REAL war protest

Lindir The Green · Post by **Lindir The Green** » 30 Nov 2006, 16:16

I think that you have a different definition of communism and socialim than almost everyone else...

I haven't ever heard anyone else who said that USSR wasn't communist, and that North Korea isn't communist, and that Scandanavia isn't socialist. And you said yourself that Cuba was communist and that's why it's so much better than America, but then just now you said that it's not actually communist...

You're trying to convince us that communism is based on solid economic principles, but then you don't tell us what they are and instead push a bunch of links in our face and try to get us to on our own figure out what those economic principles are. Which is doomed to failure, because we're not going to try really hard to disprove ourselves.

As is communism itself, because although it may be "based on solid economic principles," the way it is argued for is that capitalist is greedy and evil, which is not that is based on anything except emotion.

And you keep saying that the economic principles that capitalism is currently thriving on are flawed, without explaining exactly how. If it's so flawed and communism is based on such solid economic principles (:roll:) then why are there no (according to your definition) communist countries?

Kixxe · Post by **Kixxe** » 30 Nov 2006, 16:19

SpikedHelmet wrote:Btw, "Scandinavian socialism" isn't socialism at all, please stop calling it that.

I can eaither call it Liberalism or Socialism, cuz that's the only 2 ways to go(less taxes/more taxes or if you would: no taxes/all taxes), and Scandinavia is leaning towards Socialism much more then say USA and Britan. Denmark is the highest taxing country in the world ffs.

Cabbage · Post by **Cabbage** » 30 Nov 2006, 18:16

The U.K isnt miles behind tbh, its at 37.3% of GDP, but there are a huge number of stealth taxes aswell :s

And Denmark is the second highest, after Sweden ^^

tombom · Post by **tombom** » 30 Nov 2006, 19:48

oh god i'm getting back in an internet argument

I think SpikedHelmet would probably say that the "Communism" practised in these countries is actually Stalinism, which is the dictatorship/state capitalism/tyrannical oppression shindig that we use the word Communism for. This is different to the Communism as envisioned by Marx etc. Swedish socialism is actually social democrat, which is where socialist ideals are an important factor in policy decisions but no actual socialist system is in place.

SpikedHelmet, I have no idea what you're arguing. In your last post, you made at least two points in your introduction that you contradicted in your reply to Felix. You also seem to want to elimnate human emotions or something. Whenever people argue against you, you change what you're syaing. This is known as "backtracking" and is why all internet arguments are completely pointless because it ends up with neither side having an actual position, just arguing for the sake of it. Why this thread ended up in a political rant from a "LETS BOMB LOCAL BARRACKS TO PROTEST WAR" I don't know. For your next post, please state what your position is instead of just replying. What is your definition of communism, why is capitalism fundamentally flawed etc. I'm not dismissing you out of hand, I'd just like to get something soid.

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 30 Nov 2006, 20:33

Spiked, I'd be glad to read a book that you reccomend on Communism, as long as it is a) relatively short, and b) available at my library. (Sorry, I don't have the spare cash to go ordering books on Amazon or the bookstore or whatever...)

I'd probably reccomend Libertarianism In One Lesson by David Bergland; it's short and easy-to-read, but unfortunately it is very USA-centric and is designed to persuade US moderates to the Libertarian Party... so it may not speak directly to your concerns.

See, the problem is, I can give you books about libertarianism, but I wouldn't agree with them 100% because "true" libertarianism is another one of those systems rationally deducted from "fundamental truths" about how the world works, and I think we've already established quite well how I feel about that.

For an example about how I disagree... "true" libertarians are against environmental protection legislation and believe that pollution is another form of trespass and should be legally treated as such. The problem with that is, the burden of proof is upon YOU to prove that the particular polluter in question directly contributed to the pollution on your property. This may be easy when it's obvious, but if there's 10 nearby factories spewing noxious fumes into the air, it would be impossible to make a legal case against any one of them.

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 30 Nov 2006, 23:48

I think that you have a different definition of communism and socialim than almost everyone else...

My definition of Communism and Socialism is the same as Communists and Socialists. If you believe China and North Korea are Communist states than not only have you bought into their own propagandized bullshit, but you've also bought into the West's propagandized bullshit.

And you said yourself that Cuba was communist and that's why it's so much better than America, but then just now you said that it's not actually communist...

I said Cuba was socialist (or should have). Even then, it is only partially militant-socialist, with some capitalist injections. Communism, by its very definition, is the system in which all states and governments have been abolished. Since China and North Korea still exist, and haven't abolished their state authorities completely, then by that simple definition they aren't Communist.

You're trying to convince us that communism is based on solid economic principles, but then you don't tell us what they are and instead push a bunch of links in our face and try to get us to on our own figure out what those economic principles are.

I've explained as best I can, but I am not a scholar, a philosopher or an economist. I think I've explained enough about communist economics to give you an idea.

As is communism itself, because although it may be "based on solid economic principles," the way it is argued for is that capitalist is greedy and evil, which is not that is based on anything except emotion.

Using the words "greedy and evil" are merely emotional ways to explain capitalism and its effects and contradictions -- the words are not the scientific basis of communism.

And you keep saying that the economic principles that capitalism is currently thriving on are flawed, without explaining exactly how.

I have already explained how. Are you even reading my posts? I'm starting to think maybe you stopped after the first few.

If it's so flawed and communism is based on such solid economic principles then why are there no (according to your definition) communist countries?

This too I have already explained which drives home the belief that you aren't even reading my posts. Read my posts, then join the discussion.

Scandinavia is leaning towards Socialism much more then say USA and Britan.

Leaning towards the general direction of socialism and being socialist are two entirely different concepts. Scandinavian "socialism" is nothing more than centrist liberalism. I'm sure they have some socialist aspects pock-marking their society but they are certainly not socialist in any sense of the word.

think SpikedHelmet would probably say that the "Communism" practised in these countries is actually Stalinism, which is the dictatorship/state capitalism/tyrannical oppression shindig that we use the word Communism for.

Not even. I view the degredation of the Soviet Union, China and North Korea as state capitalist -- by which I mean that after their respective revolutions, they simply replaced bourgeois domination of capital with government domination of capital -- they did not abolish capital at all, or the conditions by which one person or group manipulated and exploits another person or group in order to generate capital. And as the bourgeois and fuedalists were simply replaced by the state's own beauraucratic engine, hence I use "state capitalist". Workers in those nations were still being abused and exploited, just by the state, and not private capitalists.

Swedish socialism is actually social democrat, which is where socialist ideals are an important factor in policy decisions but no actual socialist system is in place.

Actually I wouldn't even call the Swedish model social democrat. I'd call it, as I did, centrist liberalism. This is based on actual policies. Sweden's model is far more right-wing than established social-democrat parties.

What is your definition of communism, why is capitalism fundamentally flawed etc.

I do infact have a problem with staying on track and keeping track of my articulations. Unfortunately the intricacies of Communism are far more than I can put down in this forum. It would require typing an entire book (LITERALLY) to explain it all as I'd have to draw on dozens of authors from all manner of subjects and topics that Communism deals with. This is why I provided those links, because I don't feel like spending 5 hours of my time trying to explain it myself. But since that is absolutely unacceptable and it is stupid of me to expect anyone on this forum to actually take some initiative and try and study something they don't want or have to, I'll simply quote a paragraph from Principles of Communism

The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor ├óÔé¼ÔÇ£ hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. ... Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.

[Communism] will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene.

[Communist] society will take all forces of production and means of commerce, as well as the exchange and distribution of products, out of the hands of private capitalists and will manage them in accordance with a plan based on the availability of resources and the needs of the whole society.

The form of the division of labor which makes one a peasant, another a cobbler, a third a factory worker, a fourth a stock-market operator, has already been underminded by machinery and will completely disappear. Education will enable young people quickly to familiarize themselves with the whole system of production and to pass from one branch of production to another in response to the needs of society or their own inclinations. It will, therefore, free them from the one-sided character which the present-day division of labor impresses upon every individual. Communist society will, in this way, make it possible for its members to put their comprehensively developed faculties to full use. But, when this happens, classes will necessarily disappear.

will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole ├óÔé¼ÔÇ£ that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.

It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association.

Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement ├óÔé¼ÔÇ£ in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.

We have seen that the capitalistic mode of production thrust its way into a society of commodity-producers, of individual producers, whose social bond was the exchange of their products. But every society based upon the production of commodities has this peculiarity: that the producers have lost control over their own social inter-relations. Each man produces for himself with such means of production as he may happen to have, and for such exchange as he may require to satisfy his remaining wants. No one knows how much of his particular article is coming on the market, nor how much of it will be wanted. No one knows whether his individual product will meet an actual demand, whether he will be able to make good his costs of production or even to sell his commodity at all. Anarchy reigns in socialized production.

But the production of commodities, like every other form of production, has it peculiar, inherent laws inseparable from it; and these laws work, despite anarchy, in and through anarchy. They reveal themselves in the only persistent form of social inter-relations ├óÔé¼ÔÇØ i.e., in exchange ├óÔé¼ÔÇØ and here they affect the individual producers as compulsory laws of competition. They are, at first, unknown to these producers themselves, and have to be discovered by them gradually and as the result of experience. They work themselves out, therefore, independently of the producers, and in antagonism to them, as inexorable natural laws of their particular form of production. The product governs the producers.

Spiked, I'd be glad to read a book that you reccomend on Communism, as long as it is a) relatively short, and b) available at my library.

Fortunately for you, in spirit of the communist way, almost every major book written on the subject is available sans cost at http://www.marx.org. Sadly, I see I'll have to buy Mr. Bergland's book... I'm banned from the city libraries (I still have a book I borrowed 5 years ago...) but I'll see if I can make do.

I'll link you to it.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 30 Nov 2006, 23:57

A lot of the communist discussion seems focused on the proles and the rich people. But what about the creative poets, writers, actors, singers, tuba players, accordionists, and so on. Also if communism is: "in which all states and governments have been abolished" then why not call it "Anarchy" and leave it at that?

PS: My spell checked recognizes accordionists as a word. How cool is that?

Fanger · Post by **Fanger** » 01 Dec 2006, 00:42

that is cool...

communism doesnt make sense..

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 01 Dec 2006, 01:36

I like Scandinavian socialism, I think more countries should adopt it, we've just got New Zealand socialism and that needs a bit of work, I think we should switch to Scandinavian socialsim, Scandinavian socialsim, Scandinavian socialsim.

Fanger · Post by **Fanger** » 01 Dec 2006, 01:58

I think we should make up a new form of government based on AA..

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 01 Dec 2006, 02:37

Fanger wrote:I think we should make up a new form of government based on AA..

He who has the most weasels is king?

Fanger · Post by **Fanger** » 01 Dec 2006, 04:16

Yes, weasels would form the currency, whereby whoever holds the most weasels is currently king, however said weasels are not his and can be stolen/modded at anytime..

Candleman · Post by **Candleman** » 01 Dec 2006, 04:57

Zoombie wrote:A lot of the communist discussion seems focused on the proles and the rich people. But what about the creative poets, writers, actors, singers, tuba players, accordionists, and so on?

If the people of the world do rise up and create a Communist Paradise, I'd like to know if I'll still be able to continue writing whatever I please, or if I'd get tarred and feathered.

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 01 Dec 2006, 05:35

Also if communism is: "in which all states and governments have been abolished" then why not call it "Anarchy" and leave it at that?

Because there is a very big difference between Communism and Anarchism, namely Anarchist's belief that society can suddenly and spontaneously shatter all forms of government and authority at the snap of a finger (rather that go through a period of gentle-as-possible transition).

I'd like to know if I'll still be able to continue writing whatever I please, or if I'd get tarred and feathered.

Of course. Well, actually, it depends. If you wanted to write a book about how all the Jews should be gassed, I'd expect you'd be tarred and feathered. But I expect (hope) that's naturally accepted.

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 01 Dec 2006, 05:36

Oh hahaha Bruce, I just got that! I was wondering for a minute why you were annoyingly repeating it, before I realized why!
Very clever.

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 01 Dec 2006, 05:54

SpikedHelmet wrote:Oh hahaha Bruce, I just got that! I was wondering for a minute why you were annoyingly repeating it, before I realized why!
Very clever.

*bows*

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 01 Dec 2006, 06:12

I'm glad someone finnaly answered my question...or at least they answered Candleman's question which happened to be the same as mine. Am I invisible, or something?

So you are not nearly as naive as Anarchists. This is a good. They don't seem to understand that, unless special steps are taken on the contrary, anarchy will 'collapse' into goverment...usually the goverment run by a thug with a gun. Not a good, needless to say. Presumably the communist utopia will have some way of keeping that from happening, though we can see that that has not been enforced effectivly before *cough*Stalin*cough**cough*

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 01 Dec 2006, 07:05

Yes, it is known as "Transitional Socialism".

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 01 Dec 2006, 07:16

An apt name indeed. You know Spiked, when you're not shouting and carrying on cranky, you're points sound a lot less inasne

Wolf-In-Exile · Post by **Wolf-In-Exile** » 01 Dec 2006, 14:18

SpikedHelmet wrote:I'm sorry, I have no willingness to waste my time on an idiot like you who can't seen to wrap his head around the concept of not needing to hate something to realize that it must be stopped. Did every American soldier hate every German soldier? No. THEN THEY MUST ALL BE HYPOCRITES, RIGHT? It saddens me that shallow, idiotic people like yourself are allowed to hold jobs and become members of society proper.

Lol, making more assumptions now are we? And again you deny making hateful statements about soldiers, yet you say you DON'T hate them now?

This isn't an issue of "knowing it should be stopped". EVERYBODY knows it should be stopped.

Its the HOW TO STOP IT that i'm talking about, but you're obviously too dense, have bad eyesight or have selective memory to think I was talking about whether the military action should be stopped or not.

Again, look! What you said! I'll also make it easier for you to read too!

SpikedHelmet wrote:If you really want to protest the war, you should launch a mortar attack against the nearest military base, or snipe military personelle with a hunting rifle, or set an explosive along a road frequented by military vehicles and bomb a convoy, toss a bottle of burning gasoline into a recruiting center. That is protesting a war.

You know, you're a really funny guy, I like how you sidestep around the issue you have just lost in and start calling me names.

A military action taken BY THE GOVERNMENT YOU VOTED FOR AND PLACED INTO POWER can't be stopped by killing soldiers.

You think the military went, "oh it'd be nice to kill some afghans and iraqis! Lets bomb the shit out of them and screw up their countries!" ?

No, its the politicians and their really, really rich friends who went "oh shit, we're running out of cheap gas to run our limos, private jets and SUVs! Hey, look, those Middle Easterners have lots, lets just go take theirs!"

I also like the way this thread went from bashing soldiers to bashing communism, very masterful change of subject here. Well, almost, since i'm not the only person to notice either.

You've all the hallmarks of being a forum troll, you should be proud of that!

But the sheer amount of bullshit you spewed, to span NINE whole pages on the forum earns you half a cookie anyway.
That is, for not being the sharpest tool in the shed, but trying hard anyway to get people to look at it "your way".

Spring RTS Engine

REAL war protest