerless in order to protect the powerless. This is absurd on the face of it. Despite this no matter how often they fail, they keep on trying. All they ever succeed in doing is expanding the circle of thieves. I sometimes suspect that this is the true objective. Certainly they pat themselves on their backs every time that they increase the weight of the state on ordinary folk.