Why are people against communism?

[Bells]

Actually, I was just reading this fellow two above me.


Still completely failing to realise that true free market capitalism isn't about exploitation any more than communism is, and in reality doesn't exist either, due to those very same human flaws.

He's not only throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but refusing to acknowledge there is a baby in there to begin with.

I suspect he is more about the 'rah rah rah, power to the people, rah rah rah', without actually realising the reality of communism. He puts weight on the ideal but cannot actually understand the implication of what he is advocating.

For example, in the Mornachy thread, he says quite clearly that any who disagrees with his version of communism would need to be 're-educated'.. Whereupon it instantly becomes a dictatorship.. The whole 'respect my authoritay' spectre appears.

Personally I believe he is a troll. I mean re-education camps? Wanting to silence all opposition and deny them the right to free speech? The guy is either a troll or a loon.

 

[The Marquis]

Loon. Trolls can't pretend to anger or bitterness without exposing themselves.

 

[Read-Only]

Loon. Trolls can't pretend to anger or bitterness without exposing themselves.

Yes, he's loony for sure - but that's only half of his dirty little secret. The other half, which he would never admit to, is that he believes he would be among the leaders in such a group.

But what I find amusing (and I hope he gets his wish in some little backwater country) is that he'd never survive the first purge. His loud mouth and ratchet-jaw would lead to his immediate demise.

 

[CptBork]

In Soviet Russia, internet surfs you!

Personally I have nothing against communism as long as I'm the one at the top. And if I'm the Secretary General, my first act would be to dissolve the party and let the people have whatever system they want.

 

[Bells]

Loon. Trolls can't pretend to anger or bitterness without exposing themselves.

I am inclined to say a little bit of both.

The other half, which he would never admit to, is that he believes he would be among the leaders in such a group.

Glad I am not the only one who noticed that. The whole 'I would never allow' comments he has dropped randomly.

But what I find amusing (and I hope he gets his wish in some little backwater country) is that he'd never survive the first purge.

I find his hypocrisy the most amusing.

He is the very bourgeoisie that he riles against. Educated, wealthy enough to own a computer and have access to the internet..

Meanwhile, who wants to bet that the components for the very computer he is using, as well as his mobile phone [who wants to bet it's an apple?] is gained through exploiting the very peasants he is demanding be freed from repression from the likes of him.

His brand of communism is nothing short of a dictatorship..

 

[parmalee]

If you feel that something was expressed as a capability and are unable to understand it is a quality, please point it out and I will be happy to rephrase it in a manner that is more aligned to your understanding of quality (even though you are intentionally restricting the discussion to quality at this point and its perfectly clear why... especially considering that in our context of discussion I didn't use that word... not even in the paragraph you responded to).

Fine then, let's just stick with the originally posited (by Read-Only) "human nature." Care to tell me what the hell that is?

OK, there will always be the lazy, the greedy, the power-hungry, etc., but in suggesting that by implementing such-and-such (i.e., communism, whatever), it will fail inevitably because it runs counter to this elusive "human nature" is absurd. How come mothers don't simply drop their lazy, good-for-nothing infants on their heads? Something to do with "human nature" perhaps? Why do we bother to feed all these fucking retards, gimps, retirees, etc. when they don't do a damn thing for it? Something to do with "human nature" perhaps?

The "human nature" canard was effectively canned by most reputable scientists and academics, oh, some 50 to 60 years ago--but then you're the guy that thinks that videorecording an event somehow eliminates observer bias, right?

 

[John99]

Fine then, let's just stick with the originally posited (by Read-Only) "human nature." Care to tell me what the hell that is?

You dont think living things have a nature?

Squirrels dont have a nature? Monkeys dont have a nature?

Humans have a nature but are more likely to deviate from that nature, nevertheless, there is a true nature.

 

[parmalee]

Do us all a favor and learn how to read, John.

 

[John99]

Wasn't it you wh asked the question:

Fine then, let's just stick with the originally posited (by Read-Only) "human nature." Care to tell me what the hell that is?

And then this;

The "human nature" canard was effectively canned by most reputable scientists and academics, oh, some 50 to 60 years ago--

Proof? Sources?

 

[parmalee]

Have you tried hiring a lawyer? It seems hard to believe you wouldn't qualify for disability.

Oh yeah, did that--I just happened to get a really dumb one. It was my own damn fault as I didn't do a whole lotta research.

Problem is, I have a rather low opinion of lawyers (no offense, Bells--I'm speaking here primarily of American lawyers. I actually know some really good ones, but they're furr'ners--a kraut and a canuck.). Also, I masterfully kicked a lawyer's butt in court one time and consequently developed a complex: the insane conviction that I could out-lawyer any lawyer by appealing to my own knowledge database. Unfortunately, deferring to Deleuze or Foucault doesn't mean shit to a judge.

I've been assured by "those in the know" that I could simply apply again and I would undoubtedly "win," but I'm relatively content living in the "underground" and I reckon that I'll be long dead before reaching a suitable retirement age anyways (see chimpkin's post on "status epilepticus").

 

[parmalee]

Sorry John, I'm not replying to you anymore until you learn how to properly read. Where do I deny that humans have a nature? Hint: I don't! I'm referring to matters of defining said nature, and fallacious appeals to such.

 

[John99]

Sorry John, I'm not replying to you anymore until you learn how to properly read. Where do I deny that humans have a nature? Hint: I don't! I'm referring to matters of defining said nature, and fallacious appeals to such.

You asked what it is.

"human nature." Care to tell me what the hell that is?

 

[parmalee]

OK, just one more time, for shits and giggles:

Tell me, John, what is it? I would like a full report, with citations, on what precisely "human nature" is--and you'll get bonus points for bottling some--on my desk by Monday morning. OK, I'll give you til Wednesday.

 

[Read-Only]

I am inclined to say a little bit of both.


Glad I am not the only one who noticed that. The whole 'I would never allow' comments he has dropped randomly.


I find his hypocrisy the most amusing.

He is the very bourgeoisie that he riles against. Educated, wealthy enough to own a computer and have access to the internet..

Meanwhile, who wants to bet that the components for the very computer he is using, as well as his mobile phone [who wants to bet it's an apple?] is gained through exploiting the very peasants he is demanding be freed from repression from the likes of him.

His brand of communism is nothing short of a dictatorship..

Yeah. And personally, I think he's nothing more than a kid in his late teens that wants to be part of a huge riot - for which he's using "revolution" as an excuse. His politics are just a smokescreen that he hopes will give him a license to be part of a street mob that's "fighting oppression" so that he can steal anything that's not nailed down.

But whatever his *real* motive is, he's still two quarts low of having a full (normal/average) brain. :shrug:

 

[parmalee]

Yeah. And personally, I think he's nothing more than a kid in his late teens that wants to be part of a huge riot - for which he's using "revolution" as an excuse. His politics are just a smokescreen that he hopes will give him a license to be part of a street mob that's "fighting oppression" so that he can steal anything that's not nailed down.

I think you pretty much nailed it here.

In the spirit of some of his curiously authoritarian threads ("should we ban ..."), someone ought to make a thread entitled, "Should 15 year old boys be banned from the internet?"

 

[wynn]

Authoritarian types are challenging to deal with, at least as long as one isn't simply willing to call them fools and be done with it.
Respect for the Other and for Democracy are, all too often, detrimental to one's wellbeing.

 

[Gustav]

and the flaw with those who demonize communism is they tend to not want human nature to change because it would mean changing themselves. but humans have changed and they do improve or make even revolutionary strides while all along there are naysayers who think things should just stay as they are. history is like that.

ufc:

i think the world is headed towards a better balance than what is now. i think more communist principles will happen naturally in the future on a worldwide scale. this is because rampant capitalism with it's greed hurts a lot of people as well. remember, there has never been true communism so those who have very cynical views of it is not due to communism but the failures of people. but people can learn from the past. i think technology will have a really critical force for more communistic principles to be able to work. it may happen one day.

there was a time in the distant past where no one would have believed that slavery would be considered wrong or that women's rights would be considered or even fought for etc.

i think you have good ideas but i think people think you are getting ahead of yourself or not considering the time that we live in right now BUT there needs to be more people who even consider the issue or start which you are doing. you will have a lot of naysayers due to past failures though but that doesn't mean it can't be successful in the future with the right formula which at the heart of it will be people who will be ready for it, when and if that happens.

Fine then, let's just stick with the originally posited (by Read-Only) "human nature." Care to tell me what the hell that is?

OK, there will always be the lazy, the greedy, the power-hungry, etc., but in suggesting that by implementing such-and-such (i.e., communism, whatever), it will fail inevitably because it runs counter to this elusive "human nature" is absurd. How come mothers don't simply drop their lazy, good-for-nothing infants on their heads? Something to do with "human nature" perhaps? Why do we bother to feed all these fucking retards, gimps, retirees, etc. when they don't do a damn thing for it? Something to do with "human nature" perhaps?

The "human nature" canard was effectively canned by most reputable scientists and academics, oh, some 50 to 60 years ago--but then you're the guy that thinks that videorecording an event somehow eliminates observer bias, right?

good posts

aladdin in the hello to all thread and i shall respond in the same vein as parmalee and birch

Yeah, right. Let me tell you how this works out in real life,

this "real life" is not one of stasis or inertia no matter how much the conservatives wish it were. we progressives have provided the impetus for most of the rights we see in place now. do a compare and contrast with mindsets that have existed previously and understand how sentience can evolve.

so what is real life? the sweatshop or 7 weeks paid vacation?
what is our paradigm? savagery or enlightenment?

 

[Gustav]

OK, just one more time, for shits and giggles:

i'll hold you to that

 

[madanthonywayne]

I've been assured by "those in the know" that I could simply apply again and I would undoubtedly "win,"

I would agree.

 

[Tiassa]

The reasons why

I agree.
I don't see why Tiassa thinks this is a strawman.

Well, in the first place, the statement is false as soon as it is written:

"The basic hypocracy of all who espouse communism is that they assume that human nature is somehow different for one economic system than it is for another."​

Now, the Marquis has acknowledged the problem with the use of the word "all", and that is a start.

But, additionally, the statement declares hypocrisy of the commonly recognized problem that communist institutions fail to account for human nature; he makes it an ethical issue of will.

Furthermore, as he proposes:

"Perhaps I'm being a ilttle harsh with the "all" (although it does appear quite true in the case of the op'er) but I've yet to meet an individual who manages to address it effectively.

Perhaps you'd care to try?"​

Well, the first answer to that is to point him to what is already on the record:

• #35 — Revolution will be natural, and is already happening; path to transformation and battle of ideas.

• #49 — Form and purpose; long footrace analogy.

• #63 — Literary digression; top-down and bottom-up—"With top-down revolutions, the problem is that we don't necessarily know that the replacement structures will hold. Working from the bottom up, though, we can install each new pillar as the old ones fail."

• #69 — "The Revolution installed a government, which in turn installed the societal structures. This is the problem of top-down; the Soviets failed to accept that their model could be wrong. Indeed, this is the general failure of top-down revolutions."

• #82 — Comparative costs; consideration of species.​

All of these touch on the failure of communism to account for human nature, which is the reason that the top-down revolutions fail.

In other words, there is plenty along this line for The Marquis to consider. But he does not wish to. Therefore he raises a straw-man to reset the argument to a point he is more familiar with, and then asks anew for what already awaits his, or anybody else's consideration.

The effective message here is that he does not think the considerations on record are correct, but sees no need to tell anyone why. Rather, he just wants to start over and demand everyone repeat themselves.

So not only is it false from the outset, it is also a component of a willfully dysfunctional and disruptive outlook.

It is essentially an attempt to make something true through excessive repetition.