CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Replying to mathfan by creating a debate because nomenclature is a faggot and banned me
"I don't understand, Anarcho-Communism has alot in common with the Venus Project, why do you hate him for that specific idea so much. I have not seen/read Nomenclature's views on Communism, is he more in line with the Lenninist Communist Party Structure/violent revolution scheme (e.i. Dictatorship of the Proletariat, ect.) and this is what you are objecting to strongly? Or do you think that I am really just missing the boat? If so, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the topic or just direct me to a thread where you have already laid it out.
Perhaps this wasn't the best thread to bring this up on since you have been banned"
1) Communism is based upon the lie that you can have a "proletariat dictatorship" and that it tooooooootally won't result in tyranny, and instead it's going to create a utopia of absolute equality.
2)Communist ideology would be good enough to be called a primitive embryonic form of an RBE if it wasn't for it's fundamental errors. These errors are the UBI concept, the absolutely retarded idea that you need to establish a totalitarian dictatorship in order to eventually END the state, and the false utopian promise which is, contrary to popular belief, the exact opposite of an RBE. RBE is about continuous improvement and change, utopianism is about reaching the "perfect" society and staying that way forever and communism can never reach that stateless utopia of equality because once the commie dictatorship is established it always wants to stay established and get more and more tyrannical.
3) Nomenclature is a butt hole lozenge.
4) Nomenclature is an Iodine deficient malnourished North Korean school girl that flicks the bean to images of kim jong un and fantasizes about being abused by a communist dictator.
5)Nomenclature is an authoritarian anal tongue massager that wants to ban free speech and guns and everything that would give people any freedom or self reliance, he is either a total masochist, has never read 1984 or any book for that matter, OR he's a megalomaniacal sociopath that thinks he will be in charge of his own dictatorship some day.
@FactMachine. I apologize upfront that this is going to be quite a lengthy reply in order to establish the framework from where I am coming from on this topic. Feel free to reply to me at any length with sources if you want and if you think anything I say here is just too stupid/or error filled for words than please don't hold back. I would like to get a more full understanding of your views in terms of your critique of communism and your thoughts on the Venus Project as a more viable alternative RBE (if you have talked about this at some length already here than you could just link me to a thread that has the bulk of your ideas expressed). (I would actually like to get Nomenclature's views also for that matter as I have never came across a post of his where he lays out what he means by Communism and how one would get there. If you know of a thread where Nomenclature discusses this I would be interested to be pointed in that direction).
First, to address the points you made in brief before the longer response:
"Communism is based upon the lie that you can have a "proletariat dictatorship" and that it tooooooootally won't result in tyranny, and instead it's going to create a utopia of absolute equality."
I completely agree with the second half of this statement. Where I disagree is the idea that this is fundamental to Communism.
"... the absolutely retarded idea that you need to establish a totalitarian dictatorship in order to eventually END the state"
Again, I completely agree here. That is an "absolutely retarted idea". Where I disagree is the notion that establishing a totalitarian dictatorship in order to eventually end the state is fundamental to Communism. It is not. What is fundamental to the original/traditional idea of Communism is captured well in the opening paragraph of an article I am going to link you to later in this response:
"There was a vision, called “communism,” which was held by Kropotkin and other anarchist-communists in the 19th and early 20th century. Marx and Engels shared essentially the same goal. In the stateless, classless, society of communism, the means of production would be held in common (by the community), work would be carried out due to social motives rather than for wages, and consumer goods would be available to all according to their needs."
Now, this is very broad and there is a lot of disagreement on the particulars and can branch out in many different directions, but this is the underling philosophical basis for what a (truly) Communist society is, not if there is a need for a revolution, how that revolution is orchestrated (if needed/encouraged or peaceful), transitionary forms, ect. I will now get into more particulars about how the term "Communism" has had many, many mutually-contradictory definitions applications over time where a lot of the confusion comes in. At this point, I think accepting the label "Communist" is strategically a horrible decision that comes at a tremendous price due to all of the baggage associated with the term (and how strains of Communists themselves have f'cked up big time in just the manner you suggest with the notion of a Vanguard Party, ect. out of "herd-mentality", ignorance, stupidity, credulity, ect. ), some of which I will get into more detail about now. What follows is a term paper of mine from a Modern African History course at University. Although it does not 100% align with this topic, it deals with Marxist theory, evolution, applications, ect. and I think it is useful in this context (also it is quite a time saver to just copy and paste this).
Essay Topic: RESEARCH ANY TWO OF ETHIOPIA’S MENGISTU, MOZAMBIUE’S SAMORA MACHEL OR JOACHIM CHISSANO, ZIMBABWE’S ROBERT MUGABE, AND ANGOLA’S AGOSTINHO NETO. WHY WERE AFRICAN ANTI-COLONIALISTS ATTRACTED TO MARXIST IDEOLOGY? TO WHAT EXTENT DID THIS ATTRACTION INFLUENCE THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT THEY CONSTRUCTED UPON INDEPENDENCE?
“After emotions subsided, many of us saw the impracticality of our ideals. Tempered by the realities, we were willing to correct our mistakes. But the arrogance and self-righteousness of the leadership never allowed the possibility of admitting error. Like the characters in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, the leaders of the Revolution have evolved into New Masters; learning to walk upright, they have enslaved those they pledged to liberate. The Revolution brought the promise of a better life, both for the individual and for society as a whole; but that promise has been betrayed in the most inhuman way imaginable.”
-Dawit Wolde Giorgis
Senior Member of the Marxist-Leninist Party
Former Deputy Foreign Minister to Mengitsu (Head of State of Ethiopia)
In the twentieth century, many African anti-colonialists became attracted to various strains of “Marxist” ideology and applied their understanding of this in their struggle for liberation and self-determination. Ideas of racial hierarchy perished by the end of World War II. The violent nature of this ideological stance (racial hierarchy) was on full display following the devastating, failed eugenics program of the Nazi’s in Germany to jettison the superfluous, “inferior” races and establish the dominance of the Aryan “master” race. These events provided a robust basis for African people/states to challenge the legitimacy of white, European colonial rule in the African continent. The various strains of “Marxism” provided the ideological framework for starkly different, competing models of society. This appealed to African anti-colonialists for, amongst other reasons, the direct tension between the European colonial powers and the “Marxist” visions of societal organization, the promotion of a class-conscious message, viewing Capitalism as an inevitably imperial enterprise, economic ideas of exploitative labor associated with a Capitalist system (as seen by “Marxism”), and the fundamental idea of self-determination promoted in “Marxist” thought (particularly within “Leninism”). In order to understand the appeal of “Marxism” to African anti-colonialists, it is first necessary to briefly discuss the background of this mode of thought and how it has evolved as a function of time. It is important to note, “Marxism” does not refer to one solidified ideology but, various interpretations and specific strains of “Marxism” can be identified. As we will see, these differences are important and help explain how different African anti-colonialists applied them to societies they intended to institute. Particularly, we will explore Ethiopia’s Mengistu and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe in order to analyze the role and appeal of “Marxism” to these respective leaders.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a famous/infamous German philosopher best known for his work critiquing socio-economic systems. Marx’s theory history, known as historical materialism, submitted that forms of society proceed to rise and fall as they further and later become an obstacle to the development for human productive power. In perhaps his most influential work, The Communist Manifesto, Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels promote the theory of historical materialism at length and proceed to critique the current phase of societal organization; Capitalism. Marx submits that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” and proceeds to break down his contemporary social organization into “two great hostile camps…Bourgeoisie and Proletariat”. Marx defines the bourgeoisie as “the class of modern Capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of modern wage-labor” while the proletariat are “the class of modern wage-laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor-power in order to live.” Thus, Marx viewed capitalist profit as an extraction of surplus from the working class; simply state, employer exploitation of the working-class. In Marx’s historical materialism, the analysis of history and economics are inextricably linked. He predicted the inevitable breakdown of capitalism when the system had outlived its usefulness to give way to a Socialist society, and then eventually to Communism.
Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) was a Russian revolutionary who largely inspired and led the Bolshevik Revolution (1917) as well the architect and first head of the first Soviet state. Consistent with Karl Marx, Lenin called for a classless society in which the means of production would be owned in common (i.e. Communism). However, Lenin, unlike Marx pressed the need for revolutionary actions in order to bring about societal change (before the system “naturally” outlived its usefulness). Lenin submitted the need for a “vanguard of the proletariat” and viewed this vanguard as highly disciplined, centralized party that would commit itself to instill within the working-class Socialist sensibilities, with the vanguard working as a guide and leader to inform the proletariat of what is in their best interests. Moreover, Lenin maintained that eventually, the hierarchical, authoritarian governmental structures of the party would no longer be necessary and a “withering away of the state” would commence.
Furthermore, Lenin’s ideas about the claimed inevitable imperialist nature of a capitalist system went on to be highly influential. Lenin explores these ideas most thoroughly in his work, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. “It is beyond doubt”, Lenin argues, “…that capitalism’s transition to the stage of monopoly capitalism, to finance capital, is bound up with the intensification of the struggle for the partition of the world.” Lenin continues, “The division of the world into two main groups-of colony-owning countries on the one hand and colonies on the other” is purported to be an inevitable consequence of the system because the struggle for colonies is the “struggle for economic territory”. Later, after Lenin’s death, Joseph Stalin (eventual leader of the Soviet Union) declared the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism as the only true Marxism. Under this set of ideas, since it is believed capitalist nations resort to aggressive imperialist actions, Marxist nations should be prepared for war. Stalin went on to re-mold traditional Marxist ideas into the political ideology referred to as Stalinism. Stalinism is associated with a “monolithic party” (one-party state), silencing dissent (forcibly), a “cult of personality”, and a powerful authoritarian state with government ownership of industries.
Mengitsu Haile Mariam was an African anti-colonialist who helped to overthrow a centuries-old monarchy in Ethiopia and attempted to reform Ethiopia in accordance with Marxist-Leninist doctrine. In 1974, Mengistu was made chairman of the Armed Forces Coordinating Committee (a committee of revolutionary soldiers), and subsequently went on to be a vice-chairman of the Provisional Military Administrative Council (PMAC) following the arrest of the emperor. Mengistu became known as an acknowledged strongman of a regime that went on to nationalize industries and farmlands following his orders to assassinate at least sixty aristocrats and former officials of the imperial regime. Mengistu later went on to become the head of state in Ethiopia. In accordance with Stalin’s form of Marxism (Marxism-Leninism), Mengitsu proceeded to unleash a violent campaign of “Red Terror” to destroy armed opposition to his rule within the civilian population (killing thousands of political opponents). He was an absolute ruler of Ethiopia, a quasi-Stalinist dictator who oversaw the establishment of the Workers’ Party of Ethiopia in 1984, a national constitution in 1986, and an “election” by a national legislature of himself in 1987. Armed rebellion attempted to rise up against Mengistu’s reign, a series of terrible droughts and famines afflicted Ethiopia, with the Ethiopian famine of 1984-85 gaining world-wide recognition. The famine was ignored by Mengistu and ended up claiming approximately one million people’s lives. He was found guilty of genocide for these offenses in 2006.
Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe, is another African anti-colonialist with ties to Marxist ideology. In 1963, Mugabe helped to form the Zimbabwe African national Union (ZANU) as opposed to the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) organization. He was arrested for “subversive speech” in 1964 and remained imprisoned for a decade. In that time, Mugabe earned law degrees and helped lead a coup (while still in prison) ousting ZANU’s leader in 1974. Later in that same year, Mugabe was released from prison. He went on to be joint leader of the Patriotic Front (PF) of Zimbabwe in an effort against Prime Minister Ian Smith’s white-dominated Rhodesian government; leading a civil war against the government. In 1979 the war ended, and Mugabe’s party, now going by the title ZANU-PF, won a notable victory over competing black parties, making him the prime minister. Initially, many in the West viewed Mugabe as an “independence hero” and promising leader. After taking office, Mugabe took a position of racial reconciliation as opposed to vengeance. In Mugabe’s Manifesto, he states, “Racism, whether practiced by whites or blacks, is anathema anathema to the humanitarian philosophy of Zanu…Zimbabwe cannot be a country of just blacks. It is and should remain our country, all of us together.” However, these sentiments dissolved as time passed (many years later) and it became clear that Mugabe was fashioning an authoritarian state with him at the head. Mugabe envisioned making Africa a giant in economic, political, and military power, comparable to the United States and the Soviet Union, with himself as the leader.
Mugabe confiscated approximately a dozen private companies associated with the rival ZAPU party and took farms that were owned by Nkomo (his former liberation ally). At a political rally in 1982, Mugabe declared that “ZANU-PF will rule forever”, a pronouncement that comports with Marxist-Leninist style Marxism (as discussed previously) of seizing control of the government, instituting a powerful, authoritarian one-party system, drive out competition, and pertinaciously hold on to power. Humanitarian crisis of substantial portions have confronted the population under Mugabe’s rule in Zimbabwe, with claims that the conditions created amount to him being guilty of genocide.
Both Mengitsu and Mugabe have been attracted by specific strains of Marxist ideology; in Mengitsu’s case it is an explicitly Marxist-Leninist strain as decreed by Stalin, and in the case of Mugabe Marxism-Leninism that progressively evolved into a more extreme, authoritarian state as a function of time. Lenin’s position on the relationship between capitalism and imperialism (the colonial system) and plan to actively carry out armed revolutionary acts to supplant the system by means of a vanguard party appeared to resonate deeply with both actors. Mengitsu was the chairman of the Armed Forces Coordinating Committee (a committee of revolutionary soldiers), and subsequently went on to be a vice-chairman of the Provisional Military Administrative Council (PMAC) while Mugabe went on to be joint leader of the Patriotic Front (PF) of Zimbabwe leading a civil war against the government. Moreover, both Mengistu and Mugabe went on to use their newfound political influence to create a more centralized, powerful state their party and particularly themselves at the lead; thus, exploiting the idea of the vanguard party to accumulate self-power. This resonates with Stalin’s strain of Marxist thought which has lost sight of many of the traditional goals submitted by Marx (i.e. worker control over production (not state control), gradual disintegration of the state, community control over worker surplus, ect.). However, a bridge between traditional Marxist thought (by the works of Karl Marx) and the Stalinist style Marxism-Leninism can be found in many of the violent, hierarchical, and authoritarian party structure proposed by Lenin to be necessary transitory conditions. Thus, the African anti-colonialists Mengitsu and Mugabe were heavily influenced by Marxist-Leninist thought and proceeded to mold their societies around a similar type of Marxist ideology that was dominant in the Soviet Union.
Bibliography
1. Giorgis, Dawit Wolde. Red Tears: War, Famine and Revoltion in Ethiopia. Trenton, New Jersey: Red Sea Press, 1989
2. Class Notes, “The Cold War and Africa”, 3/31/2016
6. "Marxism-Leninism." The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. Ed. E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002. Academic OneFile. Web. Apr. 2016.
7. Lenin, V. I. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. New York: International Publishers, 1990.
Both of these readings combined establish the base framework for how I view the term "Communism" (although as I mentioned, I think there is a serious problem with maintaining the label "Communism" in association with the original fundamental tenants of this socio-economic program at this point; it has become quite a "loaded term") and we can proceed from there if you like.
I would actually like to get Nomenclature's views also for that matter as I have never came across a post of his where he lays out what he means by Communism and how one would get there. If you know of a thread where Nomenclature discusses this I would be interested to be pointed in that direction.
I'm not a Communist, brother. I'm a democratic socialist, or kind of an inverse capitalist. I believe we should nationalise the banks and hike tax rates on the top income bracket, then use the profit to eliminate homelessness, provide free basic healthcare and education. I describe myself as an inverse capitalist because I would still retain the profit incentive, but instead of 90 percent of the profit a person's labour produces being stolen by someone else who does absolutely nothing to earn it, I would flip it around, give the worker 90 percent and the economic parasite 10 percent. I bet you that pretty quickly those parasites are going to want to become workers and contribute something more than inherited capital to society.
@Nomenclature. "I'm not a Communist, brother. I'm a democratic socialist, or kind of an inverse capitalist."
Very interesting. I was under the impression that you adopted the label "Communist" because I have been told so by others on CD. Do you at all distinguish between short-term more feasible goals and longer-term ideal goals for a society? For instance, in the USA, I am exactly analogous to "democratic socialist" as you say which is the Green Party here (a third-party) as my short-term feasible goals of what I would like the society to reform toward. So we have essentially complete agreement on that. Is there a party in your country that accurately portrays the bulk of your views? Here is a link to the Green Party Platform if interested: http://www.gp.org/platform
You put me under the impression that you are a communist because of your rampant defense of communism. You rush to it's rescue every time it is criticized.
The central thesis of Communism is to take the means of production away from the few and give it back to the many. Why are you arguing against Communism when you clearly do not understand the first thing about Communism
I was under the impression that you adopted the label "Communist" because I have been told so by others on CD.
Whoever told you that is full of shit.
Is there a party in your country that accurately portrays the bulk of your views?
At the moment socialism is having a boom period here. One of the two major parties has reformed back to its old trade unionist roots. For the last couple of decades though our own Green Party was really the only type of left wing representation. I'm actually really fond of the Green Party. The problem however is that a lot of its voting base tends to be the real hardliner left wing activists. The ones who handcuff themselves to trees and petrol bomb animal testing facilities.
The problem however is that a lot of its voting base tends to be the real hardliner left wing activists. The ones who handcuff themselves to trees and petrol bomb animal testing facilities
And one day a man will come along promising you just that, you'll hand his regime absolute social control and power, and he'll say thanks and give you none of it. Just like Nazi Germany did...
Exactly how many times do you need to be told that the Nazis were far right wing fascists, not democratic socialists? Why do you continue repeating the same fallacious bullshit weeks after it gets debunked?
It doesn't matter. He claimed to be a socialist. You yourself have admitted this and said he was lying (your words not mine). But the people following him didn't know he was a liar (still your words), thus they believed in Socialism because they followed him thinking he was a Socialist. The fact is Nomenclature, you would have happily been a part of the Hitler Youth, happily singing songs and dreaming of your future utopia, never dreaming that the one you would give absolute power and social control to was? A liar... (still your words again)
@Brontoraptor. Albert Einstein was a Socialist living in Germany that did not at all agree with what was going on (nor identify anything with "socialism"). This is irrespective of him being Jewish, and he got the Hell out of there before things reached a tipping point in Germany (and published harsh criticisms of what was going on). Just because one adopts a term doesn't imply that they are "playin by the rules" of what it would mean to be said label. For instance, North Korea's official name is, The People's Democratic Republic of Korea. Now, does this ipso facto mean that North Korea is a Democracy/Republic? No, we easily see through that for the bullsh't claim that it is.
Just because one adopts a term doesn't imply that they are "playin by the rules" of what it would mean to be said label. For instance, North Korea's official name is, The People's Democratic Republic of Korea.
Indeed. Kind of like when ANTIFA claims to be "antifascists" while using fascist techniques...
Kind of like when ANTIFA claims to be "antifascists" while using fascist techniques
There is no such thing as "fascist techniques" because fascism is a political ideology not a martial art. It is something you believe, not something you do. You are deliberately twisting language again to try to make it seem reasonable to accuse a dedicated anti-fascist group of being fascists. It's stupid.
Why do you continue repeating the same fallacious bullshit weeks after it gets debunked?
Because he didn't claim to be a right winger, thus his followers couldn't have been "right wingers". They were leftists following someone who they believed was a leftist as well.
And...we both know which side out of the modern left and right would love to exterminate the Jews and give the land to Palestine, now don't we Comrad?
It's amazing to me how the left hands the right Naziism for no given logical reason (it isn't us claiming it's right wing), when white supremacist groups at their height in America, openly supported the left
Pre WWII, during WWII, and post WWII, and all after Hitler himself claimed Naziism was neither wing. Doesn't that simply make you a little dishonest liar? Of course it does. You've been intentionally and knowingly lying this whole time because that's what leftists do. They lie, switch positions on a dime when necessary, monopolize the youth through academia, and spread mass media propaganda just like...the Nazis.
Amazingly, the "moral highground left" uses violence, riots, attacks on police, firebombs on police, attacks police horses and dogs, uses violence to shut down all opposing views, etc etc...
And you think we are like Bazis? Bwahahahaha! Yeah right. While we continue to not riot, not loot, not firebomb, not use violence, and on and on.
He didn't claim to be regularly gassing Jews either
Way to swap tactics shit for brains. You earlier tried to use his words to determine his religious views. Now as if by magic, his words are no good. Your arguments really suck. Just sayin...
How many times do you need these words shoved into your idiotic face before you finally decide to stop ignoring them?
National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsi.ɪzəm, ˈnæt-/),[1] is the ideology and set of practices associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party, Nazi Germany and other far-right groups. Usually characterized as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism, Nazism's development was influenced by German nationalism (especially Pan-Germanism), the Völkisch movement and the anti-Communist Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged during the Weimar Republic after Germany's defeat in the First World War.
The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics.[13] Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.[14] Adolf Hitler and other proponents denied the view that Nazism was either left-wing or right-wing, instead they officially portrayed Nazism as a syncretic movement.
You didn't answer to my response quantum. As a matter of fact you ignored it completely because you have no rebuttal. Socialism of any kind is not right wing. Right wing is anti Marxism by very definition. I'll repeat, how can right wingers follow someone claiming left wing policies as his philosophy, and with a smile? Please. Do tell.
Adolf Hitler and other proponents denied the view that Nazism was either left-wing or right-wing, instead they officially portrayed Nazism as a syncretic movement.
Well that sure as hell doesn't help your bullshit narrative now does it? Maybe you should have used a left wing propaganda source...
the ideology and set of practices associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party, Nazi Germany and other far-right groups
Which is odd leftist wording. Why? Because the Nazis and KKK were on the American left from about oh...say 1930 to 1975 at least. Robert Byrd, an open member of the KKK, was elected by the left from the 1950s to his death in 2010. How'd that happen? The point? Leftists blindly calling it right wing when Hitler himself said it wasn't (according to your own article) is meaningless.
Exactly how many times do you need to be told that the Nazis were far right wing fascists
And then you said that anything voted on by the majority was democratic. Hitler was voted in, but now you've scrapped your other claim by contradicting your own logic.
Mathfan I don't know what's going on but I can't see a lot of your larger post, I could see it a minute ago but I think either my cat stepped on the keyboard in just the wrong way or there's an error with the site. I'm going to have to ask you to post it again on a different debate, I'll name it "essay reply"
Mathfan I don't know what's going on but I can't see a lot of your larger post, I could see it a minute ago but I think either my cat stepped on the keyboard in just the wrong way or there's an error with the site. I'm going to have to ask you to post it again on a different debate, I'll name it "essay reply"
After reading your post I read some more material from the internet and I've returned with a more nuanced but still critical view of Communism.
It appears that the original concepts which lead to communism where not revolutionary ideology but came in the form of early renaissance utopian idealism, these ideas became more refined during the late 18th century and before Marx ever spewed a single drop of feculent ill conceived rhetoric a whole myriad of attitudes towards subjects such as revolution and what the nature of the state ought to be(if any should be present at all) where discussed within communist circles. Marx and his associates produced a communist philosophy which called for revolution using both violence, intimidation through civil disobedience and peaceful persuasion depending on what was necessary in a given set of circumstances. There is much debate about whether or not Marx actually thought violent revolution was necessary, or if he was actually referring to a strictly social and philosophical revolution which would lead to an inevitable shift in the structure of society, but Marx's use of the word "revolution" appears to be more general in the sense that it could mean either or, and the methods used to carry out that revolution could vary between peaceful protest and outright terrorism depending on what the circumstances necessitated. No clear line is ever drawn in communist doctrine.
I will have to admit my incorrectness on one thing, that Marx ever specifically stated that a centralized government was necessary to achieve a true communist state, but all the same Marxism creates the perfect framework to lure in the gullible masses with false promises of egalitarianism and use it to rise to power, and that's why the Marxist-Leninist breed of communism is so popular. RBE bypasses this because there is no notion of authority or decision making at all. Instead of having any form of human authority or mob rule logic itself would be the absolute authority. Instead of any individual "making a decision" about how things should be done when it pertains to decisions that effect other people or the environment on a significant level we would determine the most objectively logical course of action with the intent of producing the most favorable result relative to the inherently logical goals and values such as:
1)Increasing quality of life
2)Maintaining the environment
3)Accumulating intelligence about the universe
Etc.
Communism lacks the scientific basis for arriving at decisions and instead either ends up with mob rule or totalitarianism. That's why communism is just as fundamentally deficient as every other system other than an RBE.
Lastly, Karl Marx was an abject slime ball of rubbish and was a horrible person, here is a video to support that claim. Be warned however that the man who made this video is a fervent supporter of capitalism and conservatism and can be fairly biased about certain issues.
Stefan will speak of how Marx claimed his ideas had a scientific basis, this will no doubt raise questions about the supposed scientific basis for the RBE, which you probably already had questions about just from reading this post. I will allow you to ask those questions as you see fit instead of addressing that now in case I miss something that you might have brought up while I'm attempting to answer those questions before they're asked.
After reading your post I read some more material from the internet and I've returned with a more nuanced but still critical view of Communism.
Awesome. But don't you think it's possible that your hyper-critical view of Communism is related to the fact that your country went to war against it for fifty years? I am going to make an educated guess and determine you have not been taught that most of your canned arguments have been plagiarised from the Nazis. While your own country was busy brainwashing three different generations with this garbage, I am fairly confident they did not tell you they were getting their anti-Communist propaganda ideas from the Nazis.
It appears that the original concepts which lead to communism where not revolutionary ideology but came in the form of early renaissance utopian idealism, these ideas became more refined during the late 18th century and before Marx ever spewed a single drop of feculent ill conceived rhetoric a whole myriad of attitudes towards subjects such as revolution and what the nature of the state ought to be(if any should be present at all) where discussed within communist circles.
Right. So before Communism had even been proposed as an economic theory, discussions were taking place "within Communist circles". Makes perfect sense.
Marx and his associates produced a communist philosophy which called for revolution using both violence
I thought you just claimed to have come back with a "more nuanced" understanding of Communism? Apart from a brief period in 1848, when he gave an interview sanctioning the use of "revolutionary terror" as a response to several government massacres in Europe, Marx never advocated any form of violence. In fact, the older he got, the more he spoke out publicly against violence. Marx's philosophy was that education would eventually lead the proletariat to Communism, that it was ultimately inevitable, and that a revolution orchestrated through violence would create exactly the Stalinist, alternative dictatorship you previously claimed was a prerequisite of Communist ideology.
But let's bypass this, because I think there is a more important point to be had which is your very denouncement of violence in the first place. How exactly do you think America maintains the global dominance of consumer capitalism? How do you think it was done during the Cold War? You are living in a country which has been at war for 93 percent of its life, spends more money on its military than the next seven countries combined, and has quite literally killed more people than smallpox. The very stupidity of debating with you is evidenced succinctly in your attempt to forge an argument against Marx by falsely claiming he was violent, while you factually live in the most violent country in the entire world.
1) Just because I am an american do not assume my thinking is aligned with american propaganda. I bet you didn't know that before WW2 America was ingratiating Hitler's butthole and praising his eugenics policies. So where the british royal family.
2)Marx didn't invent communism you cerebral insufficient.The term communism was coined in 1777 by Victor d'Hupay.
3) Marx uses the term revolution loosely. The most nuanced stance you could take is to accept the possibility that it could mean a variety of things and not just assume he was a peace loving guy. Marx saw violence as unfavorable but he accepted that at certain times it would be necessary.
4) You cretin, just because I live in America doesn't mean I support it's heinous acts of mass murder and extortion. What country do you live in? Should I judge you by it's current socioeconomic structure or it's history dating back from before you where born? Or am I smarter than Nomenclature? I very much think so. You don't know shit about globalism or the network of zionist Rothschild banks that owns this planet you fool.
Just because I am an american do not assume my thinking is aligned with american propaganda.
I didn't make that assumption on the basis that you are American. I made it on the basis of everything you have thus far said. You have been reciting American propaganda at me directly. It is natural that I would assume you probably have been influenced by American propaganda. The way propaganda works in America is complex, but its effects can often be observed in the form of pre-prepared, "canned" arguments and/or slogans proliferated through various forms of media to influence a large group of people. When large groups of people use strikingly similar arguments and those arguments are grounded in some form of misrepresentation or fallacy, then it is a good bet they have been influenced by some form of propaganda.
Marx didn't invent communism you cerebral insufficient
I'm afraid that he did.
Communism was an economic-political philosophy founded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the second half of the 19th century. Marx and Engels met in 1844, and discovered that they had similar principles. In 1848 they wrote and published "The Communist Manifesto."
The term communism was coined in 1777 by Victor d'Hupay.
No it wasn't. Victor d'Hupay was French, not English. If you are going to use Wikipedia then at least learn to read it properly:-
"Communism" derives from the French communisme which developed out of the Latin roots communis and the suffix isme – and was in use as a word designating various social situations BEFORE it came to be associated with more modern conceptions of an economic and political organization.
Stefan will speak of how Marx claimed his ideas had a scientific basis
First, as a preface, I am very familiar with Stefan Molyneux and agree with a lot of his views. We just radically disagree about Capitalism and some other things. Two, I am in no way attempting to claim that Marx was a "good guy" or did not have his fair share of flaws/shortcomings (he certainly did). We could get in to some of those substantial deficits later if you like. What I am arguing is that Marx had some notable ideas worthy of one’s attention (primarily in his critique of Capitalism, also his Historical Materialist Model, while I think it is far too simplistic overall, has value and makes some good observations).
Marx did think that his views had a scientific basis specifically in his theory of Historical Materialism. Marx took the view that the evolution of human society/social development is bound by physical laws in a very similar way to the laws of physics (thus the term "materialism", e.i. there is nothing "in the air" about it, human social development is governed by laws just like biology and physics, and if you locate the relevant variables one can predict the future of human social development much like we can predict the trajectory of throwing a baseball on Earth with Newton's Laws). Now, if you recall from the Communist Manifesto, Marx speaks very "matter-of-factly" about his views on the evolution of human societies and makes his prediction of what will happen in the future (due to him believing he is laying out a 'scientific' argument/theory). Here is an excerpt of an article discussing this topic that sums this view up well:
"Why should we accept that the entire universe, from the smallest particles to the most distant galaxies are determined, and the processes that determine the evolution of all species, are governed by laws, and yet, for some strange reason, our own history is not. The Marxist method analyses the hidden mainsprings that underpin the development of human society from the earliest tribal societies up to the modern day. The way in which Marxism traces this winding road is called the materialist conception of history.
Those who deny the existence of any laws governing human social development invariably approach history from a subjective and moralistic standpoint. But above and beyond the isolated facts, it is necessary to discern broad tendencies, the transitions from one social system to another, and to work out the fundamental motor forces that determine these transitions.
Before Marx and Engels history was seen by most people as a series of unconnected events or, to use a philosophical term, "accidents". There was no general explanation of this, history had no inner lawfulness. By establishing the fact that, at bottom, all human development depends on the development of productive forces Marx and Engels for the first time placed the study of history on a scientific basis.
This scientific method enables us to understand history, not as a series of unconnected and unforeseen incidents, but rather as part of a clearly understood and interrelated process. It is a series of actions and reactions which cover politics, economics and the whole spectrum of social development. To lay bare the complex dialectical relationship between all these phenomena is the task of historical materialism. Humankind constantly changes nature through labour, and in so doing, changes itself."
Although Marx was a critic of Capitalism, he saw many good aspects to the system as well (which is why it comes in later on in the chain of history). Now, Marx was not under the persuasion that Capitalism had already necessarily outlived its usefulness in the era for which he lived. As a social-economic theorist working inside the framework of his Historical Materialism model, he simply predicted the inevitable breakdown of capitalism when the system had outlived its usefulness to give way to a Socialist society, and then eventually to Communism. Marx was not taking the stance that this had to happen now (his time period). Rather, Capitalism may still of had usefulness for 20, 50, 100, or 200+ years from his present day. This is why Marx almost exclusively wrote about Capitalism rather than other models (because the other models were off at some uncertain point in the future).
Now, you can see how this quickly creates a strong divide between people who are hopeful for this quasi-utopian type society some distant point in the future. That is, some people think/thought that it is best to wait and allow Capitalism to play out while it still has usefulness and would eventually give way to the model that supersedes it (much more true to Marx’s model) and others thought, “No, this sh’t needs to end now”. This is where the different camps of Revolutionary Socialism and Evolutionary Socialism took root. Lenin is the most salient of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. He constructed/argued for the need for a Vanguard Party (strict internal hierarchical structure in order to bring about the Revolution now, and then later (ostensibly) the people in charge will willingly concede some of their power during the transitionary phase toward Communism, and then ultimately they are supposed to concede all of their power in order to bring about a Communist society with the fundamental tenets beings as I stated in my OP : In the stateless, classless, society of communism, the means of production would be held in common (by the community), work would be carried out due to social motives rather than for wages, and consumer goods would be available to all according to their needs . This is how the hierarchy, authoritarianism, violent, ect. attributes that are typically ascribed as inextricably bound to Communism real starts to take hold (although this is not intrinsic to Communism, though it is valid to say that this was a direct product from people who legitimately considered themselves Communist (and the sheep that followed the role of those in charge) because they had in principle a goal of bringing about a Communist society and this was their Revolutionary means to speed up the process). Subsequently, it is easy to see how this could get “hijacked” by malevolent, power hungry opportunists such as Stalin because if he controlled the Vanguard Party then all he would have to do is never relinquish power and claim that this is the one true form of Marxism (and thus Stalinism is completely disconnected from (true) Communism because in principle they have zero intention on bringing about a Communist society). Now, I completely agree with you that the people who were “on board” with Lennin’s ideas are “absolutely retarted” and that this is such a horrible, self-contradictory, idea/movement that to a reasonable person it is HIGHLY predictable that this was an unjustified structure from the start and was going to end up very badly (in a Dystopian society rather than quasi-Utopian). So, people who subscribe to this form of the label Communism (Marxism-Lenninism) do share a high burden of responsibility for the ills/crimes typically associated with Communism (and there are many self-professed Communists that still believe in this type of scheme). As for the Stalinist philosophy, there are people who are self-professed Communists that still align with similar forms of social structure to Stalin’s even though it has essentially no recognizable elements to Marx’s Communism and in many ways is the complete opposite (the people who support this are either: A. Dumb as f’ck B. Moral Monsters).
Now, the reason I went into more depth about this is to illustrate a point about what is fundamental to Communism. So, when you hear people talk about China, USSR, North Korea, Cuba, ect. as “Communist countries”, you know they don’t have a f’cking clue what they are talking about. That is, they are claiming that a square circle exists (e.i. two mutually incompatible definitions are somehow compatible). Again, a Communist society (as it was originally conceived) is a stateless, classless, society where the means of production would be held in common (by the community), work would be carried out due to social motives rather than for wages, and consumer goods would be available to all according to their needs. For example, that would be like pointing to a modern society and claiming that it is an RBE because they call themselves or others call them an RBE even though it is functioning on a monetary system. Now, what one could argue, is that said societies above are claiming to be transitioning toward a Communist society by means of a Vanguard Party or otherwise, just as one could potentially make such a claim by pointing to another society and say it is transitioning toward an RBE. But, to say that it is at this moment, given the fundamental definitions and facts of reality, is completely non-sensical. This is why the term “Anarchist Communism” is useful because they are simply stating that they are in favor of a (true) Communist society without the Lenninism, Marxism-Lenninism, Stalinism, ect. Now, why they would be tempted to adopt the label “Communist” and particularly the Hammer and Sickle logo at this point (given what it is commonly associated with) is beyond me and seems dangerously idiotic (potentially genocidal stupidity).
"RBE bypasses this because there is no notion of authority or decision making at all. Instead of having any form of human authority or mob rule logic itself would be the absolute authority. Instead of any individual "making a decision" about how things should be done when it pertains to decisions that effect other people or the environment on a significant level we would determine the most objectively logical course of action with the intent of producing the most favorable result relative to the inherently logical goals and values such as:
1)Increasing quality of life
2)Maintaining the environment
3)Accumulating intelligence about the universe
Etc.
Communism lacks the scientific basis for arriving at decisions and instead either ends up with mob rule or totalitarianism. That's why communism is just as fundamentally deficient as every other system other than an RBE."
In a Communist society, there is no centralized authorities/state, that does not preclude there being systems of organizations with de-centralized structures/worker management/counsels/ ect. with limited domains of authority. How exactly this would work is a matter highly debated internal issue amongst Communists/Anarcho-Communists. That is to say, the decision making process of REB/Venus Project is not inconsistent with Communism, it just is not a staple either (it is on the table as one option amongst others that would have to be consented to).
Numbers 1) and 2) are intrinsic to the Communist design. Number 3) is not, although it is by no means precluded. It would have to be agreed upon/consented to whether this is a main goal of society, if it is peripheral, or if they want to “cut off” at a certain level of technology (which would inevitably squelch scientific progress after a certain point).
This is why I say that there are many strong similarities/overlapping parts to “anarcho-communism”/(true) communism and the Venus Project/RBE. The Venus project is more specific in many of its visions while communism is broader in its potentialities/applicability (Socialism is an even broader term still than Communism) that could potentially end up looking something quite similar to the Venus project or if they choose to organize decision making processes in profoundly different ways and/or remain at a lower level of technological advancement, then the end result would be nearly entirely different than the Venus project.
I am in no way attempting to claim that Marx was a "good guy" or did not have his fair share of flaws/shortcomings
I know.
substantial deficits
That's a good way to put it.
What I am arguing is that Marx had some notable ideas worthy of one’s attention
His views on capitalism and history are noteworthy but they are also outdated and simplistic.
Marx took the view that the evolution of human society/social development is bound by physical laws in a very similar way to the laws of physics
That I agree with, what I disagree with is his narrow minded and dogmatic view of what those laws are. There are many factors which can alter the course of human history, the means of production and the current class system at any particular time and place are not what shapes human history, because those things are merely the symptom of a myriad of circumstances most of which have to do with the type of resources available to a civilization and how abundant those resources are. Marx Acknowledges the effect and not the cause, which is why his ideas are philosophical but not scientific, he focuses on the means of production but not the scarcity or abundance of certain resources in certain environments which led to certain populations developing in different ways and having different social structures. This lack of practical resource based thinking is why communism can't address the root cause of social inequality, which is mainly scarcity. The less there is to go around the less equality there is. Of course there is more too it then just scarcity but that is the best example to both supplement and refute Marx at the same time. And I probably hate capitalism more than Marx did, because capitalism creates artificial scarcity when it comes to things like energy (Nicola Tesla) and an over abundance of useless crap like junk food, cigarettes and fidget spinners. This is why we need a system that is scientifically designed to create maximum abundance of the things people need and the things that improve both people and their lives, along with everything else on the planet. Social constructs like money are primitive and superstitious roadblocks to addressing real world problems and improving on things.
he saw many good aspects to the system as well...the inevitable breakdown of capitalism when the system had outlived its usefulness
I agree with Marx on this, although I wouldn't say there are "many" good things about it, just a few.
Capitalism may still of had usefulness for 20, 50, 100, or 200+ years from his present day
I would say capitalism is probably going down in about 100 years from now. When that happens, it will either be the best time or the worst time in the history of humanity depending on the circumstances.
though it is valid to say that this was a direct product from people who legitimately considered themselves Communist
I think people like Lenin just use communism like an angler fish uses it's bio-luminescent lure.
malevolent, power hungry opportunists
Exactly.
You are much better at this then Nomenclature, your responses are much more detailed and nuanced, the problem with nomenclature is that he just makes the same blanket statements that "brainwashed americans" make but to the opposite effect, and then calls you something like "troglodyte" or "cretin"
You have managed to make the clear distinction between Marx's doctrine and authoritarian communist states, where as Nomenclature just came off as a communist fan boy with an ego malfunction.
Venus Project is not inconsistent with Communism, it just is not a staple either
I would say true communism is more of an obsolete and very rudimentary form of an RBE which lacks the refinement of an RBE and the methodological approach that Jacque Fresco described.
or if they want to “cut off” at a certain level of technology
This is why utopianism is not in line with an RBE, and why mob rule is so dangerous. Instead of any group or individual "making a decision" we need to figure out and do what is objectively logical. This isn't to say that any freedoms should be restricted, but that an objective basis needs to be formed for what we primitively call "morality" and the same objectivity must be applied when it comes to how we interact with the environment and what we should be working towards as a species. These guidelines must be so objectively logical and naturally conducive to improvement and mutual happiness that to disobey them would be inherently illogical and self destructive. "BUT everyone still needs to AGREE on them, and SOMEONE will have to lay out these guidelines so they aren't absent of the human decision making process" is what people will naturally say to this, and to that I say that when someone is educated and intelligent enough they will naturally "choose" to follow these guidelines and I don't hear anyone bitching about the human decision making process when someone tells them that 1+1=2 or that water is made from hydrogen and oxygen because those are well known scientific facts. The objectively logical course of action in a given scenario and the objectively logical and mutually agreeable social conduct are just as much a scientific fact as 1+1=2 and H2+O=H2O
I basically agree with about 90% of what you said, there are a few points I would like to make (e.i. if I don't comment on something that means I essentially have complete agreement with what you said in that area). Also, to be clear and in full disclosure, I do not consider myself Communist/Anarcho-Communist, I am just discussing this topic through my readings of the matter.
This lack of practical resource based thinking is why communism can't address the root cause of social inequality, which is mainly scarcity. The less there is to go around the less equality there is
This would be 100% true if the Communist inspired Revolutions in the beginning and middle of the 20th century were entirely successful. That is, based on the level of technological advancement at that time they really weren't ready to undergoe this process yet due to exactly the scarcity problem that you pointed out. This is what the Evolutionary Socialists were arguing about with the Revolutionary Socialists from the start (telling them they were being over-eager, foolish, and libel to f'ck the whole thing up). If said Communists waited until a time of further technological advancement that essentially eliminates the variable of scarcity, then it could in principle work. However, as I discussed in my last post (and you pointed out) after a base level of productivity/technological advancement is reached, it is not intrinsic in Communism to keep progressing. It is quite possible/conceivable that a democratic majority of people could consent to continue scientific progress as a staple in their society or it is also very possible that a democratic majority would not see this as necessary considering most/vast majority of people don't give two f'cks about science unless they are in the hospital and need Medical attention (and essentially live their lives not all that different from other Mammals, waste their higher cognitive abilities, don't know what scientists/philosophers/mathematicians are doing thus are unlikely to care or see the connection between basic research and the advancement of medical knowledge/treatment ability, very anti-intellectual generally, ect.). So yes, that is very different then having a culture of respect/passion toward science/tech/innovation and intellectualism that is intrinsic to the Venus Project.
These guidelines must be so objectively logical and naturally conducive to improvement and mutual happiness that to disobey them would be inherently illogical and self destructive...The objectively logical course of action in a given scenario and the objectively logical and mutually agreeable social conduct are just as much a scientific fact as 1+1=2 and H2+O=H2O
I think there are some flaws in this (and perhaps you are aware of them, I would like to here your counter arguments and thoughts on the matter in this case). The "objectively logical course of action in a given scenario" is very sound reasoning when dealing with an issue such as Climate Change say. As in, this is what science reveals to us, and you would have to be a self-destructive imbecile not to take logical courses of action to prevent/ameliorate an impending disaster. Okay, I'm completely on board with that and other situations of a similar nature (e.g. feeding the world, making sure everyone has electricity, ect.). Now, where we run into issues is that the complexity of a human affairs (even at the scale of a single human psychological states let alone a full society), scientific "truths" become much more difficult to come by, have very high margins of error, and in many/most cases, it will be very difficult to use 'science' as the only tool in the decision making process. That is, science could help point us in certain directions where that are more true and less true, but not give definitive answers. Therefore, philosophical/critical type thinking will have to be employed in order to fill the gaps (of which there will be many). Now, granted, some people are certainly better thinkers/well informed on areas than others (this may be part of your counter argument?), however, just look at any area of Philosophy (ethics say) and you will find that there are massive amounts of disagreement even amongst the most sophisticated intellectuals on areas that "hard science" cannot probe. That is, the majority of the decisions that are going to have to be made are not at all analogous to 1+1=2 (this can and has been proved with no area for ambiguity/uncertainty) or H2 + O = H2O (although this has not been "proved" in the way that Mathematics can prove propositions, it is about a solid a fact/conclusion as we can reach in science). This is why there are distinctions in the sciences colloquially referred to as the Hard Science and Soft Science. It seems to me that this system has a bit of "Physics Envy" built into the design and although there is a range of issues that it is capable of addressing in the submitted manner, there are bound to be far more areas where it is ill-equipped to confront the complexity of the issues at hand.
You can't disagree with even 1% of what I say because I am the central computer, I am literally the Fact Machine, I rule this planet you puny human, everything I say is absolutely incontrovertible, you have been designated for re-education.
Just kidding.
I do not consider myself Communist/Anarcho-Communist
I gathered that much, but I'm curious as to what you actually favor as a socioeconomic system, what would that be?
it is also very possible that a democratic majority would not see this as necessary considering most/vast majority of people don't give two f'cks about science
Yes, in the future either humanity will be extinct or the mentality of the average person will change drastically, but either way this universe is not going to last forever and neither is this planet, all our billions of years of evolution will be thrown into the toilet bowl some day if we don't become a type 4 civilization.
It seems to me that this system has a bit of "Physics Envy" built into the design and although there is a range of issues that it is capable of addressing in the submitted manner, there are bound to be far more areas where it is ill-equipped to confront the complexity of the issues at hand
That's a perfectly fair criticism, however much of the problem arises from the mentality of the average human, where much of our thought process is contrived from entirely subjective and/or superstitious "psychological build up" which mostly comes from being subjected to and programmed by the idiocratic stupidity of society. In our current world many people use science as a tool, but few people actually think scientifically in a general sense, we are taught to view almost everything in our lives through a subjective lens which is very easy to do for obvious reasons, but humans think in such a subjectively based paradigm that there whole lives revolve around social constructs and internally contrived or socially reciprocated attitudes and notions. It isn't possible or even beneficial to entirely wipe out subjectivity from existence, because to do so would end consciousness, but humans take their subjective mentality too far until their entire brain becomes a ball of conceptual notions. Despite this, I think there still is a need for philosophy, there will probably be some form of philosophy involved even for a type 4 civilization, but ultimately both science and philosophy are not enough even when working together to answer every single possible question. I don't think science can solve everything, but I think it's superior to philosophy, and that philosophy is superior to being a self propelled meat bag. But at the end of the day we are both self propelled meat bags, and sentient beings with the ability to reason scientifically and philosophically, and inherently incapable due to the limitations of our brain of actually fully understanding everything. There is some level of reason which is above science itself if you ask me, something which humans are incapable of understanding, but whatever beings can understand it probably use science as well, and even philosophy, but not as often because they are obsolete, and they probably have basic motor functions and automated responses as well. So basically, the more advanced we become, the less we will have to rely on philosophy but I agree that science alone cannot address every single problem, however many concepts of philosophy are objectively true in their own way and the more intelligent people are the more likely they are to come to a mutually beneficial or agreeable solution then to stab each other in the eyeballs with rusty ebola infected syringes full of liquid fluorine every time they have a disagreement or have conflicting interests.
Promoters of the notion that Communism is peaceful, and thus no Communist country is actually Communist as all of them are violent, rely on Marx’s later work and ignore his earlier, more consequential work.
Communist means are justified by their supposed ends. The theorized peaceful condition of an achieved Communist society cannot be achieved until the way is paved. It is necessarily paved by violence as humans do not behave in a manner conducive to Communism. They must be forced.
If you see true Communism as an evolutionary process leading to utopic anarchy rather than a revolutionary one leading to despotism, you will find your contentions undermined by Marx himself.
Marx states clearly in his manifesto that the proletariat will “centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state” and that “in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads”.
It is Marx who puts forth the call that this sh’t needs to end now stating that “the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.” Marx said Communists “openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions”.
Marx’s later work is often cited as the technical framework underlying his manifesto, rather than any refutation of it.
Promoters of the notion that Communism is peaceful
Can you show us where you have gotten the idea that the central thesis of Communism is to create a society which is permanently at war? Then, when you finish, can you please explain why you are defending a society which has been at war for 93 percent of its life on the grounds that it is peaceful? Here is a list of wars involving the United States of America:-
Conversing with you is utterly pointless because your language is more loaded than a baloney sandwich. Your sentences are stacked with spectacularly false premises, and underlying it all is the bizarre hypocrisy of being a military fascist and ardent supporter of the illegal invasion of Iraq, while you simultaneously attack university academics under the pretence that they are promoting violence.
You are not simply a liar. Fascists go further than that. They turn the truth literally upside down.
Conversing with you is utterly pointless because your language is more loaded than a baloney sandwich. Your sentences are stacked with spectacularly false premises This is exactly why I hate Amarel.
Can you show us where you have gotten the idea that the central thesis of Communism is to create a society which is permanently at war?
I haven't claimed this. My claim is that the false premises underlying communist theory, coupled with the contradictions of its founder, lead its proponents to violence in every major communist effort.
Your sentences are stacked with spectacularly false premises
You always say things like this, but you are never able to show it. Fancy that.
As for Iraq, I said it wasn't illegal. At least not in any meaningful sense. I didn't say it was a good idea. Rather I believe it was bad for American interests.
I didn't say it was a good idea. Rather I believe it was bad for American interests
Serious question: How do you live with yourself?
What kind of person thinks like that? Who are you, Henry Kissinger? Even Trump took a moral stance against the US-led invasion of Iraq as well as a practical/American interests stance
No, I presented the legal framework in which the US chose its course of action. You hold that this framework is illegitimate based on the opinions of people in the UN. I argued that their opinion was not legitimate.
When you have a group of people constantly saying that people break their laws, while arresting no one, you are not dealing with legitimate legal characters. The UN uses legal terms for diplomatic purposes. Their opinions do not change this.
No, I presented the legal framework in which the US chose its course of action.
The US had no legal framework to choose its course of action because its action took place in a sovereign UN state with its own laws. Shut up you nonsensical imbecile.
If you see true Communism as an evolutionary process leading to utopic anarchy rather than a revolutionary one leading to despotism, you will find your contentions undermined by Marx himself
.I want to see the exact quotes with citation so that we can end this once and for all, if you can do this and finally shut nomentroll up about communism then I will no longer consider you an absolute waste of protoplasm. I am particularly interested in the “centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state” and “in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads” part.
The quotes I provided are exact and come from the Communist manifesto. If you copy and paste any of the quotes into google, you will find a full copy of the manifesto and you will see what section of the manifesto a given quote comes from.
"If you see true Communism as an evolutionary process leading to utopic anarchy rather than a revolutionary one leading to despotism"
This is a fundamental misunderstanding that I attempted to address at some length. Both the Evolutionary vision and the Revolutionary vision are consistent with Communism because Communism is the "end-goal Society" in the plan. Thus, the Leninists were inspired by Communist ideology in-so-far as their mindset was geared toward the "end-goal Society" which, when achieved in its entirety, would be Communism/Communist Society (whether brought about via Revolution or Evolution). Stalin and others deviated from anything that could be considered "Communist inspired ideology" because in principle, there no goal of achieving relinquishing state power and achieving an anarchic, socialist, ect. society. Having said that, the Revolutionaries under Leninism did provide the perfect framework for a malevolent opportunist to cease power such as Stalin and they do* deserve a high burden of guilt/responsibility for constructing such an idiotic framework that would allow something like that to happen and thus the crimes that followed (the idea of the Vanguard Party and other ideas in Leninism turned out to be genocidal stupidity that led to a dystopia). Also, the Bolsheviks had their own fair share of crimes regardless of whether it ever got usurped or not that they should take responsibility for. It is very important to note, this is where the divide between the Bolsheviks and the Menshiviks came in (e.i. transition to Socialism through Militarism (the Bolsheviks) or through Democratic Movements (the Mensheviks)).
Please look up the Bolshevik and Menshevik dichotomy/dispute if something I said seems unclear.
Communism is neither intrinsically peaceful nor militaristic (and could go either way and even after a Communist society is achieved, this in no way means there will no longer be violent conflicts; they would face many of the same internal issues that any society would be bound to face because Human Nature is fundamentally not changing(at least on anything remotely close to that time scale). It is simply a new form of organizing a society and economy after some form of revolution brings an end to the prior system.
We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Although it's true that there is a distinction between pure Marxism and Leninist Stalinist and other brands, it is also clear to see that Marx is calling for a despotic central government to be formed, this is in no way a "democracy" of the proletariat as Nomenclature attempts to portray it but instead a CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY that will FORCE everyone to comply to the above listed measures. This is why communism can NEVER WORK because once the centralized government is formed, it will NEVER relinquish it's absolute power willingly.
@FactMachine. I saw in your bio that you identify as "Libertarian". Do you mean by this like the Libertarian Party in the US, Ron Paul, Reason Magazine, something else, ect. in the short term politics (as opposed to your long term vision of an RBE)? I will establish why I view this as relevant afterward. Also, I noted that you seem very familiar with Stefan Molyneux, do you happen to know who Adam Kokesh is?
I chose libertarian to put on my bio because that is the most accurate option available and does not necessarily have any left or right leaning implications. I do consider political and socioeconomic systems to naturally evolve so within the context of certain systems there are things I favor and things I disfavor, that is to say that although I view politics as a whole as primitive it is still necessary for primitives to form political systems (primitives as in type 0 civilizations) but there are a plethora of different ways this can go for better or for worse. Some type 0 civilizations in this universe are almost definitely biologically different in some ways from us that makes them less prone to superstition or destructive behavior, thus there political systems would be far superior and far more productive and less tyrannical. Humans unfortunately, have a propensity for evil and insanity, which means that our political systems are usually fucking horrible. All that being said I think Ron Paul and other libertarians have some good ideas, but that every single one of them has fundamental deficits and areas of abject erroneousness. I did not know who Adam Kokesh is, but I am looking into it now and he seems like an interesting fellow, although I think his goal of dissolving the federal government is fundamentally unrealistic at the present time.
It's important to note that you replied to my words when quoted by someone else but avoided addressing the same quote in it's original form and with its total context when it was originally posted addressing you directly. This is because you are a sniveling little bitch.
the same internal issues that any society would be bound to face because Human Nature is fundamentally not changing
Marx denied the existence of Human Nature. Another one of the fundamental flaws in the thinking of this social "scientist".
Yes the last quote is yours, from the post just above that I just down voted so that it can't be edited.
You should care what Marx's view of Human Nature is since it is fundamental to social theory. His view of human nature was one of his many false premises.
Nomenclature will be happy to explain. Marx did not believe in human nature. He said, "the human essence has no true reality".
Well, first, I think I made pretty clear that I'm not a Marxist/Communist/ect., so I'm in no way beholden to Marx's every word. Nonetheless, he has many valuable insights that are worth reading and considering. Also, there are correct and incorrect frameworks for which to talk about Marxism/Communism which you are obfuscating.
He had quite a number of good insights/critiques of 19th century Capitalism (much of which have domains of validity still). But I'm sure you've never actually read any of Marx's work, or that of the (pre)Capitalists either for that matter (e.i. Adam Smith, David Ricardo, ect.). You just assume/cross-your-fingers that your opponents are even less informed than you are.
Yeah. You are sure of lots of things, but you can demonstrate few. If you are concerned at all with being correct, you will stop publicizing your baseless assumptions and focus on facts and reason. For that matter you will rely less on popular opinion or the opinion of presumed authority. People aren't correct because of their position. They aren't correct because others agree with them. They are correct if their position corresponds to the circumstances of reality. Learn that.
You don't even seem to be aware of what you are "rejecting" and "supporting" because the terms Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Anarchism, ect. all have historical frameworks, and original/traditional meanings that for some reason you don't want to give a fair/honest look at.
You don't even seem to be aware of what you are "rejecting" and "supporting"
I am aware, though you aren't. What I am rejecting is your analysis and position.
You said:
"when you hear people talk about China, USSR, North Korea, Cuba, ect. as “Communist countries”, you know they don’t have a f’cking clue what they are talking about".
You have failed to illustrate this point, while I have illustrated it's opposite. These countries were not out of the bounds of Marxist theory.
"Marx was not taking the stance that this had to happen now"
Quotes from his most famous works suggest otherwise.
"Now, I completely agree with you that the people who were “on board” with Lennin’s ideas are “absolutely retarted”"
Lenninism is not exclusive of Marxism. It is rather just another iteration of the failed theory. People who were on board with Lennin are absolutely retarded for the same reasons that people who are on board with Marxism are retarded. As I have illustrated through Marx's own manifesto.
I support capitalism. I reject you and your intellectually dishonest bullshit.
I know you responded to his post. Specifically you responded to a quote of mine within his post. Hence the yet unanswered question; Is there a reason you responded to a quote of mine but not my post?
I know you responded to his post. Specifically you responded to a quote of mine within his post. Hence the yet unanswered question; Is there a reason you responded to a quote of mine but not my post?
So I responded to a quote of yours, what's the big deal?
It's a quote from a post directed at YOU. There was a good deal more to that post than what was quoted here. You found it safe to respond to my words in someone else's hands, but apparently were too timid to respond to the same words when directed at you. Hence the insult.
Amarel, one examples of a good insight from Marx is that human nature doesn't exist. human responses, attitudes and behaviours can be so diverse that this should be common knowledge. Two different people can react completely differently to different situations depending on how their brain has been programmed and the chemical balance of their neurological brain hole. It is a clearly observable fact that there is no human nature, you cannot give one clear example of a 100% universal behavior or disposition nor can you even define human nature specifically because it does not exist, go ahead and try.
one examples of a good insight from Marx is that human nature doesn't exist
This is blatantly false. One tenant of economics is that humans respond to incentives. This is a tenant because it is an undeniable feature of human nature. Behavior will change depending on costs and benefits. They way in which they change may vary, but they will change.
The fact that humans respond differently depending on their brain structure only reinforces the fact that there is human nature. This is because we can understand what makes people respond differently. If there was not human nature, we could never learn these things.
Different human responses are becoming more and more predictable as the relevant science progresses. The fact that people are different does not mean that people do not also have commonality. Some features are necessarily common to all people. That means that some patterns of behavior are necessarily common to all people. For example, deprive a child of verbal language input, and that child will never grow into a language speaking creature. That is, very simplistically, human nature.
You're right, that's how you should start every post you make because everything you say is blatantly false.
One tenant of economics is that humans respond to incentives. This is a tenant because it is an undeniable feature of human nature
Really? that's your example? That's like saying "everyone takes a shit every once in a while, it's human nature" People "responding to incentives" is way too vague to call it human nature, the question is are those incentives always the same?
way in which they change may vary
Because human nature is a meaningless concept, and so is "nature" to begin with, everything that exists is natural and a part of nature, nothing can be against nature or have a specific nature because everything that can exist is natural. When bronto says "the orgasmic nature of nomenclature's ass in intoxicating" there is no intrinsic property of it which is "orgasmic" or "intoxicating" it is merely his subjective homoerotic propensities which create that response, someone who is not as gay as bronto might have the complete opposite reaction, because what you are attracted to is not "human nature" it's something that develops within the pathology of an individual and varies between individuals.
This is because we can understand what makes people respond differently
If you really understood that, you would understand that there is no free will or human nature.
If there was not human nature, we could never learn these things
That statement is absolute rubbish.
For example, deprive a child of verbal language input, and that child will never grow into a language speaking creature. That is, very simplistically, human nature
That is the most intellectually impotent argument I have ever heard. How in the absolute fuck did you manage to convince yourself that this proves the human nature concept? It proves the opposite, it proves that human behavior is shaped by the input they receive and is not based on any intrinsic property.
You're right, that's how you should start every post you make because everything you say is blatantly false.
This got a chuckle, but you're still just a troll.
everyone takes a shit every once in a while, it's human nature
It is, actually. A common human activity is not precluded from the realm of human nature by virtue of its commonness, rather the opposite.
you would understand that there is no free will or human nature
This is an old and already won topic. But since you brought it up, free will depends on the causality of the universe. That same causal nature allows us to predict certain things about human beings, based on what kind of creatures they are. Based on what type of biology they have. Based on how human brain chemistry reacts to specific inputs. That biology and that chemistry is fundamentally human nature. The way a human is (it's nature) is distinct. It is not the way a cow is, or the way a dog is, or the way pig is. If a human is raised exactly like a cow, a dog, or a FactMachine, they would nonetheless behave as a human who was raised under those conditions. Rather than as one fitted to those conditions by its nature.
The fact that there is a predictable commonality among human beings (a human nature), means that we can learn about human behavior and decision making. If you understood much of anything, you would understand that this is logic, not rubbish. Asserting it is rubbish is no refutation.
I have to disagree with you here although I do have partial agreement. It is true that the range of "human responses, attitudes and behaviours" are incredibly diverse and that is indeed intuitive (or at least should be). Some people grow up to be tyrants, murders, torturers, ect. while others risk their own lives to save whales. So there is indeed a very large spectrum of potential human behavior/ect. However, we are animals/biological systems that are part of the natural world and therefore have a nature that is constrained by this interplay. That is, our genetic endowment determines substantially what our nature is (that is intuitive if you were to look at the growth of any organism). The combination of our genetic endowment, environmental effects, and the laws of nature constrains our nature (in a similar way that any other animal, organism is bound to the same constraints and therefore has a nature). Now, it is a very complicated question and very little is known about it (most of what we do know comes from the humanities and social sciences, such as history, literature, ect.). It is way too complicated for neuroscience, biology, ect. to explore in any meaningful fashion at the moment but we do know enough to say that our nature is at least in part plastic given the wide range of behavior we see exhibited by humans.
Your history of relying almost exclusively on the opinions of other people, specifically if enough people agree, indicates the soundness of my suspicion.
Your history of relying almost exclusively on the opinions of other people, specifically if enough people agree, indicates the soundness of my suspicion
Really? Then perhaps you would like to tell me your thoughts on the following statement; one of the necessary elements of law is that it is a statement of consequences.
It is at this point that the argument becomes more rooted in semantics than reality, as I explained to Amarel the entire concept of "nature" is meaningless. If you're going to use biological functions such as eating and breathing as examples of human nature than pretty much every organism has the same exact nature, so why bother calling it nature or distinguish between "human nature" and "nature" in general since "human nature" is just an extension of the nature of all biological organisms? Human nature would have to be the nature of humans specifically and it would have to be something which all fully functional humans have in common, there is no example of that whatsoever. It's true that " The combination of our genetic endowment, environmental effects, and the laws of nature constrains our nature" but not in a way which is both exclusive to humans and inclusive of all humans.
Our capacity for language acquisition is innate and exclusive to our species. Now, there is a wide range of possibilities that could become expressed as (e.i. various languages that could be learned based on our environmental stimuli). However, the ability to acquire language has everything to do with our genetic endowment as Homo Sapiens rather than any other known species (it is possible that some other hominins had some form of language or pidgin also). If one were to raise a newborn puppy and baby simultaneously in the same environment, the baby will grow up to acquire the language that is used in the environment (through hearing, verbalization, and writing) while the puppy (although it may learn to associate certain phrases with events (e.g. "walk", "treat", ect.)) will never pick up on the language as the child does due to differences and constraints of their genetic endowment (even when placed in the exact same environment under the same laws of nature).
That's not human nature that's cognition, aliens with sophisticated neural brains would display similar traits. It isn't human specific to learn language at all, there just happens to be no other species on this planet currently which can speak the way we do. Back in the day Neanderthals could speak as well according to scientists based on the fact that they share certain genes with homo sapiens which are associated with speech, speaking of other hominins. Biological endowments are not the same as the "nature" of something, which is actually a meaningless concept. What you are describing is the properties or faculties of human beings, not their "nature" which if you haven't noticed by now has never been defined specifically by any of us, because it is a wholly semantic term based purely in concept, but not in any tangible reality. We are delving into murky waters here, fraught with language barriers. The word "nature" is not a technical or scientific description of the thing you are describing, this is the main reason why I reject the notion of human nature, human nature is similar to a god of the gaps, it's a blanket statement for the behavioral processes which either can't be causally traced as of yet or which CAN be traced to fundamental biologically realities but are not exclusively human qualities and do not over-ride the higher cognitive processes which lead to more complex behaviours, attitudes and responses none of which can be considered universal in humans and most of which are shaped by highly variable environments and neuro-chemical balances. Humans can develop precisely opposing dispositions in very fundamental ways, at what point do you draw the line between human nature and human unnaturalness? If everything that humans do and think is an extension of "human nature" that in itself renders the term meaningless because humans do and think very different things and thus the idea of human nature is suicidally unspecific and cannot be clearly defined. The biological endowment of humans does not determine their actual behaviour or mentality, it just provides them with a certain range of possible thoughts and behaviours.
Human nature is all the characteristics common to human beings. You have a bad habit of claiming things don’t exist or are illusory as an argument against explanations that indicate the opposite. You beg the question. You did this with the free will argument too.
Human nature is a meaningless concept, it's a god of the gaps, it is not a technical explanation of the actual fucking processes that cause humans to behave and think in certain ways, it is just a primitive way of saying "the way humans are" as a blanket statement because you don't even know what the fuck humans are or what makes them respond in certain ways on an objective basis. You will never understand that 90% of your entire thought process is formulated within the subjective internalizing matrix of the primitive homo monkey brain of superstitious contrivances because of mental blockages such as this. Try to rise above your primitive monkey brain and comprehend that "human nature" is not objective terminology, there is only the capacities and propensities of mankind which vary greatly from person to person and are mostly a result of adapting to their environment, there is no specific "human nature" because every human has a different nature to at least some degree, and sometimes a completely opposite nature, thus there is no clear line to be drawn between what is human nature and what is not.
Listen, if it makes you feel better to discuss “the capacities and propensities of mankind” fine. Make yourself comfortable. The easier term for that is “human nature”, and it’s how the rest of us will communicate.
The fact that the capacities and propensities of mankind will vary by individuals does not refute that man also has common capacities and propensities.
The human brain is dynamic, so people are unique. But the brain is still human. Thus, there actually is a “way that humans are”, and more importantly a way they are not. Ignoring this while constructing a social theory will earn you a failed theory, as it did for Marx.
Listen, if it makes you feel better to discuss “the capacities and propensities of mankind” fine. Make yourself comfortable. The easier term for that is “human nature”, and it’s how the rest of us will communicate.
In the history of mankind, nobody has ever presented any empirical evidence that there is any such thing as "human nature". It is every bit the myth that God is. Many notable academic scholars -- in particular Hegel -- outright rejected the idea that there is any such thing as "human nature". Evolution works by adapting biological life to its environment and this remains true across all species. In the case of an advanced species like humanity, this progressive phenomena extends beyond its physical environment and into its socio-political environment.
In recent years it has become a cult favourite of neo-Conservatives to bring up "human nature" whenever anybody begins to poke holes in their philosophy. Humans are greedy by nature, they say. Humans are selfish by nature, they say. But this is simply not true. Humans are these things because, for many thousands of years, they have been living in environments which incentivise and reward these behaviours. Those who reject such attitudes are progressively pushed out of the gene pool because they do not survive.
In the history of mankind, nobody has ever presented any empirical evidence that there is any such thing as "human nature".
Psychology, Sociology, and Economics are not fictional constructs derived from ones imagination.
Many notable academic scholars -- in particular Hegel -- outright rejected the idea that there is any such thing as "human nature"
Nice mixture of appeal to popularity and authority all in one. I don’t suppose it matters to you that the fallacy goes both ways. For example, many more notable academic scholars produced great works on the study of human nature. Notably Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Adam Smith, Mises, Keyenes, Freud, BF Skinner, Pavlov, Jung, Maslow….And on and on. If you were honest you would recognize that Marx himself did not reject human nature, he just ignored it. He called human nature Gattungswesen, which he got from Ludwig Feuerbach. The fact that he ignored it as he studied it, favoring rather the creation of notions that confirmed his bias but had no practical application led to disastrous consequences.
Evolution works by adapting biological life to its environment and this remains true across all species
Biological life adapts in different ways which is what leads to the existence of difference species distinguishable by their resulting characteristics. By their nature.
Psychology, Sociology, and Economics are not fictional constructs derived from ones imagination
Are you mentally ill, Amarel? Because that is the only reasonable explanation I can muster for why anybody would arbitrarily change the phrase "human nature" to "psychology, sociology and economics" and then pretend they mean the same thing. Psychology was invented as a field of study in 1879, so clearly it has nothing to do with "human nature", and neither do your other two examples. Simply because it is possible to study human behaviour in the present does not mean that human behaviour has remained unchanged for the past 100,000 years. Indeed, simply by reading the academic research of the subjects you mentioned, one can determine fairly quickly that human trends change over time.
I genuinely don't understand what you expect to gain from such spectacularly fallacious straw man argumentation.
Psychology was invented as a field of study in 1879, so clearly it has nothing to do with "human nature"
I should apologize. Since you typically communicate perfectly well, I sometimes forget that you suffer debilitating mental retardation. Here are a couple pointers; no one turns the sun on and off, the world does not disappear when you close your eyes, and scientific disciplines do not create the subjects which they study. Just as the physical universe existed before physics, human nature existed before the various fields that study it, including psychology.
Simply because it is possible to study human behaviour in the present does not mean that human behaviour has remained unchanged for the past 100,000 years
Very good Nom. Though, no one has claimed that human nature doesn't change. Everything changes. Simply because an oak tree’s ancestors were ferns does not mean that an oak tree is indistinguishable from ferns. It also doesn’t mean that oak trees lack a common way of being. The fact that nature changes over time does not negate the existence thereof. Just as the fact that species change over time does not mean that species do not exist.
Indeed, simply by reading the academic research of the subjects you mentioned, one can determine fairly quickly that human trends change over time
Especially the trends in method and information availability in those fields, which would have more to do on differing views of human nature now than before. It’s nice that you realize that people are affected by their conditions. That’s an important aspect of human nature that can’t be ignored. How they are affected will depend on that same nature.
This is worth repeating; The fact that nature changes over time does not negate the existence thereof. Just as the fact that species change over time does not mean that species do not exist.
1) My terminology is more technical and more accurate than yours.
2) you still haven't defined the parameters of human nature or discussed the actual nature of human nature.
3)The fact that the capacities and propensities of mankind will vary by individuals does not refute that man also has common capacities and propensities. and that does not refute the fact that We also have common or similar propensities and capacities with other animals, so once again, what can you possibly do to draw some sort of objective portrayal of this "human nature" business in a tangible format for my neural processors?
4)There IS a way that humans are and a way that humans aren't, but "human nature" is a vague and unscientific way of explaining it that is indicative of a lack of technical understanding in the actual process which shapes this supposed "human nature." Human nature is a conceptual notion that was invented before anyone even knew what a "neuron" was, keep that in mind. Right now we are using a very unscientific and primitive language, it is hard to communicate without occasionally resorting to some form of metaphor or inherently subjective representation when speaking in human languages. It is from this semantic backround, that words like "nature" have arisen from in the first place, it is a technically meaningless word. So go fuck yourself.
1) Your terminology is more technical, which is emotionally appealing to you. However, it is not more accurate when we are discussing the very same thing.
2) You admit that “human nature” is “the way that humans are”, though you never defined the parameters of the latter. Does it make sense for me to claim there there is no way that humans are unless you tell me the parameters thereof? No. It's a cheap diversion. Also, there is nothing particularly technical about saying "the way humans are" rather than "human nature".
3) Sharing our nature with other creatures is to be expected given evolution. Scientists study the way that apes are in order to better understand the way that humans are. The fact that the way humans are shares characteristics with he way other creatures are does not refute that there is a way that humans are.
4) The term “human nature” is more philosophical than scientific, but then all of science derived from philosophy. Becoming more rigorous or technical about a topic does not negate the existence of the topic. Sociology studies the way humans are in groups. Psychology studies individual humans are. Neither scientific field could exist if there wasn’t a way for humans to be. Pretending that there is not a way that humans are is a scientific non-starter.
Human nature would have to be the nature of humans specifically and it would have to be something which all fully functional humans have in common, there is no example of that whatsoever
You really are dim.
Keeping in mind the "functional human" qualifier, it is the nature of living things to metabolize, so we metabolize. It is the nature of all mammals to have beating hearts, so we have beating hearts. It is the nature of all humans to have the capacity for verbal language, so we have that capacity. Nature can be broad or narrow depending on the category of study. If you are studying human nature, than you are studying all the characteristics common to human beings. They need not be exclusively human as you suppose, though some will be, such as the capacity for complex conceptualization.
Keeping in mind the "functional human" qualifier, it is the nature of living things to metabolize, so we metabolize. It is the nature of all mammals to have beating hearts, so we have beating hearts. It is the nature of all humans to have the capacity for verbal language, so we have that capacity
"Human nature" refers to human behaviour you sophist cretin, not the human anatomy.
Keeping in mind the "functional human" qualifier, it is the nature of living things to metabolize, so we metabolize. It is the nature of all mammals to have beating hearts, so we have beating hearts. It is the nature of all humans to have the capacity for verbal language, so we have that capacity. Nature can be broad or narrow depending on the category of study. If you are studying human nature, than you are studying all the characteristics common to human beings. They need not be exclusively human as you suppose, though some will be, such as the capacity for complex conceptualization.
I was going to reply to your responses in detail but then I realized no matter what I say you will read it with the preconception that I'm just a dim troll so there really wouldn't be a point. I'm not even reading your shit at this point, you just typed up all that drivel for nothing.
Communism is based upon the lie that you can have a "proletariat dictatorship" and that it tooooooootally won't result in tyranny
This is just a complete and total abuse of language. When you say "proletariat dictatorship" what you actually mean is "majority rule". The working class is by far the largest section of society, and hence serving their interests first instead of an elite few at the top of the pyramid is the precise polar opposite of a "dictatorship". What you have right now is a dictatorship because you are under minority rule from the top one percent tier of society.
This is just a complete and total abuse of language
Don't try to appeal to semantics and say that communism doesn't have a central government you little weasel.
When you say "proletariat dictatorship" what you actually mean is "majority rule"
So communism is a democracy? If the 51% percent says they want to kill off the 49% they can do it? Even though the average person is a simpleton and the majority is wrong 99% of the time decisions will be made on the basis of the most popular opinion? if that's the case communism is even worse than I thought. You say you want to ban free speech to enforce the scientific truth but how can you do that if a mob of idiots is making the decisions?
The working class is by far the largest section of society, and hence serving their interests
Is not what you're doing with majority rule, what you're doing is allowing people who don't know shit to make decisions that can potentially make or break a civilization. Politicians aren't qualified to make these decisions and neither is the average person, what we need is METHODOLOGY and PRAGMATISM not politics or mob rule, what we need is a scientific system not a political or monetary one.
an elite few at the top of the pyramid
Communism just replaces one elite few at the top of the pyramid with another elite few at the top of the pyramid.
What you have right now is a dictatorship because you are under minority rule from the top one percent tier of society.
That's right, and communism is not the fucking answer, it's just another manifestation of primitive type 0 human bullshit that people will laugh at in the future. You have no fucking idea what's going on on this god damn dirt ball of feces we call the earth, you speak of the "elite" and the "one percent" but boy, you have no idea. I bet you don't even know what a technocracy is, communism is like the sperm cell of technocracy which is the fetus of a resource based economy which is the infant that will grow into a type 1 civilization. Do you want a world government technocracy that rapes you in the butt hole or do you want a world system of logic and sanity with no superstition or tyranny? You need to think about the future Nomenclature, communism is just anachronistic drivel just like capitalism, we are heading towards total technocratic dictatorship if humanity doesn't evolve socially and philosophically to the extent that we've evolved technologically. Do you even realize that we are a century or two away from immortal cyborgs ruling the planet while the poor "proletariat" who can't afford life extension or neural augmentation literally become a slave race of beasts of burden? Communism isn't sophisticated enough to deal with that level of technology and make it work for everyone.
Don't try to appeal to semantics and say that communism doesn't have a central government you little weasel.
You just said that it was a proletarian dictatorship (an accurate reading of Marx's ideas), but when I pointed out how stupid you are for attacking that notion you changed your argument entirely and are now claiming it is a government dictatorship (an inaccurate reading of Marx's ideas but an accurate reading of Stalin's). It is not an appeal to semantics to expect you to stick to the same argument for two consecutive posts you idiotic halfwit. Government is not the same thing as the working class. One is a minority and the other is a majority.
So communism is a democracy?
Are you stupid? Any system which is favoured by the voting majority is democratic.
If the 51% percent says they want to kill off the 49% they can do it?
Not in a country where there are laws against murder. So, in other words, not in any country.
what you're doing is allowing people who don't know shit to make decisions
Oh, of course. Everybody who doesn't receive a massive inheritance from mommy and daddy clearly doesn't know shit. If you work for a living then therefore you're stupid and deserve to be robbed by capitalists. Great argument, moron.
Communism just replaces one elite few at the top of the pyramid with another elite few at the top of the pyramid.
You are using canned lines from the 1980s. The central thesis of Communism is to take the means of production away from the few and give it back to the many. Why are you arguing against Communism when you clearly do not understand the first thing about Communism?
Ut is not an appeal to semantics to expect you to stick to the same argument for two consecutive posts
Bwahahaha! And I just watched you tell me Hitler said he was a Catholic as an argument and then tell me you can't trust his words on being a socialist because he's a liar. You are the very definition of inconsistent. Admit that you're an ass clown.
Bwahahaha! And I just watched you tell me Hitler said he was a Catholic as an argument
That wasn't my argument. My argument was that Hitler factually was a Catholic. You claimed he was a viking (i.e. worshipped "Nordic gods") and I quoted him for you. In fact I believe I left a link to a mountain of evidence proving he was Catholic. I am not surprised that you did not read any of it.
and then tell me you can't trust his words on being a socialist because he's a liar
Another bizarrely blatant false dichotomy bronto. I like it. Either someone is 100 percent honest or they lie 100 percent of the time. Indeed, it's outrageous that I would even refer to him as Hitler, because he obviously lied about everything including his own name.
The problem you have brother, is that your deceit is much too obvious. Not even Hitler claimed to be on the left. The point was to pull votes in from both sides, so Hitler always presented the Nazis to the public as politically syncretic centrists. It rather begs the question of where you are getting this absurdly false opinion from in the first place? You haven't gotten it from the people who have studied Nazism, you haven't gotten it from the Nazis, so where in the hell have you gotten it?
My argument was that Hitler factually was a Catholic. You claimed he was a viking (i.e. worshipped "Nordic gods") and I quoted him for you.
He also said he was a Socialist. By your logic, that means he was one. And? That means you would have followed him and torched Jews in furnaces while clapping joyfully to Hitler Youth songs.
Why are you arguing against Communism when you clearly do not understand the first thing about Communism
I just watched you retreat from Communism after trashing it, even shifting to some tortured definition of being a "Democratic Socialist". And now? You're back to defending Communism. Do you wipe your own ass? God I hope not. If you do, then you must smell like shit.
Are you stupid? Any system which is favoured by the voting majority is democratic
Naziism was favored, at least overtly, by the majority of voters. Hitler was elected, remember? And it was as democratic as me donkey punching you in what's left of your balls. Did your mom drop you as an infant? Of course she did, but in all honesty, who wouldn't? A crack baby with it's head up its ass is hard to keep control of, you slimey, slippery little chimpanzee.
You just said that it was a proletarian dictatorship (an accurate reading of Marx's ideas
Aaah. Nothing better than someone who's worldview stems from the ideas of a man who had no job. I guess he wouldn't have gotten the 90% in your system. He would have gotten the 10%.
And even stranger indeed, is the fact you demonized Communism earlier, even retreating to "I'm a democratic socialist", fleeing from Communism, which was a concept pushed by Marx. God you're a genius....
Having no job but writing about the job world... he never labored a day in his life, yet is an expert on labor...he never produced, yet is an expert on production... he lived in the 1800's, yet is an expert on the world of 2017...
Yes, I'll be writing a book about coaching in the NFL tomorrow. I'll consider my writing about it the same as actually being a coach.
Bwahhaahahaha! You're stupidity is beyond the pale! Thinking and jabbering on while not working the fields, making the products, etc makes him qualified to talk about? Nothing.
And even if you mindlessly call writing about jobs a "job", he wasn't even doing that most of his life. He had no state much of his life...
And this is the best you could do when choosing a messiah for yourself? Good god man. Your hero is a zero in your own explanation of how you would govern.
Government is not the same thing as the working class. One is a minority and the other is a majority.
Except of course when the working class supplants the government, then they become the government. I never changed my argument, whether you want to point to Stalinist type communism or pure marxism they are both fundamentally deficient because one is totalitarian and the other is mob rule.
Any system which is favoured by the voting majority is democratic.
I hate democracy, I have never been a man of popular opinions, the more democracy is established the less I will get my way. Everything that is popular sucks, popular music sucks, popular movies suck, popular ideas suck. Anything that the average person is even capable of comprehending is generally not on my frequency.
Not in a country where there are laws against murder. So, in other words, not in any country.
Not a single country on this planet practices perfect democracy or pure marxist communism so your statement is almost as meaningless as the pathetic notion that your life has any value whatsoever.
Oh, of course. Everybody who doesn't receive a massive inheritance from mommy and daddy clearly doesn't know shit
I didn't say that rich people know shit or that working people necessarily don't know shit, what I am telling you is that the average person in general doesn't know shit so a democracy can only result in total stupidity. Capitalism in and of itself is not nearly as much of a problem as the existence of governments and central fractional reserve banks run by the illuminati.
The central thesis of Communism is to take the means of production away from the few and give it back to the many
But once they get it, what will they do with it? Without the scientific methodology of an RBE they will simply fight over resources like rabies infested hyenas on crack because the average proletariat hasn't been conditioned to live in a society where they are responsible for both managing resources and producing them. They don't know how to govern themselves or make logical decisions, they just know how to shovel shit. And the ownership class isn't any better because the only reason they exist is to make themselves richer so don't use the same cowardly tactic you used before and try to say I'm condoning elitism or any other intestinal discharge like that.
Except of course when the working class supplants the government, then they become the government
You are simply trying to use the word "government" as a derisory slur. There is no logic in arguing we should not swap an existing minority government for a majority government of the people.
I hate democracy
Then you are probably a fascist. This would also explain your views on Marxism, since the greatest enemy of fascism is worker freedom. For precisely this reason, the principle directive of the German Nazi Party was to "save" Europe from Communism.
Not a single country on this planet practices perfect democracy
This response has nothing to do with the line you quoted. You asked whether it would be OK for 51 percent of the population to kill the other 49 percent, and I answered that no, it would be against the law.
I didn't say that rich people know shit
Yes you did. Not directly, but by very extension of your argument. The principle theme of Communism is class warfare. You live in a minority dictatorship of the rich and are viciously attacking one of the most well-studied solutions to that problem, in which power is taken back by the working class. Hence, by claiming Communism would lead to "people who don't know shit" taking over, you are claiming that the working class "don't know shit" and need to be controlled, organised, manipulated and robbed by the upper class for their own well-being.
There is no logic in arguing we should not swap an existing minority government for a majority government of the people
The concept of "government" in general is an anachronistic excretion of humanity's primitive animalistic illogical propensity of brain-queefing dumb assery.
I hate democracy
Then you are probably a fascist.
Darth Vader: If you are not with me... then you are my enemy!
Obi Wan: Only a Sith deals in absolutes...I will do what I must.
Wow speaking of nuance, if anyone disagrees with nomenclature that must automatically mean they're a fascist.
This response has nothing to do with the line you quoted.
Bitch you need some mother fuckin brain force. The laws of any country on this planet are irrelevant because none of them are purely Marxist or Democratic in the strictest sense, under an absolute democratic system or pure marxist system the law would be completely different than any known country and whether murder is legal would depend on whether or not 51% of the population decide to murder people.
but by very extension of your argument.
By the very extension of my fist I should knock your block off. Stop fabricating these intellectual ultimatums, "if you think this then you must think this" "if you live in america then you can't criticize that" STFU with your SJW tactics. I DON'T THINK THAT EITHER THE RICH OR THE UNEDUCATED MASSES ARE QUALIFIED TO "GOVERN" JACK SHIT!! I DON'T THINK ANYONE CURRENTLY ALIVE IS QUALIFIED, DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME YOU CUNT STAIN!? I AM ABOVE CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM, I AM IN A WHOLE DIFFERENT LEAGUE THAN YOUR PUNY POLITICAL SPECTRUM YOU NEUTRINO SIZED CRANIAL CAPACITY SHEMANZEE. I DO NOT THINK THAT EITHER CLASS SHOULD EXIST TO BEGIN WITH, SO HOW CAN I FAVOR ONE OVER THE OTHER?
WHAT I FAVOR IS FOR HUMANITY TO OUT GROW ALL OF THIS PRIMITIVE HORSE DONKEY BULL SHITE.
Tell us more about the millions of people you claim atheists have killed in the name of something they don't believe in.
Mao, Stalin, the Vegas shooter, the Texas shooter, the Colombine shooters. Just think if they'd believed there was a hell how many people would have been saved...but alas, they did not believe in judgement, hell, God or the value of human life.
We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Although it's true that there is a distinction between pure Marxism and Leninist Stalinist and other brands, it is also clear to see that Marx is calling for a despotic central government to be formed, this is in no way a "democracy" of the proletariat as Nomenclature attempts to portray it but instead a CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY that will FORCE everyone to comply to the above listed measures. This is why communism can NEVER WORK because once the centralized government is formed, it will NEVER relinquish it's absolute power willingly.
