What is you're view on the celebrations of Margaret thatcher's death?

This is all wishful thinking.



You're the one trying to make out that all those Communist / Socialist failed states weren't really Communist at all so I have to laugh at how you are claiming *I* am the one redefining Communism.

It was the ones who defined Communism at the beginning with who started all this off in the very country who you are trying to argue wasn't really Communist in the first place, and it was somehow corrupted.

Wow, big surprise that some people wanted to be better than others in a society where everyone was supposed to be equal when they saw that actually, they weren't equal at all.

They tried it, and failed, and do you know why? Because humans like owning stuff. They like working to improve themselves, not for the good of society, but for the good of themselves and their families. Combine this and Communism and you end up with an elite walking on top of the workers, all of whom will be poor.

Socialists like yourself view successful people's achievements with jealousy, and as something that has cost other citizens' their prosperity. But when you look around at high achievers in your own circles, how many times is that truly the case?

In my experience, these people have usually worked very hard, investing years of their lives, and often, jeopardised their immediate financial security for years on end, as they’ve gradually built a career, or whatever they’ve focused their efforts on.

Entrepreneurs aren’t convenient to a system where no one is supposed to dream bigger or have a better life than anyone else. Nor is anyone else who is more ambitious than average, works harder or just happens to be luckier.

That's the thing, Socialism and Communism don't work to improve people, it works to keep them all the same. So you are left with the lowest common denominator. It doesn't work, primarily because it's beneficiaries don't. What Socialist proponents fail to realise is you always end up spending other people's money to pay for it.

I await your inevitable reply which will ignore everything I have just said and continue to claim that every single time in human history that Communism has tried to raise its head, it's not *real* Communism, so why don't we just give it a try again - this time it might work.

"Wishful thinking" is the only way to progress. That's what I got from history, anyway. Everything, from American Civil Rights, to medical progress, has always been dismissed by some as "too good to be true", or perhaps more accurately, to ever work. And yet, to a large degree, it has.

On the other hand, Communism has no history at all, does it?

Sigh.

You still haven't justified your view that the USSR was actually communist.

This is literally the only thing I've asked you to do.

No, the USSR wasn't anything like the utopian ideal that you describe. But that is not the point.

Are you going to deny that the USSR tried to be Communist?

I disagree. I think it's exactly the point.

Ummm...

If the rationale is that Communism is so great but gets a bad press because it hasn't really been tried properly, so why don't we give it a try, the point is not whether a failed state has been truly Communist, but whether they tried to be or not.

No state can be truly communist according to your idealistic definition, for the reasons why I already stated, primarily because everyone is forced to be equal in society when they are really not. It is human nature to want to own stuff, and recognise why/how/when/where and in what way they are better than others, have more ambition, who work harder, are luckier or any other numerous ways that set one person apart from the other.

You keep hammering on about the fact that the USSR wasn't truly Communist, but what is conspicuous is that you haven't actually tried to tell me that I'm wrong, and deny human nature.

And you won't, because all attempts at Communism have failed wherever it has been tried. Evidence? The lack of successful Communist states today.

After all, if I'm wrong, you'll be able to point to one, won't you?

Yawn. You are making all kinds of assumptions about my political beliefs when all I ever said was that USSR wasn't communist. Which it wasn't. And critiquing communism in terms of 'hurr durr USSR' is ahistorical and reductive to the point of... well.. being really, really stupid.

Yawn. You are making all kinds of assumptions about my political beliefs when all I ever said was that USSR wasn't communist. Which it wasn't. And critiquing communism in terms of 'hurr durr USSR' is ahistorical and reductive to the point of... well.. being really, really stupid.

Is that any different to 'No, I can't point to any successful Communist states'?

I tried having an intellectual argument with him, so i wouldn't bother if I were you, he never develops anything of his own.

I can't point to any failed communist states, either. Because a communist state has never existed and, to be pedantic, will never exist because it's an oxymoron anyway. Of course we can all point to states that have failed to achieve communism, but there are so many conflicting views on how communism should come about I don't see that as much of a problem for the ideology.

I think she was appalling, but I am not celebrating her death.

Those who are might reflect on a remembrance offered by Tony Benn in the papers this week: he recalls meeting Thatcher at the memorial service for (proper left winger) Eric Heffer. She perhaps wasn't invited and certainly wouldn't have been made especially welcome in the company that gathering would have attracted. Benn went to thank her for coming and she immediately collapsed into sobbing.

She could weep, then, for someone whose views were diametrically opposed to hers. We should try to be something like as good here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-i-knew?INTCMP=SRCH#tony-benn

An intellectual argument, or indeed any form of argument necessitates at least some form of discussion between the two parties.

Perhaps you point me to the thread and post(s) where such an interaction took place, for example where you replied to me or quoted me?

If that counts as 'I tried having an intellectual argument' then your definition of 'trying' and 'argument' (or indeed intellectual) is different to everyone elses.