cybercoma Posted June 16, 2007 Report Share Posted June 16, 2007 Bonus question: Can anyone tell me why people who manifestly don't know something seem to make the most emphatic statements about that same topic? Curious phenomena that and notably common in discussion forums.Those in "the know" don't feel it's worth commenting on. It's like listening to the raving lunatic on the street corner who claims the sky is red instead of blue, why argue with him? Those who know sit silent, while the lunatic rants on and on. Quote "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." --Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornAlbertan Posted June 17, 2007 Report Share Posted June 17, 2007 As we all know, according to Marx, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a temporary phase which, ultimately will lead to the fading away of the state. My question is, when will party members be able to recognize the time for this transition to take place? You're asking the wrong question. The right question is when will the capitalist pigs like Dion, Harper, Bush, Clinton, et. al. yield to People Power? When will people learn of the glories of the Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward, Stalin's Agrarian Reforms against the kulaks? Hugo Chavez Rocks and Rules!!! Since you are so extreme left...I am still waiting for you to make a mortgage payment for me in the name of sincerity. Don't be a hypocrite now. Pay up...if you are able I am needy BTW...why has every country who turned to communism/socialism had political problems? I mean, USSR broke up, Czechoslakia broke up, Yugoslavia broke up...human nature does not inherently support such ideologies. In its purist state, socialism and communism is very noble and amuch desired utopia. I dream of seeing Star Trek come to life But lets face reality, communism is often ruled with an iron fist...and it has to be because of human nature. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need...what if a person wants more out of life for themselves? I think a person should have that right without fear of redistribution, seizure or incarceration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted June 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2007 (edited) O Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 17, 2007 Report Share Posted June 17, 2007 Since you are so extreme left...I am still waiting for you to make a mortgage payment for me in the name of sincerity. Don't be a hypocrite now. Pay up...if you are able I am needy Answered on another thread (link). BTW...why has every country who turned to communism/socialism had political problems? I mean, USSR broke up, Czechoslakia broke up, Yugoslavia broke up...human nature does not inherently support such ideologies.Not really. South Koreans and Canadians are fleeing in droves to North Korea. And the Florida Strait is filled with boaters fleeing to Cuba.From each according to their ability, to each according to their need...what if a person wants more out of life for themselves? I think a person should have that right without fear of redistribution, seizure or incarceration. That basically was a humanitarian view of the mercantalist system, which was basically relabeled "Socialist". Mercantalists, in theory, took care of their needy. The practice was, of course, different. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 17, 2007 Report Share Posted June 17, 2007 I think it is worth pointing out that this was a subject of disagreement between Stalin's and Trotsky's point of views. Stalin believed that a powerful, isolationist communist state could thrive and prosper. Trotsky thought that it was impossible for communism to work in a world dominated by capitalism; ergo, for communism to work properly it would have to be adopted across the developed world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted June 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2007 (edited) [ Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 18, 2007 Report Share Posted June 18, 2007 I think it is worth pointing out that this was a subject of disagreement between Stalin's and Trotsky's point of views. Stalin believed that a powerful, isolationist communist state could thrive and prosper. Trotsky thought that it was impossible for communism to work in a world dominated by capitalism; ergo, for communism to work properly it would have to be adopted across the developed world. Of course, it turns out neither was right, because communism ignores human nature in the realms of incentive and motivation. I am heartened to find posts of yours I agree with. And again, I apologize for some of my more intemperate posts about you. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 18, 2007 Report Share Posted June 18, 2007 Of course, it turns out neither was right, because communism ignores human nature in the realms of incentive and motivation. I think that may have been an element of why Trotsky's view differed. Perhaps he thought that if it were to be adopted across the board, if the pinnacle of prosperity were possessed by a communist nation instead of a capitalist one, that perhaps that problem could be overcome. Of course, that would still likely require a system that was not purely communist. Motivation is not about how much you have, so much as it is about how much more you have than your neighbours. In a communist world with a system of personal gain that was on a smaller scale than ours, perhaps it could work. Similar complaints can be made about pure free markets and capitalism though. They ignore the human need for security to a similar extent as communism ignores the human need for incentive. It has been pointed out before that capitalism doesn't work as advertised. Corporate bailouts by government, and all that. I would be interested to know how many different models of capitalism, socialism and communism have actually been attempted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad_Michael Posted June 19, 2007 Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 I would be interested to know how many different models of capitalism, socialism and communism have actually been attempted. I'd be guessing "zero" of any of the types named. There has never been any nation organised according to the principles of capitalism, socialism or communism. Elements of all three are found in all western nations - including also ancient feudalism and subsistence farming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted June 19, 2007 Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 I would be interested to know how many different models of capitalism, socialism and communism have actually been attempted. I'd be guessing "zero" of any of the types named. There has never been any nation organised according to the principles of capitalism, socialism or communism. Elements of all three are found in all western nations - including also ancient feudalism and subsistence farming. You're a bit of a purist, eh? I've heard it said that capitalism (obviously not the 'pure' capitalism you have in mind) is the default mode of trade, and that appears to be true. Socialism and communism have to be fabricated and enforced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.