Many people talk of how communism is a "noble concept" but that it can't work. We are told how people have suffered under communism - the intellectuals and artists who were allegedly targeted and killed in mao's cultural revolution for example, the tens of millions of ukrainians murdered by stalin, the aggressive expansionism, gulags, the ridiculous notions of lysenkoism and the idea of making everyone work for equal and very low wages, the extent of state control over everyone's lives. But communism, despite all this, is still a "noble concept" and that is because there is a nugget of pure gold at the centre of this ideology -and that is socialism - an ideal of treating people fairly.Many of the positive things about communism as it has been practiced and realised in actuality are not known to the general public. For example, that a policy of full employment was accompanied by free housing. The poorest people in russia had a happier and more secure existence under soviet rule than they do today when they can find themselves homeless, counting themselves lucky to work unreasonable hours for little pay for capitalists, and in a society where there is a lot of corruption, crime and sleaze, and the mafia is strong. If communism "did not work" it is nevertheless true that what it was replaced with is little better, and in a number of ways worse.Communism does work as practiced today in various nations around the world. these now are all non-white nations, non-western nations. Because they reject the western capitalist way of life they are demonised. But the people living in these countries do benefit from communism - and the communism is special there in that it is no longer internationalist and has taken on a nationalist flavour. Even Soviet Russia had to resort to rousing feelings of nationalistic pride in ww2. So these communist regimes are nationalistic and also socialistic, and yet they are undoubtedly fascist as well in that the state requires that the people obey its laws and serve the state's existence.The communism practiced in various countries now is different in each one. To some extent capitalism has been allowed, including allowing western capitalists to relocate factories to China, for example, and exploit the Chinese people. not good. but the variant of communism they have in china still has benefits to the Chinese people in that it controls criminal activities far more effectively than would otherwise be the case and takes a strong stance against such things as drug dealing, prostitution and pornography.These communist countries have to be heavily ruled by a totalitarian state (and are thus basically fascist ) because the people living in them lack the altruism that would be necessary for the state to ease off and allow a natural socialistic consensus to emerge. China is a vast and over populated nation, but there is a fairly high level of homogeneity, especially in localised areas. true socialism could work if the separate areas would work as autonomous regions.National socialism as practiced in Germany in the 3rd reich worked like a charm because there was a high level of homogeneity, a strong sense of nationhood, and simply because the northern European/Germanic temperament is ideally suited to socialist society. Even today's anti-nazi documentaries with emotive titles about "the rise of evil" and so on admit that national socialist Germany was a paradise - as long as you were not one of those being hauled away to a concentration camp.National socialism is like communism with all the failings removed. It is strange indeed that it is thought of in any way as being the opposite of communism but that mistake can be explained by the fact that Germany fought a war against soviet Russia, and the soviets needed to give the impression that national socialism was nothing like their own variant of socialism. it was the soviets who first decided to label the nazis as "fascists" in order to avoid the use of the term "socialism" to describe their enemy. Although Hitler allied with Mussolini and the Italian fascist regime, national socialist thinkers in the third reich have always made it clear that national socialism is a rejection of fascism. National socialism is about putting the folk before the state while fascism is the opposite. Fascism in no way implies any kind of racial loyalty and in fact would only exploit racial or patriotic loyalty as far as it benefited the state to do so - always at times of war. At present the west is ruled by a fascism in which the ruling capitalists exploit the people and seek to prevent true socialism by bringing in millions of immigrants of various races, especially third worlders. This provides them with cheap labour, causes racial conflict to replace the class conflict that capitalists fear, and prevents the folk of a nation from maintaining their territory and identity. Yes true communism, true socialism, depends upon human nature being altruistic, and looking around us at the world it seems that such a society would be impossible. But it is not. Altruism has been scientifically proven to be a genetic trait that is lost unless it is practiced very discriminatingly. Animals have evolved to be altruistic - but only towards others who are closely related to them. William Hamilton's equation demonstrates the mathematical formula for this kin selection. Altruism and socialism are almost homonyms. Socialism requires altruism and this is why, when you bear in mind the facts regarding the necessity of close relation, the most potential for a socialist society exists amongst people who are of one ethnicity and one nation. The biggest mistake of communists is to forget this rule. there cannot be a global village that is socialist - in which every ethnicity and creed cooperates in a spirit of harmony and love. We can imagine such a world perhaps, but the reality is that it can never happen and that attempts to make this happen not only fail but in fact ruin the only real chance of socialism, which is ethnic based. Those who favour capitalism like to point to the failings of communism and say that human nature is egoistic and selfish and that people never really work for the common good. Since the most successful capitalists and politicians today are clinically psychopaths, it is not possible for these people to empathise with altruistic urges anyway. These people could never feel loyalty to blood, only to their own bank accounts. It is horrific that such people have so much power over all our lives.Capitalists suggest that people live only for shallow material reward and they have no conscience about exploiting workers. Proudhon's famous phrase "property is theft" is most accurate when referring to the ill-gotten gains of capitalists. Capitalists point to the Darwinist fact that animals are genetically programmed to desire to prosper, reproduce and expand. They ignore the fact that this is achieved as a group - and thus socialistically - even if the animal is not gregarious. Success in nature is about spreading ones genes and these genes succeeding within a gene pool. The capitalists abuse and twist Darwinism and that is how the abomination which is called "social Darwinism" came into the language. To capitalists, "survival of the fittest", is about selfish exploitation by an individual and about the individual getting as good a material existence for himself, even without having any offspring at all in many cases, as possible. When we have these people in our midst it is only bad for our gene pool and the anti-nature world view that capitalists spread is killing us and raping the planet. It is a big factor behind the plummeting birth rate in the west. The capitalists have not only twisted Darwinism but they have twisted socialism too. Many associate socialism now with a policy of supporting the least deserving and most useless people in our society. Many associate socialism with being pro immigrant - when as i have explained immigration wrecks the basis of socialism and merely strengthens the position of capitalists. Not only those who dislike socialism have these misconceptions, but the multi-racialists who claim to be socialist or communist also have these ideas. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin - none have ever advocated that third worlders should immigrate to the west and mix with whites. Trotsky made clear that he advocated black nationalism/separatism in the united states, even while the ku klux klan at the time did not, preferring the capitalist/masonic stance that blacks be kept as slaves. (thankfully today's kkk does appreciate the principle of ethno nationalism and has an ironically similar view to that of trotsky in this regard).Socialism is about contributing to society, while capitalism is about taking out of society - it is about making a private profit. when capitalists point to ways they feel they do contribute to society, from the "trickle down effect" to donations they make to third worlders, or creating jobs or adding to the economy, it is all cynical spiel with no grounds to justify it as being positive. All of these things result in pollution, unsustainable use of natural resources and surging populations in parts of the world where it is most harmful.Capitalists have been behind all wars, including the last two world wars and the present "war on terror". Selling arms is very lucrative, as is rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and of course war would have had to be declared on a national socialist state that had promised to hang bankers and capitalists and was printing its own currency.Communism in the soviet states had a strange relationship with the western capitalists and that is why they did not see it as the same threat that national socialist Germany posed. as the Russian anarchist mikhyl bakunin pointed out :"i am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschild’s appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschild’s. this may seem strange. what could there be in common between communism and high finance? ho ho! the communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always find the means for its existence..."When it comes to a debate over which is the better, communism or capitalism, the argument always fails to realise the true biological basis for socialism and how it really could work to bring a utopia, if only the capitalist exploiters of the labour of the people would be stopped, and ethnic cohesion taken as the foundation for harmony and cooperation.
"Let us proceed, then, to a critique of the egalitarian ideal itself—should equality be granted its current status as an unquestioned ethical ideal? In the first place, we must challenge the very idea of a radical separation between something that is “true in theory” but “not valid in practice.” If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory. The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is inherently “impractical,” that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith. To put it more precisely, if an ethical goal violates the nature of man and/or the universe and, therefore, cannot work in practice, then it is a bad ideal and should be dismissed as a goal. If the goal itself violates the nature of man, then it is also a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal."
- Egalitarianism a Revolt Against Nature by Murray N. Rothbard
I call Chairman!
Markus: But communism, despite all this, is still a "noble concept" and that is because there is a nugget of pure gold at the centre of this ideology -and that is socialism - an ideal of treating people fairly.
But communism, despite all this, is still a "noble concept" and that is because there is a nugget of pure gold at the centre of this ideology -and that is socialism - an ideal of treating people fairly.
Right there you made your first mistake, and I stopped reading. Well technically that was two mistakes.
The first is that communism was ever supposed to be a "noble concept". No it wasn't. I'm sorry but the founders of communism were anti-semitic and hateful people. Marx and Engels (who by the way did not really found Communism, Marx himself admits this) were reactionary conservatives, and communism always has been anti-progressive in every sense of the word. It's not that communism was a good idea in theory but it just didn't work because people are fallible - the idea was rotten to begin with. There's a reason why the USSR or China became medieval and feudalistic, they were meant to. If you want references, read "The lost Literature of Socialism" it's only a hundred pages long.
Secondly, socialism is not the ideal of treating people fairly. Socialism is the ideal of making people equal. Note the word "making". People are not born equal, no matter what the constitution says, and it's obvious on the face of it. Different people are good at different things, some people are lazy, others are not. Some people are intelligent, others are not. This is reality. Socialism wants to take this reality and warp it. It wants to cut down the feet off of those individuals who earn more so that they earn less. But what you don't understand is that destroying wealth is so much easier than creating it. Making the rich poor is easier than making the poor rich.
If you were to treat people equally, rather than trying to make them equal, then you would recognize that people are different and let it be that way. You would treat different people with the same rights and that would disallow you to take from some to give to others by force. Either people are made equal materially by an archon that then through redistribution of others' wealth becomes more powerful than the class he sought to destroy, or people are treated with equal respect and rights, in which case there will be inequality of wealth. You can't have both, and don't even pretend to.
You might argue that its not the fault of some people that they are born unfortunate, or at a disadvantage compared to others. But then, it's also not the fault of the people who are born more fortunate, so why should they be punished? You can't correct one injustice (people born unlucky) by enacting another (forcibly redistributing wealth from those born luckier).
Fred Furash:The first is that communism was ever supposed to be a "noble concept". No it wasn't. I'm sorry but the founders of communism were anti-semitic and hateful people.
Marx was Jewish.
You need to use the search function on this website and look up one of these words: "calculation" or "knowledge" and you will know that any level of force on the economy from the semi-fascist(More fascist every day.) USA to the totalitarian North Korea are all running systems that can not exist forever and will eventually crumbel due to the lies that users of force and or will be benevolent and that socialists can have anyone produce long run estimates of what consumers will ultimately desire.
Lord Shore-Twilly: Marx was Jewish.
Yes he was a Semitic anti-Semite. The founder of Zionism was anti-semitic too if I remember correctly. The worst anti-semites in history have commonly been of Jewish heritage themselves. In fact, I think Marx in his earlier writings used the words Capitalist and Jew interchangeably. I'll look for references if you want.
Edit: Here you go.
"On the Jewish Question" especially the conclusion
Dennis Fischman summarises Marx's views as follows, “Jews, Marx seems to be saying, can only become free when, as Jews, they no longer exist.”
Hertzel Quotes
From this article "In 1849 an article [by Engels]in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (of which Marx was the editor) criticised the notion that Jews living in Prussia's Polish provinces should be regarded as Germans. The article declared that these Jews were "the filthiest of all races." "Neither by speech nor by descent - but only by their greed for profit - can they be looked upon as relatives of the Germans in Frankfurt." "
Markus says a lot of strawmen and have a lot of misconceptions about capitalism. Even though, I agree with him that communism could only work in small and culturally-similar societies. With this in mind, communism would seriously damage division of labor and economic progress.By the way, you should really read about social darwinism, almost no one on this forum would say that bullshit. Not to say about free markets.
You need not bother; I know the source of the Marx/Anti-Semite thesis, it is the tract, On The Jewish Question. However the charge is nonsense, firstly the tract was written as a critique of the anti-seminism of Bruno Bauer. Secondly the supposed anti-semitic elements of the tract are an obvious pastiche of Bauer's views.
Lord Shore-Twilly: Fred Furash:The first is that communism was ever supposed to be a "noble concept". No it wasn't. I'm sorry but the founders of communism were anti-semitic and hateful people. Marx was Jewish.
Not to a be a smug arse but....http://tinyurl.com/kk2xnl
With parties like these , why won't it work!!!
Nerditarian: Not to a be a smug arse but....http://tinyurl.com/kk2xnl
And what is that supposed to prove; other than the fact that the internet has pages dedictated to either supporting, or attacking, the assertion that Marx was anti-Semitic; and that you have discovered google?
"National socialism as practiced in Germany in the 3rd reich worked like a charm because there was a high level of homogeneity, a strong sense of nationhood, and simply because the northern European/Germanic temperament is ideally suited to socialist society. Even today's anti-nazi documentaries with emotive titles about "the rise of evil" and so on admit that national socialist Germany was a paradise - as long as you were not one of those being hauled away to a concentration camp."
I don't know whether to laugh or ask you for a joint?
This does it for me.
Let's google a few things for you too markus!
http://tinyurl.com/nm7qsc (menger subjective value)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Bohm-Bawerk+Critic+Marx
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Mises+Economic+Calculation+Socialist+Commonwealth
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Mises+Critique+interventionism
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Hayek+Knowledge+Problem
Markus, you really need to define your terms. What is communism? Is a capitalist any different from an entrepreneur? Until you define your terms you can't know if all you wrote means something or is just so much rhetorical meringue whipped up out of fudged definitions.
Markus:Altruism and socialism are almost homonyms.
Assuming commonly-accepted definitions, you're saying that purely voluntary giving and violently forced giving are "almost" homonyms. Consider the implications of that difference. Then consider the implications of assuming the two are basically the same. Once you've done that, re-read everything you wrote and re-think everything you believe with that in mind.
Markus:Socialism is about contributing to society, while capitalism is about taking out of society - it is about making a private profit. when capitalists point to ways they feel they do contribute to society, from the "trickle down effect" to donations they make to third worlders, or creating jobs or adding to the economy, it is all cynical spiel with no grounds to justify it as being positive. All of these things result in pollution, unsustainable use of natural resources and surging populations in parts of the world where it is most harmful.
You're confusing state capitalism with the free market. There is no mystical juju going on here. Say you're out in a hot and dry area where no one is around, you are thirsty, and you come upon a vending machine. You probably understand that the owner of the vending machine will make a profit off that bottle of water you buy, but of course you benefit as well. If the bottle of water were $400, but you were literally dying of thirst, you would still pay if you had the cash on you. The "capitalist" owner of the vending machine is still contributing to your well-being - in fact you owe him or her your life - even though you may curse the bastard for taking advantage of your plight.
The capitalist did not take out of society, but contributed to it, even to the point of saving your life. And it was all through selfish motivations. That's not even getting into the more obvious instances like Andrew Carnegie, the "robber baron" who created a much more efficient steel mill and thereby reduced the price of steel from dollars to mere cents, enabling modern farming practices that have made things like eating possible for millions of people. Entrepreneurs are the mainspring of human progress, and there are countless examples like Carnegie all around. Sure, there are capitalist exploiters (even Carnegie himself, eventually), but you'll find that these are the ones that use the government to grant them special privileges; otherwise they would not be able to exploit, because the very nature of the free market is that interactions are voluntary, and you can only make a profit by making people better off (or through fraud, which you won't find any of us defending). The fact that some bad capitalists will use the government as a weapon is not an argument against capitalism, but an argument against government.
Why anarchy fails
I think it should be quite clear that the man is an anti-Semite if he:
What's "1 litre of fruit juice - (5 oranges + 1 grapefruit + 1 lemon + 2 limes + 2 hours use of juicer + a quarter litre of water + 2 hours of unskilled labour)"?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: What's "1 litre of fruit juice - (5 oranges + 1 grapefruit + 1 lemon + 2 limes + 2 hours use of juicer + a quarter litre of water + 2 hours of unskilled labour)"?
Nerditarian: published a book called Karl Marx is his A World Without Jews (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959)
He didn't, he published a work called On The Jewish Question. Dagobert D. Runes translated the work and published it under the name A World Without Jews over three quarters of a century after Marx had died.
Nerditarian: in The German Ideology wrote "It is the circumvention of the law that makes the religious Jew a religious Jew."
That isn't what it says.
Nerditarian: wrote in A World WIthout Jews "emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time." and Ibed. ""Money is the one zealous god of Israel, beside which no other god may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is the essence of man's life and work which have become alienated from him: this alien monster rules him and he worships it."
See what I said in my previous post on, On The Jewish Question.
Nerditarian: If I hadn't told you would you have assumed those quotes were from Mein Kampf? I would've.
If I hadn't told you would you have assumed those quotes were from Mein Kampf? I would've.
Have you ever actually read Mein Kampf?
Lord Shore-Twilly: Nerditarian: published a book called Karl Marx is his A World Without Jews (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959) He didn't, he published a work called On The Jewish Question. Dagobert D. Runes translated the work and published it under the name A World Without Jews over three quarters of a century after Marx had died
He didn't, he published a work called On The Jewish Question. Dagobert D. Runes translated the work and published it under the name A World Without Jews over three quarters of a century after Marx had died
Lord Shore-Twilly: Nerditarian: wrote in A World WIthout Jews "emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time." and Ibed. ""Money is the one zealous god of Israel, beside which no other god may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is the essence of man's life and work which have become alienated from him: this alien monster rules him and he worships it." See what I said in my previous post on, On The Jewish Question
See what I said in my previous post on, On The Jewish Question
No matter what it was called one cannot deny the damning nature of these quotes. Marx was an anti-semetic Jew. Socialists believe they can violate the law of non-contradiction. What else is new?
Fred Furash: Markus: You might argue that its not the fault of some people that they are born unfortunate, or at a disadvantage compared to others. But then, it's also not the fault of the people who are born more fortunate, so why should they be punished? You can't correct one injustice (people born unlucky) by enacting another (forcibly redistributing wealth from those born luckier).
Markus:
Firstly, communism is not about making people equal, it is about making society fairer, stopping exploitation of workers, helping people who have to work all hours of the day and still only have enough money to barely make ends meet. Stopping the inhumane working conditions in Asia, and those earning pittance for their labour. Preventing the countless number of children dying in sweatshops in Indonesia, for example, etc etc. Capitalism causes all this, communism will prevent this.
The counter argument to the point above is that those born into wealth are those that are best placed to help others. They have the means to help others whilst still having sufficient resources/wealth to survive. That way, everyone in society will benefit. The rich helping the poor and unfortunate, has little effect on the rich, but will greatly benefit the poor, thereby increasing the overall level of benefit to society.
To be honest I was expecting far better than this (Marx anti-Semite allegations etc) on such a staunch free market forum. Is no one able to offer a point by point refutation of what I posted initially? Maybe the reason is that it is not possible. So is everyone going to ignore the great accomplishments of communism. The fact that communism gave the Soviet Union rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. What about the fact that Cuba has a higher life expectancy, better literacy rates and health care than in the US? This is indisputable. Maybe this font will be easier to read.
To be honest I was expecting far better than this (Marx anti-Semite allegations etc) on such a staunch free market forum. Is no one able to offer a point by point refutation of what I posted initially? Maybe the reason is that it is not possible.
So is everyone going to ignore the great accomplishments of communism. The fact that communism gave the Soviet Union rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. What about the fact that Cuba has a higher life expectancy, better literacy rates and health care than in the US? This is indisputable.
Maybe this font will be easier to read.
Markus: The poorest people in russia had a happier and more secure existence under soviet rule than they do today when they can find themselves homeless, counting themselves lucky to work unreasonable hours for little pay for capitalists, and in a society where there is a lot of corruption, crime and sleaze, and the mafia is strong.
So the Russian Mafia didn't exist from 1917 to 1991? The Soviet cadre were uncorruptable and no one committed a crime?
Markus: but the variant of communism they have in china still has benefits to the Chinese people in that it controls criminal activities far more effectively than would otherwise be the case and takes a strong stance against such things as drug dealing, prostitution and pornography.
Shooting teenagers who have starved themselves for several days in protest of the government certainly is effective. And do tell us how drugs, prostitution and pornography are immoral. A proletariat certainly can't labor to his most effective level if he has boobies in his face.
Markus:National socialism as practiced in Germany in the 3rd reich worked like a charm because there was a high level of homogeneity, a strong sense of nationhood, and simply because the northern European/Germanic temperament is ideally suited to socialist society.
One might question how that homogeneity came about. Perhaps from the 'Ayrans' killing off large sectors of the population and only validating marriages and children who fit their caste system. It is interesting to see you say Europeans are supposedly made for Socialism yet there has not been a pivotal revolution there plus you are contradicting your ideology which looks at the working class en mass as desiring Communism.
Markus: so on admit that national socialist Germany was a paradise - as long as you were not one of those being hauled away to a concentration camp.
I would like to see this documentary that says pre-WWII Germany was a paradise. Perhaps I can get a name.
Markus:National socialism is like communism with all the failings removed.
So you are a Fascist. Why do you say then Communism will work?
Markus:Capitalists have been behind all wars, including the last two world wars and the present "war on terror".
The Soviet Winter War with Finland alone disproves this ridiculous statement.
I think going further into this absurd tantrum would be a waste of my time and perhaps I have said enough for you to question what you think.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Markus: To be honest I was expecting far better than this (Marx anti-Semite allegations etc) on such a staunch free market forum. Is no one able to offer a point by point refutation of what I posted initially? Maybe the reason is that it is not possible. So is everyone going to ignore the great accomplishments of communism. The fact that communism gave the Soviet Union rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. What about the fact that Cuba has a higher life expectancy, better literacy rates and health care than in the US? This is indisputable. Maybe this font will be easier to read.
Lord Shore-Twilly:Marx was Jewish.
Actually Marx's father was a converted Jew. Marx grew up a christian millennialist who converted out of it after reading Hegel.
Nerditarian:No matter what it was called
Well, it obviously mattered to you, or you wouldn't have brought it up.
Nerditarian:one cannot deny the damning nature of these quotes.
I can and do, the work is an obvious pastiche of Bauer, and others. If you actually read On the Jewish Question, instead of cherry picking decontextualised quotes from the work, you will see that Marx was actually highly critical of anti-semitism, and scorned and lampooned it.
Markus:Firstly, communism is not about making people equal, it is about making society fairer,
Yeah, sure. Can you explain why it doesn't work this way in practice? Stalin's gulag archipeligo, Map's cultural revolution and Pol Pot's killing fields all seem quite unfair to me..............
Markus:stopping exploitation of workers
You really should've google'd Bohm-Bawerk. Exploitation in the Marxist sense relys on a labor theory of value. I.e the amount a worker puts into production determines it's value. This is not the case. Value, like beauty, is subjective. If a worker agrees to work for wage x that seems low to us he is doing so because this wage represents a betterment of his condition, because it keeps him from starving. He subjectively values getting the money and not starving higher than he values the time/labor he puts into this. As in all market actions, the worker is acting because it profits him. In other words, whilst the employer is not making the worker a millionaire he is improving his condition. Then, overtime competition for workers and increases in investment of capital increase worker wages to x +5 or 2x or whatever. Note: this is why Mao's collectivization resulted in starvation and death while the post-Mao liberalization is resulting in previously unknown wealth, the creation of a Chinese middle class and greater societal wealth all around.
Markus: helping people who have to work all hours of the day and still only have enough money to barely make ends meet.
What would have happened to these people before capitalism? Instead of working for low low pay they would have starved. Period. What happened to these people in Maoist and Soviet society? Either they worked in the same factories for similar hours in order to receive lower quality products (a lower quality of living for the workers) or they died from the starvation brought by central planning of agriculture or they were killed/imprisioned by the Dear Leaders. Seems to me that capitalism offers the best long run prospects for the poor.
Markus: Stopping the inhumane working conditions in Asia, and those earning pittance for their labour.
Maoist China-->Starvation, death, purging. Great Leaps Backward.
Liberalized China--> Development, wealth, automobiles, increased standards of living.
Taiwan--> Once a marginally successful backwater slowly developing, much like the liberalized/liberalizing China of modern day, now one of the wealthiest places in the world.
Tell me, which is preferable? Which would the average worker prefer-starving in back breaking agricultural work with little chance of advancement or subsisting in the factory and having a chance to do better.
Markus: Preventing the countless number of children dying in sweatshops in Indonesia, for example, etc etc.
And what will happen to them afterwards? If people are poor enough that they have to send their children to work in sweatshops what is the foreseeable consequence of these children NOT working in sweatshops? Starvation.
Markus:Capitalism causes all this, communism will prevent this.
Capitalism gives the poor hard jobs for bad pay but gives them the chance to advance and allows wages to grow with capital investment. Communism claims to be for the proletariat then pursues central planning policies that lead to their starvation and limits their ability to advance in society. Which will aid the poor the best in the long run: a completely free market (note: as you said now we have fascism NOT capitalism) or a centrally planned economy?
Nerditarian: Let's google a few things for you too markus! http://tinyurl.com/nm7qsc (menger subjective value) http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Bohm-Bawerk+Critic+Marx http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Mises+Economic+Calculation+Socialist+Commonwealth http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Mises+Critique+interventionism http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Hayek+Knowledge+Problem
Markus, I believe the above links have been provided by Nerditarian before your previous posts. Have you read them and addressed their arguments? No? Why should any of us have to rehash for you what is already written in English. The literature is out there. Go read it.
What you have done is post a bunch of statements, none of which have any factual or logical basis. All of this has been done before by Marxists of every flavour, and then disproved by Austrians.... in the above links. Why should anyone on this forum go point by point refuting your statements when this has already been done? You have to understand that by being unwilling to read outside of your own literature (assuming you've read more than the Communist Manifesto) you've basically made it a waste of time for anyone on this forum to argue with you. If you won't read books or articles, why will you read long forum posts?
If however you were to read an aforementioned book, or any one of a myriad articles on this site about Socialism, and then write a detailed criticism of it, and then post that up, you are likely to get much more of a response.
Edit: And btw, all those books can be accessed for free on this very website.
ivanfoofoo: Markus: What is the point of having great literacy rates without being free to choose what to read? What kind of life do you want to live when your civil liberties are so highly constrained? And why would you want better health care, to be a healthy state slave?
Have you got a source for these accusations regarding Cuba? Who said they are not able to choose what to read? All Cubans are state slaves? How so? What about the great accomplishments of the Soviet Union I mentioned?
Have you got a source for these accusations regarding Cuba? Who said they are not able to choose what to read? All Cubans are state slaves? How so?
What about the great accomplishments of the Soviet Union I mentioned?
Markus:What about the fact that Cuba has a higher life expectancy, better literacy rates and health care than in the US
So sayeth Castro's infalliable statistics bureau.....
Markus:The fact that communism gave the Soviet Union rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality.
Communism seemed better than feudalism...until the irrational nature of its system caused it to collapse. But let's leave that out and praise the Dear Leaders of the past. Yay! The Soviet Union made everyone equally enslaved. Whoopie do! Everyone's job as Stalin's slave was secure so long as he did not question him. Oh how great!
You may like your enforced egalitarian society, we don't. In Cuba you're not free to read Mises or Rothbard, just to name a few. It's even forbidden by the constitution. And almost all workers are state workers. Forget about making a better life if you don't assist to Castro speeches and support him.
Markus: ivanfoofoo: Markus: What is the point of having great literacy rates without being free to choose what to read? What kind of life do you want to live when your civil liberties are so highly constrained? And why would you want better health care, to be a healthy state slave? Have you got a source for these accusations regarding Cuba? Who said they are not able to choose what to read? All Cubans are state slaves? How so? What about the great accomplishments of the Soviet Union I mentioned?
Tell me where can I find a copy of The Wealth of Nations in Castro's Cuba? Can I read Mill? Ricardo? Locke? Nozick? Are you seriously taking the position that the Cuban government does not censor media in it's walls? Seriously. Show me a State that given the absolute power Castro & Castro have over the Cuban economy and Cuban life in general hasn't exercised ccensorship and I will send you a check for a million dollars.
The Cuban government controls industry, health care and all elements of life in Cuba. As the individuals Cubans have no choice they are slaves.
See my other post for the allegedly great accomplishments, comrade.
Nerditarian: So sayeth Castro's infalliable statistics bureau.....
Markus: Many people talk of how communism is a "noble concept" but that it can't work. We are told how people have suffered under communism - the intellectuals and artists who were allegedly targeted and killed in mao's cultural revolution for example, the tens of millions of ukrainians murdered by stalin, the aggressive expansionism, gulags, the ridiculous notions of lysenkoism and the idea of making everyone work for equal and very low wages, the extent of state control over everyone's lives. But communism, despite all this, is still a "noble concept" and that is because there is a nugget of pure gold at the centre of this ideology -and that is socialism - an ideal of treating people fairly.
Many people talk of how communism is a "noble concept" but that it can't work. We are told how people have suffered under communism - the intellectuals and artists who were allegedly targeted and killed in mao's cultural revolution for example, the tens of millions of ukrainians murdered by stalin, the aggressive expansionism, gulags, the ridiculous notions of lysenkoism and the idea of making everyone work for equal and very low wages, the extent of state control over everyone's lives. But communism, despite all this, is still a "noble concept" and that is because there is a nugget of pure gold at the centre of this ideology -and that is socialism - an ideal of treating people fairly.
OK, first of all, when you say "communism" are you talking about everybody playing nice and sharing, or are you talking about Uncle Joe and his buddies throwing people in gulags? I am definitely cool with sharing, Gulags not so much. In addition, you use the word "noble". Now this has two meanings, one meaning virtuous, and the other pertaining to the aristocracy. Its largely an old propaganda term by and for the aristocracy.
So lets restate your argument as "Treating everyone fairly is virtuous". But you are claiming that liberalism does not treat people fairly, and is therefore not virtuous (or less virtuous). I take issue with that, as not only does liberalism treat people fairly but socialism in fact does not.
The basic gist of socialism is that all the stuff is collectivized, and that people should decide how to allocate resources "democratically". But what the hell is democracy, and how is it fair? The pioneers of democracy, the Greeks, gave the rich a bigger vote than the poor, and did not allow women, children, or slaves to vote. Is that fair? What about modern "democracies"? Should everyone have an equal vote? What about systematic bias in the electorate (Ex: everyone votes for political parties who are for tariffs, there is no mainstream free trade party)? In democracy the people who are experts on subjects and do more work than others get the same amount of vote as the ignorant and lazy.
Lets say I spend my labor to bake a pizza, and want to split it with my sister. Then two random people come out of nowhere, who contributed nothing towards creating the pizza, and say "We have to eat this pizza democratically, you have to split it evenly among all four of us". Would that be "fair"? I dont think so. Thats what liberalism is about, giving people property rights over the things they individually create and use, and allowing people to restrict access, and exchange property towards a more efficient ends.
Many of the positive things about communism as it has been practiced and realised in actuality are not known to the general public. For example, that a policy of full employment was accompanied by free housing. The poorest people in russia had a happier and more secure existence under soviet rule than they do today when they can find themselves homeless, counting themselves lucky to work unreasonable hours for little pay for capitalists, and in a society where there is a lot of corruption, crime and sleaze, and the mafia is strong. If communism "did not work" it is nevertheless true that what it was replaced with is little better, and in a number of ways worse.
I was born in the CCCP, and I will have to call bullshit on this. In communist countries people do not have the freedom to live a happy life, they are treated as nothing more than factors of production by the corrupt beaurocrats who have no incentive to care about them. That is why people in eastern germany fled to the west side. That is why modern eastern europe is the capital of alcoholism, depression, and suicide.
Communism does work as practiced today in various nations around the world. these now are all non-white nations, non-western nations. Because they reject the western capitalist way of life they are demonised. But the people living in these countries do benefit from communism - and the communism is special there in that it is no longer internationalist and has taken on a nationalist flavour. Even Soviet Russia had to resort to rousing feelings of nationalistic pride in ww2. So these communist regimes are nationalistic and also socialistic, and yet they are undoubtedly fascist as well in that the state requires that the people obey its laws and serve the state's existence.
Somalia is currently much better off than it was under its communist dictatorship, and its economy is by far outperforming that of its neighbors. Another good example of communism ruining things is Cuba, it used to be a first world nation in the 1940s and 1950s. It was more wealthy and more developed than most of Europe was at that time. Now it is a third world nation.
The communism practiced in various countries now is different in each one. To some extent capitalism has been allowed, including allowing western capitalists to relocate factories to China, for example, and exploit the Chinese people. not good. but the variant of communism they have in china still has benefits to the Chinese people in that it controls criminal activities far more effectively than would otherwise be the case and takes a strong stance against such things as drug dealing, prostitution and pornography.
China would still be the same agriciultural backwards place it was before the 1970s if the economic liberalizations were not allowed to happen and the industrial revolution was not allowed to begin. The way a country builds up wealth is through savings, which can be lent out to people willing to take risks to build capital or create inventions. In a country with free trade, even if it has no existing savings, citizens can borrow savings from the citizens of other more developed countries. In the CCCP, the people had no savings and were not allowed to borrow from abroad. So the government had to "force savings" through inflation, taxation, and slave labor in gulags to finance their industrial revolution, this resulted in famine and the death of milions.
These communist countries have to be heavily ruled by a totalitarian state (and are thus basically fascist ) because the people living in them lack the altruism that would be necessary for the state to ease off and allow a natural socialistic consensus to emerge. China is a vast and over populated nation, but there is a fairly high level of homogeneity, especially in localised areas. true socialism could work if the separate areas would work as autonomous regions.
Altruism is a false concept, and the people in government are not altruists, they are thieves.
National socialism as practiced in Germany in the 3rd reich worked like a charm because there was a high level of homogeneity, a strong sense of nationhood, and simply because the northern European/Germanic temperament is ideally suited to socialist society. Even today's anti-nazi documentaries with emotive titles about "the rise of evil" and so on admit that national socialist Germany was a paradise - as long as you were not one of those being hauled away to a concentration camp.National socialism is like communism with all the failings removed. It is strange indeed that it is thought of in any way as being the opposite of communism but that mistake can be explained by the fact that Germany fought a war against soviet Russia, and the soviets needed to give the impression that national socialism was nothing like their own variant of socialism. it was the soviets who first decided to label the nazis as "fascists" in order to avoid the use of the term "socialism" to describe their enemy. Although Hitler allied with Mussolini and the Italian fascist regime, national socialist thinkers in the third reich have always made it clear that national socialism is a rejection of fascism. National socialism is about putting the folk before the state while fascism is the opposite. Fascism in no way implies any kind of racial loyalty and in fact would only exploit racial or patriotic loyalty as far as it benefited the state to do so - always at times of war. At present the west is ruled by a fascism in which the ruling capitalists exploit the people and seek to prevent true socialism by bringing in millions of immigrants of various races, especially third worlders. This provides them with cheap labour, causes racial conflict to replace the class conflict that capitalists fear, and prevents the folk of a nation from maintaining their territory and identity.
National socialism is like communism with all the failings removed. It is strange indeed that it is thought of in any way as being the opposite of communism but that mistake can be explained by the fact that Germany fought a war against soviet Russia, and the soviets needed to give the impression that national socialism was nothing like their own variant of socialism. it was the soviets who first decided to label the nazis as "fascists" in order to avoid the use of the term "socialism" to describe their enemy. Although Hitler allied with Mussolini and the Italian fascist regime, national socialist thinkers in the third reich have always made it clear that national socialism is a rejection of fascism. National socialism is about putting the folk before the state while fascism is the opposite. Fascism in no way implies any kind of racial loyalty and in fact would only exploit racial or patriotic loyalty as far as it benefited the state to do so - always at times of war. At present the west is ruled by a fascism in which the ruling capitalists exploit the people and seek to prevent true socialism by bringing in millions of immigrants of various races, especially third worlders. This provides them with cheap labour, causes racial conflict to replace the class conflict that capitalists fear, and prevents the folk of a nation from maintaining their territory and identity.
Naziism didnt work "like a charm", thats why children had to be forced into public schools to be indoctrinated with propganda and taught to fight and kill, and people who engaged in critical thinking were repressed.
Yes true communism, true socialism, depends upon human nature being altruistic, and looking around us at the world it seems that such a society would be impossible. But it is not. Altruism has been scientifically proven to be a genetic trait that is lost unless it is practiced very discriminatingly. Animals have evolved to be altruistic - but only towards others who are closely related to them. William Hamilton's equation demonstrates the mathematical formula for this kin selection. Altruism and socialism are almost homonyms. Socialism requires altruism and this is why, when you bear in mind the facts regarding the necessity of close relation, the most potential for a socialist society exists amongst people who are of one ethnicity and one nation. The biggest mistake of communists is to forget this rule. there cannot be a global village that is socialist - in which every ethnicity and creed cooperates in a spirit of harmony and love. We can imagine such a world perhaps, but the reality is that it can never happen and that attempts to make this happen not only fail but in fact ruin the only real chance of socialism, which is ethnic based. Those who favour capitalism like to point to the failings of communism and say that human nature is egoistic and selfish and that people never really work for the common good. Since the most successful capitalists and politicians today are clinically psychopaths, it is not possible for these people to empathise with altruistic urges anyway. These people could never feel loyalty to blood, only to their own bank accounts. It is horrific that such people have so much power over all our lives.Capitalists suggest that people live only for shallow material reward and they have no conscience about exploiting workers. Proudhon's famous phrase "property is theft" is most accurate when referring to the ill-gotten gains of capitalists. Capitalists point to the Darwinist fact that animals are genetically programmed to desire to prosper, reproduce and expand. They ignore the fact that this is achieved as a group - and thus socialistically - even if the animal is not gregarious. Success in nature is about spreading ones genes and these genes succeeding within a gene pool. The capitalists abuse and twist Darwinism and that is how the abomination which is called "social Darwinism" came into the language. To capitalists, "survival of the fittest", is about selfish exploitation by an individual and about the individual getting as good a material existence for himself, even without having any offspring at all in many cases, as possible. When we have these people in our midst it is only bad for our gene pool and the anti-nature world view that capitalists spread is killing us and raping the planet. It is a big factor behind the plummeting birth rate in the west. The capitalists have not only twisted Darwinism but they have twisted socialism too. Many associate socialism now with a policy of supporting the least deserving and most useless people in our society. Many associate socialism with being pro immigrant - when as i have explained immigration wrecks the basis of socialism and merely strengthens the position of capitalists. Not only those who dislike socialism have these misconceptions, but the multi-racialists who claim to be socialist or communist also have these ideas. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin - none have ever advocated that third worlders should immigrate to the west and mix with whites. Trotsky made clear that he advocated black nationalism/separatism in the united states, even while the ku klux klan at the time did not, preferring the capitalist/masonic stance that blacks be kept as slaves. (thankfully today's kkk does appreciate the principle of ethno nationalism and has an ironically similar view to that of trotsky in this regard).Socialism is about contributing to society, while capitalism is about taking out of society - it is about making a private profit. when capitalists point to ways they feel they do contribute to society, from the "trickle down effect" to donations they make to third worlders, or creating jobs or adding to the economy, it is all cynical spiel with no grounds to justify it as being positive. All of these things result in pollution, unsustainable use of natural resources and surging populations in parts of the world where it is most harmful.Capitalists have been behind all wars, including the last two world wars and the present "war on terror". Selling arms is very lucrative, as is rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and of course war would have had to be declared on a national socialist state that had promised to hang bankers and capitalists and was printing its own currency.Communism in the soviet states had a strange relationship with the western capitalists and that is why they did not see it as the same threat that national socialist Germany posed. as the Russian anarchist mikhyl bakunin pointed out :"i am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschild’s appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschild’s. this may seem strange. what could there be in common between communism and high finance? ho ho! the communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always find the means for its existence..."When it comes to a debate over which is the better, communism or capitalism, the argument always fails to realise the true biological basis for socialism and how it really could work to bring a utopia, if only the capitalist exploiters of the labour of the people would be stopped, and ethnic cohesion taken as the foundation for harmony and cooperation.
Most of the rest of this is garbage so I wont go through it piece by piece. Socialism does not recognize individual self ownership, and does not have the capacity for individuals to make rational economic decisions without a price mechanism. Wealth cannot be created without savings, and socialism demonizes and destroys the incentive to save (the interest rate). Thats why native americans (which are considered by socialists to be the great example of collectivized property) never were able to advance from the bronze age. Socialism leads to people gaming the system and establishing hierarchies through force and fraud, which is why native americans had chiefs and went to war with other tribes.
Lord Shore-Twilly: Nerditarian:No matter what it was called Well, it obviously mattered to you, or you wouldn't have brought it up. Nerditarian:one cannot deny the damning nature of these quotes. I can and do, the work is an obvious pastiche of Bauer, and others. If you actually read On the Jewish Question, instead of cherry picking decontextualised quotes from the work, you will see that Marx was actually highly critical of anti-semitism, and scorned and lampooned it.
Fine Lord Shore-Tilly. I'll stick to the other things I hate about Marx and won't explore new avenues of things to hate about that hairy squirrelly evil man.
Markus: Nerditarian: So sayeth Castro's infalliable statistics bureau..... The same could be said for national statistics produced by any country.
Psst...I make a oint of avoiding government statistics for THAT reason. If I must I only take it with a tablespoon of salt.
Nerditarian:You really should've google'd Bohm-Bawerk. Exploitation in the Marxist sense relys on a labor theory of value. I.e the amount a worker puts into production determines it's value. This is not the case. Value, like beauty, is subjective. If a worker agrees to work for wage x that seems low to us he is doing so because this wage represents a betterment of his condition, because it keeps him from starving. He subjectively values getting the money and not starving higher than he values the time/labor he puts into this. As in all market actions, the worker is acting because it profits him. In other words, whilst the employer is not making the worker a millionaire he is improving his condition. Then, overtime competition for workers and increases in investment of capital increase worker wages to x +5 or 2x or whatever. Note: this is why Mao's collectivization resulted in starvation and death while the post-Mao liberalization is resulting in previously unknown wealth, the creation of a Chinese middle class and greater societal wealth all around.
They are not working to make a profit, they are working to survive. They HAVE to work in order to pay for food and water.
Nerditarian:Liberalized China--> Development, wealth, automobiles, increased standards of living.
Are you sure the vast majority of Chinese are benefiting from capitalism? Only the wealthy capitalists have benefitted. Any sources for this OVERALL increased standard of living?
Nerditarian:And what will happen to them afterwards? If people are poor enough that they have to send their children to work in sweatshops what is the foreseeable consequence of these children NOT working in sweatshops? Starvation.
Under communism they would not have to send their children to work in these treacherous conditions. Conditions would be better, and they would be provided for if need be.
Markus:They HAVE to work in order to pay for food and water.
Which is the profit.
scineram: Which is the profit.
I wouldn't call paying for food and water in order to survive a "profit". I'd call it slavery to the capitalist system.
Markus: They HAVE to work in order to pay for food and water.
They HAVE to work in order to pay for food and water.
An individual cannot use subsistence farming? There is a great deal of that in third world countries. So your conception that 'wage labor' is necessary for survivial is a falsehood.
Markus:Under communism they would not have to send their children to work in these treacherous conditions. Conditions would be better, and they would be provided for if need be.
To this I refer to Shu Ting's Assembly Line Poem. Communism contains the most base contradictions. You supposedly receive the full fruits of your labor and yet there is communal ownership. Children got out of the labor market because wages and productivity increase from captial intensive ventures, not because of pixie dust.