[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. - Page 133

geoschmo · #**1321** May 15th, 2003, 05:32 PM

Tbontob, there is no way to have a "theoretical communist" government. Marxism in practice will naturally flow towards either anarchy or Stalinism, because the theory of Marxism is inherantly flawed. It's flaw is that it fails to account for the fact that it must be administered by human beings, and human beings are inherantly flawed. We are greedy by our nature.

A system such as capitalism assumes this truth and uses the inherrant nature of the species as a check and balance agaisnt it's baser tendancies. Yes of course there are plenty of examples of corruption but they are the exception rather then the rule in a truely free capitlaist economy. They result from fallible humans attempting to control market forces, which goes against the capitalist principle, instead of "letting it be".

Geoschmo

Hunkpapa · #**1322** May 15th, 2003, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tbontob:
Even criminals deserve respect as people. What they have done is not to be condoned or accepted. And they need to pay the price. But they are still people.
[/QB]

(ducking)

I disagree to an extent, when you show you cannot live in harmony with the rest of society and obey their laws (habitual criminals) you become nothing more than an animal and should be treated as such.

I like the 3 strike law. Hey you screw up once it may have been a mistake, but you make the mistake 2 more times, it's over.

Death row should be empty.

Terrorists should be tortured for information (they are cowards and will sing like a jay-bird)and then killed.

I am tired of my tax money supporting criminals who have rights when they have no respect for mine.

(ducks some more)

Sorry had to vent, have strong feelings on this subject...I realize it is alittle off topic. But this posting keeps going off on tangents.

CEO TROLL · #**1323** May 15th, 2003, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Geo- yes, it is rampant consumerism that I object to...

YOU WILL BE ASSIMULATED. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

Aloofi · #**1324** May 15th, 2003, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Tbontob, there is no way to have a "theoretical communist" government. Marxism in practice will naturally flow towards either anarchy or Stalinism, because the theory of Marxism is inherantly flawed. It's flaw is that it fails to account for the fact that it must be administered by human beings, and human beings are inherantly flawed. We are greedy by our nature.

Yeah, I agree, communism is not the answer.
Maybe there is another way, but we don't know it yet.

Aloofi · #**1325** May 15th, 2003, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hunkpapa:

I disagree to an extent, when you show you cannot live in harmony with the rest of society and obey their laws (habitual criminals) you become nothing more than an animal and should be treated as such.

I like the 3 strike law. Hey you screw up once it may have been a mistake, but you make the mistake 2 more times, it's over.

.

I agree with you to some extent. Criminal behaivor should not be tolerated by any society, most because a criminal is stealing or killing his own poeple!!
He is not fighting defending his country, oh no, he is killing for money, the lowest of all excuses.
So yeah, I support the death penalty, as long as the crimminal have been proven guilty beyond doubt.

geoschmo · #**1326** May 15th, 2003, 05:54 PM

By Stalinism I don't mean strict idealogical Stalinism, but any sort of totalitarianism. Force and coersion of some kind is neccesary to maintain the system in spite of it's flaws. Those that believe in Marxism often dismiss the fact that every communist state in history has turned into a totalitarian regime and pine for true Marxism to be given "a fair try". But they are deluding themselves. It's not outside influences, but the inherant flaws in the communist theory that cause it.

tbontob · #**1327** May 15th, 2003, 06:11 PM

Geoschmo, I never said there was a way 'to have a "theoretical communist" government.'

Just as there is no way to have a "theoretical capitalist" government.

A much purer form of capitalism flourished a couple of centuries ago. Because of the abuses, the government had to step in and we have a...what would you call it? Socialized capitalism?

I am using a different term because our so-called "capitalism" of today is very different from the capitalism of two centuries ago. And calling them by the same name blurs the issues.

IMO, the inherent difficulty with communism (small c) is in its conflict to treat people the same and inability to effectively reward initiative. Fundamentally it has a problem of determining the mechanism by which the person is to be rewarded.

We use the market mechanism to reward people. And basically it is self-regulating. Create something people want and you will be rewarded. Create something people do not want, and not only will you not be rewarded, a lot of money will have been lost in the process.

IMO, Communism tried to avoid it because they perceived the market mechanism to be a characteristic of capitalism.

Our societies were flexible enough to move from pure capitalism towards communism, only we called it socialism.

Heaven forbid that we cannot admit that our society is a hybrid of capitalism and communism (small c). So, we invent the word socialism. That makes us feel more comfortable.

Now, just so you do not jump all over me, I am not implying the U.S. government is a socialist government. But the U.S. does have socialist programs, a lot of them.

Communism (large C) could have moved towards capitalism and we could have ended up having similiar societies. Maybe if they invented a word which would allow them to move towards capitalism without openly admitting it, they could have done so.

But I doubt it would have happened because Soviet Communism was a totalitarian regime and as power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Ruatha · #**1328** May 15th, 2003, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:

They result from fallible humans attempting to control market forces, which goes against the capitalist principle, instead of "letting it be". Geoschmo

There must be some control even in a capitalistic life-style.
The US has some of the strongest anti-trust laws in the world, atleast I think so (!)
We in europe are catching up but we don't have as much regulations concerning the cooperations yet as the US has.

(Edit:Tbontob beat me to it!)

[ May 15, 2003, 17:21: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Ruatha · #**1329** May 15th, 2003, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tbontob:

Communism (large C) could have moved towards capitalism and we could have ended up having similiar societies.

I belive that there is something like that occuring in vietnam today, it moves more and more towards an individual based society insted of a collective.
(And that is good, in my opinion)

The true greatness of western civilization is the emergance of human rights!

[ May 15, 2003, 17:21: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Narrew · #**1330** May 15th, 2003, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tbontob:
Now, just so you do not jump all over me, I am not implying the U.S. government is a socialist government. But the U.S. does have socialist programs, a lot of them.

Hey!!! Don't you go all aplogetic on us

I agree with you. Unless the general public wakes up (the people that dont vote because they think their vote don't count) we will become a socialist goverment. We have been going down that road for a long time. I am not saying anything against any Country that is Socialist, I just dont think it is the best for the U.S.

Another thing I see happening that way down the road, maybe 100 years from now, is that we "the people of earth" will become a blend of one nation where each country will be just a state within it. And I don't think the U.S. will be in the driver seat. Will that be good/bad I don't know. The only thing that I see that might change that is China. It will be very interesting how China reacts with the NK situation.