Marxist-Leninist

[peter12]

Originally Posted by flip

Hmm. This sort of seems like your argument against communism.

The way it has been used is certainly not the way it was meant to be.

EXCEPT, we have clear evidence that when societies are left alone from government intervention, we have increased productivities and better outcomes for everyone in that society. There is no evidence of communism working on a social scale.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by flip

Hmm. This sort of seems like your argument against communism.

The way it has been used is certainly not the way it was meant to be.

I guess you could say that would be my argument against China, and the Soviet Union.....and THEIR style of communism.

But I still think basic human nature requires some semblance of freedom, and a system of government that restricts that isn't one I would support. Nor should anyone else.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh, excuse me. Maybe you need a little help with what I said.



What Peter said...

And what I said earlier in the thread....

Azure, how would you feel about a flat tax all around. Rather then the rich paying more tax, everyone pays the same. None of this stuff about the upper class paying more the middle and lower class. And, privatized health care and tier 2 education system, including K-12. You want free market, that is free market. None of this funding for arts stuff, or other industries that financially arn't able to support their own weight, but still bring intangibles to society.

Lets let survival of the fittest thrive

Selfishly, I would whole-heartedly support that.

My interests in this topic are pre-dominantly economic, thats what Marx and Lenin's ideals were. For some odd reason, you keep pushing human rights - a consequence of such systems, but not the topic at hand.

[flip]

Originally Posted by peter12

Small economies of 200 or less people function in communes reasonably well, only because of the degree of social authority exercised on the individuals within. Look at the high degree of rules on a kibbutz or Hutterite colony, if you don't follow them, you are asked to leave.

We are talking about free liberal democracy as our common assumption for the morals and ethics of a state. We assume that it is right for individuals to have the highest degree of freedom. Socialists don't make that assumption. In fact, if you read any of the socialist authors you will a very high degree of acceptance in authoritarian or dictatorship government.

You're going to have to back that one up with examples.


I'll spin this a little: What about Sweden? Finland? They have extremely socialist governments and yet they seem to be able to function quite well. Are they more prone to supporting dictatorships? Is the only reasons their societies are staying in line is because of the threat of coercion from authority? Last time I checked they are both really peaceful countries whose societies are based a lot more on reciprocity than NA.

They have economic issues that are substantial, but then again look at the United States.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Azure, how would you feel about a flat tax all around. Rather then the rich paying more tax, everyone pays the same. None of this stuff about the upper class paying more the middle and lower class. And, privatized health care and tier 2 education system, including K-12. You want free market, that is free market. None of this funding for arts stuff, or other industries that financially arn't able to support their own weight, but still bring intangibles to society.

Lets let survival of the fittest thrive

Selfishly, I would whole-heartedly support that.

My interests in this topic are pre-dominantly economic, thats what Marx and Lenin's ideals were. For some odd reason, you keep pushing human rights - a consequence of such systems, but not the topic at hand.

How about decreasing taxes all round? How about instead of taxing the rich more, we tax the poor less? Why not create a health and education system where funding follows the patient, instead of forcing them into a public monopoly which gives them sub-par outcomes? How about arts communities that fund themselves where arts and culture spending isn't taxed a dime? How about no more corporate subsidies to businesses that are only politically viable.

That is free markets.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by flip

You're going to have to back that one up with examples.


I'll spin this a little: What about Sweden? Finland? They have extremely socialist governments and yet they seem to be able to function quite well. Are they more prone to supporting dictatorships? Is the only reasons their societies are staying in line is because of the threat of coercion from authority? Last time I checked they are both really peaceful countries whose societies are based a lot more on reciprocity than NA.

They have economic issues that are substantial, but then again look at the United States.

My undergrad and masters studies are only related to grassroots democracy and I haven't taken an indepth study at socialism. But this stuff isn't hard to find. Most socialists are fascists.

This isn't always true. George Orwell was an outstanding man who was a socialist but also a proponent of absolute free speech and freedom.

See my above post in regards to the Scandinavian countries who are facing huge social problems related to their extensive welfare systems.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Azure, how would you feel about a flat tax all around. Rather then the rich paying more tax, everyone pays the same. None of this stuff about the upper class paying more the middle and lower class.

I think I have already said before that I support a flat tax. 10% across the board. If you make a million dollars, you pay 100,000 in taxes. 100,000.....you pay 10,000 in taxes. So on and so forth.

And, privatized health care and tier 2 education system, including K-12. You want free market, that is free market.

See, your problem is that you think because I support the free market, suddenly everything should become private. Health care is a basic necessity(right to live).....and I support some form of a public system, but also feel that anyone should have the right to 'pay' to get better treatment. As for education, it should be completely looked after by each state. None of this crap by the federal government always getting involved.

None of this funding for arts stuff, or other industries that financially arn't able to support their own weight, but still bring intangibles to society.

I wasn't aware that the arts/music/etc, etc industry wasn't able to support itself financially. I do support some kind of funding, at least to increase the incentive work in the industry, but no way should the government be 'subsidizing' it.

Lets let survival of the fittest thrive

In a perfect world, survival of the fittest would drive everyone to succeed. But, we don't live in a perfect world, so a democratic system, the way WE know it, needs some form of government oversight. But that doesn't mean the government should be getting involved in the economy to the point where the 'market' can't function without that oversight.

Which is exactly what is happening the US right now. Stupid decisions by the government years ago now coming around to kick them in the ass.

I'm not really surprised either.

[flip]

Originally Posted by peter12

EXCEPT, we have clear evidence that when societies are left alone from government intervention, we have increased productivities and better outcomes for everyone in that society. There is no evidence of communism working on a social scale.

I guess my problem with this statement is that we could see a paradigm shift if it ever does work.

Sort of like how the political science and security studies fields had a huge shift in paradigm after the collapse of the SU.

All historical evidence suggested prior to the SU collapse that when empires collapse they do so violently. After the SU collapse the field had to re-evaluate their assumptions about that topic because of the peacefullness of its collapse.

Unfortunately in Poli Sci, most of our assumptions are based on the past and predicting the future. Since we cannot predict the future, the best you can do is say that SO FAR communism hasn't worked. You cannot however say all communist governments lead to dictatorships, even if all of our examples up until now say that they do.

Keep in mind I am not suggesting that they haven't led to dictatorships in their EXTREMELY brief history, just that to make a blanket statement like that, especially from a political scientist is irresponsible.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by peter12

How about decreasing taxes all round? How about instead of taxing the rich more, we tax the poor less? Why not create a health and education system where funding follows the patient, instead of forcing them into a public monopoly which gives them sub-par outcomes? How about arts communities that fund themselves where arts and culture spending isn't taxed a dime? How about no more corporate subsidies to businesses that are only politically viable.

That is free markets.

Taxes - nope. In a total free market, there isn't this tax bracket stuff right? Survival of the fittest. Flat tax all around.

Health care - yes, fair.

Arts - yes

No corporate subsidies - yes, agreed.

[flip]

Originally Posted by peter12

My undergrad and masters studies are only related to grassroots democracy and I haven't taken an indepth study at socialism. But this stuff isn't hard to find. Most socialists are fascists.

This isn't always true. George Orwell was an outstanding man who was a socialist but also a proponent of absolute free speech and freedom.

See my above post in regards to the Scandinavian countries who are facing huge social problems related to their extensive welfare systems.

Sorry but you didn't answer my questions AT ALL.


I would like to see some examples of modern critical thoerist and their ideas on what we are talking about. Just referencing their works would be good enough for me.

As for my question on Scandinavian countries you did not address the fact that the majority of these countries seem to go against you feelings on how socialists operate.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by flip

You're going to have to back that one up with examples.


I'll spin this a little: What about Sweden? Finland? They have extremely socialist governments and yet they seem to be able to function quite well. Are they more prone to supporting dictatorships? Is the only reasons their societies are staying in line is because of the threat of coercion from authority? Last time I checked they are both really peaceful countries whose societies are based a lot more on reciprocity than NA.

They have economic issues that are substantial, but then again look at the United States.

Good point. You wonder,is ot something in their biochemical makeup,or is it just so so many generations of their own form of social control that is just integrated into those societies.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by flip

I guess my problem with this statement is that we could see a paradigm shift if it ever does work.

Sort of like how the political science and security studies fields had a huge shift in paradigm after the collapse of the SU.

All historical evidence suggested prior to the SU collapse that when empires collapse they do so violently. After the SU collapse the field had to re-evaluate their assumptions about that topic because of the peacefullness of its collapse.

Unfortunately in Poli Sci, most of our assumptions are based on the past and predicting the future. Since we cannot predict the future, the best you can do is say that SO FAR communism hasn't worked. You cannot however say all communist governments lead to dictatorships, even if all of our examples up until now say that they do.

Keep in mind I am not suggesting that they haven't led to dictatorships in their EXTREMELY brief history, just that to make a blanket statement like that, especially from a political scientist is irresponsible.

I think modern political scientists have made a huge mistake in studying only public institutions. The study of philosophy and theory as it relates to human nature is of far more importance and it gives us a much better way of describing and sometimes predicting certain situations based on how institutions collide with humanity.

To say that communism hasn't worked SO FAR is a non-argument. It's not that it hasn't even worked so far, but everytime someone has attempted it, it fails spectacular basis. Not only in economic terms, but with accompanying huge losses of life. I wouldn't want to try a communist system based simply on this fact alone. It, in short, is a system with the express commitment to transforming people and this can only be accomplished with state-sanctioned terror and violence.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Taxes - nope. In a total free market, there isn't this tax bracket stuff right? Survival of the fittest. Flat tax all around.

There is never going to be a country that functions like a 'total free market'....even as much as I would want it to happen.

I agree with Peter. Put more money back into the hands of the 'people'....and give less to the government, you have a stronger economy.

Personally I think a flat tax is a better option in the long run. The government shouldn't need billions upon billions of dollars in order to operate.

[Phanuthier]

Azure - I meant, everyone pays the same amount of tax. (I realize this isn't practiced in any country as far as I know). You pay for the services offered to your community. The wealthy can afford good police and fire-fighting services, the lower class can get what they pay for.

See, your problem is that you think because I support the free market, suddenly everything should become private. Health care is a basic necessity(right to live).....and I support some form of a public system, but also feel that anyone should have the right to 'pay' to get better treatment. As for education, it should be completely looked after by each state. None of this crap by the federal government always getting involved.

Isn't that the definition of a free market? In the USA, you do realize health care is privatized and education for the most part is tier 2... right?

This is one reason I don't support the ideology that capitalism has run in the USA

I wasn't aware that the arts/music/etc, etc industry wasn't able to support itself financially. I do support some kind of funding, at least to increase the incentive work in the industry,

Again, against true capitalism, no? (peter?)

In a perfect world, survival of the fittest would drive everyone to succeed. But, we don't live in a perfect world, so a democratic system, the way WE know it, needs some form of government oversight. But that doesn't mean the government should be getting involved in the economy to the point where the 'market' can't function without that oversight.

whats your proposed balance?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by flip

Sorry but you didn't answer my questions AT ALL.


I would like to see some examples of modern critical thoerist and their ideas on what we are talking about. Just referencing their works would be good enough for me.

As for my question on Scandinavian countries you did not address the fact that the majority of these countries seem to go against you feelings on how socialists operate.

Critical theory is not my strong suit, but it is definitely a re-invention of socialist theory based on anti-globalization. It has lost of its authoritarian edge, but is still centered in group identity politics, which easily leads to violence.

For earlier versions, well I don't really have to give examples, do I? Marx? Dictatorship of the Proletariat? Class Struggle? Violence is implicit. What about Lenin and Trotsky? Mao? To deny the impact of these men on modern socialist thought is ignorant.

I like Luxembourg, but is she a socialist in general terms? Probably not, more of a liberal than anything.

Ask an average Scandinavian what they think about immigrants. You'll be shocked.

[flip]

Originally Posted by missdpuck

Good point. You wonder,is ot something in their biochemical makeup,or is it just so so many generations of their own form of social control that is just integrated into those societies.

This gets really interesting if we try and look at it from an evolutionary psychology point of view. Have Scandinavians developed their own behaviorial adaptations in the last 100 years that has caused them to act more peacefully and with more societal good in mind?

Obviously that would be unlikely, thus pointing to the fact that perhaps there isn't an inherant association between violence, dictatorships and socialism/communism. Instead a more likely answer would be that perhaps societies with these aspects are drawn to communism. Or perhaps it has been purely coincidence that countries with violence and dictatorships picked communism and that these two apsects of society are part of a bigger picture we aren't analyzing.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by flip

This gets really interesting if we try and look at it from an evolutionary psychology point of view. Have Scandinavians developed their own behaviorial adaptations in the last 100 years that has caused them to act more peacefully and with more societal good in mind?

Obviously that would be unlikely, thus pointing to the fact that perhaps there isn't an inherant association between violence, dictatorships and socialism/communism. Instead a more likely answer would be that perhaps societies with these aspects are drawn to communism. Or perhaps it has been purely coincidence that countries with violence and dictatorships picked communism and that these two apsects of society are part of a bigger picture we aren't analyzing.

I've never heard of a behavioral adaption being selected in only 100 years.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by peter12

Socialism as an ideal is based on a society-wide form of cooperation. From what we know of human behavior this is all but impossible. Socialists know this and that is why they accept a very large degree of state coercion to accomplish their means. Enforced cooperation isn't cooperation and the outcomes are never fair or egalitarian. In fact, if you look at social statistics, socialist countries often have much more difficulty dealing with even the most basic of economic and political problems.

As a political science student, who takes the discipline seriously, I have studied various schools of political behavior, particularly those influenced by the biological sciences. I can say that humans, on a biological level, require two things for sustained cooperation, kin relations or a reciprocal relationship. Obviously, the first one is based around family and is the basis for the Roman systems (notice how they were organized into families) and a lot of the older feudal economic systems. The second is a lot harder. Reciprocal economic relationships require a fair and free game that is often played without personal knowledge of the other person. Free markets are a good way of handling this as they deal with real human incentives based around self-interest. When people are free to make their own decisions, outcomes are often a lot more equal, as everyone gets a chance to produce at their own competitive advantage.

Problems often occur when governments get involved. This credit market thing is actually the result of government legislation under Carter and renewed under Clinton that forced creditors to give a certain % of bad mortgages to people who were unable to lend at normal rates. It isn't all the markets fault.

Peter, I am kind of dissapointed that you did not cite Hayek's Use of knowledge in society, considering you seem to be a fan

As far as this debate goes, as someone who was born in a communist country, frankly I find it insulting to see attempts to put a lipstick on this pig called communism.

[flip]

Originally Posted by peter12

I've never heard of a behavioral adaption being selected in only 100 years.

Yeah that was kind of my point. That does seem unlikely. But how do we then explain the relative peacefulness and success of extreme socialism in these countries.


As a sort of aside here I'd like to point out this is a rather interesting debate going on here and I'm really glad it hasn't deteriorated into petty name calling or making inferences about each others personalities, ethics, morals or beliefs as several of my past debates have turned into in recent weeks. Personal attacks have no place in a political discussion. Especially one about political theory.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Peter, I am kind of dissapointed that you did not cite Hayek's Use of knowledge in society, considering you seem to be a fan

As far as this debate goes, as someone who was born in a communist country, frankly I find it insulting to see attempts to put a lipstick on this pig called communism.

The Fatal Conceit is a darn good piece of liberal writing. You got to break people in gently before you use the big guns. Frankly, the more I hear and talk to socialists, the more I am convinced that they are simply enamored with the ability to take control of other people.