Communism

[Man Of Kent]

This is for xicoperez to educate us all a little more about communism.

Please be fair to him and his comments and can we try not to get into the "well Stalin killed millions" and "racist communists" argument because, as he says, these accusations can be levels against capitalism too.

We also have people starving, an elite etc.

So, xico, over to you. Can you answer the questions I posed in Lukesh's thread...?

[budda]

Communisum is a great idea, or at least would be if people werent lazy, greedy, and self centred.

And as for the 'communist' countries, they arent at all, you cant have a whole country being communist because you have to organise things like labour, trade, education, health etc.

[LabRat]

Communism is an idea of hierarchical omnipotent superstate driven to the point of absurdity. In theory Karl Marx said communist society will be stateless society. In practice he said it will be achieved through absolute dictatorship. It is the same as to say we are against death penalty but to achieve our goal everybody who is for must be hung. So nice ends stay on paper while mean means reign- as you know no one communist country was communist in the first meaning but all of them were communist in the second meaning.

[crossfire]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bongbudda
Communisum is a great idea, or at least would be if people werent lazy, greedy, and self centred.

How do you know what human nature is if you remove all adverts and new material objects that people get thrown at them from when their born.
[B]I dont know about you but sometimes i get a felling of friendship and want to help other people, if you could actually see results in society then why wouldn't you work hard for your comrades

[Will]

To acheive a true Communist society would be impossible, but you could get fairly close it, and this would require a truely dedicated and honest leader, which is very ahrd to come by indeed, as in this current capitalist (the worst possible society, imo) society they usually get either locked up or shoved to the side out of the public view, so no-one can suppiort them or even notice them.

Everybody is to centered around themselves these days. We should all work towards making the world a better place, and trying to make our own countries work rather than going to another country and telling them how to run their country when their country is in a state of near chaos. (Aimed at the American and British leadership here). And let's face it, the Middle East is never going to be fixed, as such.

Communism will work to a certain degree, though, with a good people's leader, and when its sticks to working for the people rather than for the leaders, and prosecuting anyone who so much as coughed in a certain way, like Stalin did. Lenin was good, though. Stalin was a blatant tosser, though, i mean he employed a peodophile... (Comrade Beria, for those of you who don't know). Communism does provide a far better life for the average person, though, when it is an honest regime, as if you all work for the good of a country, and pay is near enough standardised, there is plenty left over for reinvestment, and so public services improve, and Soviet Russia did have a fairly low organised crime rate (if you exclude Stalin and co.), and apparently Aeroflot was one of the safest airlines at the time, beating western airlines...

And Vodka is great...

[BlackArab]

FAO Jacqs

Do you blame Communism for the anti-semitism or the culture inherent in that society. The reason I ask is that as soon as the former Communist European states experienced a wave or racism and anti-semitism after the Wall came down.

In fact anti-semitism has existed under just about every political system I can think of.

[crossfire]

Stalinism is just a version of lenninism in you post, Will, you outlined that you thought it could work better if it was less authoratarian and more people working for people and anarchism. Lenninism is authoratarian.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by BlackArab
FAO Jacqs

Do you blame Communism for the anti-semitism or the culture inherent in that society. The reason I ask is that as soon as the former Communist European states experienced a wave or racism and anti-semitism after the Wall came down.

In fact anti-semitism has existed under just about every political system I can think of.

Don't think I implied that. At least it wasn't my intention. Merely pointing out that from personal account, I can say that communism is not equal for everyone and as peaceful as pointed out and made out to be.

[BlackArab]

OK Wasn't sure.

I do wonder if communism has ever been practiced in its purest sense. Always thought the early kibbutz system came close.

[morrocan roll]

the only way comunism can exist is when it is forced upon people. the only chance it has of working is when it is forced upon on people.
i wouldn't want to live under comunist rule. off to the gulag then ...for what ...disagreeing?
i wouldn't want all men to be equal simply becuase we aren't.
you cannot force people to be eqaul.

[crossfire]

Originally posted by BlackArab
OK Wasn't sure.

I do wonder if communism has ever been practiced in its purest sense. Always thought the early kibbutz system came close.

Teh paris commune and various stages in the spanish civil war i think.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by BlackArab
OK Wasn't sure.

I do wonder if communism has ever been practiced in its purest sense. Always thought the early kibbutz system came close.

That didn't last long either, did it ;)
Only thing which kibbutzes have produced, are traumas. Unless you're a volounteer and get exploited, and get tricked into believing that it's all wonderful.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by crossfire
Teh paris commune and various stages in the spanish civil war i think.

That'll be anarchism rather than communism I think.

[Braineater]

The Federation on Star Trek is the closest thing to a true Communist state that's ever been portrayed, also the "history" behind it is the kind of conditions that would allow communism to flourish.

[BlackArab]

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
That didn't last long either, did it ;)
Only thing which kibbutzes have produced, are traumas. Unless you're a volounteer and get exploited, and get tricked into believing that it's all wonderful.

Well you learn something new everyday. I'd always thought they were looked on with affection by those who knew them. What 'traumas' exactly?

[Dear Wendy]

My best friends mom only has horror stories.
Being placed in a kids-house from the age of 7 I think, living without the parents, is not nice.
Everyone knwowing everyone, and their buisness, making calculations on each others behalf is also not nice.
Having rations on "good" stuff as chocolate as a kid, where that was what they looked forward to the whole week in the kids-house, was also not something she looks back on with delight.

I don't believe that there is any Kibbutz in the country which has stayed with the original concept. Though most still want to get out of them.

[crossfire]

Originally posted by Blagsta
That'll be anarchism rather than communism I think.

I thought that the Paris commune was authoratarian communism? The spanish civil war was yes anarchists and i made a mistake, but that is why they lost key battle isn't it because they had no chain of command and could not make sensible strategic decisions with the system

[Blagsta]

To be honest, I'm not that up on the Paris Commune.
But the anarchists lost the Spanish civil war because the communists fucked them over.

[Aladdin]

True.

Have you read Homage to Catalonia Blagsta? Brilliant book!

[Blagsta]

Yeah, read it last year. Have you seen Ken Loach's film "Land and Freedom"? Thats about the Spanish revolution as well.

[Aladdin]

Yes I did. Lots of parallels with Orwell's book.

The disorganisation and infighting of the Republican government during the Civil War while the fascists got all the help the Nazi war machine could throw at them still pisses me off.

[xicoperez]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
This is for xicoperez to educate us all a little more about communism.

Please be fair to him and his comments and can we try not to get into the "well Stalin killed millions" and "racist communists" argument because, as he says, these accusations can be levels against capitalism too.

We also have people starving, an elite etc.

Oh! A thread all for me!

This is how I tried to explain that the Soviet Union was not communist (I am reposting it because, as Jim said, chances are people will miss the debate with it's current title and most likely some will not know what's going on (http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65720&perpage=40&pagenumber=2))

Originally posted by xicoperez
One day you decide to make a cake. You read you cookery book: Ingredients: eggs, flour, milk and sugar. But you use eggs, potatoes, olive oil and salt. And you tell everyone it is a cake...

Everyone believes you. Even chefs (historians). And they say that cakes should be sweet, and this one isn't. That shows that the theory will never work.

As I said, it gets boring when you have to explain the differences between a cake and a Spanish omelette...

P.S. Dear Moderators, I am very sorry for comparing Spanish omelettes with Stalinism. I'd understand being banned. I'm pretty sure Aladdín will ask you to do so.

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
So, xico, over to you. Can you answer the questions I posed in Lukesh's thread...?

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Certainly eggs get broken in each of the examples. But doesn't the fact that the populations of most "communist" countries have rejected the ideals eventually give you a clue about public feelings for this form of Govt?

It gives me a clue about public feelings for the form of Government they lived in, wich, as I said, was not communism.

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
And I think Jacq meant that people are greedy by their very nature.

People are greedy by nature. The hole point of communism (as explained by Bakunin (an anarquist, member of the 1st International)... as I was saying, the hole point is the balance in between our natural greed and our natural altruism.

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
That they want material goods, and communism doesn't offer that.

Communism does offer that. A real communist society would have an effective planned economy, not a represive end ineficient one like the Soviets. Work would be distrbuted equaly, and with the amount of manpower not used in capitalism we each could have not only the basic products but also the ones many call luxuries.

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Our understanding is that communism perports to be for the good of all, when most people are more worried about themselves. Therefore they will work harder, learn more etc just to get a bigger wage so that they can buy more. It's like an incentive scheme.

That is exactly why communism hasn't kicked in yet. We, as a hole, are still not ready... But that doesn't mean that we should stop trying...

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
One of the biggest problems faced by USSR was that worker didn't care about shoddy work because they were "guaranteed" a job and the same pay...

Emm... The U.S.S.R. was not communist.




Now with something completly different...

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Please be fair to him and his comments and can we try not to get into the "well Stalin killed millions" and "racist communists" argument because, as he says, these accusations can be levels against capitalism too. We also have people starving, an elite etc.

I never meant to say that as this capitalist society gets many people murdered every day and exploits racism and other separatist methods, those terms could not be used against communism.

Real communists are not racists, nationalists, sectarian, chauvinists... All men and women are equal. As the Communist anthem, The International, says there is only one race, the international race.

About the murders... "Well Stalin killed millions" he was not a Communist. There were deaths in every revolution, and there will be deaths in future revolutions. There were deaths in every counter-revolution, and there will be deaths in future counter-revolutions.

I hope that clarified something.

[xicoperez]

Originally posted by bongbudda
And as for the 'communist' countries, they arent at all, you cant have a whole country being communist because you have to organise things like labour, trade, education, health etc.

Well really it is the opposite. Another reason for stating that there are no communist countries is that while there are countries (frontiers) there can not be communism. As I said in another thread: I need every member of a community to be free so I can cultivate my gifts in all directions, that means that my freedom depends on my neighbour's freedom. (Understand neigbours and community as all human beings.)

Originally posted by LabRat
In theory Karl Marx said communist society will be stateless society. In practice he said it will be achieved through absolute dictatorship.

He said proletariat dictatorship also known as democracy.

Originally posted by LabRat
as you know no one communist country was communist in the first meaning but all of them were communist in the second meaning.

The second meaning is not communist. These misconceptions of communism are precisly the reasons why it will not work now. Because too many people think like you. Or more like it, not many think like me. Luckily many people don't think like you...

Originally posted by Will
To acheive a true Communist society would be impossible, but you could get fairly close it, and this would require a truely dedicated and honest leader.

Once you put a leader, it is not communism. Instead of eliminating classes you are re-classifying.

Originally posted by Will
And Vodka is great...

:yes:

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
Merely pointing out that from personal account, I can say that communism is not equal for everyone and as peaceful as pointed out and made out to be.

In theory, everyone is equal in communism. But it has never existed in practice. Your post would be correct like this: Merely pointing out that from personal account, I can say that Stalinism is not equal for everyone and as peaceful as pointed out and made out to be. In Stalinism is was as Orwell wrote:

Originally posted by George Orwell
All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.

Originally posted by morrocan roll
the only way comunism can exist is when it is forced upon people. the only chance it has of working is when it is forced upon on people.
i wouldn't want to live under comunist rule. off to the gulag then ...for what ...disagreeing?

That, again, is Stalinism. Not Communism. Communism is achieved one revolution at a time. And a revolution is democracy in it's pure form.

Originally posted by morrocan roll
i wouldn't want all men to be equal simply becuase we aren't.
you cannot force people to be eqaul.

I thought this point was pretty obvious, but it has been used in arguments so many times its frightning. Thinking that communists want everyone to dress the same, eat the same , listen to the same music, think the same, etc, is ridiculous.

[xicoperez]

Originally posted by crossfire
I thought that the Paris commune was authoratarian communism?

What is that?

Originally posted by crossfire
The spanish civil war was yes anarchists

Please explain...

Originally posted by crossfire
that is why they lost key battle isn't it because they had no chain of command and could not make sensible strategic decisions with the system

This too...

Originally posted by Blagsta
the anarchists lost the Spanish civil war because the communists fucked them over.

The Republicans lost the war because Stalinists, Trotskysts and Anarquists fought eachother.

The P.C.E. (Communist Party) "guerrillas" (supported by Stalinists) were killing the P.O.U.M. (Workers Party for the Marxist Unification) "guerrillas" (supported by Trotskysts) and viceversa. They were also killing and being killed by the the C.N.T. (National Confederation of Work) "guerrillas" (supported by Anarquists ("National", great name for an anraquist organization)). A part from the guerrillas there was the army, that was very badly supplied and trained. The Nationals had better training and supplies.

Originally posted by Aladdin
True.

:eek:

Originally posted by Blagsta
Thats about the Spanish revolution as well.

Spanish Civil War. It was a coup d'état. The nationals called it a patriotic movement. And as a Communist I'd call it a counter-revolution.

[Captain Slog]

Originally posted by Will
And Vodka is great... ...but Smirnoff still carries the Tsar´s coat of arms.

Originally posted by morroccan roll
the only way comunism can exist is when it is forced upon people. the only chance it has of working is when it is forced upon on people.
i wouldn't want to live under comunist rule. off to the gulag then ...for what ...disagreeing?
i wouldn't want all men to be equal simply becuase we aren't.
you cannot force people to be eqaul.
I agree. I wouldn´t want to be forced into communism, particularly if I was an aristocrat.

[Whowhere]

Human nature is capitalistic and territorial, communism goes against human nature.
Despite our good intentions we don't like to live equally. We thrive on competition as we have done for millenia.

[Renzo]

Originally posted by Whowhere
Human nature is capitalistic and territorial, communism goes against human nature.
Despite our good intentions we don't like to live equally. We thrive on competition as we have done for millenia.

So was human nature capitalistic before er...capitalism?

Unfortunatly I have to agree with someone who said it that humans are greedy by nature it seems, always wanting more :(

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
So was human nature capitalistic before er...capitalism?

Unfortunatly I have to agree with someone who said it that humans are greedy by nature it seems, always wanting more :(

There's nothing wrong with that.

[Aladdin]

Nothing wrong unless their greediness negatively affects others.

Which in the case of capiltalism, it's almost always the case.

[Renzo]

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
There's nothing wrong with that.

Theres nothing wrong with greed? Hmmm Well its your opinion i guess :p

[Dear Wendy]

Greed is a source of motivation.
Ig feeling the need to own or have something makes people get off their butt and work, then it can't be a bad thing.

Btw, people are more than welcome to check out my thread in the AG forum :(

[Aladdin]

I go to work every morning not out of greed, but out of necessity and an instinct of survival.

You don't need to be greedy to want to work and earn enough to eat. I manage just fine.

Greed is what prompts CEOs to award themselves obscene pay rises and bonuses even as the company records losses and blue collar workers have to be laid off. How on earth is that a good thing other than for the greedy scumbags happy to see people lose their jobs so they can earn even more ridiculous amounts of money?

Greed is what makes private companies that run public services (and this is just one instance) to cut corners and refuse to carry out maintenance work and upgrades unless it's absolutely necessary. And all because they want to maximise profits for themselves and the company’s shareholders. And if trains derail and are forever delayed, and if water pipes burst and billions of litres of water are lost because privatised water companies don't want to upgrade the network, and if customers are forever inconvenienced, offered a piss-poor service or even killed as a result of such negligence, well that's a small price to pay for the sacred right to make as much profit as possible, all in the name of greed and capitalism.

Yes, greed is such a wonderful thing...

[Renzo]

Originally posted by Aladdin


Greed is what prompts CEOs to award themselves obscene pay rises and bonuses even as the company records losses and blue collar workers have to be laid off. How on earth is that a good thing other than for the greedy scumbags happy to see people lose their jobs so they can earn even more ridiculous amounts of money?

Greed is what makes private companies that run public services (and this is just one instance) to cut corners and refuse to carry out maintenance work and upgrades unless it's absolutely necessary. And all because they want to maximise profits for themselves and the company’s shareholders. And if trains derail and are forever delayed, and if water pipes burst and billions of litres of water are lost because privatised water companies don't want to upgrade the network, and if customers are forever inconvenienced, offered a piss-poor service or even killed as a result of such negligence, well that's a small price to pay for the sacred right to make as much profit as possible, all in the name of greed and capitalism.

Yes, greed is such a wonderful thing...

I could not have said it better myself :thumb:

[Braineater]

Give people an equal but spartan start in life then pay them with standardised Labour credits based on what they do and how important it is to society. Those who work well, live well and can use their credits to buy the luxuries of life....those who don't work without reason have a very basic (but not poor) standard of life plus there can be a safety net for those who cannot work without reason.

No manipulation to ones own needs, and a motivation to work, plus the healthy production of consumer goods for people to spend their credits on which the Soviet Union did not focus on.

[Man Of Kent]

No disrespect Aladdin but that is a fairly simplistic response. In fact, to an extent, it shows another of the "deadly sins", envy.

Greed isn't just visible at the "top" echelons of business but in many others areas too. How many strikes have there been over the years for pay increases, for example. Don't youthink that a 30% wage hike requested by the fire unions last year was to make sure that they each had roofs and food or was there an element of greed.

We all want more than we have now, we all want to improve our lives there are very few people who just want to remain with the status quo...

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by xicoperez
Emm... The U.S.S.R. was not communist.

So is Cuba a better example?

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
No disrespect Aladdin but that is a fairly simplistic response. In fact, to an extent, it shows another of the "deadly sins", envy.

Greed isn't just visible at the "top" echelons of business but in many others areas too. How many strikes have there been over the years for pay increases, for example. Don't youthink that a 30% wage hike requested by the fire unions last year was to make sure that they each had roofs and food or was there an element of greed.

We all want more than we have now, we all want to improve our lives there are very few people who just want to remain with the status quo... Some people might act out of greed even at working class level- that is true. But not everyone does it, nor is greed the only driving factor for wanting a better life.

I've accepted a 0% pay rise when times have been bad. And I've been awarded generous pay rises in times when things have gone well, without requesting it. In either case greed paid no part. I believe it is possible to have a caring, even a capitalist society without the ugly and inhuman greed element, seen most actively during the Thatcher years and who prompts people to ask for unrealistic pay rises or to run their companies for the sole benefit of its shareholders and CEOs, even when the company itself is offering an essential public service to the public.

[Man Of Kent]

I think that the main difference is that the CEOs are in a position to award themselves the rise. The workers don't have that option.

And yes, there are many CEOs for whom the rise has been a little "excessive" shall we say.

[Dear Wendy]

How I see it?

I always want more. And I can watch poor kids, sick people, etc. yet it won't have an effect of what I want for myself.
Meaning that I can wish for everyone to lead a happy healthy life, and pay to charities or whatever, but others misfortune won't make me want to achieve less.

[Aladdin]

But do you acknowledge that greed is directly responsible for the misery of countless millions as described above (CEOs of failing companies awarding themselves big rises and bonuses, and private companies refusing to invest properly in public services to maximise profits)?

Those are but a couple of examples of why greed is reprehensible and undesirable.

[Dear Wendy]

It's like saying sex is wrong as it creates teen-moms and rapists.

Greed is natural. And no, it doesn't always show the good in people, but neither is it completely vile and the root to all missery.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Aladdin
But do you acknowledge that greed is directly responsible for the misery of countless millions

So is love.

In fact, more so...

[Aladdin]

I guess that's where we differ. I don't consider greed a natural human quality- some people have it but some people don't. Nor do I think greed is needed or wanted at any stage of a person's life.

It is possible to be ambitious without being greedy. Perhaps we just disagree in the exact term of the word. For me greed signifies an unnatural and selfish coveting of wealth, most often at the expense of someone else be directly or indirectly. An ugly word for a nasty quality.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
the root to all missery. thats usualy the lack of money.

[xicoperez]

No MoK, Cuba isn't a better example as Castro's system was based on Stalin and influenced by Kruschev. I'll say it another way. The Soviet Union, Cuba , China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and any other country that has claimed to be communist were not communist.

And the greed thing...

As I said before greed is natural. We can't state that any human instinct that we don't like is not a human instinct. The idea of being human is to have less instincts than the rest of the animals and control the few we have.

The basics of a good communist education is to teach people to find equilibrium between our natural greed and our natural altruism.

This is something capitalism doesn't do. It puts way too much enfasis on greed (and then calls it ambition, and then changes the real meaning of ambition). And when we talk about altruism we show how good and strange it is, and we must pay back to the altruists all the good they have done... wich is against the point of altruism and can turn this altruism into greed.

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
others misfortune won't make me want to achieve less.

Others misfortune will make me want to achieve more.

Originally posted by Aladdin
But do you acknowledge that greed is directly responsible for the misery of countless millions as described above.

Greed is not directly responsible. Capitalism is directly resposible.

[morrocan roll]

we are not greedy by nature. man is a social animal. it's more in mans instinct to give share and save. a man will give his own life to save a strangers.

[ladymuck]

Watched Big brother recently?

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by ladymuck
Watched Big brother recently? no thanks i have enough rubbish in my head thankyou.
i watched some of the first one ...i've watched bits of stuff about painting a wall or digging the garden ...what a pile o crap!
is this what the human condition has been reduced to?
are we devolving?
you do surprie me lady ...watching stuff like that.

[xicoperez]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
you do surprie me lady ...watching stuff like that.

I wasn't surprised...

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
we are not greedy by nature. man is a social animal. it's more in mans instinct to give share and save. a man will give his own life to save a strangers.
Survival of the fittest, would mean that there is competition and greed involved in getting the meat.

Social habits have come later.

[ladymuck]

I wasn't surprised

You should be surprised I watched Big brother , I watched last nights, as a one-off, for the much publicized violent scenes

That's a poor example of how society is but it's not so far off the mark as I've found ppl to be selfish, unprincipled and greedy

Witness UK's property pre-occupation, if you've ever tried buying/selling you'll see ppls greedy nature come shining through

A lot of the Left/Anarchos are probably middle-class kids who're going to cop their parents estate in years to come . They can be whatever they claim to be, knowing there's a big fat suburban house coming to them which they can rent or sell, they'll then be laughing

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by ladymuck
I watched last nights, as a one-off, for the much publicized violent scenes

Funnily enough I'm not surprised by that

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by ladymuck
You should be surprised I watched Big brother , I watched last nights, as a one-off, for the much publicized violent scenes

That's a poor example of how society is but it's not so far off the mark as I've found ppl to be selfish, unprincipled and greedy

Witness UK's property pre-occupation, if you've ever tried buying/selling you'll see ppls greedy nature come shining through

Its nigh on impossible to separate people's "natural" behaviour from the influence of the society around them, so your point is not worth discussing.

Originally posted by ladymuck
A lot of the Left/Anarchos are probably middle-class kids who're going to cop their parents estate in years to come . They can be whatever they claim to be, knowing there's a big fat suburban house coming to them which they can rent or sell, they'll then be laughing

LOL! :D
Yet again you show yourself up for the ignorant, patronsing clueless idiot that you are! :D

Keep 'em coming! :D

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
Survival of the fittest, would mean that there is competition and greed involved in getting the meat.

Social habits have come later.

Hmmmm...

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Yet again you show yourself up for the ignorant, patronsing clueless idiot that you are! :D

Again she has a point, although one based on a few example.

The person in the "House" who claimed to be an anarchist was public school educated. On her eviction she posed in the News Of The World in a catsuit.

Gotta love people with principles... :rolleyes:

[Blagsta]

From what I've heard (and I haven't watched the programme), the person who claimed to be an "anarchist" was a fucking idiot.
Most "proper" anarchists I know are working class through and through. SWP tend to be middle class student types though.

[LabRat]

Among few proper anarchists I know in real life the most proper one is me ( thanks, no applauds please). So I think proper anarchists tend to be middle-class students.

[ladymuck]

I was basing my opinions with usually Leftists i've encountered with unconvincingly gruff accents who come from comfortable backgrounds but sounding as plummy as they should do would lose them much kudos

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by LabRat
Among few proper anarchists I know in real life the most proper one is me ( thanks, no applauds please). So I think proper anarchists tend to be middle-class students.

You're not an anarchist. You're a free market libertarian.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by ladymuck
I was basing my opinions with usually Leftists i've encountered with unconvincingly gruff accents who come from comfortable backgrounds but sounding as plummy as they should do would lose them much kudos

Yes of course you were dear. :rolleyes:

[LabRat]

Originally posted by Blagsta
You're not an anarchist. You're a free market libertarian.
Well well you said this million times. The proper anarchists are guys wearing pink socks. If I like yellow socks I am not an anarchist at all. The fact I deny the State is irrelevant. Fuck all dictionaries, glossaries and encyclopaedias. Viva Brigade Rossa, Che Guevara, Bakunin and Chomsky. Bomb stupid capitalists and you’ll get complete happiness. Is Osama a proper anarchist from your point of view? He’s destroyed those bastions of exploitation!

[RiSe & ShIne]

Originally posted by LabRat
Well well you said this million times. The proper anarchists are guys wearing pink socks. If I like yellow socks I am not an anarchist at all. The fact I deny the State is irrelevant. Fuck all dictionaries, glossaries and encyclopaedias. Viva Brigade Rossa, Che Guevara, Bakunin and Chomsky. Bomb stupid capitalists and you’ll get complete happiness. Is Osama a proper anarchist from your point of view? He’s destroyed those bastions of exploitation!

I really don't know what the fuck you're on about, but (I think you were being sarcastic) don't ever bad mouth Noam Chomsky.

[Globe]

Originally posted by RiSe & ShIne
I really don't know what the fuck you're on about, but (I think you were being sarcastic) don't ever bad mouth Noam Chomsky.

Damn...

Noam Chomsky is every bit the joke that Che Guevara is...

Or is it the reverse? http://users.pandora.be/ramones/emoticon/scratch.gif

http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/images/smilies/lool.gif

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by Globe
Damn...

Noam Chomsky is every bit the joke that Che Guevara is...

Or is it the reverse? http://users.pandora.be/ramones/emoticon/scratch.gif

http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/images/smilies/lool.gif
Yes, dear. Shouldn't you be slobbering over the poor, deluded TrQ?

[LabRat]

Noam Chomsky is more communist than anarchist. Do you know he ( great super-educated professor, world-known theorist and who he bastard is…) ardently supported Khmer Rouge?
Guys like he do everything possible to destroy anarchist ideas in public opinion. I wouldn’t be surprised if he get some fair share of FBI budget…

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by RiSe & ShIne
I really don't know what the fuck you're on about, but (I think you were being sarcastic) don't ever bad mouth Noam Chomsky.

Craig, Noam Chomsky is apart from his lingual competences, not that great.

[RiSe & ShIne]

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
Craig, Noam Chomsky is apart from his lingual competences, not that great.

Yes he is Tal :(

[Globe]

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Yes, dear. Shouldn't you be slobbering over the poor, deluded TrQ?

Shouldn't you make the attempt to confront the appropriate issue, rather than the coward's stab in the back of one who is not a point of conversation, and has never BEEN to this place?

Or simply a demonstration of your definitive gutlessness?

Me thinks the latter...

[Rocksteady]

Lets get back to the original point. Basic economics illustrates communism does not work and I havent heard any reasonable argument or points that would make me question that fact. .

[Braineater]

Replace money with labour credits. Labour credits tariffs would be based upon the nature of the work a person does as well as it's relative importance to society. The price of goods will be based on how much effort has gone into it.

The fundamentals of economics shouldn't change really, people need luxuries and should have the opportunity to choose what they spend their credits on while the state is obliged to provide a minimum standard of living for all citizens.

The market cannot be manipulated to one person's favour while at the same time people enjoy the choices free-market capitalism gives us. Those who work well, live well, those who don't live a spartan exsistance, while at the same time a wide welfare net stops people slumping into poverty. Communism in action.

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by Globe
Shouldn't you make the attempt to confront the appropriate issue, rather than the coward's stab in the back of one who is not a point of conversation, and has never BEEN to this place? Ah, you mean like when you trashed TheSite's moderators (who have been very patient with you, MPS and all) on Mil.com?

The issue? Is 'Chomsky is every bit the joke that Che Guevara is?' or the reverse?

Does 2=2, or the reverse? Does that help?

[crossfire]

how is Che Guevara a joke?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by LabRat
Well well you said this million times. The proper anarchists are guys wearing pink socks. If I like yellow socks I am not an anarchist at all. The fact I deny the State is irrelevant. Fuck all dictionaries, glossaries and encyclopaedias. Viva Brigade Rossa, Che Guevara, Bakunin and Chomsky. Bomb stupid capitalists and you’ll get complete happiness. Is Osama a proper anarchist from your point of view? He’s destroyed those bastions of exploitation!

You know nothing about Bakuknin or Chomsky. If you did, you wouldn't call yourself an anarchist. Capitalism is not anarchism you fool. :rolleyes:

Oh and the fact that can even think this "Is Osama a proper anarchist from your point of view? He’s destroyed those bastions of exploitation!" shows how utterly misinformed you are about the whole concept of anarchism. Foolish boy.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by RiSe & ShIne
I really don't know what the fuck you're on about, but (I think you were being sarcastic) don't ever bad mouth Noam Chomsky.

He doesn't know what he's on about. Anyone who can equate free market capitalism with anarchism, when one of the basic tenets of anarchism is being against the private ownership of the means of production, (i.e. "property is theft"), is a tad silly, to say the least.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by LabRat
Noam Chomsky is more communist than anarchist. Do you know he ( great super-educated professor, world-known theorist and who he bastard is…) ardently supported Khmer Rouge?
Guys like he do everything possible to destroy anarchist ideas in public opinion. I wouldn’t be surprised if he get some fair share of FBI budget…

:rolleyes:

[Rocksteady]

How does the government know what luxuaries to produce for the people? The demand and supply mechanism is totally erridicated with communism. These work credits, why would they be any different to money? From what you said:

"would be based upon the nature of the work a person does as well as it's relative importance to society"

It sounds as though you get more credits in proportion to how hard you work. That is not marxist communism. How is that different to getting more money in proportion to how hard you work and how important you are in society?

Also does the state at present not provide a basic living net for its citizens ie the dole?

What if my father worked hard during his existence in order to provide me with a better standard of living, would all his assets be transfered to me to make me wealthy? If so that would create an inequality gap and if not what is the point of my father working hard in order to offer his children a better lifestyle?

[USA#1-TrQ]

Originally posted by Globe:
"Shouldn't you make the attempt to confront the appropriate issue, rather than the coward's stab in the back of one who is not a point of conversation, and has never BEEN to this place?"

Ohhhhh.....you mean who has never been to this place in the PAST.

Hey Globe, check out my spiffy new profile on these boards. ;)

Appears there are soooooo many erudite perspectives being expressed here. :D

[USA#1-TrQ]

So I can't tell from the first post what exactly the topic/question is. Seems Man of Kent refers to somebody else's thread. Is the question whether or not communism is a viable philosophy for government structure? :confused:

Also, good to see that mudslinging, personal insults, sarcasm, and evading issues is NOT just a Republican debate tactic, but is plentiful from all sides....American as well as European. Always good to know that we Americans are not the only ones wallowing in the mud. :rolleyes: ;)

[Braineater]

Originally posted by Rocksteady
How does the government know what luxuaries to produce for the people? The demand and supply mechanism is totally erridicated with communism. These work credits, why would they be any different to money? From what you said:

"would be based upon the nature of the work a person does as well as it's relative importance to society"

It sounds as though you get more credits in proportion to how hard you work. That is not marxist communism. How is that different to getting more money in proportion to how hard you work and how important you are in society?

Also does the state at present not provide a basic living net for its citizens ie the dole?

What if my father worked hard during his existence in order to provide me with a better standard of living, would all his assets be transfered to me to make me wealthy? If so that would create an inequality gap and if not what is the point of my father working hard in order to offer his children a better lifestyle?

One of the reasons communism failed was that they could not supply the populace with "luxury" goods because they concentrated on heavy industry. Any future communist state would have to address this to stop it happening again.

A doctor would get more credits per hour than a footballer. A roadcleaner would get more credits per hour than a shop assistant. A teacher would get around the same as a policeman etc. As it would be electronic, the government/some form of central bank controls the money but it doesn't "exist" so it's hard to hoard without earning it. Completely different to money. Everyone aspires to be more than they are, those who do will be rewarded.

Material goods bought with your fathers credits could be left in a will but there would be a limit on the amount of actual credits one person can pass down to another the rest "disappears".

People deserve better than what they do now. Pensions are drying up, the dole isn't a massive amount neither is disability. You wouldn't have to worry about paying taxes because the government generates the money, everyone would have a right to the essentials of life (home, food etc.). There would be little poverty compared to now. The only inequality would be between those who contribute most to society and those who contribute least, which isn't the case today.

All a pipe dream though, all a pipe dream. I've been watching too much Trek. :)

[USA#1-TrQ]

Actually, look at principles of operant conditioning as outlined by B.F. Skinner. The take home message from his rat studies is that rats work harder at lever pressing in order to gain reward, and their performance grinds to a halt when they are denied their reward.

Same thing applies to humans. We are, after all, animals. ;) Of course, those studies launched an entire field of psychological intervention that relied upon those principles.

Problem with Communism is that it denies the basic way in which we operate. You work for money, yet, it goes into a collective pot. That creates discontent and slowed responding, potentially, which will result in problems down the road for the society.

While I do NOT agree with the Capitalistic extremism espoused by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged, I DO believe that her basic obsevation that "altruism" is also a selfish act. It is selfish in that it makes the person feel good about their contribution. The problem with Communism is that it is FORCED altruism. Kind of hard for it to be rewarding when it is NOT under one's voluntary control.

That might explain why current Communist nations often are not "purely" Communist. Case in point. Vietnam. Because a pure Communist nation will fail because it denies our inate tendency to work for self-gratification.

[Whowhere]

Christ, and American from mil.com with an ability to debate.

[USA#1-TrQ]

Thanks,

Lots of Mil.com people have the ability to debate. They are just often active or retired military personnel, and enjoy a good round of punching the hell out of others. I think it is a military thing, which is all fine and good to me.

I'm a civilian. So my perspective is a bit different. Plus that, even over there, I tend to refrain from personal attacks. Not my style, although I've slipped on a few occasions when people were making outrageously ludicrous statements, such as "All vets are baby killers."

However, believe it or not, some of the bigger hard azzes on Mil.com people have a pensive side as well ....:eek: :crazyeyes :)

PS. Are we allowed to curse on this side or do we have to use modified cursing like "azzhole?" :confused:

[Whowhere]

you can curse but not too much and not by calling people a twat all the time.

We've found the soldiers and ex-soldiers are a little too up Bush's arse for our liking. They spout out the same rhetoric in every argument, and they ALWAYS cut and paste. None of them to ever come here has ever been able to debate in any way.

Anyway, welcome to thesite. A little corner of Britain on the web :p

[Aladdin]

Yes, luckily you can use swear words almost as much as you like USA#1-TrQ- when they're used for fortifying an statement as opposed to making personal attacks on other posters.

Fuck, shit, bullshit, bollocks... the only swear word filtered out is the lovely 'c' word but there is a way round that as well...
:)

As for mil.com, whenever I log on to check what kind of obscenities are being suggested there I must say I never fail to be shocked and disgusted by some of the things being said that- not by everybody, but by a sizeable majority of posters there. That’s why I choose not to post there…

[USA#1-TrQ]

Thanks again for the welcome.

Actually, I have a moderately liberal bent and because I'm not uncritical of the Bush administration, I have periodic disagreements with Mil.com members myself. In fact, I was just recently embroiled in a debate about the merits of Federal intervention in order to curb the profit-making frenzies of companies in order to protect the rights of workers. I was called a Socialist for my efforts. However, in spite of the comment, the truth is that I am highly in favor of Capitalism, if not in a pure form.

However, it would be inaccurate to assume that the members of that site are unread. If you've ever perused some of BlueSpaderRaakasan's (sp?) posts, or AscendingDragon's posts, you will quickly realize that they are incredibly learned on many military history topics. Also, although I tend to have fundamental disagreements on philosophical issues with the Army forums moderator, Greenhat (who is a Special Forces retired soldier), I can't deny that he is smart guy. He has a Master's degree in history. When he comes out of his role as moderator, and out of his contentious, hard ass role as the "enforcer" of order on the boards, I found that he is INCREDIBLY well versed on the subject of our Constituition as well as military history. I tend to agree with him on issues regarding women in the military as well as on points concerning the Vietnam War.

As for a poster here on your forums? Globe? He is a personal friend of mine. He has some extreme views, to say the least, however, I know him well, and his knowledge exceeds what may be the assumption on these boards. And to be honest? His creative writing ability is as good, and even surpasses, many people who I know who have been published on a consistent basis in non-internet life. His perspective is based a lot in his own military experiences, and that experience should not be discounted as a source of information. Same can be said, in my opinion, of other combat veterans and their personal experiences. Granted, I don't think that their opinions are the ONLY thing to be considered. But working with veterans in the past has at least made me have some respect for the incredible discipline that is required in ground combat, and a level of sacrifice that is pretty much unfathomable to civilians.

As for Mil.com? Ex-military and current military, just like to fight. Oh well... to each their own. I don't hold it against them....plus that, I guess I must kind of enjoy arguing myself or I would not be there. ;) :D :D :D

[USA#1-TrQ]

By the way, Globe is less of a Bushbot, and more of an Anti-Kerry, Anti-Blowjob Clinton ranter (the blowjob reference is the pet name that Globe has ascribed to Clinton). I think it is fair to say that it is more about trying to prevent Kerry from getting into office than to worship at Bush's alter for Globe. Am I right Globe, or am I misrepresenting your views?

[Jim V]

Welcome to the boards, always nice to see a new face - probably best to join the debate here rather than focusing on whose over on mil.com though. After all whoever anyone is there doesn't matter here.

[Clandestine]

Your defence of Globe, a natural tendency on behalf of one's friends for sure, is admirable perhaps, yet he has not once demonstrated anything remotely akin to the sort of intellectual honesty you credit him with.

Instead we have repeatedly been treated to his own brand the very fort of rabid right wing ideological solipsisms one could just as easily hear spewed out by the likes of Hannity, O'Reilly and Coulter (replete with such laughable indictments as "traitor", "UnAmerican", or his all time favorite (when regularly evading any substantive review of the Bush admin's routine abuses of office or their glaring duplicities) "collaborator".

Rather difficult to find any shred of legitimacy to his attacks and rants when he prefers to champion to militant demagoguery rather than political accountability.

[USA#1-TrQ]

Jim V,

Point taken. Just wanted to say that I'm talking about Mil.com because I've had several people bring up the topic to me first on this thread and on another thread as well. In fact, one of your members was discussing me here on this thread, although I'd never heard of this site. It was that comment that brought me here from Mil.com to begin with.

But again, point taken. :)

Clandestine,

Ask Globe, he will tell you that he and I don't always agree on issues. He tells me that he sees things in black and white, and I tend to see issues in "shades of grey." However, in general, I know him better than anyone on this board, and thus, have formed my opinions about what he is capable of intellectually as well as creatively.

[Clandestine]

And again, i dont deny that you know much about him that we dont. We can but assess him on the basis of his presentation of himself on these boards and quite frankly, im sure many (though not all) here would agree that he has yet to demonstrate any intellectual honesty in his rants.

As for my asking him anything, I gave up bothering long ago for lack of legitimate issue oriented response.

[Jim V]

You want to talk about communism feel free to do it in this thread, but come on, keep it on topic and feel free to use PM's if you want to chat with each other about mutual friends / enemies

[Clandestine]

Sorry, mea culpa!

[Globe]

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
In fact, one of your members was discussing me here on this thread, although I'd never heard of this site. It was that comment that brought me here from Mil.com to begin with.

One of the differences between TheSite and military.com... Over there, to attack a real world friend/significant other/family member (not involved in the discussion at hand) would bring an instant termination of posting privileges, while here, it is SOP... as long as you include in your every post the secret handshake passwords... like Bush-bot or neo-con...:rolleyes:

And be forewarned... REGARDLESS of your own dislike for GWB, even YOU will be refered to as a "Bush-bot neo-con"... unless you become a card carrying member of the Hate America First Club...

As for the clandestine-collaborator... it prefers to pigeon-hole me as a ignernt jarhaid android, because then it might dismiss EVERYTHING without consideration of perspective, much less feel compelled to address issues.

This you will experience first hand, when it is YOU who are dismissed so easily because you do not toe the requisite ideological line... (H.A.F.C.)

And? Bleeding heart liberal which I know you to be... you will be aligned on the same side of the fence with us "reprobate" "extremist" military veterans, because you will not join in on the gratuitous attacks...

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by Rocksteady
How does the government know what luxuaries to produce for the people? The demand and supply mechanism is totally erridicated with communism. These work credits, why would they be any different to money? From what you said:

"would be based upon the nature of the work a person does as well as it's relative importance to society"

It sounds as though you get more credits in proportion to how hard you work. That is not marxist communism. How is that different to getting more money in proportion to how hard you work and how important you are in society? Way, way back when I started using the 'net, and frequented an anarchist/society usenet posting board, I had occasion to read some of the theories of Peter Kropotkin. He was against the notion of 'labour tokens' (http://www.zabalaza.net/texts/txt_pks_ac_jb.htm#abolish), and I could see his point. It's all very idealist, of course, but there's nothing wrong with having ideals...

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
Originally posted by Globe:
"Shouldn't you make the attempt to confront the appropriate issue, rather than the coward's stab in the back of one who is not a point of conversation, and has never BEEN to this place?"

Ohhhhh.....you mean who has never been to this place in the PAST.

Hey Globe, check out my spiffy new profile on these boards. ;)

Appears there are soooooo many erudite perspectives being expressed here. :D Welcome to TheSite, TrQ :)

Now, behave baby... :D
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/6172/photos/austin09.jpg
(or the red 'x' will get you... (damn :( ))

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
Actually, look at principles of operant conditioning as outlined by B.F. Skinner. The take home message from his rat studies is that rats work harder at lever pressing in order to gain reward, and their performance grinds to a halt when they are denied their reward.

Same thing applies to humans. We are, after all, animals. ;) Of course, those studies launched an entire field of psychological intervention that relied upon those principles.Eek, tell me I'm not looking at the business end of a 'Humans are/aren't animals' debate :eek:

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
Problem with Communism is that it denies the basic way in which we operate. You work for money, yet, it goes into a collective pot.Define 'work' and 'money'. Still, at least we agree that Rand is a pillock. There's common ground :) Myself, I got over the fact that there's a selfish component to altruism a long time ago. But... how can you have 'FORCED altruism'? Might be a clever phrase, but still an oxymoron.

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by Jim V
Welcome to the boards, always nice to see a new face - probably best to join the debate here rather than focusing on whose over on mil.com though. After all whoever anyone is there doesn't matter here. Hear, hear! If I were to start on the deficiencies of that place, tempting though it be, I'd be here all day :)

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by Globe
One of the differences between TheSite and military.com... Over there, to attack a real world friend/significant other/family member (not involved in the discussion at hand) would bring an instant termination of posting privileges, while here, it is SOP... as long as you include in your every post the secret handshake passwords... like Bush-bot or neo-con...:rolleyes: Yeah, that why, when Michituck said he's had my mother, his privileges were immediately suspended... wait, that didn't happen, even though when someone said the same thing to Bunkerhill, he threw a major hissy fit, and the guy did get a ban... Hypocrisy and Mil.com... bullet and cartridge.

And don't forget the password 'Nazi'. As in 'Nazis would dehumanise their victims as a precursor to killing them, because they wouldn't be killing people then'. Something to remember next time you feel minded to refer to the 'Clinton-collaborator' as 'it'.

Have a great day!

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
Actually, look at principles of operant conditioning as outlined by B.F. Skinner. The take home message from his rat studies is that rats work harder at lever pressing in order to gain reward, and their performance grinds to a halt when they are denied their reward.

Oh dear, is someone endorsing behaviourism as a way of understanding humans?
Not a very credible theory I'm afraid. You seem to be 50 years behind the rest of pyschological theory there.

Try again.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Eek, tell me I'm not looking at the business end of a 'Humans are/aren't animals' debate :eek:

We are animals. But behaviorism is not a good way of describing how animals behave, not the higher primates anyway.

[Globe]

Originally posted by Blagsta
You seem to be 50 years behind the rest of pyschological theory there.

Try again.

You are going to educate her on psychology?

ROTFLMMFAO! :lol:

[Globe]

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Yeah, that why, when Michituck said ...

We are discussing TrQ, perhaps one of the least offensive posters ever at mil.com...

And she attacked you... when?

We are discussing YOUR definitive lack of moral ethic, in attacking her, to get at me. You may obfuscate all you wish, but the issue remains... YOU, and YOUR hypocrisy.

You constantly suggest that the US should be held to a higher moral standard than its enemies, and shout your HAFC rhetoric when it does not to YOUR self-possessed satisfaction, but demonstrate YOUR hypocrisy on a personal basis.

Jim V has stated that what takes place at mil.com should STAY in that place. What is of concern is what happens in THIS place...

And in THIS place? YOUR hypocrisy is prima facie.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Globe
You are going to educate her on psychology?

ROTFLMMFAO! :lol:

Yep. Anyone who still regards behaviourism as a good way of explaining human behaviour is a fool.

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by Globe
We are discussing TrQ, perhaps one of the least offensive posters ever at mil.com...
I can see that...

Originally posted by Thanatos
When she first came to military.com about 1.5 years ago, in the "women in military" forum, discussing the time worn "women in combat" issue, TrQ was an immediate irritation, for me. Back and forth it bounced, and she took more abuse from me for the first year of her existence here than I have given to ANY troll. Let us simply say that I was well within my "inimitable form"... :eek:And she attacked you... when?

Y'all come back now, and tell me some more about hypocrisy... ;)

[USA#1-TrQ]

Blagsta,

I'll respond to you later in more depth, since I'm busy right now. Your opinions about behaviorism show a severe lack of understanding about psychology TODAY, given that behavioral principles underly almost every effective treatment for psychological disorders today, except perhaps pharmacotherapy (psychiatric medicine).

One more thing before I go out to eat. There are a list of what are called "empirically validated" treatments for psychological disorders that are listed by the APA (American Psychological Association). This means that they are a preponderance of scientific evidence that supports that they are effective for reducing the symptoms associated with the disorder. Ex: Cognitive-BEHAVIORAL treatment for depression, Exposure therapy for PTSD (A behaviorally oriented treatment), exposure therapy for Panic Disorder and simple phobias, and the list goes on and on. Many of these are based on Classical Conditioning, which is different than Operant conditioning. However, operant conditioning is used extensively for treating child behavior disorders and problems associated with developmental disabilities in severely impaired kids. Most treatments for autistic children today are based on operant conditioning principles.

Ok. I gotta go. Be back later.

[Blagsta]

Depends on what you choose to believe and what works for you I guess. I have a problem with behavourism 'cos it seems to discount the reality of people's inner mental states.
But I have to admit its been a while since I studied psychology. But I have some knowledge of counselling techniques, and I base my opinions on that.

[LabRat]

The main problem with Communism is that it is a self-destructive form of social order. Ludwig von Mises proved this almost 100 years ago. Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains Mises’s theorem in these words:
The idea of socialist economy is contradictio in abjesto, and the claim that socialism represents a higher, more efficient mode of social production is absurd. In order to reach one’s own ends efficiently and without waste within the framework of an exchange economy based on division of labour, it is necessary that one engage in monetary calculation ( cost-accounting). Everywhere outside the system of a primitive self-sufficient single household economy, monetary calculation is the sole tool of rational and efficient action. Only by being able to compare inputs and outputs arithmetically in terms of a common medium of exchange (money) can a person determine whether his actions are successful or not. In distinct contrast, socialism means to have no economy, no economising at all, because under these conditions monetary calculation and cost-accounting is impossible by definition. If no private property in the factors of production exist, then no prices for any production factors exist; hence, it is impossible to determine whether or not they are employed economically. Accordingly, socialism is not a higher mode of production but rather economic chaos and regression to primitivism.
History gives excellent examples of this truth. The most socialist economies, i.e. countries with the highest level of socialisation of means of production were Lenin’s Russia, Mao’s China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia. You all know the consequences of their policy.
Communism being a system where socialisation of means of production is absolute would be absolute disaster, poverty and starvation. The end of humankind. Fortunately Communism is impossible.

[Blagsta]

meh

[LabRat]

Originally posted by Blagsta
meh
An excellent comment. I abmire Blagsta's logics and this intelligent way he exspresses his thoughts .

[USA#1-TrQ]

Originally posted by Blasta:
"Depends on what you choose to believe and what works for you I guess."

Well, personally? I tend to put most of my belief in types of therapy that have evidence behind them and have been demonstrated to be effective across clinical trials for a number of years. Case in point, Beck's cognitive-behavioral therapy for Major Depression.

Originally posted by Blagsta:
"I have a problem with behavourism 'cos it seems to discount the reality of people's inner mental states."

The issue of Skinner's views on internal states is much to in-depth of an issue to address via these forums, both philosophically as well as empirically. Actually, Skinner never did discount internal states, which he considered to be covert/behavior (simply a difference in semantics, but still the same thing----that is, thought, emotions and other internal states). But basically, he did not ascribe them causal status. Other modern behavioral people like Staats have embraced the concept of internal states in a less qualified way.

And very clearly cognitive-behavioral therapists embrace the concept of internal states since they work on changing BOTH behavior (via behavioral techniques based on classical and operant principles) AND thought (which is clearly an internal state).

Originally posted by Blagsta:
"But I have to admit its been a while since I studied psychology. But I have some knowledge of counselling techniques, and I base my opinions on that."

I understand this. Each person chooses what they feel works best for them personally. For me? I utilize what has empirical evidence behind it. And I would suggest, from my own personal perspective, that anyone who wants "state of the art" in psychology may want to do a "consumer's report" type investigation of what has been shown to work as opposed to the approaches that have NOT been put to the test of scientific scrutiny. That "consumer's report" investigation should start with what is recommended by the American Psychological Association (that is, those techniques mentioned on the list of empirically validated treatments, MANY of which include behavioral and/or cognitive behavioral therapies). In fact, the list of empirically validated treatments is probably disproportiantely composed of cognitive-behavioral and medicine-oriented treatments as opposed to types of treatments that are PURELY based on exploring one's internal states, such as psychoanalystic approaches- although a selected few of these have some evidence- and Humanistic approaches. Psychodanalytic therapies and Humanistic therapies, do not nearly have as much scientific evidence behind them.)

Ok...I think I've made my point in response to the comment regarding Behaviorism and it invalidity, unless anyone has more questions on the topic. In other word, behaviorism is critical to Modern psychology and is the foundation for many of the most scientifically based treatments available for a wide array of porblems today. But maybe further discussion of psychology should be another thread.

So back to the topic of Communism. :) :D

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by LabRat
An excellent comment. I abmire Blagsta's logics and this intelligent way he exspresses his thoughts .

Who rattled your cage?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by LabRat
The main problem with Communism is that it is a self-destructive form of social order. Ludwig von Mises proved this almost 100 years ago. Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains Mises’s theorem in these words:
The idea of socialist economy is contradictio in abjesto, and the claim that socialism represents a higher, more efficient mode of social production is absurd. In order to reach one’s own ends efficiently and without waste within the framework of an exchange economy based on division of labour, it is necessary that one engage in monetary calculation ( cost-accounting). Everywhere outside the system of a primitive self-sufficient single household economy, monetary calculation is the sole tool of rational and efficient action. Only by being able to compare inputs and outputs arithmetically in terms of a common medium of exchange (money) can a person determine whether his actions are successful or not. In distinct contrast, socialism means to have no economy, no economising at all, because under these conditions monetary calculation and cost-accounting is impossible by definition. If no private property in the factors of production exist, then no prices for any production factors exist; hence, it is impossible to determine whether or not they are employed economically. Accordingly, socialism is not a higher mode of production but rather economic chaos and regression to primitivism.
History gives excellent examples of this truth. The most socialist economies, i.e. countries with the highest level of socialisation of means of production were Lenin’s Russia, Mao’s China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia. You all know the consequences of their policy.
Communism being a system where socialisation of means of production is absolute would be absolute disaster, poverty and starvation. The end of humankind. Fortunately Communism is impossible.

I love the way that all of your politics are from obscure dead people that no one's ever heard of. Brilliant.

[USA#1-TrQ]

Originally posted by Labrat:
"History gives excellent examples of this truth. The most socialist economies, i.e. countries with the highest level of socialisation of means of production were Lenin’s Russia, Mao’s China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia. You all know the consequences of their policy."

I can't say that I agree on all of the points made in your prior post, but I certainly do think that many examples of Communism have indeed fared poorly. Pol Pot and old Russia, being prime examples. And actually, if you think about it, Vietnam's more prosperous cities have a grain of Capitalism in them. Ho Chi Minh City (i.e., Old Saigon) has been allowed to have Capitalistic elements in order to maintain it's financial benefits. Funny how allowance of self-interest has the collateral effect of creating collective wealth, while government controlled money (as in Cold War Russia) produced poverty.

Again, people work for rewards (having money and being able to dispense of it at will), and they work to avoid punishments. When you are denied the full fruits of your labor? That is not going to produce a high level of motivation nor job satisfaction.

Bottom line. We are selfish and work for self-gratification and there is NOTHING wrong with taking that position. From an evolutionary standpoint, it helps the species survive to be self-interested to some level.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
Again, people work for rewards (having money and being able to dispense of it at will), and they work to avoid punishments.

This is my objection to the pure behavourist view of psychology. Its far too simplistic a view.
People have many different motivations for doing things, some conscious, some unconscious, some good, some bad. People are complex ambivalent creatures.
To put the massive variety of human behaviour down to simple reward/punishment is really really daft.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
Bottom line. We are selfish and work for self-gratification and there is NOTHING wrong with taking that position. From an evolutionary standpoint, it helps the species survive to be self-interested to some level.

This is also not true. We are capable of co-operation, altruism and mutual interest. People do it all the time. Society would fall apart without it.

[USA#1-TrQ]

Originally posted by Blagsta:
"This is my objection to the pure behavourist view of psychology. Its far too simplistic a view."

My comment:
Behaviorism seems simplistic to you because
1) I doubt that you understand the theory in enough depth to see the intricacies involved, as evidenced by your assertion that behaviorists deny the existence of internal states.
2) I have boiled the ideas involved down to basic points in order to avoid giving everbody a massively long dissertation on behavioral theory.

Originally posted by Blagsta:
"People have many different motivations for doing things, some conscious, some unconscious, some good, some bad. People are complex ambivalent creatures."

My comments:
I can agree with this statement about ambivalence, at least.

Originally posted by Blagsta:
"To put the massive variety of human behaviour down to simple reward/punishment is really really daft."

My comments:
And this is because I doubt that you've ever sat down and thought about exactly HOW it is that humans learn about anything from a micro perspective.

Let me ask....Do you use an umbrella in the rain Blagsta? If you do, guess what? That is an example of negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is the termination of an aversive stimulus. In that respect, it is a reinforcing (rewarding) behavior. You pop open the umbrella, and suddenly you are rewarded with terminating the rain that soaks you head to toe. The result is that you will consistently use an umbrella to keep dry (increased responding, that is).

You have sex... What for? Physical pleasure... a positive reinforcer. In other words, you receive a reward (as opposed to take away a negative, as is the case with negative reinforcement). You will continue to engage in sexual activity in order to gain the reward.

Babies are shaped via rewards to learn language. Mom laughs and smiles and pets and hugs the baby who gets closer and closer to pronouncing a word correctly. The receipt of such rewards of course, interacts with physical changes that are "hard-wired" into the baby's brain as the child matures. Babies that are severely sensory deprived and receive no rewards may not learn language, despite the "hard-wired" aspect of their genetics. That is, nature (genetics) interacts with nurture (that is, the system of rewards that help us to learn new sets of behaviors).

I could go on and on, and analyze the time that you wake up in the morning until the time you go to bed at night, and point out a chain of responses that are occurring because they have been rewarded in the past.

These principles are the root of MUCH of human learning. And you would deny that they play a LARGE role in human behavior?

No, it is not "ALL" about rewards/punishments; however, a HUGE amount of our behavior is based on some simple principles.

[USA#1-TrQ]

And here you make my point again....

"We are capable of co-operation, altruism and mutual interest. People do it all the time. Society would fall apart without it."


Yes, but why are we altruistic? As I said, because it produces a "reward." That is, we feel good about ourselves and feel we are being good citizens. That is a reward.

However, if you take the choice away from a person, and force them to be charitable, then for some people it becomes much less "rewarding" and more of a punishment.

And also, you make my point when you say that people are cooperative and altruistic in order to prevent society from falling apart. Again, there is a REASON for those behaviors that have a root in self-interest. That is, citizens are alruistic for a purpose, which is the self-interested survival of their fellow citizens. After all? You are gonna die if your whole society is killed off. Thus, cooperation and altruism are still not purely charitable. They STILL have an element of self-interest.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
My comments:
And this is because I doubt that you've ever sat down and thought about exactly HOW it is that humans learn about anything from a micro perspective.

Let me ask....Do you use an umbrella in the rain Blagsta? If you do, guess what? That is an example of negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is the termination of an aversive stimulus. In that respect, it is a reinforcing (rewarding) behavior. You pop open the umbrella, and suddenly you are rewarded with terminating the rain that soaks you head to toe. The result is that you will consistently use an umbrella to keep dry (increased responding, that is).

You have sex... What for? Physical pleasure... a positive reinforcer. In other words, you receive a reward (as opposed to take away a negative, as is the case with negative reinforcement). You will continue to engage in sexual activity in order to gain the reward.

Babies are shaped via rewards to learn language. Mom laughs and smiles and pets and hugs the baby who gets closer and closer to pronouncing a word correctly. The receipt of such rewards of course, interacts with physical changes that are "hard-wired" into the baby's brain as the child matures. Babies that are severely sensory deprived and receive no rewards may not learn language, despite the "hard-wired" aspect of their genetics. That is, nature (genetics) interacts with nurture (that is, the system of rewards that help us to learn new sets of behaviors).

I could go on and on, and analyze the time that you wake up in the morning until the time you go to bed at night, and point out a chain of responses that are occurring because they have been rewarded in the past.

These principles are the root of MUCH of human learning. And you would deny that they play a LARGE role in human behavior?

No, it is not "ALL" about rewards/punishments; however, a HUGE amount of our behavior is based on some simple principles.

Simplistic rubbish. I do know a little bit about human behaviour. Both from my own observations and from my profession. And simple reward/punishment doesn't work when trying to change or influence behaviour. If it did, the prison system would work, it would be easy to get people off drugs etc. Its not, its hard.

Its a typical right wing view though, assuming people have simple motivations. They don't.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
And here you make my point again....

"We are capable of co-operation, altruism and mutual interest. People do it all the time. Society would fall apart without it."


Yes, but why are we altruistic? As I said, because it produces a "reward." That is, we feel good about ourselves and feel we are being good citizens. That is a reward.

However, if you take the choice away from a person, and force them to be charitable, then for some people it becomes much less "rewarding" and more of a punishment.

And also, you make my point when you say that people are cooperative and altruistic in order to prevent society from falling apart. Again, there is a REASON for those behaviors that have a root in self-interest. That is, citizens are alruistic for a purpose, which is the self-interested survival of their fellow citizens. After all? You are gonna die if your whole society is killed off. Thus, cooperation and altruism are still not purely charitable. They STILL have an element of self-interest.

Again waaaay too simplistic. Hopefully you'll learn about people at some point, not just parrot stuff out of books.

[USA#1-TrQ]

Blagsta,

Your profession?

If it has anything to do with psychology you may want to attempt to update your knowledge with regards to the topic.

As far as simplicity goes, as I said, there is neither time nor space to devote to trying to explain behavioral theory or its associated animal study findings, or the applications that are now being used with humans, which are based partly on those findings.

Your terse accusations that it is "too simple" basically suggests that you can't address the topic in any more than cursory terms because you don't have an in-depth enough understanding to do so.

That is not unusual for most people, by the way, since they've not studied the issue in depth.

[Braineater]

Without co-operation and primitive social welfare, humanity wouldn't have flourished the way it has. Communist and Socialist ideals have had more impact on humanity's social development than anything else. If it wasn't for Marx, Owen and other forward thinkers we would still be eating mud and slave to a Lord.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
Blagsta,

Your profession?

If it has anything to do with psychology you may want to attempt to update your knowledge with regards to the topic.

As far as simplicity goes, as I said, there is neither time nor space to devote to trying to explain behavioral theory or its associated animal study findings, or the applications that are now being used with humans, which are based partly on those findings.

Your terse accusations that it is "too simple" basically suggests that you can't address the topic in any more than cursory terms because you don't have an in-depth enough understanding to do so.

That is not unusual for most people, by the way, since they've not studied the issue in depth.

I work with ex-offenders and recovering drug users. If people responded to simple reward/punishment, my job would be easy. It ain't.

[Globe]

Originally posted by Blagsta
I work with ex-offenders and recovering drug users. If people responded to simple reward/punishment, my job would be easy. It ain't.

And you have a Master's Degree, or PhD in psychology?

As a senior NCO, with the responsibility of leading a company of Marines, in the midst of a war... I had to have a fair working knowledge of "psychology"... And as a "salesman", I use it on a daily basis, professionally.

However...

I am no more likely to argue psychology with TrQ, than she is to argue infantry tactics, with me. ;)

Be careful what you beg for... you might just possibly get more than you think... :lol:

[USA#1-TrQ]

"And simple reward/punishment doesn't work when trying to change or influence behaviour."

Ever heard of cognitive behavioral therapy for substance abuse?

Granted, we still need better models, since relapse rates continue to be rather high....a problem of the drug itself as having a short-term reward (getting high) versus the long-term goal of sobriety.

"Its a typical right wing view though, assuming people have simple motivations. They don't."

This is pretty amusing. I'm getting called a right winger. Hey Globe, Al would be proud.

Hi Globe....;) Now, checking out to make my run to the store for chocolate....for some of our favorities. I"m gonna get cream centers, if they have them! :p

[Blagsta]

Hmmmm...maybe I'm out of my depth. But reward/punishment as I understand it isn't often the best way to get people to change behaviour. Otherwise my clients wouldn't keep going back to prison.

[Uncle Joe]

Annnnd while the North Wind huffs and puffs to no avail, the Sun extracts a concession... I love it when fables come to life :D

Country Tales (http://www.fables.org.uk/tnwats.htm)

[USA#1-TrQ]

Uncle Joe....so who is the North Wind here?

[USA#1-TrQ]

Originally posted by Blagsta:
"Hmmmm...maybe I'm out of my depth. But reward/punishment as I understand it isn't often the best way to get people to change behaviour. Otherwise my clients wouldn't keep going back to prison."



I'm not saying you don't have a knowledge base for your opinions, however, here are mine:

Yes, relapse rates are high, as you said. One issue here is that it is a lot easier to temporarily run from your problems via the use of substances to get high (negative reinforcment---to terminate an aversive stimulus) than to suffer through the moment of distress long enough to avoid the temptation of the bottle or the rock of cocaine.

Rock of cocaine = immediate gratification (negative reinforcement)

versus suffer through distress = immediate punisher for putting the rock of cocaine down and not using it.

Another behavioral principle is that given a choice, animals will work (that is, they will respond) in order to get IMMEDIATE reinforcement (like taking the drug for immediate termination of problems) in preference for getting delayed reinforcment (that is, suffering through distress in order to avoid getting put in jail and living a "clean/sober" life over the long term).

In other words, the great allure of drugs is that it is an IMMEDIATE reward, and although it has long-term negative repercussions, the addict will still have a knee-jerk response to grope for the "quick fix", the "silver bullet" etc. instead of toughing it out for delayed gratification, such as holding down a good job, avoiding jail, in the far, far future.

So that is why relapse rates, partially are so high. Basically, you are trying to train people NOT to reward themselves in the short term with drugs. After all, the "quick fix" (drugs) allow them to put their problems on the back burner for a short time during the "high."

This does not even begin to address the issue of classical conditioning. How many of your substance abusers tend to report to you that they "get a tingling feeling of excitement" when they see a marijuana bong, or when they hear the "pop" of a fresh beer being opened? Immediately, they start to feel an urge to drink or use weed, and even report that their mouths water to taste the beer. Sound familiar? What are all of those responses based on Blagsta? They are based on the principles of Classical Conditioning, as in Pavlov's dogs. Behavioral Principles, yet again.

When you work with a variety of problems Blagsta, are you not helping them to "modify their behavior?" You may not be consciously planning it, but in reality? That is exactly what you are doing...basically, deprogramming them via changing their behavioral patterns. Have you ever suggested to them to avoid bars and other places? Well, that is a behavioral intervention. You are having them put physical distance between themselves and the "trigger", such as the beer, which is likely to produce a chain of behaviors that have been "rewarded" with beer in the past.

Behavioral principles are not only used to "fix" problems, but they are also the source of DIFFICULTIES with helping then to overcome problems. Your intervention to help them is basically pitted against the natural physical, and powerful short-term reward of drugs. Thus, your battle will be an uphill one, at best.

Ya see? :D

[Clandestine]

much less feel compelled to address issues.

ROFLMAO! If you ever indeed care to exhibit any such capacity rather than the patently rabid ideological soundbites you post and the other hatefilled monikers which comprise the remainder of your routine contributions, we might actually get somewhere.

A search of the history of both our posts will quickly reveal how utterly evasive you are to all who put you to the question in the face of repeated evidence of the duplicity of those you so rabidly defend.

Good ol Thanny, a hack to the bitter end! :lol:

[USA#1-TrQ]

a hack?

Is that addressing a topic, or is it an attempt to shut another down via verbal force? :confused:

[USA#1-TrQ]

P.S. Blagsta, yeah, I know you job is NOT easy. Seriously....I have a perspective on that.

[Clandestine]

Thats a bit disingenuous to level at me when you can easily do a forum search comparing both our posts. The term rightly characterises the typical nature of any post Thanny has ever made to any who provide too much evidentiary support exposing his intellectual dishonesty and purely ideologically driven diatribes.

Fact is, you will find any post of Thanny's which might be credited as "substantive" to be few and far between (disounting lengthy cut and pastes with nothing more than the patented smug quip to cap it off).

What you WILL find are numerous threads in which the duck and cover tactic was employed or which were turned into personal attacks in face of legitimate attempts to actually engage him in any issue-oriented examination.

As you can see as well, he repeatedly slags off this site as being some cabal of ideological collusion whilst claiming mil.com is an open forum of intellectual debate. A brief examination of any assortment of threads from the Hot Topics forum will show how clearly it remains a bastion of self congratulatory flaming and ideological dismissal of "issue oriented discussion".

As for my post above, well I just had to laugh at such a flagrantly hypocritical comment as that cited from Thanny earlier in this thread.

[USA#1-TrQ]

I don't think Mil.com is filled with paragons of virtue, but then neither are these forums. There are people who debate well, and those who don't. And most of us debate some topics better than others because of what we know (or don't know) on the topic, because none of us can be an expert on every topic under the sun. That is the case everywhere on the internet.

P.S. I've seen Globe's prior posts on this forum. And some are better than others in terms of content, as is the case with all of us.

I can already see that there is a lot of rhetoric being bandied about these forums and accusations of being "too right" oriented.

Mil.com is not the only place that brushes with broad strokes. Mil.com just happens to be brushing with strokes toward the right, while it is more left oriented on this site. Without a conservative view on these forums, there is too much homogeniety, which makes for boring debate.

The saying at Mil.com is something like, "Our liberals are a bit chewed on as chew toys go, and thus, are an endangered species, but they are valued because they are so rare."

Seems like a similar sentiment might be expressed here regarding conservatives. Mighty boring if everyone sits around and agrees with each other I would think.

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
Uncle Joe....so who is the North Wind here? Well, you don't have to stray far from your own neigbourhood to spot the blowhard ;)

Oh, and I see you've met Clandestine... :)

[Clandestine]

True Conservatives have the intellectual capacity to focus on the issues and to admit when they were wrong or misled, USA. Ideologues such as Thanny do not represent what has long been the Conservative tradition in America. Thus when confronted with the fragility and double standards of their claims they fall back to the safe haven of character slurs.

Go ask Max Cleland or John McCain how intellectually honest Thanny's brand of "conservative" truly is.

[Jim V]

And if you did want to ask Max Cleland or John McCain how intellectually honest Thanny's brand of "conservative" truly is you could even do it in a PM so that this thread stays on topic. ;)

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
Originally posted by Blagsta:
"Hmmmm...maybe I'm out of my depth. But reward/punishment as I understand it isn't often the best way to get people to change behaviour. Otherwise my clients wouldn't keep going back to prison."



I'm not saying you don't have a knowledge base for your opinions, however, here are mine:

Yes, relapse rates are high, as you said. One issue here is that it is a lot easier to temporarily run from your problems via the use of substances to get high (negative reinforcment---to terminate an aversive stimulus) than to suffer through the moment of distress long enough to avoid the temptation of the bottle or the rock of cocaine.

Rock of cocaine = immediate gratification (negative reinforcement)

versus suffer through distress = immediate punisher for putting the rock of cocaine down and not using it.

Another behavioral principle is that given a choice, animals will work (that is, they will respond) in order to get IMMEDIATE reinforcement (like taking the drug for immediate termination of problems) in preference for getting delayed reinforcment (that is, suffering through distress in order to avoid getting put in jail and living a "clean/sober" life over the long term).

In other words, the great allure of drugs is that it is an IMMEDIATE reward, and although it has long-term negative repercussions, the addict will still have a knee-jerk response to grope for the "quick fix", the "silver bullet" etc. instead of toughing it out for delayed gratification, such as holding down a good job, avoiding jail, in the far, far future.

So that is why relapse rates, partially are so high. Basically, you are trying to train people NOT to reward themselves in the short term with drugs. After all, the "quick fix" (drugs) allow them to put their problems on the back burner for a short time during the "high."

This does not even begin to address the issue of classical conditioning. How many of your substance abusers tend to report to you that they "get a tingling feeling of excitement" when they see a marijuana bong, or when they hear the "pop" of a fresh beer being opened? Immediately, they start to feel an urge to drink or use weed, and even report that their mouths water to taste the beer. Sound familiar? What are all of those responses based on Blagsta? They are based on the principles of Classical Conditioning, as in Pavlov's dogs. Behavioral Principles, yet again.

When you work with a variety of problems Blagsta, are you not helping them to "modify their behavior?" You may not be consciously planning it, but in reality? That is exactly what you are doing...basically, deprogramming them via changing their behavioral patterns. Have you ever suggested to them to avoid bars and other places? Well, that is a behavioral intervention. You are having them put physical distance between themselves and the "trigger", such as the beer, which is likely to produce a chain of behaviors that have been "rewarded" with beer in the past.

Behavioral principles are not only used to "fix" problems, but they are also the source of DIFFICULTIES with helping then to overcome problems. Your intervention to help them is basically pitted against the natural physical, and powerful short-term reward of drugs. Thus, your battle will be an uphill one, at best.

Ya see? :D

I do see what you're saying, and yes, there is truth in it.
But for people with huge habits or other problems, it is not as simple as that. The majority (although not all) of people with drug problems have a long history of abuse. Their self esteem is in their boots. Quite often people turn to drugs and drink to avoid and suppress feelings that they can't handle or because its all they know, all they've seen from childhood. This can require intensive psychotherapeutic group work etc, techniques which (afaik) are not based on behavourism.
I do bow to your obvious superior knowledge of psychology, and yes, we are in the behaviour change business. But sometimes we have to look further than mere behaviour and get to the roots of why people are behaving in self-destructive and/or dependent ways. Once these things are dealt with and recognised and people learn to likethemselves as they are, then the business of behaviour change (using techniques like CBT and MI etc) can start.

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Well, you don't have to stray far from your own neigbourhood to spot the blowhard ;)OK, looking back, that still seems a little ambiguous... I meant Thanny, all right?!?

[USA#1-TrQ]

Uncle Joe....

Do you debate or do you just follow people around and make disparaging comments about them, such as Globe?

Btw, I don't appreciate your pot shots now, and I certainly don't appreciate that email that you sent to me regarding Thanatos being a "troll" on Mil.com. :rolleyes: Very childish, particularly given that I did not even know of your existence until you posted your comment on this thread, and then followed it up via the Mil.com email system.

[Uncle Joe]

Truck...

Don't have to follow Globe around, he comes here.

And what 'troll' email is that? Coulda give me the full quote? Getting a habit with people now, all these vague references to my wondrous waxings. Shit or get off the pot.

[USA#1-TrQ]

Uncle Joe:

I would not typically post somebody's email, but since you specifically asked me to do so, here is your quote.


Hi!

Originally posted by TrQ (on Mil.com):
'Hey Fate, did you know that I've been referred to as "delusional" because of this thread on another site by a member who tends to frequent Mil.com as well as the other place? Hehehehe.... '

Uncle Joe's response:

"I calls 'em as I sees 'em, Sweets. Thanny's not _my_ idea of a 'blond haired, blue eyed god'... 'Malodorous, web footed troll'? I would _never_ say that... :D"


Note: Here is the link to where the above comment was posted on Mil.com:

http://forums.military.com/1/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=78919038&f=409192893&m=764101191&r=425109012#425109012


Now can we return to the topic as suggested by Jim V and stop talking about Thanatos and Globe?
:rolleyes:

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
Now can we return to the topic as suggested by Jim V and stop talking about Thanatos and Globe?
:rolleyes: Sure, as long as we've established the fact that I don't feel as if I need to be defensive about what I send by PM, or email, or a weird combination of the two. If I could have posted it on that thread, I would have. I only use the 'Email me' option to remind people that I'm still around, and not the ogre over-sensitive Milods would suggest (compared to rightwing luvvies like Torn Ligaments). I just don't show a lot of respect to people who piss all over serious debate, irrespective of their profession.

As to the topic, fascinating as I find it, comparing the merits of communism and capitalism leads one, sooner or later to conclude that the optimum system will draw on facets of both. Even so, plenty of people will still be unhappy. It seems that any kind of welfare is too much for some capitalists, and I'm sure the competition of the arms race hacked off plenty of communists.

I would like to think, certainly, that Thomas Jefferson and his buddies were not simply motivated by self interest when they drew up the document whose signing is being celebrated in two days time.

[USA#1-TrQ]

Originally posted by Uncle Joe:
"As to the topic, fascinating as I find it, comparing the merits of communism and capitalism leads one, sooner or later to conclude that the optimum system will draw on facets of both."

Well, happy day! Looks like we almost (although not quite) agree on something here. Unlike you, however, I would not say that drawing on pure Communism is something that we, in the USA, should be striving to do. However, what I do think is that there is no such thing as a "pure" Democracy or a "pure" Communistic society. Today, even Vietnam has free market elements in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon before it fell in the 70's to the Communist NVA). Just as the USA has Socialist elements in that some services are more federally regulated and/or comes out of our taxes for the "common welfare of others (e.g., mail service, water, natural gas, social security disability, etc.)

Originally posted by Uncle Joe:
"I would like to think, certainly, that Thomas Jefferson and his buddies were not simply motivated by self interest when they drew up the document whose signing is being celebrated in two days time."

Actually, I do think they were self interested. But here's the way I look at it....being interested in others IS STILL SELF-INTEREST. Why? Because we are not islands unto ourselves, and we are dependent partially on the surival of our peers in order to ourselves survive. We are social creatures. So, we want our own to survive, because it means that we, as individuals, will also survive. :)

[xicoperez]

Wow... "my" thread has grown. And is slightly off topic. But well...

Oh, a new yanker that likes jogging, mmm... How you doin'? Ages please, we need some backround here....

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
Originally posted by Uncle Joe:
"As to the topic, fascinating as I find it, comparing the merits of communism and capitalism leads one, sooner or later to conclude that the optimum system will draw on facets of both."

Well, happy day! Looks like we almost (although not quite) agree on something here. Unlike you, however, I would not say that drawing on pure Communism is something that we, in the USA, should be striving to do. However, what I do think is that there is no such thing as a "pure" Democracy or a "pure" Communistic society. Today, even Vietnam has free market elements in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon before it fell in the 70's to the Communist NVA).And, indeed, in Chile and Nicaragua, you had Communist regimes being voted into power... although the CIA have done their best to stamp out that sort of nonsense.

Of course, 'pure Communism' is not something the USA strives for. That concept was always built up by western media as something to be opposed, and a very lucrative business it was for some people, like Kissinger. A good thing that 'militant Islam' has been stoked up as a replacement in the oil-rich middle east, even if the course of cheap oil doesn't always run smooth (apparently, that pipeline is failing a host of safety checks and shaping up to be an environmental disaster whether it breaks or not, but that's capitalism for you).

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ