Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    • Contentious
    Communism and the Death of Castro
    • Red Dingo wrote:

      Tony wrote:

      Why does this ape anarchy have to be disorderly?

      Biggest stick sounds very capitalistic and hierarchical to me.
      You ever try herding sheep without a dog? The biggest stick scenario is how it ends up, because even if you manage to build a working anarchist utopia, it's inevitably crushed by a hierarchy lead by a guy with a big stick (which he probably named after a woman).
      Obviously someone here has never seen Babe.
    • Humans are neither "psychotic apes" nor "sheeps" and "wolves". These simplistic and dismissively elitist metaphors aren't helping.

      john_marston: This admits is the fault of capitalism's necessity to value and reward people by what they are capable of producing. Further by consequence, those who are unable to produce (or produce at the same level) are guaranteed a lesser quality of life for something they simply cannot help.

      It's disgusting, no other words for it.
    • Hate to break it to you Tony, but humans are animals. Metaphors aside, how does that disprove what I've said?

      Also how is it disgusting to reward the skilled and the capable for their contributions?
    • Tony wrote:


      john_marston: This admits is the fault of capitalism's necessity to value and reward people by what they are capable of producing. Further by consequence, those who are unable to produce (or produce at the same level) are guaranteed a lesser quality of life for something they simply cannot help.

      It's disgusting, no other words for it.
      Right, so let's give someone who studied for a decade and has an extremely stressful job that is highly productive to society the same reward as someone who fucks up his life/education and gets whatever random job he/she can get to survive. That surely won't collapse.

      Would you have it that everyone would have the same looks too? Some people are born with features that will benefit them. That's called life: it's not disgusting, it's natural. Beyond that, some people choose to work hard, and others choose not to. And communism takes away all motivation to thrive. And, again, anybody with a higher eduction with prospects for a good job (and common sense) will emigrate away from communism.
    • to both dingo and marston:

      communism doesn't actually necessitate everyone have an equal income

      what it seeks to do is to remove the means of production and distribution from the hands of private ownership. it does not necessitate that people all have the same income, merely that all have access to required goods for a decent life, in other words a more equal distribution of wealth.

      what this means is for instance, someone works hard to become an engineer and their expertise allows them the society to better in a myriad of ways, then that person may actually receive a greater wage (still taxed) however someone who has not been able to achieve that, met with poor luck, has a disability or is otherwise unemployed will still receive enough to live safely and under a roof, with access to education, health and all things necessary in that pursuit.

      communism can still be achieved with money existing (albeit a market economy is less efficient than a resource based economy because: Marx) if it can significantly reduce the Gini Coefficient enough whilst also providing universal healthcare, education and housing + food. to be honestly, i would be very happy with a system of reformed capitalism/social democracy, if it could provide for these things without the exploitation of other nations and their peoples.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Lucretia ().

    • i will preface here with:
      i am an international relations scholar, i use feminist theories to analyse the way that conflicts affect people on a basis of disability and gender.

      i am not an economist, so yeah i am not well versed in this side of the debate, what i will say is that i have marxist values. i do not have agreat deal of expertise here so yeah, take that as you will, it's just fair for people to know


      my biggest gripe with the nordic systems is that they aren't quite there yet, in the sense that i think universal wages are necessary for it to be "communism" and also universal housing). sure they have some of the lowest gini coefficients out there, but corporatism is still an issue. i personal have absolutely no issue with small business for instance (i can hear comrades planning my murder now) but i have issue with large multinational corporations existing. and i have issue with their position in the global hierarchy. H&M for instance, cool, global clothing chain from Sweden, kk, cept they use unsafe sweatshops in poorer countries. in a sense their privileged position comes because while internally their economic policy may be social democratic, their foreign economic policy (which they can't control since Sweden allows H&M to be a private corporation). they're vampires in that sense.

      so tl~dr:
      nordic social democracies aren't communisms because they still don't have universal housing and wages, and because corporations still exist which exploit other nations and have too much lobbying power within nordic states.

      EDIT:
      i suppose i should add to that any corporation which gets over 50 employees should be technically state owned






      in case anyone wants to know my issues with communism:
      Display Spoiler
      you can call me a communist who doesn't believe in revolution and also thinks pushing for a state based communism is folly and doomed to fail. i mean, i am venezuelan, i KNOW what "socialism" has done to my country, and for me Cuba may as well be 'the man' in the same sense that at the UN and any other international circle, the USA is 'the man'.

      revolutions are bullshit, autocrats are bullshit. you can't snap from being in a capitalist society and violence your way into communism. and even if you do, you are only talking about a state, which has a position in a global hierarchy of other states as far as economics are concerned. communism needs to be global, which means that reaching it must be global and must necessitate regional and perhaps in some future global governments.

      so at the moment, i would never call for an armed revolution within any state. i would however lobby for regional governments such as the EU to have power to distribute wealth within its member states according to marxist values.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Lucretia ().

    • @Pennington

      Pennington wrote:

      Red Dingo wrote:

      Tony wrote:

      Why does this ape anarchy have to be disorderly?

      Biggest stick sounds very capitalistic and hierarchical to me.
      You ever try herding sheep without a dog? The biggest stick scenario is how it ends up, because even if you manage to build a working anarchist utopia, it's inevitably crushed by a hierarchy lead by a guy with a big stick (which he probably named after a woman).
      Obviously someone here has never seen Babe.
      Hmm...it does provide a valuable lesson. If you learn the language and the mentality of herd, you are better able to get results out of them. But it doesn't really disprove my point about anarchy.

      Lucretia

      Lucretia wrote:

      what this means is for instance, someone works hard to become an engineer and their expertise allows them the society to better in a myriad of ways, then that person may actually receive a greater wage (still taxed) however someone who has not been able to achieve that, met with poor luck, has a disability or is otherwise unemployed will still receive enough to live safely and under a roof, with access to education, health and all things necessary in that pursuit.
      That's nice but good luck getting the former to agree to pay for the latter. People seem to think they are entitled to what they've worked for, dislike paying for others that they've never even met, and forget that part of the reason they can even earn a living in the first place is due to the hard work and sacrifice of others. It works better in closeknit communities where everyone knows everyone else, but on a national level? Eh....

      @Bill

      Bill wrote:

      -Nothing about the car attack and stabbing of nine people at Ohio State by a Muslim. Mainstream media was on the ball when it looked like a mass shooting, but their enthusiasm waned noticeably when it turned out to be just another jihadi stabbing.
      Right, the mainstream did nothing to cover the inherently violent actions of Muslims.


      @Pietro

      Pietro wrote:

      I believe that journalists shouldn't donate to politicians and if they do they should have to disclose that donation at the beginning of every episode of their news show (unless its more of a commentary style show where its clear where the anchors stand making the disclosure unnecessary.)
      I don't know man, that sounds a bit too logical.
    • Most people don't know the difference between socialism and communism ; they just assume the former is a state-ran economy and the latter is a more extreme version. People also like to think in binaries, but neither free markets nor government intervention is inherently or absolutely good or bad.

      Socialism is not an economic system. It has no clear or concrete definition. If it had one (government spending to GDP, or a commonly accepted bill of rights), it would be.

      It's a vague ideology. But it typically refers to a capitalist economy modified so that the government re-distributes resources. In all fairness, that sounds like a mixed economy, which is what the United States is, but to a lesser extent than western Europe.

      Communism is a different system entirely in which profits and costs are inherently shared. I'm sure every communist likes to think of themselves as a Marxist, but not in favor of dictatorship, although I've never seen an example of such a state existing. Cuba is not exactly an example of that.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Inverted ().

    • Pietro wrote:

      pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/11/26/s…an-president-fidel-castro


      Justin Trudeau wrote:

      The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the death of former Cuban President Fidel Castro:
      “It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest serving President.
      “Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.
      “While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for “el Comandante”.
      “I know my father was very proud to call him a friend and I had the opportunity to meet Fidel when my father passed away. It was also a real honour to meet his three sons and his brother President Raúl Castro during my recent visit to Cuba.
      “On behalf of all Canadians, Sophie and I offer our deepest condolences to the family, friends and many, many supporters of Mr. Castro. We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader.”
      I don't agree on almost everything that the Conservatives put out, but Trudeau's admiration for dictatorships is pretty disturbing. First the Chinese and now this. I understand that he has to keep relations with these people, but you can do that without fawning over them. Just because they were nice to Pierre Trudeau doesn't mean they were good people, they likely just sucked up to Pierre to grant their dictatorships international legitimacy.

      Fidel Castro dies. Justin Trudeau issues statement. Much hilarity ensues. #TrudeauEulogies | National Post

      Pretty good humor from the right wing which is a rarity, good job.
      His father was a friend of Fidel Castro. I think that has a lot to do with that, no?
    • Inverted wrote:

      Socialism is not an economic system. It has no clear or concrete definition.

      For a given economic model, let P be the value of a good expected by a model and P* be the value of the good expected in aggregate by the actors in the economy according to the model. If the expectation value [P-P*]!=0 as time goes to infinity then your model is socialist, and you are a socialist to the degree to which you buy in to the model.

      So, Industry X does cost/benefit analysis on good Y. They determine a cost C* for producing Y and, accordingly, set a price P*. The government of the nation in which industry X operates does its own analysis and determines that the cost is actually C!=C*, which Industry X miscalculated because of implicit bias (maybe they didn't consider some set of externalities - environmental damage or whatever moral hazard du jour). This necessitates a price P!=P* and the government moves to either tax/subsidize Y or take bureaucratic control of X in order to set the more appropriate price.

      Compared to a lot of phrases in political philosophy I actually think "socialism" holds its meaning very well. You'd be hard pressed to find a policy or politician labelled "socialist" which isn't described by the above framework.
      ~~~
      Although postsocratics like St. Augustine and Judith Butler explored a diverse set of ethical and metaphysical ideas, their unifying feature as a movement was a principled refusal to speculate upon which of the four elements the world was made out of.
      ~~~


      boxes is the best human and I am going to get her a kitten or 2 kittens
    • Inverted wrote:

      I've never seen an example of such a state existing.
      I believe there was a village sized one in the Neolithic era that did pretty well for itself until the concept of kings was invented.
    • Inverted wrote:

      Most people don't know the difference between socialism and communism ; they just assume the former is a state-ran economy and the latter is a more extreme version. People also like to think in binaries, but neither free markets nor government intervention is inherently or absolutely good or bad.
      No most people use the term interchangeably. "People also like to think in binaries, but neither free markets nor government intervention is inherently or absolutely good or bad." You're talking about two different things here. What's your point? You lead with one thing and end the sentence with something entirely out of left field. Worse yet, you have yet to provide any kind of justification for your statements. Just because you state something in a matter-of-factly tone doesn't mean it's fact.

      Inverted wrote:

      Socialism is not an economic system. It has no clear or concrete definition. If it had one (government spending to GDP, or a commonly accepted bill of rights), it would be.
      Socialism is a range of economic and social systems. It's a broad term for a broad concept. There is no singular socialist system. It has no clear or concrete definition to you, because you never took the time to look into the subject matter, and let's not pretend that you did, because so far everything you've spouted is utter nonsense. Again the last sentence does nothing to prove your point, that's not what an economic system is.


      Inverted wrote:

      It's a vague ideology. But it typically refers to a capitalist economy modified so that the government re-distributes resources. In all fairness, that sounds like a mixed economy, which is what the United States is, but to a lesser extent than western Europe.
      This is completely untrue. You are making absurd fabrications that don't even give the illusion of being true.


      Inverted wrote:

      Communism is a different system entirely in which profits and costs are inherently shared. I'm sure every communist likes to think of themselves as a Marxist, but not in favor of dictatorship, although I've never seen an example of such a state existing. Cuba is not exactly an example of that.
      Another lie. @Lucretia already defined Communism go read his comments.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Mozly Alice ().

    • Lucretia wrote:

      so at the moment, i would never call for an armed revolution within any state. i would however lobby for regional governments such as the EU to have power to distribute wealth within its member states according to marxist values.

      You know it's funny, but for all of it's beatification, the Revolutionary War was technically not the beginning of the United States. For a small interim, a provisional confederacy ran the States until the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, when the Constitution was drafted. It was a very uncertain time because there was a lot of debate concerning the balance of power between the states and the union as well as the amount of power wielded by executive office.

      TheMorriganZW wrote:

      What's your point?
      I think his point is that the misconception was used to make socialism a dirty word.
    • Lucretia wrote:

      i would be very happy with a system of reformed capitalism/social democracy, if it could provide for these things without the exploitation of other nations and their peoples.
      I have to wonder if it is even possible to provide modern standards of living and prosperity without exploiting anyone.
    • Morrigan, I wrote up a long response and my power shut off, but I'll just say that, despite your strong opposition to my comments, I don't think we have significant disagreements. Perhaps I made my points unclear.


      • Capitalism isn't always bad.
      • Socialism isn't always bad.
      • Capitalism can be corrupt.
      • Socialism can be corrupt.
      • America has socialistic elements
      • Social Democracies are still just capitalism with government.