NationStates

Caecili wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
How are any of those things good in theory? If an idea turns out to be unworkable, doesn't that make it a bad idea?

No. The idea is still good. The results were bad.
For example, biofuel. Cars that don't run on gasoline, but instead run on a renewable fuel source. Fantastic idea!
Yet, in practice, biofuel is just increasing the amount of farm fields being used to grow the terrible crop that is corn, decreasing food production and increasing pesticide use and pollution as a result of the farming. It was still a good idea.

But that example suggests that corn as the basis for the theory is a poor crop. The theory is obviously in need of revision and can be presumed to be bad in theory and in practice until revision is forthcoming. Can we not, then presume that communism is bad in theory and in practice on this same premise?

Distruzio wrote:

Caecili wrote:
Like everything that isn't 100% predictable.

I'm still not seeing an answer here. I'm asking what, specifically, is good in theory but bad in practice. Where does this premise that exonerates communism exist outside of communism?

In theory representative democracy is a perfect system in which we elect officials to represent us so they decide on issues based on what we want. In reality it's easily corruptable and is mostly about what ensures that they gain power and money, while still being able to be re-elected.
In theory fascism is about maintaing order and getting cooperation to exist between all citizens. In reality it involves a police state where the people become slaves and the minority are subjected to the majority.
Monarchy states that divine intervention decides the perfect ruler. In reality it could be possible nothing exists, but also the leaders most certainly don't always create a perfect society.
Etc.
Everything claims to be perfect, but nothing really is. I don't thin my theories are perfect, I just think they are the best we can possibly do.

Trotskylvania wrote:

Bluth Corporation wrote:
Trotskylvania has a much better understanding of the present-day Marxist movement and its various factions than I do. I'm competent in orthodox Marxism and Marxism-Leninism because of my academic interest in modern (post-Peter I) Russia and nineteenth-century revolutionary movements. Marxism more generally is a fascinating object of study, and I have a passing familiarity with most of the major currents in Marxist thought and their lineage, but nowhere near that of Trotskylvania's.

Well, I am flattered by your appraisal

He's right. You are knowledgeable in the field AND, most importantly, you can hold a reasonable discussion. I'm no leftist, but like I already said in the past, I'd take my chance any day with you earlier than with a lot of people on this forum.

EnragedMaldivians wrote:

Meryuma wrote: snip

Again with the semantic analism.

Yes, Capitalism is rooted in private property ownership - but is popularly associated with the free market. If such characterizations somehow marginalizes your preferred alternatives from the discussion all the better. I'm perfectly happy with tampering with what we currently have to gradually improve it.

I reccomend you not advocating idiotic alternatives that amounts to a Utopian overhaul of the current system.

It was obviously a typo. It's 5 a.m over here.

It's not "semantic analism". The distinction between capitalism and free markets goes back to Hodgkins and Proudhon. "Capitalism". Capital-ism: capital elevated to the level of ideology. And when you know the distinction, why not say you oppose free markets instead of unregulated capitalism?

Thanks for dismissing my ideology out of hand when you don't even know what it is.

What's more utopian: the full acknowledgment of the corrupting influence of power and the importance of liberty, combined with a pragmatic strategy of counter-institutions, or a belief that people, given power, will wield it for some greater good and that real change can be worked through a parliamentary system?

I know it was a typo, I was joking about it.

I'm a Luxemburgist. Democracy is the way to build equality.

Meowfoundland wrote:I'm a Luxemburgist. Democracy is the way to build equality.

I'm quite a big fan of Rosa Luxemburg myself.

Meryuma wrote:

EnragedMaldivians wrote:
Again with the semantic analism.

Yes, Capitalism is rooted in private property ownership - but is popularly associated with the free market. If such characterizations somehow marginalizes your preferred alternatives from the discussion all the better. I'm perfectly happy with tampering with what we currently have to gradually improve it.

I reccomend you not advocating idiotic alternatives that amounts to a Utopian overhaul of the current system.

It was obviously a typo. It's 5 a.m over here.

It's not "semantic analism". The distinction between capitalism and free markets goes back to Hodgkins and Proudhon. "Capitalism". Capital-ism: capital elevated to the level of ideology. And when you know the distinction, why not say you oppose free markets instead of unregulated capitalism?

What's more utopian: the full acknowledgment of the corrupting influence of power and the importance of liberty, combined with a pragmatic strategy of counter-institutions, or a belief that people, given power, will wield it for some greater good and that real change can be worked through a parliamentary system?

I know it was a typo, I was joking about it.

Because it's completely unnecessary to make that distinction now. But if it makes you happy - I beleive in regulated free market capitalism. Please stop being annoying now.

Your alternative being implemented is predicated on an acceptance of Anarchy. This I do reject.

Greed isn't bad when Peace and collective prosperity is profitable. The system isn't as bad as you think it is.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- ... pita+trend

http://www.hsrgroup.org/docs/Publicatio ... flicts.jpg

Does that answer your question?

There's no need for a revolution - not Communism, no Mutualism. Yes regulation.

Threlizdun wrote:

Shuggy555 wrote:hey comrades a australian communist here:D

Please, please tell me your nation doesn't represent your actual views though.

no it does not

Shuggy555 wrote:hey comrades a australian communist here:D

Gasp! Another one!

I would call myself a part-socialist. I think modern day capitalism has gotten out of hand and needs to be moderated more.... but I don't believe in full capitalism, because, of course, I want to benefit from my skills and raise or fall based on my own merits, as everyone should.

Meryuma wrote:freed market.

This rhetorical flourish of yours is getting annoying.

Trotskylvania wrote:

Meryuma wrote:freed market.

This rhetorical flourish of yours is getting annoying.

He is actually more accurate using that term.

I wish I had a dollar for every post in these threads.

Well damn, Anyone else a Ukrainian Commie? Or am I alone on that?

Sibirsky wrote:I wish I had a dollar for every post in these threads.

In a communist thread? You could have a rubble thought

EDIT: or a won

EDIT2: and that would give you an incentive to spam

Sibirsky wrote:I wish I had a dollar for every post in these threads.

Indeed, though it really doesn't even matter what the thread is about. So much as mention capitalism, socialism, communism, or religion, then the thread is doomed to become nothing but a war between the viewpoints. This one actually turned out to be mildly tame though.

Mongolian Khanate wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:I wish I had a dollar for every post in these threads.

In a communist thread? You could have a rubble thought

EDIT: or a won

EDIT2: and that would give you an incentive to spam

I could use the cash. But not rubles, it's worth 3.5 cents.

Threlizdun wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:I wish I had a dollar for every post in these threads.

Indeed, though it really doesn't even matter what the thread is about. So much as mention capitalism, socialism, communism, or religion, then the thread is doomed to become nothing but a war between the viewpoints. This one actually turned out to be mildly tame though.

They also turn out to be like 40 pages.

Sibirsky wrote:

Mongolian Khanate wrote:
In a communist thread? You could have a rubble thought

EDIT: or a won

EDIT2: and that would give you an incentive to spam

I could use the cash. But not rubles, it's worth 3.5 cents.

A won's even worse. Some countries have difficulties maintaining confidence in their currency.

Mongolian Khanate wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:I could use the cash. But not rubles, it's worth 3.5 cents.

A won's even worse. Some countries have difficulties maintaining confidence in their currency.

I never said US dollar. I'll gladly take Canadian or Australian dollars.

The CPUSA, really? After the ass ripping they got from Stalin they've never been the same, merely a puppet turned loose who doesn't know what to do with themselves. I'm not part of any group, because most seem to contradict themselves from their statements to their actions.

Sibirsky wrote:

Mongolian Khanate wrote:
A won's even worse. Some countries have difficulties maintaining confidence in their currency.

I never said US dollar. I'll gladly take Canadian or Australian dollars.

The US dollar has gone under both currencies, that would not be proper currency speculation if the communism threads paid you that way. They'd logically look for a way to cut costs

got my IWW union card and that's all i need

Sibirsky wrote:

Threlizdun wrote:Indeed, though it really doesn't even matter what the thread is about. So much as mention capitalism, socialism, communism, or religion, then the thread is doomed to become nothing but a war between the viewpoints. This one actually turned out to be mildly tame though.

They also turn out to be like 40 pages.

And a rehash of the same junk.

I rather enjoyed this thread. I found it rather...

Distruzio wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:They also turn out to be like 40 pages.

And a rehash of the same junk.

I rather enjoyed this thread. I found it rather...

I lol'd at that.