Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The causes for the negativity of Facism, and Communism.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    What amazes me with communism is it was readily adopted abroad before even seeing it in action Tho in China's case they had the Soviets to look at but the Russians were ready for anything except the current status quo. It was just one of those 'theories' that seemed like a good idea at the time but the Russians took the bait first.

    Marx & Engels came a part of Germany that was never under communism.

    Comment


    • #17
      Communism, in essence, is historical-economic theory that seeks to explain the rise of the 'middle class' or the demise of Monarchical Government in Europe after the Roman Empire. The theory suggests that Europe went from absolute Monarchy to Parliamentry system, most notably in England during the Civil War, because the means of wealth creation moved from the Monarch to the 'middle class'. The arguement of 'Das Kapital' is that eventualy the wealth producers (capitalists) of the 'middle class' will be superceeded by those who produce - the 'workers' as the capitalists rely (in the same way as the Monarch depended on the middle class) on the workers to create their wealth.
      To say that communism started in French Revolution I think is a mistake - there was no theory of history or economy then to be called 'communism'. Certainly it had some role in the Paris Commune of 1871 and Marx actualy commented on proceedings there at the time. Communism started, in my opinion, in the 'Industrial Revolution' that brought thousands of 'workers' together in large factories bringing the possibility of collective action.

      Comment


      • #18
        I have come to a very important conclusion, to myself, as to why conflicts happen. Conflicts happen, because sometimes groups, want to see only their point of view of the world, being affirmed by the world, and all other points of view, they see as wrong.
        Hi!
        Every ideology has their own perspective to understand the issues and ideologies describes other ideologies according to their own reasoning that is valid and true only for that culture/perspective. I mean in the chaos of knowledge propositions has no value untill we give them true or false. we do it according to our common pragmatist view. western culture support individualist socielity. it is hard to understand pure individualism (anarchism), collectivism (socialism) or sheria from western culture and vice versa. Socialist "realize" religion, race, culture has no meaning for individuals as work power. work is holy, working class is their identity like being turkish is my identity. "there are workers all around the world who are under capitalist hegemony and waits awareness and help." reason for conflict.

        btw, i guess communism is spiritual ideology not economic one... you get as much as you need from community and you produce as much as you want. there shouldn't be any equality. when people understand they don't need off-road cars in the cities they don't demand them in the cities. when people understand people are equal they understand why they don't need offroad cars in the city. of course utopian.

        it is hard for narsist individual to understand a spiritual view or religion. but i believe it is not alone a reason for war. i mean ideological difference can be used as cover to public opinion for various interests. war needs reasons for public. if you can't say the real one you create your own reason, such as weapon of mass destruction. no offence, my view.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by isim View Post
          btw, i guess communism is spiritual ideology not economic one... you get as much as you need from community and you produce as much as you want. there shouldn't be any equality. when people understand they don't need off-road cars in the cities they don't demand them in the cities. when people understand people are equal they understand why they don't need offroad cars in the city. of course utopian.
          Of course communism is an economic system! It governs supply (from each according to his ability) and demand (to each according to his need).

          And who are you to tell me that I don't "need" an off-road vehicle when I live in the city? I need it to haul my jet-skis for the trip to the lake and my guns for the trip to the desert. I guess you want to tell me that I don't "need" jet-skis and don't "need" guns. You're right. I don't "need" any of these things. I want them. They're fun. I'm willing to part with a part of my production to acquire frivolous objects. What's wrong with that?

          Originally posted by isim View Post
          it is hard for narsist individual to understand a spiritual view or religion. but i believe it is not alone a reason for war. i mean ideological difference can be used as cover to public opinion for various interests. war needs reasons for public. if you can't say the real one you create your own reason, such as weapon of mass destruction. no offence, my view.
          You're mixing physical threat with ideology.

          Why have the shia and sunni fought with each other for over 1000 years?
          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

          Comment


          • #20
            [QUOTE=AdityaMookerjee;764244]The philosophy of Karl Marx, was not by itself malignant, and wrong./QUOTE]

            That is your first mistake. Yes it was malignant and wrong.

            It is malignant becuase it does not recognize the human drive to profit. Profit is a much better motivator than the whip. Communism encourages famine and shortage by making production slavery which lead to misery and this makes it malignant.

            It is wrong becuase it cannot possibly work.

            While a functioning society needs a certain level of support and outlet for the lowest classes, the lowest classes cannot be the primary concern. The real focus needs to be on rasing both the middle and upper classes.

            Comment


            • #21
              z,

              It is malignant becuase it does not recognize the human drive to profit.
              not quite. communism recognizes profit, but it's seen as part of the exclusive realm of the "master" classes; first the slave owner, then the feudal lord, and finally the capitalist.

              what communism gets fundamentally wrong is that profit is seen as a zero-sum game: that if someone profits the other must be exploited. it is pretty much revolutionary (-not- bourgeois) socialism mixed with a very heavy dose of anarchism (marx, ironically, detested government, and industrial specialization).

              by the way, this shows the huge difference between communism and what we see today as socialism. for communists, socialism is a capitalist/bourgeois attempt to bribe or lull the working classes from revolution, and doubly evil in that socialism recognizes that profit is not necessarily exploitative.

              the lowest classes cannot be the primary concern. The real focus needs to be on rasing both the middle and upper classes.
              down with the capitalist pigs!

              marx saw society as three classes- peasant, industrial worker, capitalist (which also included the nobility, which to him was a dying vestige of feudal europe). the revolution would come from the industrial worker, which would overthrow the capitalist and use those funds to raise the peasants to worker status. once everyone was a worker and shared the wealth, everyone would be so wealthy that there would be no need for government, or specialization, and all would be happy.

              if you were a maoist, you believed that the peasant would lead the revolution.

              if you were a leninist, you believed that the revolution would come from select members of enlightened industrial workers, ie the Communist Party aka the Vanguard of the Proletariat.
              Last edited by astralis; 21 Dec 10,, 16:17.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • #22
                on another note, it's quite understandable why communism arose in industrial-age europe.

                many of the industrial-age companies were owned by tycoons working in cahoots with the state, with absolutely no labor laws or regulations, or enforcement agencies (libertarian paradise?). there was constantly much more supply of workers than demand, so tycoons seeking to eke a profit would drive the workers mercilessly. in fact, as industrialization progressed worker abuse increased dramatically, as specialization was -extremely- mentally, and physically taxing, which required enormous company enforcement.

                even in areas where the judiciary would hear out worker cases (rare), the financial resources of the company almost invariably ensured these cases were brushed aside. political change wasn't possible because workers did not get voting rights.

                given the lack of choice, and a state that would almost instinctively side with the factory owner, it's not surprising that anarchism and later communism became endemic on the Continent. the US largely missed the boat because it did not really start industrializing in scale until the 1870s, and the western frontier acted as a large steam valve for discontent.
                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by astralis View Post
                  the US largely missed the boat because it did not really start industrializing in scale until the 1870s, and the western frontier acted as a large steam valve for discontent.
                  I don't think we missed the boat, I think the decentralized nature of our government, the boom of the 20's and then the Great Depression bought us enough extra time to work through it. Russia and Germany both came to industrialization later than us. The Gilded Age very nearly saw revolution. The sad part is we hav entered another gilded age and there is going to be massive social unrest when the average citizen gets off the false flag issues and the public treasury supported payoffs collapse.

                  We are enterign a critical phase where high unemployment and dabt combine with low government approval and diminished hope combine to create a window for radical change. I hope constatutionalist win, thats the side I am on. But a reading of history shows the odds favor a more radical outcome. Only the US and England escaped the last time, I am not sure we will this time.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    z,

                    I don't think we missed the boat, I think the decentralized nature of our government, the boom of the 20's and then the Great Depression bought us enough extra time to work through it. Russia and Germany both came to industrialization later than us. The Gilded Age very nearly saw revolution.
                    well, missed the boat in developing a real communist movement. note that communism only became fullblown in france, germany, and russia after years of war (well, france only after 1...go figure). even the Commune wasn't outright communism, although it was pretty close.

                    i don't think we were -that- close during the Gilded Age; even the riots of the 1890s (caused by a very severe depression) couldn't hold a candle to what europe was undergoing internally at the time. but it does show what happens when the gap between the rich and the poor increase.

                    in the US case, communism has never been a particularly popular ideology; when it comes to more extreme ideologies the US tends to swing towards anarchism and isolationist libertarianism.

                    The sad part is we hav entered another gilded age and there is going to be massive social unrest when the average citizen gets off the false flag issues and the public treasury supported payoffs collapse.

                    We are enterign a critical phase where high unemployment and dabt combine with low government approval and diminished hope combine to create a window for radical change. I hope constatutionalist win, thats the side I am on. But a reading of history shows the odds favor a more radical outcome. Only the US and England escaped the last time, I am not sure we will this time.
                    meh, i don't think that's going to happen. US structural debt is relatively simple (not easy...two different things) to solve. it doesn't require anything like the austerity which ireland or even the UK is currently undergoing...and neither of those countries seems to be on the verge of collapsing.

                    case in point, revert tax rates to clinton levels and immediately up the SS/medicare qualification dates ~4 years and age-index. reduce the benefits by about 10-15%.

                    boom- structural deficit solved and plenty of money left over for things such as corporate tax reduction, increased investment in S&T, etc. like i said, the overall solution is rather simple but the political will for doing so is nil. everything described by the debt commissions, etc are just methods to sugercoat these two unpalatable things.

                    and given the extent to which the US -can- borrow cheaply at virtually no cost, we don't even have to implement everything right away, ie we can space out/reduce the pain.

                    the only way i see what you envision happening is if there is a complete collapse in the global financial system COMBINED with a major war. ie if suddenly china, japan, india, and the EU collapsed tomorrow and we had a limited nuclear exchange with russia, then...maybe.
                    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      case in point, revert tax rates to clinton levels and immediately up the SS/medicare qualification dates ~4 years and age-index. reduce the benefits by about 10-15%.

                      boom- structural deficit solved and plenty of money left over for things such as corporate tax reduction, increased investment in S&T, etc. like i said, the overall solution is rather simple but the political will for doing so is nil. everything described by the debt commissions, etc are just methods to sugercoat these two unpalatable things.

                      and given the extent to which the US -can- borrow cheaply at virtually no cost, we don't even have to implement everything right away, ie we can space out/reduce the pain.

                      the only way i see what you envision happening is if there is a complete collapse in the global financial system COMBINED with a major war. ie if suddenly china, japan, india, and the EU collapsed tomorrow and we had a limited nuclear exchange with russia, then...maybe.
                      But...but...but....isn't that "turning back the clock?" Democrats always hollar about "turning back the clock" whenever a republican comes to power. As if he'll suddenly legalize slavery and take away women's right to vote. Democrats, on the other hand, always want to "turn back the clock" on tax issues. They want to "turn the clock back" to the 1950s and the 70% income tax for the rich if they could.

                      By the way, I agree with your solution to our debt problems. I don't mind taxes going up IF that money is used to pay down debt and we index social security and raise retirement age. People can still retire anytime they want. They just won't get social security money until later. Also, government workers' pensions should be moved from a defined benefit system to a defined contribution system like 401k.
                      Last edited by gunnut; 21 Dec 10,, 20:22.
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Gunnut,

                        Funny I am a Democrat and I don't feel that way.

                        And federal employees have a retirement system (FERS) which is a modest pension coupled with a 401k. The older system, CSRS, is for older retirees and are grandfathered in. FERS has been in place since 1 JAN 1987.

                        That said, I have no issue with going to a full 401k, but that would have to be for new hires. You can't ask people who signed on for public service to give up that kid of a benefit.
                        Last edited by Albany Rifles; 21 Dec 10,, 21:00.
                        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                        Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                          China went kommie because KMT was horribly corrupt and the peasants' lives weren't any better than under Qing. Mao sold his revolution on "hope and change."
                          lol, history repeats itself
                          "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                            Gunnut,

                            Funny I am a Democrat and I don't feel that way.

                            And federal employees have a retirement system (FERS) which is a modest pension coupled with a 401k. The older system, CSRS, is for older retirees and are grandfathered in. FERS has been in place since 1 JAN 1987.
                            You're an old-time democrat who is actually sane. The new democrats are insane envirowacko socialists who dominate the kommiefornia political scene. All the crazy ones are from here. Notice the nation moved forward by kicking out loons while kommiefornia democrats solidified power even more with a sweep of statewide elected offices and all the nutjobs retaining their seats in the congress.

                            I don't know how the federal pension system works. I hope it's nothing like kommiefornia pension system, CalPERS. Government workers here can retire at 50 with max pension. The amount is 3% per year of service, up to 80% (90% for cops and firefighters). 80% of what, you ask? 80% of final year's salary with overtime included (90% for cops and firefighters). There are stories of people trading hours to get more overtime. Why? Because the law says anything over 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week is overtime, and is double time (I think....private sector pays time and a half). Some have retired at 55 with more pension money than salary, and then get hired back as a "consultant" to work at their old jobs, collecting pension and salary for doing the same thing.

                            And you wonder why we have a $500 billion unfunded pension liability for the next 30 years.
                            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Gunnut,

                              I can assure you Jim Webb and John Warner don't fit the bill of what you mention...though I dare say you will find some here who would disagree with me.

                              Okay but be careful and make sure you are talking about the California Dems and not all, otherwise I will have to paint you as a fellow traveller of Roosie on the Road to Hyperbole!;)

                              As for FERS, read away!

                              FERS Annuity Supplement
                              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                              Mark Twain

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                                Gunnut,

                                I can assure you Jim Webb and John Warner don't fit the bill of what you mention...though I dare say you will find some here who would disagree with me.

                                Okay but be careful and make sure you are talking about the California Dems and not all, otherwise I will have to paint you as a fellow traveller of Roosie on the Road to Hyperbole!;)

                                As for FERS, read away!

                                FERS Annuity Supplement
                                I'm a registered democrat...

                                In kommiefornia...
                                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X