Political Crossfire Forums

[anselfir]

Eternal wrote: oneofthem wrote: even if it works, what relevance does that have when discussing communism as a general governing philosophy?
the only relevance i see is the concession of irrelevance.

So it can work and therefore it's irrelevant? Me thinks it's your Ritalin time mate. The presumption of the original post was that Communism has been proven to not work. The fact of the matter is that it does work in the right context. Like all political ideologies that have there place, its the context that matters.


Cheers, Eternal hush
it can work in an irrelevant scenario, rendering it a failure due to the narrowness of this scenario.

practically any political system will work under certain conditions, teh generality of the "it will work sometime" criteria in determining success renders it irrelevant.

what does this mean?
this means taht a more meaningful evaluator would be over how broad a range the system works. the more relevant scenarios are not that many. a developed country, a developing country.

but small, isolated communities are associated with low development rate due to low rate of technological advancement, with the narrowness of communism's (assumed" working range, it cna be said that the detriments fo the scenario is the detriment of communism. that is, if communism does not cause backwardness, the scenario under which i twill function is backwardness.

now take that retalin and shove it.

[anselfir]

A.D wrote: oneofthem wrote: meh, commies

ownership by a group requires cooperation to teh degree of a common aim. the aim of Bob is the betterment of Bob, same thign with Rob. the myriad of conflict of interests destroys the basis of cooperation, and therefore destroys the effectiveness of group ownership. State ownership then must be the substitute, since private ownership is the more grevious of alternatives. so enough with teh "i favor proletariat ownership, but not state ownership" crap, the former is not possible, so can it. so communism wil never happen unless there is a fundamental change in human nature. various people have tried to force people into communism, but none succeeded. you argue that the product they created is not communism, but what other products have they created? Can i claim that i was not building a house if i failed to build it?

btw, who said the communist states are not results of communism? communism is the justification and the condition for the establishment of the regime and its centralisation.

If any of you had any conception of history at all, you'd know that Lenin and Trotsky both openly referred to the Soviet System as 'State Capitalism', due to the fact that the means of production ere owned privately by the state. Lenin and Trotsky et al. would not have been so bold as to go against the grain of Marxist thought (of which they based their own ideas) by implementing communism in a developing nation. They were waiting for the German revolt to reaffirm their position, but that never happened, and Stalinism was the result.

hmm...
who are the real communists then?

your answer to the analogy is flawed. you did not set out to builda boat, the boat is a failed house. now the house can be declared to be anything, the produt is real.

[Kindred]

oneofthem wrote: A.D wrote: oneofthem wrote: meh, commies

ownership by a group requires cooperation to teh degree of a common aim. the aim of Bob is the betterment of Bob, same thign with Rob. the myriad of conflict of interests destroys the basis of cooperation, and therefore destroys the effectiveness of group ownership. State ownership then must be the substitute, since private ownership is the more grevious of alternatives. so enough with teh "i favor proletariat ownership, but not state ownership" crap, the former is not possible, so can it. so communism wil never happen unless there is a fundamental change in human nature. various people have tried to force people into communism, but none succeeded. you argue that the product they created is not communism, but what other products have they created? Can i claim that i was not building a house if i failed to build it?

btw, who said the communist states are not results of communism? communism is the justification and the condition for the establishment of the regime and its centralisation.

If any of you had any conception of history at all, you'd know that Lenin and Trotsky both openly referred to the Soviet System as 'State Capitalism', due to the fact that the means of production ere owned privately by the state. Lenin and Trotsky et al. would not have been so bold as to go against the grain of Marxist thought (of which they based their own ideas) by implementing communism in a developing nation. They were waiting for the German revolt to reaffirm their position, but that never happened, and Stalinism was the result.

hmm...
who are the real communists then?

your answer to the analogy is flawed. you did not set out to builda boat, the boat is a failed house. now the house can be declared to be anything, the produt is real.

Lenin and Trotsky, I would regard, as true communists, that's why they did not try to establish communism in an environment contrary to the way the dialect would describe it. To do so would go against a central tenet of Marx’s writing, which would in its self deviate from the purpose.

So, as you can see, your analogy was flawed due to your misunderstanding/ignorance of the writings of the people you were trying to vilify/undermine. I simply entertained your analogy to highlight how wrong you were and I maintain that if someone attempt to build a house, and ends up with a boat, the object in front of them is a boat. But even taking the concession that it is in fact a failed house, your point does still fail quite spectacularly.

A potential X, lets call it Y, is not Y by virtue of the fact it tried to be so. It is what it is, which is a Y, not an X. If during the process of formation the Y, in attempting to become X in fact becomes Z, it quite clearly remains not to be X. If I set out to become a lawyer and end up a social worker, I am not a failed Lawyer, because I never got into that profession so how could I have failed at it? I’m a social worker.

[Eternal]

oneofthem wrote: hush
it can work in an irrelevant scenario, rendering it a failure due to the narrowness of this scenario.

practically any political system will work under certain conditions, teh generality of the "it will work sometime" criteria in determining success renders it irrelevant.

what does this mean?
this means taht a more meaningful evaluator would be over how broad a range the system works. the more relevant scenarios are not that many. a developed country, a developing country.

but small, isolated communities are associated with low development rate due to low rate of technological advancement, with the narrowness of communism's (assumed" working range, it cna be said that the detriments fo the scenario is the detriment of communism. that is, if communism does not cause backwardness, the scenario under which i twill function is backwardness.

now take that retalin and shove it.

Systems of governence evolved based on need. When early man roamed the plains those clans that could co-operate and put the needs of the group before the individual thrived. This was the case for Aboriginal Australians, whose primary form of governence before European arrival was essentially a form of communism.

However as populations grew across the globe communal based governence no longer became practical, and new forms of governence were required. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to people and resource management, one size fits all doesn't work.

Successful smaller countries such as Sweden tend towards mixed models of management such as a combination between socialism and capitalism. Successful larger countries such as the US tend more towards capitalism.

Even within a democratic society the democratic model isn't always used. A good example of this is the military, which I think we would all agree would fail if it adopted democracy on the battlefield.

Capitalism and democracy work fine on a large and diverse population of people. But for small groups trying to survive, pitting one person against the other would be one sure way to guarantee the groups failure.


Cheers, Eternal

PS: Here's your Ritalin back. You may want to wash it before you use it though. :lol:

[anselfir]

Eternal wrote: oneofthem wrote: hush
it can work in an irrelevant scenario, rendering it a failure due to the narrowness of this scenario.

practically any political system will work under certain conditions, teh generality of the "it will work sometime" criteria in determining success renders it irrelevant.

what does this mean?
this means taht a more meaningful evaluator would be over how broad a range the system works. the more relevant scenarios are not that many. a developed country, a developing country.

but small, isolated communities are associated with low development rate due to low rate of technological advancement, with the narrowness of communism's (assumed" working range, it cna be said that the detriments fo the scenario is the detriment of communism. that is, if communism does not cause backwardness, the scenario under which i twill function is backwardness.

now take that retalin and shove it.

Systems of governence evolved based on need. When early man roamed the plains those clans that could co-operate and put the needs of the group before the individual thrived. This was the case for Aboriginal Australians, whose primary form of governence before European arrival was essentially a form of communism.

However as populations grew across the globe communal based governence no longer became practical, and new forms of governence were required. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to people and resource management, one size fits all doesn't work.

Successful smaller countries such as Sweden tend towards mixed models of management such as a combination between socialism and capitalism. Successful larger countries such as the US tend more towards capitalism.

Even within a democratic society the democratic model isn't always used. A good example of this is the military, which I think we would all agree would fail if it adopted democracy on the battlefield.

Capitalism and democracy work fine on a large and diverse population of people. But for small groups trying to survive, pitting one person against the other would be one sure way to guarantee the groups failure.

PS: Here's your Ritalin back. You may want to wash it before you use it though. :lol: meh, you should use it. how communism can work in a small community is irrelevant. the relevant point is the sacrifice of relevancy for viability caused by this argument. now you cannot escape the sacrifice by cutting the nonviable range off and calling it somethign else.

say, jimmy here is trying to build a car out ofclay. he claim that a car of clay will run, and defend his positino by claiming that since a car of clay has never been built, (only model cars have been made from clay) that portion of history (the failed exercises in building a clay car) is nto indicative of the failure of the clay car.
since everything must be built, the building process is integral to the product. if there is no viable building process, then the product is irrelevant.

systems do not progress toward efficiency by trial and error, which si the mechanism of evolutoin. there are differing sects within each country, and the resulting balance is manifested in a system. historical experience is drawn upon, but each side tend to have its own history. but stop this tangent already.

and no
capitalism does not exclude mutual assistance. the difference is that the assistance ina capitalist country or community is private.

[anselfir]

A.D wrote: oneofthem wrote: A.D wrote: oneofthem wrote: meh, commies

ownership by a group requires cooperation to teh degree of a common aim. the aim of Bob is the betterment of Bob, same thign with Rob. the myriad of conflict of interests destroys the basis of cooperation, and therefore destroys the effectiveness of group ownership. State ownership then must be the substitute, since private ownership is the more grevious of alternatives. so enough with teh "i favor proletariat ownership, but not state ownership" crap, the former is not possible, so can it. so communism wil never happen unless there is a fundamental change in human nature. various people have tried to force people into communism, but none succeeded. you argue that the product they created is not communism, but what other products have they created? Can i claim that i was not building a house if i failed to build it?

btw, who said the communist states are not results of communism? communism is the justification and the condition for the establishment of the regime and its centralisation.

If any of you had any conception of history at all, you'd know that Lenin and Trotsky both openly referred to the Soviet System as 'State Capitalism', due to the fact that the means of production ere owned privately by the state. Lenin and Trotsky et al. would not have been so bold as to go against the grain of Marxist thought (of which they based their own ideas) by implementing communism in a developing nation. They were waiting for the German revolt to reaffirm their position, but that never happened, and Stalinism was the result.

hmm...
who are the real communists then?

your answer to the analogy is flawed. you did not set out to builda boat, the boat is a failed house. now the house can be declared to be anything, the produt is real.

Lenin and Trotsky, I would regard, as true communists, that's why they did not try to establish communism in an environment contrary to the way the dialect would describe it. To do so would go against a central tenet of Marx’s writing, which would in its self deviate from the purpose.

So, as you can see, your analogy was flawed due to your misunderstanding/ignorance of the writings of the people you were trying to vilify/undermine. I simply entertained your analogy to highlight how wrong you were and I maintain that if someone attempt to build a house, and ends up with a boat, the object in front of them is a boat. But even taking the concession that it is in fact a failed house, your point does still fail quite spectacularly.

A potential X, lets call it Y, is not Y by virtue of the fact it tried to be so. It is what it is, which is a Y, not an X. If during the process of formation the Y, in attempting to become X in fact becomes Z, it quite clearly remains not to be X. If I set out to become a lawyer and end up a social worker, I am not a failed Lawyer, because I never got into that profession so how could I have failed at it? I’m a social worker.
my analogy was only addressing the claim that the failure of communist governments that are not called communist by communists is irrelevant in the evaluaton of communism. it of course is incomplete in addressing the whole scope of the problem, but that was never its intention.

you have already acknowledged that there existed no environment for the existence of a communist state, and that this environment muts first be achieved. the building of this environment then is integral to communism, for without it communism is irrelevant due to its impracticality. now the failure of building this environment is the failure of communism.

see a sick person wiht a failing heart. does it matter if the brain is healthy? the "functioning unit" is the person, and the evaluation of that unit cannot be reduced to the evaluation of a particular part.

the choice before the communist is irrelevance or defeat, he must have one or the other.

btw, commies worship marx like a god.

[Kindred]

First of all, it is openly acknowledged in many communist and Marxist intellectual circles that capitalism is the impetus behind communism, including its associated development. Capitalism is the precondition, which was thought to bring about a stable, communist society; it was the law of history according to Marx’s dialect, he, of course, was quite spectacularly wrong in this case.

Secondly, I will point out, however, that Soviet Russia experienced quite pronounced development under all ruling classes past 1917 (October to be precise). People often compare Russian development with American development as a means of comparing effectiveness of the two systems-communism and capitalism-with particular reference to development and growth.

This comparison is seen across the board in academic circles; however it is a child like comparison with no substance whatsoever. Russia and America have not been similar for over 600 years, since pre-Columbus days, in fact probably much longer assuming they have ever been comparable. Furthermore Russia experienced great losses in two world wars, a civil war in 1918, and a popular and ruling class lead revolution in 1917 (the Feb and Oct revolutions). Putting that aside, what one should focus on is comparing Russia from 1917 to 1990 with a comparable nations, a nation that was similar at the beginning stages of revolutionary Russian history.

For example take Brazil, a nation which should be rich. It is rich in labour, rich in natural resources, geographically well positioned, has open and clear ports for the most part. Well, it embraced a system different to Russia between 1917 and 1990, and look at its development. About 80% of the population live in poverty comparable to Central Africa, it has been robbed by free enterprise (only recently has it moved away from this and the benefits are beginning to be shown).
Brazil is, in most if not all aspect, poorer than Russia, despite all the advantages it had. Case in point: Russian development was successful, perhaps a little too successful instigating the cold war in many peoples opinions.


I agree that Marxists worship Marx like a God, that is 100% true as far as I'm concerned. It is the precise same strain of indoctrination that infects the religious mind. Marxism should be considered an organised religion these days.

[anselfir]

the most salient example fo communist failure at governance is china. take a look at the southern coast before and after economic freedoms were introduced.

there will be no impetus for communism unless there is no impetus for competition. the one nonmoving centre of hte human condition is selfishness.

[social]

oneofthem wrote: A.D wrote: oneofthem wrote: A.D wrote: oneofthem wrote: meh, commies

ownership by a group requires cooperation to teh degree of a common aim. the aim of Bob is the betterment of Bob, same thign with Rob. the myriad of conflict of interests destroys the basis of cooperation, and therefore destroys the effectiveness of group ownership. State ownership then must be the substitute, since private ownership is the more grevious of alternatives. so enough with teh "i favor proletariat ownership, but not state ownership" crap, the former is not possible, so can it. so communism wil never happen unless there is a fundamental change in human nature. various people have tried to force people into communism, but none succeeded. you argue that the product they created is not communism, but what other products have they created? Can i claim that i was not building a house if i failed to build it?

btw, who said the communist states are not results of communism? communism is the justification and the condition for the establishment of the regime and its centralisation.

If any of you had any conception of history at all, you'd know that Lenin and Trotsky both openly referred to the Soviet System as 'State Capitalism', due to the fact that the means of production ere owned privately by the state. Lenin and Trotsky et al. would not have been so bold as to go against the grain of Marxist thought (of which they based their own ideas) by implementing communism in a developing nation. They were waiting for the German revolt to reaffirm their position, but that never happened, and Stalinism was the result.

hmm...
who are the real communists then?

your answer to the analogy is flawed. you did not set out to builda boat, the boat is a failed house. now the house can be declared to be anything, the produt is real.

Lenin and Trotsky, I would regard, as true communists, that's why they did not try to establish communism in an environment contrary to the way the dialect would describe it. To do so would go against a central tenet of Marx’s writing, which would in its self deviate from the purpose.

So, as you can see, your analogy was flawed due to your misunderstanding/ignorance of the writings of the people you were trying to vilify/undermine. I simply entertained your analogy to highlight how wrong you were and I maintain that if someone attempt to build a house, and ends up with a boat, the object in front of them is a boat. But even taking the concession that it is in fact a failed house, your point does still fail quite spectacularly.

A potential X, lets call it Y, is not Y by virtue of the fact it tried to be so. It is what it is, which is a Y, not an X. If during the process of formation the Y, in attempting to become X in fact becomes Z, it quite clearly remains not to be X. If I set out to become a lawyer and end up a social worker, I am not a failed Lawyer, because I never got into that profession so how could I have failed at it? I’m a social worker.

see a sick person wiht a failing heart. does it matter if the brain is healthy? the "functioning unit" is the person, and the evaluation of that unit cannot be reduced to the evaluation of a particular part.

the choice before the communist is irrelevance or defeat, he must have one or the other.

btw, commies worship marx like a god.

What the hell are you going on about? "See a sick person wiht a failing heart. does it matter if the brain is healthy?" You write so much crap I'm completely amazed A.D. has the time for your madness.

[social]

oneofthem wrote: the most salient example fo communist failure at governance is china. take a look at the southern coast before and after economic freedoms were introduced.

there will be no impetus for communism unless there is no impetus for competition. the one nonmoving centre of hte human condition is selfishness.

The most "salient example of communist failure" has no significant relation to communism, as described by Marx.

And the "nonmoving (try "unmoving") centre of hte human condition is selfishness" is something that is caused by the society in which we live in. Unless, of course, you beleive people are *born* selfish. :rotf:

[anselfir]

social wrote: oneofthem wrote: A.D wrote: oneofthem wrote: A.D wrote: oneofthem wrote: meh, commies

ownership by a group requires cooperation to teh degree of a common aim. the aim of Bob is the betterment of Bob, same thign with Rob. the myriad of conflict of interests destroys the basis of cooperation, and therefore destroys the effectiveness of group ownership. State ownership then must be the substitute, since private ownership is the more grevious of alternatives. so enough with teh "i favor proletariat ownership, but not state ownership" crap, the former is not possible, so can it. so communism wil never happen unless there is a fundamental change in human nature. various people have tried to force people into communism, but none succeeded. you argue that the product they created is not communism, but what other products have they created? Can i claim that i was not building a house if i failed to build it?

btw, who said the communist states are not results of communism? communism is the justification and the condition for the establishment of the regime and its centralisation.

If any of you had any conception of history at all, you'd know that Lenin and Trotsky both openly referred to the Soviet System as 'State Capitalism', due to the fact that the means of production ere owned privately by the state. Lenin and Trotsky et al. would not have been so bold as to go against the grain of Marxist thought (of which they based their own ideas) by implementing communism in a developing nation. They were waiting for the German revolt to reaffirm their position, but that never happened, and Stalinism was the result.

hmm...
who are the real communists then?

your answer to the analogy is flawed. you did not set out to builda boat, the boat is a failed house. now the house can be declared to be anything, the produt is real.

Lenin and Trotsky, I would regard, as true communists, that's why they did not try to establish communism in an environment contrary to the way the dialect would describe it. To do so would go against a central tenet of Marx’s writing, which would in its self deviate from the purpose.

So, as you can see, your analogy was flawed due to your misunderstanding/ignorance of the writings of the people you were trying to vilify/undermine. I simply entertained your analogy to highlight how wrong you were and I maintain that if someone attempt to build a house, and ends up with a boat, the object in front of them is a boat. But even taking the concession that it is in fact a failed house, your point does still fail quite spectacularly.

A potential X, lets call it Y, is not Y by virtue of the fact it tried to be so. It is what it is, which is a Y, not an X. If during the process of formation the Y, in attempting to become X in fact becomes Z, it quite clearly remains not to be X. If I set out to become a lawyer and end up a social worker, I am not a failed Lawyer, because I never got into that profession so how could I have failed at it? I’m a social worker.

see a sick person wiht a failing heart. does it matter if the brain is healthy? the "functioning unit" is the person, and the evaluation of that unit cannot be reduced to the evaluation of a particular part.

the choice before the communist is irrelevance or defeat, he must have one or the other.

btw, commies worship marx like a god.

What the hell are you going on about? "See a sick person wiht a failing heart. does it matter if the brain is healthy?" You write so much crap I'm completely amazed A.D. has the time for your madness.
:?
how is that hard to understand?
replace "see" with "for example"

i simply mean that communism as an ideology must be taken in its functional unit (a person) and all parts of that structure must be evaluated for the evaluation to be relevant.

[anselfir]

social wrote: oneofthem wrote: the most salient example fo communist failure at governance is china. take a look at the southern coast before and after economic freedoms were introduced.

there will be no impetus for communism unless there is no impetus for competition. the one nonmoving centre of hte human condition is selfishness.

The most "salient example of communist failure" has no significant relation to communism, as described by Marx.

And the "nonmoving (try "unmoving") centre of hte human condition is selfishness" is something that is caused by the society in which we live in. Unless, of course, you beleive people are *born* selfish. :rotf: then the marx communism is irrelevant.
i don't see you understanding much of the discussion, so please try again.

yes, people are born selfish.

[social]

oneofthem wrote: social wrote: oneofthem wrote: A.D wrote: oneofthem wrote: A.D wrote: oneofthem wrote: meh, commies

ownership by a group requires cooperation to teh degree of a common aim. the aim of Bob is the betterment of Bob, same thign with Rob. the myriad of conflict of interests destroys the basis of cooperation, and therefore destroys the effectiveness of group ownership. State ownership then must be the substitute, since private ownership is the more grevious of alternatives. so enough with teh "i favor proletariat ownership, but not state ownership" crap, the former is not possible, so can it. so communism wil never happen unless there is a fundamental change in human nature. various people have tried to force people into communism, but none succeeded. you argue that the product they created is not communism, but what other products have they created? Can i claim that i was not building a house if i failed to build it?

btw, who said the communist states are not results of communism? communism is the justification and the condition for the establishment of the regime and its centralisation.

If any of you had any conception of history at all, you'd know that Lenin and Trotsky both openly referred to the Soviet System as 'State Capitalism', due to the fact that the means of production ere owned privately by the state. Lenin and Trotsky et al. would not have been so bold as to go against the grain of Marxist thought (of which they based their own ideas) by implementing communism in a developing nation. They were waiting for the German revolt to reaffirm their position, but that never happened, and Stalinism was the result.

hmm...
who are the real communists then?

your answer to the analogy is flawed. you did not set out to builda boat, the boat is a failed house. now the house can be declared to be anything, the produt is real.

Lenin and Trotsky, I would regard, as true communists, that's why they did not try to establish communism in an environment contrary to the way the dialect would describe it. To do so would go against a central tenet of Marx’s writing, which would in its self deviate from the purpose.

So, as you can see, your analogy was flawed due to your misunderstanding/ignorance of the writings of the people you were trying to vilify/undermine. I simply entertained your analogy to highlight how wrong you were and I maintain that if someone attempt to build a house, and ends up with a boat, the object in front of them is a boat. But even taking the concession that it is in fact a failed house, your point does still fail quite spectacularly.

A potential X, lets call it Y, is not Y by virtue of the fact it tried to be so. It is what it is, which is a Y, not an X. If during the process of formation the Y, in attempting to become X in fact becomes Z, it quite clearly remains not to be X. If I set out to become a lawyer and end up a social worker, I am not a failed Lawyer, because I never got into that profession so how could I have failed at it? I’m a social worker.

see a sick person wiht a failing heart. does it matter if the brain is healthy? the "functioning unit" is the person, and the evaluation of that unit cannot be reduced to the evaluation of a particular part.

the choice before the communist is irrelevance or defeat, he must have one or the other.

btw, commies worship marx like a god.

What the hell are you going on about? "See a sick person wiht a failing heart. does it matter if the brain is healthy?" You write so much crap I'm completely amazed A.D. has the time for your madness.
:?
how is that hard to understand?
replace "see" with "for example"

i simply mean that communism as an ideology must be taken in its functional unit (a person) and all parts of that structure must be evaluated for the evaluation to be relevant.

Well, it becomes hard to understand someone when, by using the word "see", they actually mean "for example."

Communism's functional unit is the collective.

[anselfir]

no...
you still don't understand

[social]

oneofthem wrote: social wrote: oneofthem wrote: the most salient example fo communist failure at governance is china. take a look at the southern coast before and after economic freedoms were introduced.

there will be no impetus for communism unless there is no impetus for competition. the one nonmoving centre of hte human condition is selfishness.

The most "salient example of communist failure" has no significant relation to communism, as described by Marx.

And the "nonmoving (try "unmoving") centre of hte human condition is selfishness" is something that is caused by the society in which we live in. Unless, of course, you beleive people are *born* selfish. :rotf: then the marx communism is irrelevant.
i don't see you understanding much of the discussion, so please try again.

yes, people are born selfish.

Marx's communism may well be "irrelevant" to the communism as practiced by dictators, but in other contexts - e.g. political theory and the study of economics - it is entirely relevant; and, what's more, important.

My understanding of the discussion is that you write so damn quickly (perhaps to increase your post count, me thinks), ignore basically every single rule of spelling, puncuation and grammer, and even use words ("see") that actually mean something else ("for example"). So if I'm misunderstanding you oneofthem, you can't exactly blame me.

As for people being born selfish, what a load of ****. For a start, selfishness is a social construction. The concept and the word that it denotes wouldn't exist without a society in which people speak English. On a more fundamental level, we, the people, are socialised according to the social, economic and political conditions of our society. To put it another way, if most people are, as you say, selfish, then it is thier experiences of society that make them so - not some genetic disorder.

[social]

oneofthem wrote: no...
you still don't understand

Care to explian, in a coherent and sensible manner, *what* it is that I didn't understand?

[anselfir]

stop being so arrogant yet so ignorant (hey that rhymed!)

the functional unit concerns all parts and prerequisites of a system that are required for its real world application.

as for the rest of your post, selfishness is a social construct? wtf are you smoking?

marx's theory's irrelevance is not due to its rare application, but due to the impossibility of its application.

and please stop the childish personal attacks, especially when you are embarrassing yourself.

[social]

oneofthem wrote: stop being so arrogant yet so ignorant (hey that rhymed!)

:blah:

Quote: the functional unit concerns all parts and prerequisites of a system that are required for its real world application.

Yeah, what's your point? If there is a functional unit of communism, it is not the individual, but the collective, whose decisions on how the material relations of production are organized supercede individuals' decisions.

Quote: as for the rest of your post, selfishness is a social construct? wtf are you smoking?

Well, strictly speaking selfishness is a social construct, becuase the concept of "selfishness" only exists in the English language (as a concept) and therefore only acquires its meaning through it how it used in a social context (in societies). So technically people were not "selfish" 3000 years ago, becuase neither the word "selfish" nor the English language existed; and therefore the means to describe the actions of people as selfish were not available - meaning, people were not selfish.

At a somewhat more profound level, you could argue that although the means have not always existed to describe people's actions, people have nevertheless acted in certain ways for thousands of years (that is, people have always been selfish). This is to a certain extent true, but the actions of people are based on the process of socialization. If people are selfish, it's because they have been socialized to act in that way. The material conditions of society, and particularly how economic and political relations are organized, make people who they are. I don't even need to prove this last point; it's textbook sociology.

And while some people have certain disorders (mental illnesses) that can, if you like, "supecede" these actions, and can control them in ways that their experiences of the world cannot, for most part, and especially when characteristics like selfishness and philanthropy are concerned, people act as they do because they have done certain things, read certain things, seen certain things and experienced certain things. You're selfish becuase you're a Right-winger, who relentlessly worships the "free market". I'm not becuase I support collectivism. Simple as that.

Any statement to the contrary would entail (or imply) that the human brain has an in-built "selfish gene", a notion so ridiculous, immature, and ignorant of the structure of the human mind, and the material functions of human society, I won't even bother refuting it. Now: be a man, and address the points I make like a mature adult.

Quote: marx's theory's irrelevance is not due to its rare application, but due to the impossibility of its application.

Well that may be the case - but considering it (Marxism) hasn't yet been applied properly, you have neither the authority nor the right to dismiss it quite as forcefully as you have. Nor are your criticisms of Marxism relevant, successful, or in the least bit insightful.

Quote: and please stop the childish personal attacks, especially when you are embarrassing yourself.

"See" "For Example"

[anselfir]

"Yeah, what's your point? If there is a functional unit of communism, it is not the individual, but the collective, whose decisions on how the material relations of production are organized supercede individuals' decisions. "

what? decisionmaking process? wtf are you talking about?

language does not dictate behavior...if there is no word for "self" then that does ntomaen the concept does not exist. indeed it is manifested in all human endeavor, and is the centrality of the question of government.

"Well that may be the case - but considering it (Marxism) hasn't yet been applied properly, you have neither the authority nor the right to dismiss it quite as forcefully as you have. Nor are your criticisms of Marxism relevant, successful, or in the least bit insightful. "
...
did you understand what i did?

the personal attacks refer to your questioning of my intentions, upping post count and what not

[social]

oneofthem wrote: "Yeah, what's your point? If there is a functional unit of communism, it is not the individual, but the collective, whose decisions on how the material relations of production are organized supercede individuals' decisions. "

what? decisionmaking process? wtf are you talking about?

Oh, for the love of God! I'm talking about the functional unit of communism. I said it here: "Communism's functional unit is the collective." I said it here: "If there is a functional unit of communism, it is not the individual, but the collective." Is that clear enough for you? Or should I go over the definitions of each and every word in those sentences, the functional purpose of a proposition, and the nature of the English language?

As for the "decision making" part, that was merely used to refute your earlier claim, "communism as an ideology must be taken in its functional unit (a person) and all parts of that structure must be evaluated for the evaluation to be relevant." I made it perfectly clear that your evaluation of communism was incorrect, as was your notion that every individual is born selfish.

oneofthem wrote: language does not dictate behavior...if there is no word for "self" then that does ntomaen the concept does not exist. indeed it is manifested in all human endeavor, and is the centrality of the question of government.


*Shakes head in disbelief* Did you even read what I said?

Quote: At a somewhat more profound level, you could argue that although the means have not always existed to describe people's actions, people have nevertheless acted in certain ways for thousands of years (that is, people have always been selfish). This is to a certain extent true, but the actions of people are based on the process of socialization. If people are selfish, it's because they have been socialized to act in that way. The material conditions of society, and particularly how economic and political relations are organized, make people who they are. I don't even need to prove this last point; it's textbook sociology.

And while some people have certain disorders (mental illnesses) that can, if you like, "supecede" these actions, and can control them in ways that their experiences of the world cannot, for most part, and especially when characteristics like selfishness and philanthropy are concerned, people act as they do because they have done certain things, read certain things, seen certain things and experienced certain things. You're selfish becuase you're a Right-winger, who relentlessly worships the "free market". I'm not becuase I support collectivism. Simple as that.

There is no selfish gene.

oneofthem wrote: "Well that may be the case - but considering it (Marxism) hasn't yet been applied properly, you have neither the authority nor the right to dismiss it quite as forcefully as you have. Nor are your criticisms of Marxism relevant, successful, or in the least bit insightful. "
...
did you understand what i did?

Barely. The fact remains that, until Marxism as theory is applied to society in the form Marx described it, you cannot dismiss Marxism (the theory) on the basis of what you think individuals are, or on the political dictatorships practiced in Marx's name by people who were not Marxists.

oneofthem wrote: the personal attacks refer to your questioning of my intentions, upping post count and what not

That's not really a personal attack. It's a (valid) attack on how you structure your post and arguments.