The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why so many corpses? > Comments

Why so many corpses? : Comments

By David Fisher, published 4/10/2011

It's in the nature of Marxism to destroy human life, not coincidentally, but causally.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. All
David,
cute photo. Your comprehension and expression is impressive for one so young.

But both you and the 'The Black Book of Communism' have a major omission. Adolph Hittler was the leader of the National Socialist Party of Germany. He didn't lead the National Conservative or Liberal Party of Germany.

Now add their 20 million odd to the list.
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 9:30:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Hitler loved commies.
Tyrants can pretend their either left or right but the reality is it doesn't matter they are still tyrants.

Free open elections are the key, if you don't have that you have tyranny
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 10:50:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the number of deaths quoted are horrific until you compare them with the murder of unborn babies. Seems like secularism and marxism have a lot more in common than many admit. Only a morality that value human life protects the most vulnerable. The West once based on Christian values was the safest place to live. Not any longer for the unborn as we have trashed these values.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 11:04:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marxism is only one kind of socialism. The article only refers to Marxism and is not critical of socialism in general only the Marxist brand. The Nazis were financed in part by German industrialists and were not socialist in spite of that word in their name.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 1:59:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter,

Despite the name, the National Socialist party was about as socialist as our Liberal party is actually liberal. The Nazis were completely opposed to communism, and murdered communists as readily as they did Jews. In the death camps, prisoners wore coloured patches to identify what category of 'crime' they had committed - yellow for Jews, brown for Gypsies, pink for homosexuals and so on. The colour worn by political prisoners - those regarded as enemies of the Nazi philosophy and state - was red, symbolising communism (although not all political prisoners were communists).
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 2:07:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear runner,

When the west was almost completely Christian it was a very unsafe place to live. Charlemagne offered the pagan Gauls the choice of converting or beheading. That was typical of the spread of Christianity by violence after 371. The Dark Ages began when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in 371. At different times there were massacres of Jews, Albigensians and others by Christians. There were Wars of the Reformation where Christians killed Christians who had a different version of the Christian mumbojumbo. The Dark Ages were a time when life was cheap. Europeans began to free themselves from the oppressive grasp of Christianity with the growth of the secular state. Under Christianity the life of the individual had little worth.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 2:30:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f

the history of the Catholic church along with others is no easier to defend than the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao or todays abortion industry. They all lacked respect for human life. One can not deny that countries such as England, America and Australia who largely embraced the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ prospered greatly. They are still prospering somewhat today although those with secular agendas have largely destroyed the moral basis for that prosperity. They have left large numbers of young people without a moral compass. These are still the countries people want to immigrate to despite their declining standards. They are still a far better alternative to the godless Communist countries such as North Korea or the Islamic States.

YOu write 'Under Christianity the life of the individual had little worth.'
Tell that to the millions who have been fed by Christians or those who built the first hospitals and schools in Western Nations. Also tell the unborn how much worth they have under secular dogmatism.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 2:58:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Nazis and Marxists were fierce opponents, and killed each other in great numbers when given the opportunity. But they had much more in common that either would care to admit. Both held totalitarian collectivist ideologies, subordinating the individual to the state in the name of elevating the “common interest above self interest” (Hitler’s phrase). For Hitler the highest expression of collective interest lay with the Aryan race, whereas for Marx it was the Proletariat, but each held as core values the subordination of individuals to the collective. Although the Nazis did not want to abolish private property, they sought to control it, and brought industry under the control of the State.

Kenny
Hitler was elected in a free, open election. Elections may be a necessary part of the protection against tyranny, but other things are needed too – free speech and a free press; separation of government and the judiciary, and a judiciary willing to enforce the law; protection of individual freedoms and rights and respect for property to name a few.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 3:31:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear runner,

The Catholic Church and the Protestant Lutheran church were united in supporting the crimes of Hitler. The Nazis could support mass murder by citing the hate sermons of Martin Luther in the Volkischer Beobachter, the Nazi paper. Both Catholic and Protestant churches supported witch burning and other atrocities to those they thought of as heretics. Michael Servetus, the scientist, was burned at the stake in Protestant Geneva. Giordano Bruno, the scientist, was killed by the Inquisition in Catholic Italy. The Protestant Church is as guilty of criminal intolerance as the Catholic church. Fortunately separation of church and religion has curbed the crimes of both branches of Christian superstition. The Catholic and Protestant churches do not have the power for evil that they used to have.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 4:49:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yes David f you have addressed the atrocities done by the 'çhurch' in the opposition to the teachings of Christ but you fail to acknowledge the many more atrocities done even this day in the name of communism, marxism , secularism and every other godless ism. To also blindly ignore that Christians have fed the poor, were the first to build hospitals and schools. Rather selective with your anti church view.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 5:01:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm, ups and downs with this article- and I might add I am not actually a supporter of marxism at all.

Firstly, the death rates; what kind of deaths are we talking about here? Persecution? Genocide? Amount of dead during civil wars? Death penalty for general crimes? Failure to deliver social services? All the above? I don't doubt most of those countries can chalk these up to persecution, but without clarification I must ask.

On Marxism itself, I should remind everyone that Marxism is a throwback to older times, and is essentially a modified Feudal system with the reform that the wealth is recirculated back to the workers rather than the king. It is simply too primitive and not a relevant ideology in today's world, and most self-proclaimed Communist countries clearly don't practice it, and arguably never actually did (generally, they are socialist only compared to our own countries). Most of these 'communist' movements were recieved as 'pro worker, anti-royalist' movements, and little more.

Otherwise I agree with Kenny- though I should point out that communism doesn't necessarily exclude democracy, but is more a case that the vast majority of democracies don't want to be communist and vote to be freer market countries.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 5:51:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear runner,

I didn't fail to address the atrocities of Marxism. I wrote the article we're commenting on which is about the Marxist murders and the Communist Manifesto which justified those murders.I am conscious of the atrocities of Marxism and of Christianity. It might be a better world if both murderous institutions disappeared. The Marxist nonsense is like the Christian nonsense. Original Sin is the advent of capitalism. Satan is in the form of the bourgeoisie. The millennium is the eventual classless society. Marxism and Christianity are two similar forms of superstition. Away with both.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 6:00:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is an ignorant misrepresentation of the Communist Manifesto and an ignorant demonisation of Marx--no wonder it's a hit here in conservative heartland!'The author of the article is clearly an unthinking zealot and I shall not attempt to disabuse him.
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 6:13:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny,
The Communists and Hitler actually signed a treaty.

The Acolyte Rizla
Please note the communists also hated, interned and killed communists.

David f,
actually the German Industrial Complex was allowed to prosper but only under the direction of the National Socialist Party. Any funding was by way of taxation.

Sorry but you are both wrong. The National Socialists were socialist ... that they morphed into tyranny and slaughtered 'all commers' isn't at all unique to the German National Socialist outfit.

I don't know of any liberal/conservative party that endorses nationalisation of Banking functions, Infrustructure, Unions and the means of production of food and essential supplies... which was the policy of the German National Socialists and is what they did.
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 6:54:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What has been left out of the article was the Marxist desire to destroy families, believing that families accumulated property and wealth, and this eventually lead to inequalities amongst the population.

There are major instances of this belief still evident in our Marxist/feminist society, where 30% of children are now born outside of marriage, meaning that the majority of these children will not have a father within a few years of birth.

This destroys the family unit, and normally leads to the child living in poverty. As seen in some countries, it costs the mother more in day care fees than what she can earn at a job, so the mother is forced to live on welfare, and the child is likely to live on welfare also, for most or all of their life.

Marxism is very much alive in many countries, but now comes under the banner of feminism.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 7:02:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Runner, but both hospitals and schools were started long before Christ was born. Did you think that only the humans post Christ could heal or teach others? Many other history books existed before the Bible was written.

"The earliest documented institutions aiming to provide cures were ancient Egyptian temples. In ancient Greece, temples dedicated to the healer-god Asclepius, known as Asclepieia , functioned as centers of medical advice, prognosis, and healing"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital

" It is believed that the first formalized schooling occurred in Egypt in 3000BC. This was for young boys to learn how to become scribes as few people could read and write. In ancient India Gurukuls ran schools that taught subjects such as medicine and philosophy to any child or person who attended."
http://wanttoknowit.com/when-was-school-invented/
Posted by suzeonline, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 10:31:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What has been omitted from the article is the actuality that it is "mankind" collectively who is capable of cold and calculated savagery whatever his level of civilisation or form of culture.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 10:57:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter,

Sorry to rain on your parade, old boy, but substituting your anti-left ideology for historical fact won't actually retro-actively render the far-right National Socialist Party a left-wing party, no matter how long nor how loudly you repeat your paralogism.

Poirot,

Excellent point. Communism, Christianity, atheism, etc. don't kill people: people kill people.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 11:19:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f This is more accurate

When the west is almost completely anti Christian it will be a very unsafe place to live. We are getting there quite quickly.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 11:45:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

AUD $200 says less Christianity won't make the world unsafer. Are you prepared to accept my wager, or do you lack the courage of conviction? If so, why?
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 12:00:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TAR, the Nazis were a Nationalist Socialist party. Their great success was in nationalising industry to give workers who had suffered through the hyper-inflation of the Weimar and the lack of work in the Depression. The distinguishing feature for Nazism was its Nationalist focus, which was at stark odds with the Internationalism of the Soviets.

The militarism was a response to the resentment felt by Germans at the harsh terms offered at the end of the first world war. It was not a feature of the Nationalist Socialist movement, although since the Nazis were the ones to implement the response, it has come to be synonymous with that ideology.

Having said all that, it was a dehumanising collectivist oligarchy and a failure as a mode of Government, even without the military adventurism.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 5:05:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Acolyte Rizla

Your condescening tone is disgraceful.

'...far-right National Socialist Party a left-wing party'.

So what you're saying is that even though the National Socialist Party of Germany had the same policies and outcomes as other socialist regimes and had no policy commonly held by traditional conservative and liberal parties, it was really far right-wing.

Really? ... that's absurd.

I would hold your reasoning up for ridicule but you don't present any ... you only present assertion.
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 7:30:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The left-wing, socialist Nazi Party of Hitler’s time is a recent invention, which despite my study of Nazi Germany 40 years ago and continuing interest in the topic, I had never heard of until I a few years ago, when I chanced upon the claim on the Andrew Bolt Forum.

The political terms “left” and “right” originated in the French National Assembly more than 200 years ago. The supporters of the king, the more authoritarian side, sat on the right; the opponents of the king, the more democratic side, sat on the left. The left thus became the side for progress and the right for the status quo. Being right wing is not the same as being libertarian, which seems to be yet another new claim. Both left and right have their extremists, and those extremists end up running totalitarian governments, but they are not the same in ideology. Historically, the left wanted to spread power among the people and the right did not. That is why I say the Nazis were right wing. It is true of course that many left movements ended up only pretending to spread power, but the Nazis never even pretended.

Democratic means democratic, but the use of the word in the title, “People’s Democratic Republic”, does not mean that the said state was in any way democratic. Similarly, socialist means socialist, but the use of the word in the title, “National Socialist German Workers Party”, does not mean that the said party was socialist. If the Nazis nationalised industry, I am not aware of it. As I understand history, private corporations continued under the Nazi regime, and some made profits from the death camps.

What Hitler said on his way to power and what he did once in power are two different things.

Chris Curtis
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 8:25:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Nazis started in coalition with the Nationalists, a definitely right-wing party. They did not nationalise industry. They allowed private profit to continue, though they did institute controls on industry in preparation for war and during the war, something the Conservative-led government of the UK also did.

In the early years there was a socialist stream in the Nazi Party. Ernst Roehm, leader of the SA, was one who called for a “second revolution” against business. He, along with others, was murdered on the Night of the Long Knives, 30 June, 1934. Hitler had no intention of implementing the Nazi party’s socialist promises. He needed the army, the banks and business on his side. (William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich)

I recommend Richard Evans’s work on the Nazis for anyone who wants a decent understanding of that period on history. He dismisses the idea that the Nazis were socialists.

A right-winger being offended by Hitler being called a right-winger is no more sensible than a vegetarian being offended by Hitler being called a vegetarian.

Chris Curtis
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 8:27:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From wikipedia:"The Nazis promoted a right-wing socialist economy.[16][17] The economic system rejected egalitarianism and instead supported a stratified economy with classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, freedom of contract, and promoted the creation of national solidarity that would transcend class distinction.[18][19] This socialism promoted the creation of a community of common interest between managers and employees in industry where a factory leader would be selected to act in coordination with a council of factory members, though these members would have to obey the Führerprincip of the factory leader.[20] The economy was to be subordinate to the goals of the political leadership of the state.[21]"

In other words, titular control and some profit retention was allowed, but control of what was produced and how and when were in the control of the State. It actually sounds a bit like the sort of thing the Chinese are trying, don't you think?
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 8:39:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"the number of deaths quoted are horrific until you compare them with the murder of unborn babies."

Posted by runner, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 11:04:34 AM

Yet, spontaneous miscarriage [aka spontaneous abortion] kills twice as many each year in Australia, and many times more around the world. God at work, runner??
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 10:25:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris C

This debate shows the limitations of the traditional left-right labels to define political ideologies. There are real and important differences between Marxism and Nazism, but also real and important similarities. They are not so much polar opposites ideologically, as first cousins.

What the Nazis had in common with Marxism and in contrast with conventional conservative, libertarian and other “right wing” ideologies was an extreme collectivism which subordinated individual rights and autonomy to the collective interest - in the Nazis’ case the nation, in Marxists’ case the working class. They also share the identification of the collective interest with the state, and the control of the state by the party.

As Antiseptic points out, while they retained private property, Nazis subjected industry to intense state direction and regulation. They expropriated property when they held this to be in the national interest, or in order to harm ideological opponents. They were corporatist – controlling both business and trades unions – and certainly not supporters of free enterprise or property rights.

In contrast with many other authoritarian regimes, Nazism and Marxist shared a totalitarian ideology – seeking control not only of the economy, state and other elements of the public sphere but also of personal lives - thought and ideas, family and sexuality, social relationships etc.

They also share control of the media, brutality and oppression, the murder or imprisonment of opponents, disregard for the rule of law, subordination of academia (including science) to ideology, and a host of other characteristics. While these also feature in other repressive regimes, Marxism and Nazism are notable for presenting ideological justifications for such behaviour
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 11:23:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter,

Here, I've gone to the trouble of constructing some Venn diagrams for you:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/585/venndiagram1.png/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/189/venndiagram2.png/

Hopefully they're simple enough for even you to understand.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 2:56:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Squeers,

There was no demonisation of Marx. Marxism is a we/they philosophy which encourages tne dehumanisation, demonisation and murder of people acccrding to their class identification. In that it mirrors Nazism which does the same to people according to their race and ethnicity. Marxism demonises people and then murders them en masse. The article identified passages in the Manifesto which encouraged the Marxist murder process. That is not demonisation. That is unfortunately the way it was. The corpses were no accident. Marx inspired mass murder.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 4:37:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David
Okay, good article, got all that, I reckon you got 'em right between the eyes.

Now please let us have your article on the ecological implications of language, sex and mathematics?

All
Talk of left and right wing is meaningless without defining these terms. Everyone is agreed in identifying left wing with socialism i.e. (attempts at) public ownership and control of the means of production.

But right wing is used to refer to completely different and opposed concepts: on the one hand the Hitlers of the world, totalitarian authoritarians completely opposed to personal and economic liberty except as entirely subject to an overriding power in the state to dictate any and every decision if it feels like. Obviously the whole point of a bipolar scale is to denote a *range* of difference; but if the extreme ends are the same, not much of a conceptual tool is it?

Then on the other hand, people also call anarcho-capitalists "right wing", which is pretty meaningless, because
a) they are as opposed to the Nazis as they are to the communists, and
b) unless the Hitlerites are lumped in with the far left central-planning authoritarian control freaks, which is where they belong, but no-one uses the term in that way.

In fact, a one-dimensional gamut is no good.

More clarifying is this 2-dimensional device in The World's Shortest Political Quiz
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz
see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Smallest_Political_Quiz
I would be interested on where you identify yourselves.
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 4:43:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter, according to the quiz I took from one of the links, I scored 100% on the personal issues scale and 60% on economic issues. I reckon that's pretty fair.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 6:11:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f,
"Marx inspired mass murder."

Partly, I would think. The basic ideology of Marzism was to destroy the old so as to build a new and better society.

Unfortunately, the history of Marzism is littered with destruction, but they seldom built a better society.

Easy to destroy destroy something, but not so easy to build something.

The main difference between Marzism and capitalism, is that a capitalist is required to smile at their customer and keep their customer alive.

In most Marzist societies, few people smile at anyone, or they may smile at you before they pull the triger.

The remnant of Marzism in our society is of course feminism, and if a feminist ever smiles at you, it is time to get seriously worried.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 7:02:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr. Hume,

Thanks for the link to that quiz - very cool. I got 90% on the personal issues score and 30% on the economic issues score, making me a lefty liberal (which is how I self-identified prior to taking the quiz).

I also look forward to David's articles on the ecological implications of language and mathematics. I cannot begin to begin to imagine what these implications might be or what form the articles would take, but I'm sure they'd be fascinating.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 10:25:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna:"The remnant of Marzism in our society is of course feminism"

It's more Trotskyite, but he leads back to Marx.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 6 October 2011 3:53:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a tendency to pigeonhole people. One way to do that is to put them on a spectrum from right to left. Peter Hume referred to a political quiz which places opinions in two dimensions. That is an improvement.

However, humans are multidimensional, and no matter how many dimensions we use there will always be some left out. One dimension I feel is important is that ranging from scepticism at one end to true believers in unprovable propositions at the other end. The true believers may be followers of an ideology or religion, believers in new age or astrology or other nonsense. I put myself with the sceptics. Other people will find other dimensions important.

We make judgments on who we associate with, who we vote for, who we do business with etc. In many cases criteria we set up to judge people are completely irrelevant. I really don’t care if the person who fixes my car believes in astrology. I care that he does his job competently. It is reasonable to judge people primarily on their relationship to us.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 6 October 2011 6:59:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Acolyte Rizla,

Yes very simple disgrams but they don't in any way state the theory and behaviours of National Socialists nor the theory and behaviours of Liberal Democrats and conservatives

What you've done is made another general assertion without backing it up with any evidence whatsoever.

Laughable that you think I'm simple.

Tell me how you fit the political theory and actions of the National Socialists and the political theory and actions of Liberal Democrats and conservatives into the Venn diagrams?

I don't think you constructed them at all, I think you simply drew them up from your prejudiced viewpoint, without actually having any supporting data or reference to historical facts.

Peter Hume,
Like Assange, Imajulianutter is definately libertarian. 90% personal and 80% economic.
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 6 October 2011 7:39:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I went 90% personal, 60% economic.

On the broader topic I'm of the view that extreme ideologies tend to leave corpses. The numbers may be altered by particular needs, capitalism needs consumers and it needs workers so it's less prone to the bulldozers digging pit's for mass graves but at it's extreme quite happy to have people in one part of the world dying from unhealthy working conditions to maximise profits somewhere else. Harder to count bodies that way as well.

Religious extremists seem to not mind the odd pile of bodies of non-believers or if there are not conveniently located then the bodies of those who don't believe the right version of things.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 6 October 2011 7:59:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,

You have put the issue very clearly.

Antiseptic,

When you start talking about “right-wing socialism”, I wonder is there “left-wing conservatism”? Is there “conservative socialism”? Is there “socialist conservatism”?

I think of the Chinese as capitalist communists.

The whole left-right labelling is a simplification, but it has some general meaning. Think of it as a clock with democratic, centrist people at 6 o’clock. Others move to the left towards 12 o’clock. Those that reach 12 o’clock are communists. Others move to the right towards 12 o’clock. Those that reach 12 o’clock are fascists or Nazis. The destination is the same but the journey is different.

Chris Curtis
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 6 October 2011 8:13:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well this is an extremely disappointing but predictable thread whose terms are dictated by the article. There's no denying the corpses that have been produced in the name of one ideology or another, but this has nothing to do with Marx, whatever David Fisher says--and he doesn't say much, he just foments and perpetuates ideological blindness.
Marx and Engels said in their own day that the Manifesto was pertinent to the geopolitical conditions of the time, and indeed that it was already dated and no longer relevant! The Manifesto itself is a complex document, indeed pamphlet, in large part rhetorical but in equal measure philosophical, and prophetical, and has to be read sympathetically to be understood beyond the purblindness of political ideologies then and since.
There's no such treatment of this important artefact here, just an ignorant rant followed by a drill, more or less, of ideological dressage, of conventional bourgeois thinking. No one has addressed the text, certainly not Fisher, except superficially and prejudicially. Were the author capable of objectivity on this subject, and willing to read the text in the context of Marx and Engel's broader thought, he could not but find it productive of a great deal of philosophical subtlety and truth, and at bottom a thoroughly humanist perspective, regardless of whether he continued to blame Marx's philosophy/sociology for every corpse since. Wonderful to be able to blame Marx and religious thinkers and Hitler and co for all the evils (sorry corpses) of the world since, it lets posterity off the hook--we're all the dupes of of our intellectual forebears. Stalin wasn't evil at all, he was just infected by Marxist memes.
But I won't say any more on Fisher's grubby, populist tripe.
What I will do is write an article myself later this year, based on a sober reading of Marx's text, in which I will do my best to explicate it warts and all, and not just some preconceived and ignorant bigotry.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 6 October 2011 9:03:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok Squeers, Stalin was evil but not because of Marxism then.

But I am not the only one to notice that many evil people and ugly regimes have either used Marxism or could be considered properly Marxist in ideology.

Mao Zedong
Pol Pot
Robert Mugabe
Che Guevara
Fidel Castro
Josef Stalin (of course)

The list goes on...

One could be forgiven for considering that there might be a link between their ideology and their behaviour, no?
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 6 October 2011 9:41:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

I don't deny that a great deal of evil as been done under the term "Marxism", the question is whether that evil was an accurate rendition of Marx's work. Marx himself denied being a Marxist!
Each generation should shoulder the blame for their own corpses. Rationalists and entrepreneurs and popular opinion were all partly responsible for the death camps.
The question is whether the communist dictatorships since Marx were accurate renditions of Marx's thought. And I'm not going to split hairs; I'll address the question, was Marx recommending genocides, for instance? He most certainly was not.
But I'll enlarge on the subject as soon as time permits, this year, presuming Graham sanctions the article, or probably a series of articles.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 6 October 2011 9:56:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChrisC, why do you juxtapose socialism and conservativism? A more appropriate comparison would be libertarianism, I'd have thought. My view is that socialism and libertarianism, or conservatism for that matter, are entirely viable in co-existence. It's merely the extremists of all stripes who aren't prepared to compromise their purity of ideology that have problems with such mixed marriages.

I'm glad you see my point with respect to the Chinese. Very pragmatic people.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 6 October 2011 9:58:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers:"I don't deny that a great deal of evil as been done under the term "Marxism", the question is whether that evil was an accurate rendition of Marx's work."

Indeed, this is the question.

"Marx himself denied being a Marxist!"
And Jesus never considered himself a Christian, what does that matter?

"Each generation should shoulder the blame for their own corpses."

And the deny the corpses of their fathers.

"Rationalists and entrepreneurs and popular opinion were all partly responsible for the death camps."

There seems to have always been plenty of Rationalists and entrepeneurs in America and England, where are their death camps?

"The question is whether the communist dictatorships since Marx were accurate renditions of Marx's thought. And I'm not going to split hairs; I'll address the question, was Marx recommending genocides, for instance? He most certainly was not."

No, perhaps not. I don't believe that David's article was actually saying that, but I do think he has a case that his words could be interpreted to support such. Just as Jesus' words were, although I don't believe he was advocating the atrocities committed in his name either.

Indeed, looking at the, (perhaps now outdated?) Manifesto, it could be argued that the atrocities were a logical consequence of his writings, even if unintended.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 6 October 2011 10:08:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry Bugsy but I really don't have the time to take your points to task, though there's nothing in them.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 6 October 2011 10:59:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL
"You're wrong, so there"

Come on squeers, you're making a habit of that.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 6 October 2011 11:03:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok then Squeers.

But your earlier question was interesting:
"The question is whether the communist dictatorships since Marx were accurate renditions of Marx's thought."

Ok, let's look at this objectively and say that they weren't, OK?

The question then becomes: "Why were Marx's ideas on the state so difficult to implement accurately?"
Why did so many of these 'Marxist' states become communist dictatorships?

How many 'Marxist' states are there that can be considered 'successful', and not just tenacious?
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 6 October 2011 11:21:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This discussion has identified another important similarity between fascism and Marxism, (and indeed other political and religious movements prone to violence) - namely idealism. Holders of both ideologies genuinely believe they are making the world a better place. They, and those who share their ideologies, believe that the suffering they inflict is necessary, and the suffering they endure is noble and in a good cause. It is necessary to destroy the old order to build the new, but the end is worth the means. Opponents of the new order deserve to be repressed or destroyed.

Roy Baumeister wrote a fascinating book on the sources of human evil, which he describes as wilfully hurting or destroying of other people. One of these sources is idealism. Baumeister says that “idealistic evil” occurs where the perpetrators are motivated by (what they perceive to be) moral virtue and the desire to make the world a better place. This can make idealistic violence worse than other kinds, because “the traits of inner conscience and strength of character spur the perpetrator on to more severe and intense deeds ... When inflicting violent harm goes from being a right to being a duty, it is fair to expect that the violence will become relentless and merciless.” Idealism also encourages people to perceive their victims as evil. If I believe I am on the side of right and virtue, it’s a short and easy step to seeing my opponent as evil and/or immoral. The Nazis’ perception of Jews, Stalinists’ perceptions of Kulaks and Khmer Rouge approach to "intellectuals" shared this characteristic.

http://www.amazon.com/Evil-Inside-Human-Violence-Cruelty/dp/0805071652#reader_0805071652

CS Lewis made a sort of similar point when he said that evil is not the opposite of good or the absence of good, but the corruption of good.

Hence the paradox that some of humanity’s noblest motives – the desire to shape a better world, helping others, religion, loyalty to one’s country – can be the source of some of our most vicious and repressive actions
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 6 October 2011 11:38:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Squeers,

The fact is that various Marxist entities produced many corpses. The article maintains that the reason lies in Marxist ideology as expressed in the Manifesto. You differ with that.

Why do you think the Marxist entities produced so many corpses?
Posted by david f, Thursday, 6 October 2011 12:09:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David, Those numbers according to “The Black Book of Communism” are a powerful introduction, but it would help to have an understanding of the population density and geography of those nations at that time in history to see what percentage of the population was lost.

Firstly understanding this history does require a reference back to the founding documents which are then interpreted and implemented by those in power, who are a minority on a spectrum of followers. This loss of life seems to result in a dual focus of economic division and concentration of state power. For the economic factors there is the flow on effect of having an entire society focused on the point of economic disparity, which results in hostility, because it is permissible to harm certain groups of people.

Of the ten measures that you mention, most refer implicitly or explicitly to the (nation) state which becomes the limit of peoples worldview with outsiders viewed as either hostile, or in most cases having the same attitudes as those within the system.
This limited view with only a collective outlook is an ideological combination of that combined focus which devalues individual human life by leaving out the other aspects of a fulfilling human experience, as opposed one which asks what an individual can contribute to society
Posted by JoberSudge, Thursday, 6 October 2011 12:33:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Those figures say nothing about context or comparability.

For example, were the 1 million corpses in Vietnam caused by direct Communist actions or were they the result of the socialist-inspired but nationalist-driven wars of liberation, first from French colonialism and then from the American anti-communist invasion and occupation - all of which totalled approximately 2-3 million Vietnamese dead over 30 years.

Also, in China, many of those corpses were victims of famines caused by the failure of Communist economic plans. However, these figures are easily comparable to pre-Communist era famines, especially during the 1930s and the actions of Western imperialism in China during the late-19th and early 20th centuries.

Neither do the figures indicate the many millions who have died as a result of civil wars, in which right-wing governments are overthrown by left-wing coups and vice versa - left-wing governments' overthrown by Western-backed militias and destabilisation campaigns.

Even if these figures of 'communist corpses' were to be taken at face value - then compared to what??

Is there a corresponding body count of the corpses caused by 3 centuries of Western imperialism (1700s to 1970s) that dispossessed and killed millions; or the greed of 200 years of capitalism which created an underclass of non-people who died in their tens of millions from preventable diseases, famine and malnutrition, childbirth, overwork, and squalid sanitation and unsafe working conditions; ditto the many millions who died under fuedalism and centuries of power struggles between various monarchs and wannabe monarchs.

And let's face it - communism played no part in either WWI and II. These were both capitalist imperial power struggles that left a combined total of more than 80 million dead and 100s of millions of lives torn apart and displaced. (The moral justification of the Holocaust came AFTER the fact. At the time of WWII, the Allies knew very little and cared even less about what was happening to European Jewry.)
Posted by Killarney, Thursday, 6 October 2011 4:17:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney,

Don't you know that the reigning hegemony always absolves itself from the human facility for savagery.

If mass killings are inspired at the behest of Western colonialist or neoliberalist beckoning, they are exempt from calculation. Like the Indonesians who were targeted by the U.S. backed Suharto regime...or those Allende supporters who suffered a similar fate in Chile.

But...sssh....we don't talk about things like that on David's "Lets Thump Marxism" threads.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 6 October 2011 4:55:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

In 1987 a meeting of former CIA people in Switzerland estimated that approximately 6,000,000 people have been murdered by US trained death squads and other US inspired actions against union leaders and others that the powers that be in tyrannies supported by the US wished to be rid of.

There is no mystery concerning those deaths. The victims were perceived as a threat to the power and profits of the ruling class.

There is also no mystery to the reason for the Nazi murders.

However, apologists for the Marxists like Eagleton claim that Marxist ideology has nothing to do with the murders perpetrated by Marxist entities. The article shows a direct connection between statements in the Manifesto and the murders. Why so many corpses, Poirot? What's your explanation for the murders?
Posted by david f, Thursday, 6 October 2011 6:33:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy:
<The question then becomes: "Why were Marx's ideas on the state so difficult to implement accurately?">
How easy it is to pose stupid questions (sorry, but it is), and yet I'm expected to answer them?

To begin with the question alerts me that you know nothing of Marx's thought first-hand (yet you have the temerity to question it?). It was never a matter of "implementing" Marx's ideas. Marx saw revolution as inevitable given the dynamics of the system--that the human spirit would not ultimately be confined by the social constraints that maintained the means of production. He was wrong, I think, in that he underestimated the power of ideology, and humanity's capacity to reconcile itself to its fate. Perhaps he wasn't wrong, per se, and only his timing was out; time will tell, but I'm inclined to think his materialism was wrong, just as the materialism David Fisher promotes (scientism) is "wrong" in the sense that it will never capture the imagination of the masses.
Marx's rubric for humanity was based on purely materialistic conditions, the means of production, and that it ultimately superseded all else.
It makes sense; in a world of scarcity everything beyond survivalism is luxury. At the very least, though, Marx underestimated the tenacity of capitalism, and not necessarily ideology; we are only now coming to the point where ideology is tested by deteriorating material conditions.
At any rate, conditions for the revolution had to be ripe, and while Marx saw no harm in an avant-garde, the real revolution was an unstoppable event.
The radical movements we've seen have been ideological rather than materialistic, what's more pitted against the might of ascendant capitalism. Not left to develop as a rival in peace, but hounded, hunted and laid siege to at every turn--no wonder these premature ejaculations turned self-conscious and paranoid.
Marx's system was not predicated on ideology, but exigency and the human imperative to provide for itself.
The drudge classes are nothing if not long-suffering, but the system is losing it's capacity to maintain its preferential treatment and a minimum standard for the rest.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 6 October 2011 6:46:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Squeers,

You have called the article we are discussing names such as ignorant and populist. Now you accuse me of supporting scientism. There are a number of statements in the article which are cited from the Manifesto. From these statements the author of the article came to certain conclusions. You don't examine the arguments. You don't address what was written. You merely argue by adjective.

Now Bugsy is asking a stupid question. It is easy to argue by adjective. I have caught myself doing it and am trying to avoid it.

Murderous is not an uncalled for adjective for the various Marxist entities. I understand. It's difficult to defend the indefensible.

You accused Bugsy of not knowing Marx's thought first hand but having the temerity to question it. Neither you nor anybody else knows Marx's thought first hand even when he was alive. All we know is what he wrote. From what he wrote we can deduce he encouraged tyranny and murder.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 6 October 2011 7:18:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers
"Marx's rubric for humanity was based on purely materialistic conditions, the means of production, and that it ultimately superseded all else."

True, and Marxists, Stalinists, feminists, supporters of Mao etc are rather a grim, joyless and boring lot, for all their destruction and harm to societies.
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 6 October 2011 7:28:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

The best thing about Marxism is that I can easily ignore it, knowing full well that if I do, it will probably go away. But also, even if it doesn't, there's nothing that I can do about that. Kinda like religion.

All governmental types (and religions I guess) are experiments that will ultimately fail and be replaced by something else. The trick is to learn from the failure. Good luck to us all.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 6 October 2011 7:55:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f,.

I have already given my explanation for the corpses - Man's nature.

Was their ever a time when mankind wasn't capable of fashioning exquisite killing machines for any number of exigencies?
You've just listed a portion the U.S.'s woeful record in behaving precisely as its power allows it to....which you for some reason put to one side because you posit "there is no mystery concerning those deaths". Strange that you seem to exempt them from the human tragedy that unfolds wherever power is abused.

Power is often abused - and ideas are perverted to suit the aims of those in control. They are trussed together with abhorrent and willful acts of barbarity and ruthlessness, none of which detracts from the brutish nature of humankind when power and dominion are at stake.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 6 October 2011 8:02:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The question is whether the communist dictatorships since Marx were accurate renditions of Marx's thought."

No, the question is whether the communist dictatorships are logically necessary consequences of attempting to replace private with public ownership of the means of production.

Squeers is just trying to evade the obvious by spouting ideology, that's all. Can anyone really be so mendacious as to believe that the piles of corpses are just some kind of strange coincidence, because that's what Squeers is contending for?
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 6 October 2011 8:14:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, Peter, the big fly in ointment as far as "ownership" is concerned was industrialisation.

Before its advent, the means of production was simultaneously privately owned - and in the hands of the common man.

In the industrialised world, "privately owned" means that capital resides in the hands of a few.
(Yes, I know you're going to reiterate that all the folk in pre-industrial Britain had one foot in the grave)

Just a thought. : )
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 6 October 2011 8:51:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

Before industrialisation we had feudalism. Not only was property not owned by the common man; the common man was often property himself.

On one thing at least I think Marx was right – industrialisation and the emergence of the bourgeoisie “rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life”
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 6 October 2011 9:04:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,

You got something against feudalism?

"...the bourgeoisie "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life"."
.....and replaced it with the idiocy of factory life...bravo!
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 6 October 2011 9:58:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter,

Very droll, sir.

"Tell me how you fit the political theory and actions of the National Socialists and the political theory and actions of Liberal Democrats and conservatives into the Venn diagrams?"

I have no idea what a Liberal Democrat is, nor where he sits on the political spectrum. But a liberal democrat sounds like a lefty liberal to me, and thus falls into the left-wing ideologies circle - the all important use of upper-case letters in the words 'L/liberal' and 'D/democrat' may, of course, drastically alter the meaning of those words.

Conservatism is definitely a right-wing ideology, and thus falls into the right-wing ideologies circle.

This ain't really rocket science, champ... get thee to a class in politics.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Thursday, 6 October 2011 11:35:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,

What is wrong with the 'idiocy of rural life'? It features a lot in More's 'Utopia', and I really like most of the ideas put forward in Utopia (obviously, ideas such as capital punishment aren't so sound).
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 7 October 2011 12:51:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Acolyte Rizla

Thankyou, but I would much prefer larconic.

Why would I want to attend the class that you have obviously attended ? It hasn't taught much.

'I have no idea what a Liberal Democrat is, nor where he sits on the political spectrum',

of course you don't but I'd bet, at odds shorter than those about Black Cavier, you'd know plenty of social democrats and exactly where they sit.

But, mate, seriously you haven't yet stated the policy held by National Socialists or the policy commonly held by traditional conservative and liberal parties, so that we can understand your thought process in placing them in the same Venn diagrams.

Did your class not emphasis a rational thought process to enable critical evaluation of assertions/hypothesis?
Posted by imajulianutter, Friday, 7 October 2011 7:48:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

I admit I always find the self-awarded halo of Marxist economic illiterates to be extremely provoking.

You have not begun to establish that capitalism is exploitative which is why you have evaded and evaded and evaded the question that proves you wrong:
if the legislature in 1842 had mandated the minimum wage be 50 pounds a day in 1842 money, would that have made the condition of the working class better or worse?
If the Chinese government mandated the minimum wage in China be equal to the Australian average, would the Chinese working class be better off or worse?

Let's face it, the reason you won't answer the question is because it's obvious that you're wrong.

Therefore:
a) the poverty of the workers is not caused by capitalism, it's caused by nature (which is why in all other societies those people died)
b) it is relieved by capitalism more than any other economic system
c) state interventions do *not produce a net benefit, but only a net increase of the poverty and hardship
d) the impression otherwise is caused by ignorantly disregarding the negative consequences of state interventions, just as you have done.

Your technique of blaming capitalism for states’ ham-fisted manipulation of the means of production is also self-evidently flim-flam.

The population growth under industrial capitalism speaks for itself. You apparently think yourself competent to decide for other people that their life is not worth living or that their values are not worth satisfying but then as an admirer of Marx you are only proving the point.

In any event, like Squeers, you have not begun to turn your mind to *how* the private ownership of the means of production could be replaced by public a.k.a. state ownership with all its consequential chaos and abuses; or how, in the absence of the state, it could happen at all? If it were voluntary, no problem - are we all to live as monks?

(cont,)
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 7 October 2011 9:12:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But it's not voluntary, that's the whole point. You just need to understand that you hold a flame for the most anti-liberty and violent belief system in the history of the world.

All your argument boils down to is asserting that billions of people would be better off dead than gainfully employed. This anti-human illogic also explains how you are able to simultaneously complain that capitalism makes the masses too poor ("exploitation") and that it makes them too rich ("unsustainable").

But go ahead and complain how dreadful it is that capitalism by gainfully employing people means they are alive not dead, and how the Chinese have the effrontery to want to live at the same standard you do.

You could always do what you blame the capitalists for not doing, and send third-world workers the difference between their market wage and what you consider to be the fair wage? The capitalist no more gains any benefit above their market rate than you do.
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 7 October 2011 9:14:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

Your answer to the question of the number of corpses under the Marxist governments is human nature. Of course it is. However, human nature expresses itself in many ways. Making piles of corpses is one way. Since Marxism apparently encourages that particular mode of production it seems logical to conclude the world is better off without Marxism. We are all going to die. I prefer to die in bed.
Posted by david f, Friday, 7 October 2011 10:49:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter,

Are you trying to argue that conservatives aren't right-wing, or that fascists aren't right-wing?
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 7 October 2011 11:23:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot and Acolyte Rizla

What was wrong with feudalism:

- It relied on serfdom and the oppression of peasantry
- Its power was based on extreme violence, including the death penalty for what we would consider minor infringements.
- Its values were based on unquestioning allegiance to authority
- It was profoundly unequal and hierarchical, with the aristocracy having more rights, power, privileges and resources powers than ordinary folk (if you think inequality is a problem nowadays, look at the differences between peasants and royalty in the middle ages)
- For ordinary folk there was no equality before the law. The law was what their regional squire, lord or baron decided.
- It thrived on ignorance, superstition, illiteracy and social stasis
- It entailed grinding poverty; strenuous, boring, repetitive work dawn to dusk, and dreadful living conditions (malnutrition, food insecurity, rudimentary health care, low life expectancy)

The romantic vision of pre-industrial conditions for ordinary folk is light years from reality. That’s why so many people moved to the cities when industrialisation began, and that’s why Marx saw capitalism as an improvement on feudalism.

I have nothing against modern-day rural life, and at times have enjoyed living in the country. But modern-day rural life is very different from feudal society. Modern rural communities have access to services and resources beyond the wildest dreams of our ancestors, and their lives are far easier, more comfortable and more secure.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 7 October 2011 11:35:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Acolyte Rizla,

I have already stated my belief and backed it up.

'I don't know of any liberal/conservative party that endorses nationalisation of Banking functions, Infrustructure, Unions and the means of production of food and essential supplies... which was the policy of the German National Socialists and is what they did.'

It quite clearly shows the fundamental difference between the National Socialists and Liberal/Conservatives

It seems you dispute this statement, but don't show how it is not correct. All I've done till now is ask you to back up your assertion.

You've dodged and weaved like a spot-lit rabbit and now you ask,

'Are you trying to argue that conservatives aren't right-wing, or that fascists aren't right-wing?'

Pay attention.

'Adolph Hittler was the leader of the National Socialist Party of Germany. He didn't lead the National Conservative or Liberal Party of Germany.'

'I don't know of any liberal/conservative party that endorses nationalisation of Banking functions, Infrustructure, Unions and the means of production of food and essential supplies... which was the policy of the German National Socialists and is what they did.'

I'll add now, personal endeavour and freedom generally are typical policy traits of Liberal/Conservative parties. That is the reverse of socialists and particularly National Socialists.

You are in disagreement with that... but haven't produced any information showing my belief to be incorrect. Until you do I'll continue with my supported belief rather than blindly adopt your, dearly clung to, unsupported assertion.
Posted by imajulianutter, Friday, 7 October 2011 11:54:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter,

O...kay

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fascism

I'll add now, personal liberty seems to be anathema to all the conservative and so-called 'liberal' parties I'm familiar with.

Feel free to continue with your uniquely erroneous view that fascism is a left-wing platform. I'll be over here with the rest of the world, sniggering quietly at your profound ignorance.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 7 October 2011 3:57:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David and all,

I'm prepared to make some concession, though I maintain that too often conditioned thinking prevails over critical thinking.
I agree that Marxism has often been treated as akin to a faith and I'm against that.
Marx's thought was influenced by the Darwinist progressivism of the times. Where I fundamentally disagree with Marx is on leaving humanity's fate to the forces of social evolution. I also think that the concept of evolving socialism cum communism is problematic, and that egalitarianism attenuated is another route to nihilism, as Nietzsche argued. Indeed egalitarianism is itself a runaway ideology that should be reigned-in and kept within manageable as well as ethical constraints that are tempered by practicalities. I'm against consigning humanity's fate to any economic/social functionalism, and that's both communism and capitalism.
Humanity has evolved to the point where we need no longer be subject purely to blind evolutionary processes. We are of course doomed to such forces ultimately, but we could live more sustainably in the meantime by at least imposing limits on personal wealth. The fact that we are never going to achieve absolute equality doesn't mean we should eliminate the grosser instances of excess.
I don't think we should trust to any operating system--as if economics was independent of our natural dispensation, or human fulfilment.
I am willing to concede that materialism has a tendency to devalue ideology, and life and ideology are inseparable, I think; ergo materialism has a tendency to devalue life.
Sociology and economics have a tendency to devalue life, though they feign a devotional patronage.
I think life and economics should be based on husbandry.
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 7 October 2011 5:16:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,

" -it entailed strenuous, boring and repetitive work dawn to dusk, and dreadful living conditions....that's why so many people moved to the town cities when industrialisation began...."

It seems you have an unrealistically rosy view of factory and mill life at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. The conditions you've outlined above more aptly describe the situation faced by newly urbanised peasants of the time.

Considering the rural peasant's "idiocy", they seem to have been quite a self-reliant and industrious bunch. They made everything they required by spinning, weaving, sewing, knitting tanning, forging and shaping implements. This included clothing and other sundry cloth articles, household utensils and furniture, farming implements and such like (Btw, if you owned a spinning wheel, for example, you owned the means of production) Added to this, they subsisted reasonably well by farming their small family plots.

On the other hand, those newly "liberated" from the rural life of idiocy (who rushed to the towns because they had no other choice) could look forward to a 14 hour day in stifling conditions enclosed in a factory or mill...returning home to their miserable cramped hovels which may have been shared with several other families. These hovels were located in dung-piled, ill-drained and refuse-strewn streets. They may have eaten porridge or potatoes (if they were lucky), fallen into bed in a room that may have contained the whole family...and began the same rote of repetitive mind-numbing work the following day.
This was the state of affairs until the first Factory Acts were instituted.
(A good book on the subject is E. Royston Pike's: "Human Documents of the Industrial Revolution in Britain")

These days your average peasant sups at McDonalds and returns home to switch on the telly to find out who's up who on Desperate Housewives...yep, definitely no idiocy nowadays, eh?
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 7 October 2011 5:26:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Acolyte Risla,

You didn't pay attention.

Now while you are playing in your corner and sniggering away, consider asking the occassional adult who cares for you and the other children, how to write down the differences between the policies of National Socialists and liberals/conservatives.

You still haven't done that and until you do your arguments are mere assertions without substance.

Quotes from your suggested link don't help ... you. They support my belief.

Your link produced the following:

'Definition of FASCISM:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.'

and (After searching the same site)

'Definition of CONSERVATISM:

a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage.'

and

'Definition of LIBERALISM

a :... a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)

Thank you The Acolyte Rizla I couldn't have put it better myself.
Posted by imajulianutter, Friday, 7 October 2011 6:44:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

I don’t doubt that the conditions of ordinary working people in the early industrial revolution were horrible. I just reckon they were even worse under feudalism.

Tanning and forging would probably have been specialist occupations.

But you’re right – peasants had to be largely self-sufficient, which is why their living standards were so low. Their food, clothes, bedding, furniture (if they had any) and tools and utensils were largely home made. If their crops failed, they starved. Life expectancy at birth was about 31-32, somewhat better if you managed to make it to adulthood. Burial evidence suggests that malnutrition and persistent disability due to injury were common. Literacy rates among ordinary people were approximately 0%. Birth rates are estimated to have been more than 6 per woman, but the population barely increased because most kids didn’t make it to parenthood.

Life was indeed nasty, brutish and short – even compared to the coal mines and cotton mills of Lancashire in ther industrial revolution (where my ancestors toiled).

http://books.google.com/books?id=DFSGsUFuCv8C&pg=PA21&dq=malnutrition+%22life+expectancy%22+intitle:medieval&hl=en&ei=p8COTpOXPI63rAe9iMy9AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=malnutrition%20%22life%20expectancy%22%20intitle%3Amedieval&f=false

Sneer all you like about McDonalds and TV soaps, they sure beat famine and black death
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 7 October 2011 7:09:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Squeers,

I agree with most of your post. My disagreement may be partially a matter of semantics. We may be subject to blind evolutionary processes even though some may ‘know better.’ Those who know better may be ill-equipped to gain the levers of power with the possibility of guiding change which will counter the forces of social evolution. On the other hand social evolution may unguided yield a good result. I am wary of ‘experts’ deciding the fate of others.

Ideology is a loaded word which means different things to different people. I understand ideology as conformity to a belief system which overrides evidence contradicting the belief system. Two examples of this are Stalin embracing Lysenkoism and Hitler condemning relativity theory as Jewish science. I doubt that you meant that. What do you mean by ideology?

One reason for writing the article was that I thought Marxism devalued life because of the unwillingness of those who subscribe to elements of Marx’s thought to consider the process which produced the corpses.

I don’t think materialism devalues life. Here again maybe I may not know what you mean by materialism. I equate materialism with naturalism which is simply the contention that physical results have physical causes, and there are no supernatural agencies. Since this life is the only life we have and there is nothingness before and after our life becomes precious. If we realise this is true for all of us and empathise with others all life becomes precious.

I agree that it is better to try to minimise inequality then to seek the unreal goal of complete egalitarianism.

Thomas Jefferson, William Morris and others who I consider good people wanted husbandry to be the basis for life and economics. On the other hand Kiernan’s “Blood and Soil” which is an examination of 2,400 years of genocides makes the case that most of the genocides in history have been partially justified by an idealisation of agriculture. On another hand (three handed?) about 2% of the population are all that is necessary in a developed country to feed it.
Posted by david f, Friday, 7 October 2011 8:48:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david
Clearly the Marxists have nothing to offer but evasion and circularity.

What I find interesting is the psychology of these people who, being shown more disproofs in theory and practice than you could shake a stick at, persist in their illogical opposition to human freedom, and their fanatical zeal for empowering the state to kill people in large numbers. What is frightening is not just that Squeers and Poirot, a hundred years ago, would have enthusiastically supported the political movements that ended up killing millions, but that even now, immune to disproof, THEY WOULD DO IT ALL AGAIN. It's like, are they genuinely that stupid, or genuinely that brainwashed, or genuinely that evil?

But the problem is worse than that, because after that last century of lethal state-worship, no-one can escape critically examining his own pro-state opinions.

I think you have two tasks in front of you to clear yourself of similar intellectual dereliction. The first is to distinguish Marxist socialism from any other kind of socialism, looking at the essence of the matter and not falling into superficiality for example, the mere meaningless name-calling of 'left' and 'right'.

The first question is, how would *any* attempt at the full public ownership of the means of production *not* produce the same evils, whether or not it was called Marxist? How could any attempt at full socialism *avoid* placing dictatorial powers in the hands of the political elite?

The second question is, if the only socialism to be humane and viable depends on the remaining capitalism, what does that tell you about socialism, of any kind?

On the other hand, the only criticisms of capitalism that anyone has been able to make out depend on blaming capitalism
a) for actions of government controlling the means of production eg wars, GFC, Great Depresson;
b) for problems caused by nature, relieved by capitalism more than any other system, and not improved by government when *both* upsides and downsides are taken into account.

Thus in holding a flame for any kind of socialism, why are you not hoist with the Marxists' own petard?
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 7 October 2011 10:12:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
davidf:
<social evolution may unguided yield a good result. I am wary of ‘experts’ deciding the fate of others>
Indeed. This is Marx's position. The trouble is that the current system thrives on passifism and prevarication. It's akin to turning the other cheek.
<I understand ideology as conformity to a belief system which overrides evidence contradicting the belief system>.
I think "evidence" is mostly ideological, and that materialism is therefore dubious at best. Materialism is ideological, an empirical perspective, as if the human senses, rationalised by the acculturated human mind, comprehended the universe.
Yet Marx may still be right. We might not like social evolution, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. Marx wasn't an expert or engineer; he just read the tea-leaves.
On the next point, I think the social perspective tends to elide
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 7 October 2011 10:27:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

"....as if the human senses, rationalised by the acculturated human mind, comprehended the universe."

I'm with you there.

Rhian,

You are right that junk food and soaps are better than starvation and the Black Death. But such symbols of progress, with all their baggage, are a tad underwhelming for a species that generously refers to itself as "wise man".

Peter,

Freud said: "The principal task of civilisation, its actual raison d'etre, is to defend us against nature."
But who or what will defend us against ourselves?

I'm presently having trouble comprehending the seriousness with which we all take ourselves, and our penchant for working our keyboards furiously like bellows to puff up our egos (I'm the worst offender!) In fact, it's just occurred to me the reason why Houellebecq laughs at everything - perhaps I'm finally getting the joke.

So I'll leave you all to it for a while - all of a sudden, philosophy is giving me the sh!ts.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 8 October 2011 7:08:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Peter Hume,

We live in a world where large corporations control most of the wealth. In a socialist economy those large corporations are part of the government. In a capitalist economy those corporations are not part of the government. To the ordinary person working for one of those large organisations it doesn’t make a bit of difference whether the corporation is publically owned or not. It makes a difference whether the person can band with others to form a union. This is independent of the ownership of the corporation. Under Lenin unions became merely transmission lines for government propaganda. In Wisconsin a Republican governor attempted to destroy the unions of government employees. Since one is free to protest in the US many people support the unions, and the governor faces opposition. Here the difference between public and private ownership mattered little to the employees. What mattered is whether they could have a union. In a socialist economy which was democratic they could have a union.

In the United States most sporting teams are privately owned. One exception is the Green Bay Packers, a football (what Australians call gridiron) team owned by the town of Green Bay. The Packers are a very good team and won the Super Bowl last year. To the players, coaches and other personnel employed by the team it doesn’t matter whether it is publically or privately owned. The difference seems to be the fan support in Green Bay is more intense because it is their town’s team, and the town gets the profits or bears the losses rather than a corporation or individual.

Roads, trains and airlines are part of our means of production since they provide the means of transporting people and goods. It seems better to me that our road building be done by government and maintenance of personal motor vehicles be done by privately owned facilities.

In some cases private ownership works better. In others public ownership works better. Whatever the case workers should able to organise freely. It is not a matter of ideology.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 8 October 2011 10:49:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers quoted David f:

<I understand ideology as conformity to a belief system which overrides evidence contradicting the belief system>.

Squeers: I think "evidence" is mostly ideological, and that materialism is therefore dubious at best. Materialism is ideological, an empirical perspective, as if the human senses, rationalised by the acculturated human mind, comprehended the universe.

I mentioned Hitler’s condemnation of relativity as ‘Jewish science’ and Stalin’s Lysenkoism. In both those cases the evidence for relativity and genetics was found in hard science confirmed by experimentation. The evidence was not ideological.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 8 October 2011 11:26:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In some cases private ownership works better. In others public ownership works better."

Well that's the issue, isn't it? What is the *principle* by which public ownership could be determined to work better, when both the downsides and the upsides are taken into account?

On the one hand, the principle determining why private ownership works better, is because (putting aside government interventions), private property is held subject to the decisions of consumers as to whether it is being used to serve the wants they consider most urgent and important. There is a direct connection between the consumer and the provider of the service, by way of the price mechanism, which enables the producer to know whether he is serving the wants of the masses of society *as judged by them*. If he is, he makes a profit, which means they value his combination of the original resources more than they value alternative uses of them. If he is not, he makes a loss, and the market process transfers the property into the hands of someone who will serve the masses better.

On the other hand, you have not provided any principle by which the public ownership of the means of production could be determined to be better. The providers of a service will have no way of knowing whether their use of resources satisfies the most urgent and important wants of the consumers, as judged by them.

For example, the "town" of Green Bay didn't own the Packers, the town *council* ( did. The ratepayers must have preferred something else, otherwise taxes would not have been necessary to pay for it. But if they really did prefer owning the team, then there is no reason for public ownership, since they would have paid for it voluntarily.

So without falling back to mere ideology, you are in the same position as the Marxist socialists - persisting in a belief in the political suppression of human freedom that, on critical analysis, you cannot rationally defend, and, with respect, should re-think.
Posted by Peter Hume, Saturday, 8 October 2011 12:02:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Peter,

Consumers or the users of roads have little or no voice in the way they are constructed. That is also true for water resources, utilities and many other areas. It makes sense for government to do this.

Smith described the ideal market.

No one consumer can make a difference. No one producer can make a difference. The products are indistiguishable. This is true for certain agricultural commodities and true for little else.

I don't wish to argue your ideology.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 8 October 2011 12:12:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If a general presumption were available that public ownership is superior, then the Marxists would be right, wouldn't they?

But what have you got, in any case of government ownership, but such a presumption?

Since full socialism is non-viable and non-humane, what makes you think part socialism is in any better position? Why would not the same presumption in favour of public buses that you assert, not also justify the state-held factories of the USSR? Or how do you know that we have public buses, not because they satisfy the wants that the people consider most urgent and important, but because the means to fund them was taken by the coercion that is common to all government revenue?

For example, in NSW last year, the "public" - translation: government - bus service did the equivalent of fifty trips to the moon - EMPTY! http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=53112

So you must either assume that government ownership is automatically better, even when it's obviously not. Or your theory cannot explain this phenomenon.

On the other hand, libertarian politics and Austrian economics explains it perfectly. We don't have government buses because they serve the paying public better. We have them because some people are able to get a benefit at someone else's expense without caring about the cost.

Yet that is only one such example from one department of one level of government. Part socialism cannot avoid partaking of all the errors, waste and abuse of full socialism, and is saved from worse only by the morality and practicality made possible by the remaining (ever-dimiishing) islands of private ownership.
Posted by Peter Hume, Saturday, 8 October 2011 12:27:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219259

david f, poor deluded fool, who filled your head all that rubbish? whoever your mentors have been, they have been telling you deliberate, premeditated lies.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219600

david f, now you are starting to wake up.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=RKu8PwAACAAJ&dq=none+dare+call+it+conspiracy&hl=en&ei=7KaPTpbeE8_3mAW5k5j2Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA Have you read this book?

in it they explain the true or correct left/right political system. All totalitarian dictatorship systems, monarchy/ceasar/emperor/etc (Bahrain, England 800 years ago), communism/international socialism (USSR, etc), fascism/nazism/national socialism (1930's Germany, Italy & Spain) are on the far left.

the far right is REAL anarchy (no rules at all).

3/4's of the way across towards the right is what America had after it won the war for independence, "limited, constitutional democracy".

Everything from far left to 1/4 towards the middle is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Fabian_Society including both the RED/green, getup, GAYLP/alp, Socialist Alliance & the LNP coalition.

Bob Katter, Don Chip & Pauline Hanson would all be centrist moderates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTahZE4q90U&feature=player_embedded this is another good explanation of what is wrong with both major mistakes political parties.

The "secular state" was invented by PROTESTANT christianity, Baptists, Quakers, etc complaining about both the Anglican & Catholic churches co-operating with the Monarchist aristocracy to enslave us all.

Remove the labels & look at the practical reality of China today, it is operating identically to Germany circa 1933 to 1939 only with more haste & corruption.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219586

Squeers, when will you give up & admit you have been wrong about everything? if you don't "come clean" soon you will end up in a labour camp for life, stipped of ALL your assetts to pay compo to Aussie victims of loony left poverty creation schemes.
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 8 October 2011 12:32:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
davidf,
my point about materialism being ideological was philosophical, but accurate nonetheless. But we've already lost Poirot with too much philosophy so I won't quibble.
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 8 October 2011 2:37:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Squeers,

I am sorry to lose Poirot although I am glad Toulouse Lautrec. However, I enjoy philosophy.

Dear Peter Hume,

Our electric utility has been privatised. As a result we get poorer service and higher costs. We get poorer service because it is apparently cheaper to fix outages rather than do preventive maintenance. The preventive maintenance mainly consisted of looking for branches that might fall on power lines and lopping them off. It is cheaper to stop the inspections and fix outages. Salaries of executives have been raised also. We pay for that on our billings which have been increased since privatisation.

Two possible reasons that our utility has been privatised are the ideological push for privatisation and corruption in that people in our government have received bribes to allow privatisation. Maybe both played a part. Maybe it was something else. However, the consumers who had no voice in the decision are worse off by privatisation.

Sometimes private ownership is better – sometimes not. In this case it is not. It makes better sense to evaluate private or public ownership on a case by case basis rather than adopt the one-size-fits-all stance of the ideologue whether that ideologue supports all public or all private ownership.

In “Cultural Amnesia” by Clive James, p. 605,
Ideology functions as a machine to destroy information, even at the price of making assertions in clear contradiction of the evidence. - Jean-Francois Revel
Posted by david f, Saturday, 8 October 2011 8:51:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david

My argument is that in defending the socialism you approve of, you must and do make the same unjustified assumptions that you rightly criticize in Marxist socialism.

“Consumers or the users of roads have little or no voice in the way they are constructed. That is also true for water resources, utilities and many other areas. It makes sense for government to do this.”

The problem is, that proves too much. The same could be said of tractors, bakers’ ovens, skyscrapers, sowing crops – in fact all production goods and services.

Besides, the prices of capital goods and all combinations of them, derive from consumers’ valuations of the final products, which capitalists impute backwards from those primary data. Government severs the price connection between paying for and receiving a service so consumers have *less* voice if government does it.

“Smith described the ideal market.”

The argument for liberty does not depend on the population meeting some theoretical ideal of perfection. It is enough that people engage in voluntary and peaceable co-operation because they expect to benefit from it.

But even if such an impossible standard were justified, neither is government perfect! It’s made up of the same people with all the same defects! and
a) is a compulsory monopoly which can and does make costs higher and quality lower, and
b) lacks the critical ability of economic calculation based on profit and loss – hence the 50 empty trips to the moon problem.

Imagine if a Marxist said to you that, because private ownership of farms cannot be perfect, therefore the state should collectivize agriculture!

The deep structure of your assumption is also exactly like the Marxists': “Because imperfection, *therefore* state control is the solution.” This theory would only make sense if government were all-knowing, all-capable, benevolent, and had the task of providing salvation from man’s defective nature.

Your argument as to public goods is refuted in detail in this interesting article on road privatization:
https://mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf

Or do you, like the Marxists, look on the enormous number of unnecessary deaths as justified for the sake of road socialism?
Posted by Peter Hume, Saturday, 8 October 2011 9:07:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter,

Well done, sir! You've successfully established that fascism is not synonymous with either conservatism or liberalism. So phucking what?

I never said fascism was the same thing as conservatism - I said they were both right-wing.

Your attempt to suggest that conservatism and fascism are somehow synonymous on the basis that they are both right-wing is akin to suggesting that antelopes are whales because they're both mammals: it doesn't make sense.

For the record (from wikipedia):

"In politics, Right, right-wing and rightist generally refer to support for a hierarchical society justified on the basis of an appeal to natural law and/or tradition. To varying degrees, it rejects the egalitarian objectives of left-wing politics, claiming that the imposition of equality is detrimental to society."

Fascism definitely fits that bill. I'd argue that conservatism does too, and possibly liberalism as well. Although I'm a liberal, and very much in favour of the egalitarian objectives of left-wing politics.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Sunday, 9 October 2011 1:07:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear oh dear The Acolyte Rizla sinks to inappropriate langauge as his/her position disintergrates.

'Well done, sir! You've successfully established that fascism is not synonymous with either conservatism or liberalism. So phucking what?'

No it was your references that did that.

'Are you trying to argue that conservatives aren't right-wing, or that fascists aren't right-wing?'

It was you who introduced the Right/left wing thingy, your original position was

'... they were both right-wing'(Liberalism and National Socialism)

My position was always that National Socialism was Socialism and your definition makes it left wing.

Here is your original position

'Despite the name, the National Socialist party was about as socialist as our Liberal party is actually liberal...'

It seems you've set about arguing National Socialists weren't socialists, confused yourself with a very odd understanding of Leftwing / Rightwing policies and then supplied reference to definitions that repudiate your original position.

And all the while you've steadfastly avoided providing your understanding of the policy and behaviours that show National Socialsts had policy and behaviours equivalent to those of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

Boy that politic's class you've attended really has some odd definitions of traditional understanding of political realities and commonly held beliefs.

An answer to the following question will show the absurdity of your beliefs.

If Liberals are left-wing what are Socialists... leftwing too?

You, The Acolyte Rizla, are definitely not liberal, especially if you think Socialism is egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism recognises differences in people in regard to wealth, income, competence, talent, intellect and personality but stipulates all deserve equal respect regardless of circumstance.

Socialism just states all people are equal and in practise attempts to implement that forceably in all aspects of peoples lives.
Posted by imajulianutter, Sunday, 9 October 2011 8:48:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You guys are only showing how meaningless is the whole left/right dichotomy. It sheds more confusion than clarity and proves nothing at best than name-calling. The left is always used to refer to socialism/communism, but the right is used to refer to two completely different and opposed things - on the one hand totalitarian states intruding into every aspect of personal and economic liberty and on the other hand the advocates of maximum liberty and minimal states. As an intellectual tool, it is a blunt instrument indeed. The argument only arises because the left wing, seeing with horror the results of a party that identifies itself as national socialist, hurries to try to distance itself by calling it right wing. Even if it made sense - and a range with the same at either end doesn't make sense - it would only prove that socialism's death count is 100 million deaths rather than 120 million.

While people who identify themselves as Nazis are now few, owing to the shame that rightly attaches to that name, what amazes me is that people still exist who openly identify themselves as socialist, and are truculently proud about how morally superior they are with it! and who have the gall to accuse capitalism of being an inhumane system. One can only wonder at what part of the brain their utterances are coming from.

As we libertarians say, "It's not left versus right, it's the State versus YOU".
Posted by Peter Hume, Sunday, 9 October 2011 9:19:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Hume,

"As we libertarians say, "It's not left verses right. It's the state verses YOU."

Absolutely....I recall reading somewhere a definition of a libertarian as an anarchist who wants police protection from his slaves.

(I think I'm almost cured! :)
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 9 October 2011 10:19:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f although I don't rule out that some pollies did quite well out of privatisation, that is most definitely not the main reason that our, Queensland's, electricity prices have skyrocketed,

You can put that down to that grinning clown Beattie. To help cover his crazy spending, he ripped hundreds of millions out of the state owned electricity, in"special bonuses". Nothing was left for maintenance.

While in state hands my power went off 20 to 30 times a year.

The main reason for selling out was the impending total collapse of the distribution system, & the desire not to be in charge when that happened. You could say the same for water, & health care is close to it.

I'm not going to suggest our privatised power system is perfect, or the companies involved are father christmas, but it does take more than half an inch of rain, in a mild thunderstorm, to have us in the dark these days.

To my mind, the most inefficient organisation is a union controlled government department or enterprise. May the gods protect us from them
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 9 October 2011 11:36:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Hasbeen,

Thank you for your post. You may well be right. At least you are writing about Queensland rather than advising me to read some ideologue like von Mises. We are surrounded by many big institutions who are quite ready to rip us off. To say that one is the big menace as libertarians do with their worry about the state is wrong.

Corporations, unions, churches and any large and powerful institution can be something to watch out for. Sometimes the power of the state through law can protect us from being ripped off by a corporation. Sometimes it is the state itself that rips us off. Sometimes the corporation. Sometimes something else.

To set up the state as the big devil as libertarians do is theology not reason.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 9 October 2011 12:44:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Poirot is reduced to arguing that freedom is slavery, which just says it all, doesn’t it?)

David
The issue is as to the social benefit of coerced versus voluntary relations.

I ask you to distinguish the principle on which you support coerced relations from the Marxist socialism you disagree with; and you don’t do it.

I accuse you of ignoring the unnecessary deaths resulting from the socialism you favour, and you do what the Marxists did to you: you simply ignore it.

What you replied to Squeers applies exactly to you:
“You don't examine the arguments. You don't address what was written. You merely argue by adjective.”

Like Squeers, you throw “ideology” in my face:- the tactic is to rubbish the very possibility of rational discourse. And like Squeers and Poirot, you *assume* for the state a role of benevolence, moral superiority and omniscience that, when challenged, you are unable to rationally justify.

You pretend to be abhorred by excesses of state power. 1. Well if you abhor them, on what principle do you oppose them and support liberty? 2. I’m still waiting for you to provide a rational *principle* distinguishing where state ownership or control of means of production – including human beings - is fairer or more productive than individual freedom and private property?

3. But if the only principle of liberty you can provide, is that it’s whatever is left over after the state has done whatever it wants, how is that any better than the Marxists?

The difference between the state and the other institutions you mention is that the state claims and exercises a compulsory monopoly of the use of coercion. To confuse voluntary and compulsory transactions is the most basic moral and intellectual blunder.

You call Mises an “ideologue”. 4. What of his works have you read?

“I understand ideology as conformity to a belief system which overrides evidence contradicting the belief system.”

5. What evidence do you refer to?

To avoid the possibility of evasion on your part, would you please answer my 6 numbered questions.

6. What justifies violating freedom?
Posted by Peter Hume, Sunday, 9 October 2011 8:18:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Peter Hume,

When there is a monopoly such as a water company or an electric company where one doesn't have a choice it makes no difference to the consumer whether it is public or privatised.

You can accuse me of anything, but you can't apparently get that obvious fact into your head. There is neither market nor freedom of choice where there is a monopoly.

It is just as much coercion for a corporation to have a monopoly of water or power as it is for the government to have a similar monopoly.

You apparently see no difference between a country where there is rule of law, an independent judiciary and all the other trappings are part of a democratic state and a Marxist or other kind of dictatorship.

The rule of law limits what a state can do. A citizen cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 9 October 2011 10:07:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Hume

I think you'll find I have been quite steadfast in ignoring any invite to include a discussion of Left/Right in the debate about Socialism, National Socialism, Liberalism and Conservatism.'

I agree with your view :

'It sheds more confusion than clarity and proves nothing at best than name-calling.'

Please note I no longer, Since Graham's recent intervention,descend into purposeless bickering or name-calling.
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 10 October 2011 7:57:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear imajulianutter,

Good for you. A discussion of left and right does not seem to serve a purpose. Left is apparently what people who call themselves right don't like, and right is apparently what people who call themselves left don't like.
Posted by david f, Monday, 10 October 2011 8:18:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note you have evaded answering the questions which would show whether your argument is invalid and self-contradictory.

You are arguing by name-calling and personality - casting the issues in terms of my alleged failure to understand (which assumes that you are already right wihtout having to show defensible reason, and therefore assumes what is in issue. It is therefore circular argument and therefore irrational). Whereas you have not been able to make out the justification of coercion that is in issue.

Please define monopoly.

You have provided no justification of state action other than to displace a private monopoly. (But of course if it makes no difference to the consumers, that is no more an argument in favour of compulsory monopoly by government, than it is against, is it?)

Does that mean you concede the issue for all other state action?

The Marxists deny the very possibility of economic theory. Their entire intellectual method consists of ideological sloganeering. So they assume everyone else is doing the same thing. The fatal conceit is that society can be shaped like putty by the wisdom of the state.

I am trying to find out where your intellectual method, and your theory, differs from that. But all I am getting back is slogans and name-calling. To question your views is to be an "ideologue". When asked why you say that, you evade the question. Your public goods argument on critical examination immediately crumbles and you haven't ventured to defend. And now, all the time throwing personal insults at me, you shift to the slogan of "monopoly", as if merely saying this word establishes everything you could need to establish in justification of state action.

Okay, so please answer my numbered questions, and
7. define monopoly?
8. demonstrate why its alleged evils justify unprovoked aggression as the basis of social co-operation?
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 10 October 2011 9:38:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Peter Hume,

You are right. I have chosen not to answer your questions. I don't think whether facilities are owned by government or not is an important issue. Therefore I chose not to discuss it further since I don't want to spend time on something I don't think is worth it. There are many people who differ with your opinion and also think it is an important issue. They may be happy to discuss it with you.
Posted by david f, Monday, 10 October 2011 11:34:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem is not confined to "facilities".

The question is why any given transaction or social relation should not be decided by the parties to that transaction on the basis of freedom, private property, and consent, rather than compulsory monopoly, bureaucratic decree backed up by unprovoked aggression.

I think freedom must be limited to prevent aggressing against the person or property rights of others, and as a matter of tort for example nuisance and trespass.

But
a) you're not providing *any* criterion by which people would have a right to freedom as against an arbitrary power in the state to override it for any reason it felt like giving, even where it involves large numbers of unnecessary deaths, and
b) you don't even agree with the first principle of freedom that it should be limited to prevent unprovoked aggression. On the contrary, like the Marxists, you share the view that unprovoked politically directed force is the necessary basis of a good society.

Thus non-Marxist socialism cannot be shown to be in any better position, as a way to a fair or productive society, than Marxist socialism.
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 10 October 2011 12:22:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Attention all communazis, fascism is another type of left wing politics, ALL different types of totalitarian dictatorship are loony left politics.

When the "proletariat" are being oppressed, do you think it matters to them, whether the dictator calls themselves "dear leader", emperor, commissar, king, premier, fuhrer or Queen Juliar Dillard?

A totalitarian dictatorship is a totalitarian dictatorship is a totalitarian dictatorship, whatever sticky label you slap on the front of it, or whatever the "leader's" name is either.

As a matter of fact 1930's Nazi Germany was the least evil of all these communazi governments, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Marcuse, Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Krudd, Dillard, Clinton, Obama & all the others murdered far more people than Hitler ever did.
Posted by Formersnag, Monday, 10 October 2011 12:37:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic (9.58pm, 6/10),

Conservatism is opposed to socialism, though one could be conservative on moral issue and all in favour of the nationalisation of industry. I guess I could have said “libertarian socialism” and “socialist libertarianism”, but I just did not think of those combinations. I remain entertained by the fact that there are a few people on the right who are attempting to move heaven and earth in order to dislodge Nazism from the extreme right-wing position that it holds, while no one on the left that I have ever heard of ever pretends that communism was not on the left, extreme though it was.

As for this modern attempt by some to equate the right with libertarianism rather than with conservatism that has been the case historically - ha!

Chris Curtis
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 10 October 2011 12:40:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/10/the-opium-of-terry-eagleton is another response to Eagleton's essay which the article referred to.
Posted by david f, Monday, 10 October 2011 1:00:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219743

Chris C, the far right is in fact REAL anarchy, no rules at all.

Communism or international socialism is on the far left along with total monarchy & other types of dictatorship.

Nazism or national SOCIALIST WORKERS party of Germany would also be on the left, in a graphic it would be about 1mm to the right of communism.

Moderate, centrist, conservative, christian democracy is in the middle, all other types of politics are either side of the middle, differing distances to the extreme right or left.

Almost the entire worlds lame stream media is owned/controlled by jews many of whom are also socialists of one type or another.

History is written by the victors. Pretending the Nazis were radical extreme right was about trying to protect the image of other forms of loony left politics.

Bob Katter, Don Chip & Pauline Hanson are all centrist. The LNP is in many ways "labour lite", politically correct, fabian socialism.

Social & Economic liberalism leads to small, medium business & co-ops being taken over or squeazed out by big business, usually multinational mega corporations. This is what radical, extreme, globalised, "free trade" leads to, Coca Cola Communazism as espoused by Comrades Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, Howard, Krudd & Dillard.

Social & Economic conservatism leads to growth of small, medium business & co-ops, more competition, less big business monopoly, duopoly & cartels. Globalisation kills competition, protectionism creates it as espoused by Conservatives Chifly, Menzies & McKewan.
Posted by Formersnag, Monday, 10 October 2011 2:19:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris
That is not an argument of substance but only takes the entire matter back to name-calling.

At best all it would establish is that the *name* for governmental control of the means of production should be called one thing rather than another.

Another name-calling tactic is the socialists’ use of the term “ideology”. The implication is that:
1) the person addressed is either a shill, or a dupe, of ruthless exploiters;
2) there is no possibility of rational economic theory, or of knowing truth; everything is just a matter of opinion
3) there is no possibility of different but socially harmonious economic interests; everything is a zero-sum game of exploitation and abuse, from which Our Saviour, the state, will rescue us.

So on the one hand the socialist denies that there can be any such thing as objectively true economic theory. On the other hand, he says that history proves that capitalism is exploitative, rapacious etc. Well how was he able to interpret the economic facts of history without recourse to economic theory? The opponents of socialism are only spouting neoliberal (translation: bourgeois) “ideology”; but the socialists perceive absolute economic truth without need for recourse to reason. It’s childish bullsh1t.

Of course the Nazis stand for the concentration camps and war deaths; that’s why the left want to characterize them as not left wing. But these atrocities were done by government direction using resources – means of production - taken from the private sector: by definition, socialism.

And the economic policy of the national socialists was indisputably left-wing:
“The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and…”
(cont.)
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 10 October 2011 8:54:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“.. in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."
Source: Time Magazine, who named Hitler “Man of the Year” for 1938.
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id10.html

So the Nazis could only be “right wing” from the standpoint of full communism, which is hardly a recommendation, is it?

And what was the rationale for government having such power? It was no different from that of the left-wing socialists – the government stands for the interests of society over those of the selfish individual, there is a need for business to be regulated to prevent exploitation of the people, the state compensates for societal imperfection yarp yarp yarp.

In fact the *economic policy* of the Nazis is virtually identical to the policies so beloved of social democrats of the modern Western world like davidf: industrial relations laws; state broadcaster; social insurances; big infrastructure projects; state control of the commanding heights of society including money, credit, roads, highways, public spaces, police, army, water, electricity; compulsory indoctrination of all youths; motherhood policies; social engineering including racial policies; persecution of individual businesses; national fitness camps, you name it.

*All* attempts at socialism – democratic or otherwise – must necessarily and do morph into one or other form of fascism, because
a) on the one hand liberty is out of the question, else they’d be for the personal and economic liberty of private ownership of the means of production, and
b) on the other hand full socialism is factually impossible for the reasons Mises has irrefutably proved: http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

Thus putting aside ideology there’s nothing else that socialism can turn into, than fascism, corporate cronyism.

If the left wing, instead of squarking slogans, actually inquired into the economics of what they support, they would understand that the fascist cronyism of the western world necessarily follows from the policies they advocate, not from the private ownership of the means of production that they abuse.

And democracy is just socialism by instalments.

That’s why it has now reached the stage that Obama has a panel to decide which American citizens will be assassinated without charge or trial.: http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory241.html
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 10 October 2011 9:05:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChrisC, I'm not "of the right" or "of the left", I try to make my own judgements based on as much information as I can be bothered to look for.

Until quite recently I proudly identified as a socialist, believing that the collectivist approach was the only way for working people to have any influence on the great forces that shape their lives. Having come up against the blunt edge of the coercive nature of the socialist state a couple of times since then and noted the complete lack of any sense of personal responsibility for outcomes that permeates the workforce of the organs of the state, I have changed my view. Socialism appeals to the young because the young are accustomed to having someone to "pick them up" in the form of their parents, but they don't much like the way their parents demand the right to instruct them in acceptable modes of behaviour. As they grow up a bit most people learn their own capacities and abandon the Left as unnecessary or flawed. Of course, some never do grow up that far..

I am not by any means "conservative". I think the conservative side of politics is just as bad as the so-called "progressive" side. Neither is genuinely "progressive", instead tending to the reactionary in most cases, based on a strong sense of entitlement on both sides. Try to discuss changing any policies of the "progressives" for an example of such reaction. Conservative policies are just as individually stultifying as those from the Left: the only difference is who they believe should be in charge. It's the Whigs and the Tories in another form.

Therefore, the only genuinely illuminating contrast is between socialism and libertarianism. It's the contrast between the concept of state as primary social unit versus the individual's self-determined priorities being the main social driver.

[cont]
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 11 October 2011 4:10:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As for Nazism, whatever it became, it was founded on socialist, albeit not Marxist, principles as a central aspect of its raison d'etre You can dodge and weave all you like, but that stands. It was a collectivist ideology that was run as an oligarchy. Is it the oligarchical nature of its leadership structure that confuses you? It shouldn't - every socialist/communist government so far tried has been oligarchical. Even those former socialist states that have become democracies retain a tendency to oligarchy. Take a look at Russia, or Italy for that matter.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 11 October 2011 4:11:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gawd, I must have been only half awake this morning when I wrote that first post. Please try to ignore it. I'll rewrite it in English when I: get the chance...
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 11 October 2011 9:26:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti,

Your first post made some sense to me....."It's the contrast between the concept of state as primary social unit verses the individual's self determined priorities being the main social driver."

I think you're right that the greatest contrast is between socialism and libertarianism - conservative verses the "liberal" views are more of a difference in the degree of social democracy.

Peter Hume,

I've worked out a way to measure your hypocrisy regarding name-calling - I call it the "PH level". I note that you chided david f. for, amongst other things, name-calling. Is it that you consider other people's creative efforts in that area less impressive than your own? I did note also that you recently referred to someone on another thread as a "fascist idiot" - now that's real name-calling : )
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 11 October 2011 9:55:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot
The difference between my ad hominem argument and the socialists’ is that mine forms the *conclusion* of my argument based on reason and history; for the socialists it always forms their *premise* of their argument based on circularity.

Thus while the socialist's ad hominem is the foundation of their entire argument; mine is mere colour and decoration added to an argument that irrefutably establishes my case and refutes theirs.

Furthermore, my ad hominem is virtually always *in response* to ad hominem initiated by the socialist. For example, I asked david f by what principle he could distinguish Marxist from non-Marxist socialism, and he squarked “ideology” at me - the first reflex of all socialists when challenged.

In any event, socialists by definition are always calling for physical violence against me and others – that’s what the argument’s about! You cry precious offence at my *words* when you advocate *physical* violation of me.

Thus if we take away the socialists' name-calling, assuming they are right, slogans like "ideology", "right wing", and “exploitation”, and there's nothing left.

Furthermore, hypocrisy is the very essence of socialist argument.
• Marx alleges economic class determines ideology; but never explains how he can speak for the proletarians.
• You complain that our lifestyle is unsustainable; but consume more resources than most people in history and pre-history and refuse to sacrifice the least frivolous luxury like arguing on the internet
• David f critises Marxist socialism, is unable to idenfity a single principle to distinguish the socialism he favours, yet will not concede and will not re-think his claims.

Thus socialists’ hypocrisy is deep and double-dyed, the very essence of their argument; while there is no hypocrisy in my arguing for freedom, the basis of all morality and production.

But perhaps if you snivel a bit more about "slavery" you will persuade someone of your intellectual standards?
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 11 October 2011 11:29:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219815
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219816
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219830

Antiseptic, dont be so hard on yourself, your many contributions to these debates have been some of the best i have ever read on any subject, i came to similar conclusions to yourself in the early 1980's & became an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Democrats.

However dont get too exited about libertarians, some of their priciples/policies i agree with but not all. EG definition of conservative politics = traditionalism, "if it aint broken, dont fix it".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce (the man who abolished slavery in Britain) is what the communazis would call a "reactionary", a tory/conservative, they were the moderate, centrist, educated, intelligent, middle class, progressives of their day, PROTESTING christians who were up against the whig/aristocracy/feudalists.

It is centrist people like him & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell who got us the representative democracy that we take for granted today.

On a "motherhood statements" level the LNP is fine, but there is some corruption/political correctness among them & that is why i am developing a lobby group, rather than another new minor party, also why i will be voting for the moderate centrist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Katter & preferencing the LNP ahead of the RED/green, getup, GAYLP/alp, Socialist Alliance.

All capitalists fall into 2 broad groups

#1, "free enterprise" capitalists like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Turnbull who are both socially liberal (pro choice, republican, soft core feminist, or meterosexual softie) & economically liberal (international bankster in favour of unlimited free trade killing all family owned, small & medium businesses, farms & co-ops in favour of multi national, mega corporations)

#2, "private enterprise" capitalists like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Katter & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McEwen who are socially conservative (pro life, monarchist, christian family values, not fans of GLBT lifestyle &/or feMANazis) & economically conservative (protectionists who are in favour of "free trade" within OUR borders between small & medium business, family farmers, co-ops, etc, with a semi regulated economy like we had between 1945 & 1972, which made Australia the wealthiest nation on earth with the smallest gap between rich & poor)
Posted by Formersnag, Tuesday, 11 October 2011 12:02:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,

You seem to have used an awful lot of words to say that you have one rule for yourself - and another rule for everyone who disagrees with you.

We'll call it Peter's "Sticks and Stones Principle"....which btw is a 9 on the PH scale.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 11 October 2011 12:15:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219844

Peter Hume, excellent comment, could not have said it better myself, hypocrisy is the rotten core of all loony left politics.

BTW the only difference between ALL communism & ALL socialism is method.

The communists advocate war.

The socialists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Fabian_Society advocate "creaping gradualism" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236# the PC, Thought Police destroying our society over decades of "white anting" it from within. http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm here it is in another form.

But i suspect you already knew that.

Whenever somebody who is not a good little communazi uses derogatory language to describe their corrupt, evil actions, it is "name calling".

Whenever they call us names, it somehow becomes legitimate debate, or denial IS a river in Egypt.
Posted by Formersnag, Tuesday, 11 October 2011 12:26:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot
More ad hom in substitution of relevant argument.

Wow. Amazing.

And this shows collectivist authoritarianism is better than freedom …. how?

All
The two fatal defects of all socialist argument are that they
• do not make out their critique of capitalism,
• but even if they did, they don’t establish how public ownership is going to be any improvement.

The socialist critique of capitalism is invariably on the basis that it’s so obvious it goes without saying. But when asked to prove it’s exploitative, their first resort is invariably the Industrial Revolution, followed by corporate rapacity, followed by unsustainability.

As to the Industrial Revolution the fact that the population doubled in the relevant period demolishes all their arguments because, obviously if your preferred alternative involves half the population dying in infancy, or of mass starvation, that ends any humane discussion in favour of capitalism.

The socialists really show their stripes in their argument about sustainability. The solution is for the state to rationalize the problem, defined as too many people being alive.

Yet to compare a system maintaining a certain population level at a certain high standard, with another (alleged, imaginary, impossible) system (forcibly) maintaining a lower population level at a lower standard, does not compare apples with apples. (It compares apples with death, and has the gall to claim it's a better alternative to apples!)

If for reasons of sustainability, current consumption must be deferred for the benefit of a future generation, then that future generation must be under the same obligation for the same reasons, which means no-one could ever use the natural resources in issue, even though future generations might be wealthier than us.

But even if we are going to ecological hell in a capitalist handcart, the assumption that authoritarian central planning would or could be any better at preserving human life or the environment is completely false as both theory and practice have proved.

The charge that capitalism produces corporate cronyism disregards the role of the last century’s social democratic policies. Either way, the socialist argument must fail, because ...

(cont.)
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 11 October 2011 8:26:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
… according to the social democrat view, such policies were necessary to avoid capitalist social injustice. And according to the libertarian view, such policies will produce what they do in fact produce, namely fascist corporate cronyism. So either way the socialist argument fails.

But even if the socialists had made good their critique of capitalism, which they haven’t, they still wouldn’t have got to square one in establishing that public ownership – by whatever agency – could do any better.

That’s why the problem is not Marxist socialism, but any kind of socialism. And it’s why david was completely unable to find an economic principle distinguishing Marxist from non-Marxist socialism. There isn’t any!

If the socialists could
“smash this sorry scheme of things entire,
and re-mould it closer to the heart’s desire”
they assume that the preferred solution will just materialize, either without the state (Marx) or with it (david f, Squeers).

But like Marx, they never turn their minds to what socialism would need to do in practice in order to replace capitalism, without producing worse negative consequences. They just assume that society is going to be fairer or more sustainable, without *thinking through* what effect abolition or displacement of the capital markets will have on human life and the environment.

What applies to full socialism applies to part socialism. None of the arguments for part socialism can be sustained without
a) making the same erroneous assumptions as full socialism, and
b) relying on the continued existence of capitalism for it to be viable and humane.

It is not just Marxist socialism that produces piles of corpses. For example, road socialism in the USA alone causes over 40,000 deaths per year. Now multiply that across all the countries in the world practicing road socialism. As the bureaucrats running the roads have no financial interest in getting it right, and pay no cost for getting it wrong, what else should you expect?

Freedom of person and property, subject to a general ban on aggression and fraud, is the only humane as well as the only practical system.
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 11 October 2011 8:58:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,

In a libertarian utopia, who polices the "general ban on aggression and fraud", considering they are two extremely common human characteristics?
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 11 October 2011 9:42:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, I do think you're reaching for an extreme. I can't speak for Peter, but I think most people would agree that any state requires a system of laws to protect person and property.

The discussion comes down to a consideration of the balance point between intrusive, coercive laws and minimalist, nihilist anarchy.

Peter, I also think you're spot on about corporatism and socialism being concomitant upon each other. Both the Corporate state and the Socialist one operate on the same stratified collectivist oligarchical model. Both produce poor outcomes for the majority and massively disproportionate rewards for those at the top.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 12 October 2011 6:15:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot
There are a number of ways the status quo could be improved on, many of which are already in widespread practical application, and used by governments as well. It’s only a question of extending them, or rather restricting government’s monopoly.

However for starters, I have never claimed to stand for a “utopia”, so you’ll need to ask your question without obvious misrepresentation and bad faith before you can expect me to answer it.

And you’ll need to answer my question about the minimum wage first. It’s perfectly reasonable: your entire argument hinges on it, and I’ve asked it four or five times with you steadfastly refusing to answer it.

If the legislature in 1842 had mandated a minimum wage of 50 pounds per day, do you think that would have caused conditions for the working class to get better or worse?
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 12 October 2011 7:47:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,

Regarding your last sentence on a 50 pound per day wage in 1842 - what was that you were saying about questions posed in "bad faith"?
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 12 October 2011 7:54:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219888
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219893
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219912
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219908

Peter Hume & Antiseptic, have either of you guys read these books?

http://www.downloadweb.org/search.php?acode=2d6cfcc00b464c7ee4408add5d864738&q=The%2520naked%2520communist "the naked communist" in which the author destroys all of the principles of communazi, loony left, dictatorship politics.

http://www.torrents.net/torrent/324389/The-Naked-Capitalist-ocr'd-pdf/ & this one "the naked capitalist" in which it is shown that the filthy stinking, super rich, steal from low, middle & even high income earners to give to the 1% of the population richest on earth or increase the wealth gap, by promoting communazism. As Comrades Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Krudd & Juliar Dillhard have been doing, introducing policies to weaken small, medium business, farmers & co-ops in favour of big business.
Posted by Formersnag, Wednesday, 12 October 2011 10:40:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, I haven't read those books FS. I reckon I can work out a fair bit of what's in them though.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 12 October 2011 12:50:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219943

Antiseptic, i can thoroughly recomend them to you when you have time to read them.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/at-last-a-thorough-probe-into-what-drives-the-greens-machine/story-fn59niix-1226095160826

i can thoroughly recomend this one to you as well.
Posted by Formersnag, Wednesday, 12 October 2011 3:14:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot
So you don't answer the question, accuse me of bad faith, and give no reason why.

Certainly if evasion and sniping were an economic alternative, you'd have a veritable wonderland.

Formersnag
That article just says it all, doesn't it? It actually sounds like a description so many socialists on OLO.

"The findings of these experts lead one to understand that the Greens have an uncontrollable urge to spend and tax, almost everywhere and for everything; a mania for control through legislation and regulation of institutions and individuals; a disturbing and unwarranted confidence in central planning and belief that government knows best; an antagonism to initiatives by the private sector or individuals; and, at best, a systematic and naive understanding, historically and practically, of how the world works.

"In these policy formulations there appears to be a profound lack of appreciation or understanding of why our society is the way it is. All the fruits of Australia's prosperity, with its brilliant scientists, economists, farmers, technicians, talented workers and thinkers, our leaders, our institutions, our democracy and our constitution, count for nought. The Greens want to change everything and, like spoilt children, destroy what they don't understand.

"The Greens' policies would have catastrophic unintended consequences for this country. They would threaten its prosperity, diminish individual human rights, decrease its tolerance and harmony, and make us less secure. Worse, and this is the biggest irony, the Greens' policies would damage our environment.

"The tragedy is that it is precisely the "good intentions" of the Greens that draws so many people to them and to vote for them. The result, if this group with its ill-thought-out policies ever gets its way, will be a disastrous return to a new primitivisation."

It's like Poirot, Squeers, and david f. They think because they want to do good, therefore their policies are by definition good.
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 12 October 2011 7:08:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that link formersnag. It sounds pretty much like the view I'd formed already. They're Utopians, but with no idea that the Utopia they're asking for is in fact a dystopian nightmare.

Another example of pathological altruism, perhaps combined with a more than healthy sense of self-entitlement. Not a nice mix.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 15 October 2011 9:13:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Formersnag (2.19pm, 10/10),

The idea that the far right is anarchy makes no sense at all, but neither does an international Jewish conspiracy, so I don’t expect to get through to you.

If we take just the parties that have had long-term federal representation in the post-war era, the left-to-right continuum reads Greens-ALP-DLP-Democrats-Liberals-Nationals. (Some would put the Democrats to the left of the DLP, but I do not as the Democrats voted for the Howard government’s workplace relations laws, something the DLP senators would never have done.)

Peter Hume,

I simply don’t share your view of the world. It makes no sense to me, but I accept that you are beyond my powers of persuasion, especially given that you now equate democracy with socialism.

Antiseptic,

Yes, Nazism pre-Hitler was founded on socialist principles, but Hitler had a different take on things, but I have been through that too.

Chris Curtis
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 15 October 2011 4:50:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChrisC:"Hitler had a different take on things"

Not at all. The Nazis were aware that to hold power they needed the backing of big business and they quite deliberately sought to gain that backing, whilst at the same time maintaining economic and social policies that were essentially socialist. This socialism wasn't Marxist, but arose from a vague sort of communalism based on the idea of duty to the race. It's a sort of tribal village approach writ large, complete with the concept of "chief" and "village elders". It went so wrong because Hitler went mad, not because the concept of a uni-racial nation is inherently abhorrent. Look at Japan, the Balkans, the Kurdish lands, and on and on and on. People like to live with people with whom they feel a commonality.

I'd even go so far as to say that the idea of removing "them" from "us" is at the root of human expansion. Humans don't like other groups of humans around their territory. Have a look at the many and brutal teritorial tribal fights that occur still in PNG for a simple example. We ourselves have foreign ownership laws.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 16 October 2011 4:45:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hatred of the other is endemic to the human race. Generally tribal people have a name for themselves which means 'the people.' Inuit which the people we used to call eskimos now prefer to be called means 'the people' in their language. That implies that those not Inuit are not people. The myth of the chosen people in the Bible means non-Jews are not chosen by God. That puts down non-Jews. It would be a movement against race hatred to recognise the 'chosen people' myth for what it is and rid ourselves of it and all its variants. Marxism, Christianity, Islam, nationalism, racism and fascism are all variants. There is no chosen race, class, religion, nation, political ideology or ethnic group. It is merely a hate promoting device.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 16 October 2011 11:13:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davidf:"It would be a movement against race hatred to recognise the 'chosen people' myth for what it is and rid ourselves of it and all its variants."

I suspect that's going to be about as easy as turning soup back into the ingredients it was made from. People seem to feel a need to be "special", whatever lipservice they may pay to egalitarianism.

Even the most downtrodden and outcast have this need, perhaps even more than those who are doing well. Much of our own politics is based on the need to appease the "special" claims of interest groups. Marxism is a failure because it simply doesn't recognise this basic human drive. Nazism was wildly successful because it made everybody who wasn't Jewish (or criminal or homosexual or mentally disturbed) "special": Zionism for precisely the opposite reason.

Perhaps we should be working more on ways to harness this enormously persuasive meme?
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 17 October 2011 5:50:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Antiseptic, Marxism recognised this basic human drive and promoted class solidarity. However, class solidarity turned out to be much less of a binding force than religion, ethnicity, nationalism and attachment to locality. How would you promote the meme in a way that would reduce rather than promote divisiveness?
Posted by david f, Monday, 17 October 2011 8:17:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david, is division bad per se? Is there no impetus provided by competitive drives? Does a strong sense of communal investment to the exclusion of others have no virtuous qualities?

I think the difficult thing is to allow the positive competitive urge something of a free rein, whilst limiting the potential for it to boil over into territoriality and exclusionary discrimination or even active warfare.

I wish I had a big enough intellect to work out how to come up with a repeatable solution to that problem.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 17 October 2011 1:04:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Antiseptic,

Division is not bad per se. Competition can be healthy. However, when division carries the message that those different from you are in some degree inferior to you or not as worthy of life as you that has corpse making potential. Marxism, Christianity, Islam, nationalism, racism and fascism all contain that idea.
Posted by david f, Monday, 17 October 2011 1:57:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy