|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 25, 2011 17:34:58 GMT -5
Nice guy. Bit of a wanker, but he's definately the least irrational person in that den of vipers laughably known as 'the Australian'. I'll take that as a yes. Would you like me to call you Phil, or what? If you want to troll, I can't stop you. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 25, 2011 17:40:03 GMT -5
Okay. I see it now. It is why there has been a rise in something more than just a "left-right" paradigm. It's only handy for Republicans because they would, in fact, be fascist if they were given free reign because they love passing punitive laws and building jails. On the other hand, they would prefer to let businesses do as they please, which is, in fact, a libertarian directive. And because of that, we have a mixed up paradigm where the Democrats are regarded as liberal, when they're in favor of having more government regulation, but (at least claim) they would prefer to keep out of people's private lives. And while socialism is a step in the road to communism, I can't see how terrible it is to have certain regulations over how businesses and people conduct themselves. Nor can I see a problem with having those who have a nice disposable income doling out more in regards to infrastructure. Isn't genuine fascism actually pretty keen on letting businesses do what they like too? In theory, no. In practice, yes. In theory, the state should be in charge of every industry (in fact, everything). The state should be 'total'. Generally, the economy would be run through cooperative councils where labour and capital are represented, but all decisions are made by the government. This is a 'third way' between the equally broken systems of laissez-faire and socialism/communism, but it's still capitalism. In practice, this is all bullshitting. Fascists let buisnesses do whatever they want, and actually hand out squillions in subsidies and forced labour. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 25, 2011 17:41:12 GMT -5
Nice assertion. At no point have provided any evidence that they are even different. seeks a classes and stateless society where there is common ownership and free access to goods. Socialism seek common or state ownership which are co-operative managed. "I'm asking you to prove that communism/socialism split between Marx's period and now and that socialism ceased to be communism* and became it's opposite^. In order to do this, you'd need to point to a hugely important socialist philosopher who wrote some kind of mega-work advocating the split. Of course, this didn't happen, so it will be slightly tricky. *An anti-capitalist system. ^ A pro-capitalist system." |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 25, 2011 17:43:53 GMT -5
As I've pointed out above, the 'political spectrum' is bullshit. So I am not a moderate? My personal beliefs don't fall somewhere between James Carvell and Ann Coulter (if we assume she is serious and not just doing it for the money)? This is interesting. I have some soul searching to do. Ideas don't have a geography. |
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Jun 25, 2011 17:54:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 25, 2011 17:59:33 GMT -5
I hope this doesn't cause more confusion, but here's what I've learned about communism/socialism/fascism/libertarianism and the way the words are used in a political science context: Communism is authoritarian left... Socialism is libertarian left. I think that's a reasonable case. Basically, you could call libertarian anti-capitalism Socialism and Marxist anti-capitalism Communism. That's reasonable. There are certainly a group of philosophers with libertarian socialist beliefs. So I think it's fair to call that a schism within anti-capitalism. That would make Socialism even less like liberalism. Socialists (in this definition) want to ban the state right now, at the same time, in the same action as banning capitalism. This is the beliefs of your Bakunin's and your Kropotkin's. The objectives of what is called democratic socialism is not to achieve socialism- a classless, near-stateless society. That's not the idea. The currently-existing system of 'democratic socialism' in Sweden and such is the end, not the means. And the end certainly is not socialism; Sweden has poverty, currency, classes, authority, a state- things that socialists want to destroy. So 'democratic socialists' aren't. They're just liberals. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 25, 2011 18:02:54 GMT -5
Communism seeks a classes and stateless society where there is common ownership and free access to goods. Socialism seek common or state ownership which are co-operative managed. "I'm asking you to prove that communism/socialism split between Marx's period and now and that socialism ceased to be communism* and became it's opposite^. In order to do this, you'd need to point to a hugely important socialist philosopher who wrote some kind of mega-work advocating the split. Of course, this didn't happen, so it will be slightly tricky. *An anti-capitalist system. ^ A pro-capitalist system." Eh? You asked for proof, you got proof. It didn't fit your arbitrary requirement, but it's proof, plain as day. You're wrong, so recant. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 25, 2011 18:08:26 GMT -5
"I'm asking you to prove that communism/socialism split between Marx's period and now and that socialism ceased to be communism* and became it's opposite^. In order to do this, you'd need to point to a hugely important socialist philosopher who wrote some kind of mega-work advocating the split. Of course, this didn't happen, so it will be slightly tricky. *An anti-capitalist system. ^ A pro-capitalist system." Eh? You asked for proof, you got proof. It didn't fit your arbitrary requirement, but it's proof, plain as day. You're wrong, so recant. It's bullshit proof. In order to prove the existence of a major split in anti-capitalism, you need to show that there is a big split- by showing the existence of some major philosopher who led that split. Philosophers are the guys and gals who write ideas. Unfortunately for m52nickerson, there are no philosophers like that, because there has been no pro-capitalist split from regular anti-capitalism. Because, in short, he's bullshitting. Even more hilariously, the 'evidence' that he cites says he's bullshitting. The wikipedia article cites as the major socialist thinkers Marx and Engels- who said he's wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Jun 25, 2011 18:13:28 GMT -5
Trouble with quote Marx about this is that Marx was flat out wrong about how societies moved from capitalist to socialist to communist. If you want evidence I present the case for the prosecution, the Soviet Union. As suggested in the quote I gave above, Marx was as flat - out wrong about the inevitable march of history as classical economists are about the invisible hand of the market. His analysis was based on what is now an outdated and surpassed view of how human beings worked.
You can have socialists who would love to have the governments own the telephones, the tramways and the power stations again without any inner Stalinist demon in them demanding that they go to the next stage and try to force through a classless society as soon as they have their government-funded tram conductors back in their little green government uniforms. An old school Marxist suggesting that this is the case is just as wrong as a paranoid conservative suggesting the same scenario.
Socialism is not a step on the road to communism but a distinct political ideology. To suggest that this is not the case is to suggest that Marx was right in his thesis on Historical Materialism where little primitive communist hunter gatherer societies inevitably gave birth to slave economies which evolved into feudalism through to capitalism, socialism and on to communism. Lovely picture, very neat. Reality does not work that way!
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 25, 2011 18:21:33 GMT -5
Trouble with quote Marx about this is that Marx was flat out wrong about how societies moved from capitalist to socialist to communist. I think communism is either unachievable or unwanted. A regulated capitalist system is fine, thanks. An excellent comparison. Sadly, the classical 'economists' have not gone the way of the Marxists. Sure- the ideology of Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon. |
|
|
|
Post by John E on Jun 25, 2011 18:36:15 GMT -5
In order to prove the existence of a major split in anti-capitalism, you need to show that there is a big split- by showing the existence of some major philosopher who led that split. Philosophers are the guys and gals who write ideas. Definitions shift more often because thousands and millions of average, everyday people start using a term in a different way, than because some philosopher or authority figure mandates it. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 25, 2011 18:48:16 GMT -5
In order to prove the existence of a major split in anti-capitalism, you need to show that there is a big split- by showing the existence of some major philosopher who led that split. Philosophers are the guys and gals who write ideas. Definitions shift more often because thousands and millions of average, everyday people start using a term in a different way, than because some philosopher or authority figure mandates it. It's impossible to talk about the ideologies of everyone- there are too many. The study of political ideology, by nature, has to be the study of the philosophy of professional idealogues. As I said, the idea of an ideology is dangerously (though, I'd argue, not incorrectly) simplified. And, regardless of who starts the change, some philosopher always comes along and explains or justifies the change later. You couldn't have conservatism without Burke. you couldn't have liberalism without Smith. You couldn't have communism without Marx. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 25, 2011 18:59:46 GMT -5
You couldn't have conservatism without Burke. you couldn't have liberalism without Smith. You couldn't have communism without Marx. Yes you can. The ideologies still exist, regardless if they have been defined or explained. Changes also take place with out the need of a philosopher Even when defined and explained parts of those ideals can be used outside of the whole. For Marx, Smith and every other Philosopher and writer there is one truth. As soon as you give your writings out to the world, you no longer control them. No writer can control what there writings spawn in others, nor can they control how there writings are taken or used. In other words, Marx has not control or say on how his ideas are defined today. |
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Jun 25, 2011 19:14:37 GMT -5
Isn't genuine fascism actually pretty keen on letting businesses do what they like too? In theory, no. In practice, yes. Hi, we're the Republican Party. We've co-opted this and called it conservative viewpoint! |
|
|
|
Post by John E on Jun 25, 2011 19:43:17 GMT -5
It's impossible to talk about the ideologies of everyone- there are too many. By that logic, it's useless to talk about the ideologies of the big name philosophers, since everyone who follows them is going to have a slightly different take on the ideology. Everyone has different experiences connected to any given word in any given language and thus words hold unique meanings to each individual, yet it IS possible to compile dictionaries based on the history and common usage of those words, with definitions that most people will agree on. Ideologies are much the same. People collect themselves into categories of other people with SIMILAR ideologies, even though probably none of them agree with any other 100%. These categories shift over time, regardless of whether there is a well known philosopher or authority figure writing a manifesto about it. |
|
