The Marxist Society of TSR Watch

zxczxc
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#121
Report 12 years ago
#121
(Original post by DemonDemonic)
Why do you believe that government intervention will bring about discrimination? You then advocate free enterprise. Don’t you see the incongruity? Libertarian ethos relies on greed and selfishness is this something you refute? The entire train of thought is based on subverting the weak for material gain.
Human existence relies on greed and selfishness for survival. And I don't oppose all government intervention - a small amount is necessary to correct the inefficiencies of a free market system. That has never been in doubt - it's unrealistic to have an entirely free-market system completely devoid of all intervention; marxists seem to refute the necessity of the free-market, and that makes them idealistic and foolish.

Anyway, I didn't think that this was about attacking libertarianism, rather strengthening the notion that Marxism is best - rather than least bad.
0
quote
reply
zxczxc
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#122
Report 12 years ago
#122
Also do you not see that the notion of a war between the classes is not only irresponsible but wrong? Classes are no longer as defined as they used to be, and more people are middle-class than ever.

Moreoever, you fail to see that all economic systems should have as an end the promotion of humanity and the improvement of society for all; if you fail to see this, and instead simply champion Marxism as the only system which can and indeed should work and look down on capitalists and libertarians because of such a belief, then you are all the worse for it, and are only showing yourself to be a zealot.
0
quote
reply
Alasdair
Badges: 13
#123
Report 12 years ago
#123
(Original post by zxczxc)
economic systems should have as an end the promotion of humanity and the improvement of society for all;
Because of course capitalism is particularly good at this one...
quote
reply
creak
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#124
Report 12 years ago
#124
(Original post by Thud)
What Thud said
That's why I thought this was a pisstake
0
quote
reply
TheThirdMan
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#125
Report 12 years ago
#125
It is best to judge things on their actual achievements rather than their hopes or theory. Capitalism has been hugely successful, and the vast majority of people living in democratic capitalist societies are happy. Socialist societies have a history of huge failure from the 60 million dead from Mao's Great Leap Forward to the flawed agricultural policies of the soviets. No one living in those societies are happy, save those who have power, those few who have absolute control, the complete antithesis of socialism. Thus i believe socialism is an unworkable system- a desirable and inherantly good minded system, but an unworkable and seriously flawed system.
0
quote
reply
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#126
Report 12 years ago
#126
(Original post by zxczxc)
But we've had Communist systems pretty close to it, and they were hardly a success. Tell me, why is marxism and marxism alone the natural progression of capitalism?
We've had "communist systems"? :hmmmm:

Maybe you can direct me to a system without government, currency, private property, oppression of the majority...etc...because I can't seem to find such a society?

(Original post by Jasundie)
It cannot really be said to be natural, after all, it involes the interference of the human will, which, many would uphold, removes any 'natural' aspects to it.
Yes, it is natural progression for Marxists. Marx wrote capitalism would be destroyed by its own internal contradictions and socialism (to communism) would be born from it.
0
quote
reply
Alasdair
Badges: 13
#127
Report 12 years ago
#127
(Original post by TheThirdMan)
It is best to judge things on their actual achievements rather than their hopes or theory. Capitalism has been hugely successful, and the vast majority of people living in democratic capitalist societies are happy. Socialist societies have a history of huge failure from the 60 million dead from Mao's Great Leap Forward to the flawed agricultural policies of the soviets. No one living in those societies are happy, save those who have power, those few who have absolute control, the complete antithesis of socialism. Thus i believe socialism is an unworkable system- a desirable and inherantly good minded system, but an unworkable and seriously flawed system.
You said it yourself - "the complete antithesis of socialism". The systems you mentioned weren't socialist/marxist.

And in capitalism, those who have money are happy, and those who do not, are not. And the vast majority of the world's population live in grinding poverty. So capitalism has really been doing a great job in keeping people happy!
quote
reply
zxczxc
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#128
Report 12 years ago
#128
(Original post by Thud)
We've had "communist systems"? :hmmmm:

Maybe you can direct me to a system without government, currency, private property, oppression of the majority...etc...because I can't seem to find such a society?

Yes, it is natural progression for Marxists. Marx wrote capitalism would be destroyed by its own internal contradictions and socialism (to communism) would be born from it.
What are these internal contradictions?

And yes, we have had communist systems. If they went so tits up before they reached the final stage of Marx's dream then that shows that the dream was simply never meant to be. Lenin was also like a dictator, as bad as the tsars, killing his own people with the NEP, etc.: surely that's an awful thing. Of course, Stalin was worse. Nonetheless, Communism took mankind one step back to feudalism.

Isn't Marxism itself inherently contradictory? You eschew capitalism for being discriminatory, yet you argue that we should discriminate against people on the grounds of class, and ultimately have a society without government; what would happen to equality then?
0
quote
reply
zxczxc
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#129
Report 12 years ago
#129
(Original post by alasdair_R)
You said it yourself - "the complete antithesis of socialism". The systems you mentioned weren't socialist/marxist.

And in capitalism, those who have money are happy, and those who do not, are not. And the vast majority of the world's population live in grinding poverty. So capitalism has really been doing a great job in keeping people happy!
Are you saying that it's impossible for people to be happy without money? :rolleyes:
0
quote
reply
TheThirdMan
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#130
Report 12 years ago
#130
Thud: i dont see what the BNP has to do with capitalism being successful. More about ignorance of its voters i think. And they have barely made any real gains. They have increased their vote in a few boroughs, but thanks to the first past the post system this has had no effect on actual power.

What point are you trying to make about thousands starving? Are you trying to say that starvation is a trait unique to capitalist systems? Similarly, what is your point about 500 million children dying each year. By that statistic, you are indicating that every single child (child being 12 years and under) in the world dies every year. That is an incorrect figure and even if it was true has nothing to do with the socialist vs. meritocratic argument.

Stalin was a dictator of a communist nation. And you say that as if that is not the aim of a socialist system. Marx wanted power to be spread evenly, however, he aknowledged that someone would need more power than others and thus aknowledged that a socialist system would need a dictator to achieve its initial aims.

You are judging the merits of socialism on its theory, which i think everyone would agree are commendable and no one would really have any qualms about. However, it is wrong to judge a system based purely on its theory. You must judge it on its policies and implementation and its successes, which socialism has had little of. To support socialism because you agree with equality is like supporting fascism because you agree with healthy people. You can have equality and some redistribution of wealth without having a socialist system.

Communism is a completely ridiculous concept in this day and age. It is backwards and a remnant of the rise of socialism in the 20th century. I cant believe that anyone can argue on behalf of socialism as a realistic and achievable objective. It doesnt consider competition between humans which is natural and takes away the only incentive for us to better ourselves, which is a reward of some kind, usually money in the case of work. I also cannot believe that anyone can criticise todays capitalist systems when the only communist systems have all been monumental failures.
0
quote
reply
TheThirdMan
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#131
Report 12 years ago
#131
And DemonDemonic, seeing as you are such a strict follower of marxism, i assume you have no wealth, you work in the fields, you have no posessions which do not help to advance the working class' course, right?

OH NO WAIT! YOU ARE ON A COMPUTER, THE GREATEST AND MOST PROLIFIC PRODUCT OF THE WESTERN CAPITALIST SOCIETY! Please, do not spout marxist rubbish when you obviously do so with little knowledge of its true ideals. you call DanGrover various strange and dickensian names, which are not what marxist called capitalists. It is what the dictatorial totalitarian regimes of russia and china called capitalists. If those are the systems you want here in the west, i suggest you go and live in China and have a happy time.
0
quote
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#132
Report 12 years ago
#132
The basis of a communist revolution is the workers. do you really believe that the workers of britain want a communist system? if you were to ask some chavs if they wanted to work on the fields in a communal farm and have their ford escort and argos style house taken away, what do you think they'd say.

There is no basis for your ridiculous socialist revolution. its you and a few old bearded men in the revolution, good luck!
0
quote
reply
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#133
Report 12 years ago
#133
(Original post by TheThirdMan)
And DemonDemonic, seeing as you are such a strict follower of marxism, i assume you have no wealth, you work in the fields, you have no posessions which do not help to advance the working class' course, right?
^ I disagree with this!

He's not a "strict follower of Marxism"!

I'm still waiting for the non-existent quote by Marx (note: Marx, not Kautsky!) which says that reformism is the way forward from him.
0
quote
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#134
Report 12 years ago
#134
Communism is the extreme of socialism, its simple. An theThirdMan said:
"and thus aknowledged that a socialist system would need a dictator to achieve its initial aims." How is that incorrect? It agrees with what you said!
You said 500 million children die every year from starvation. that is incorrect. not even 500 million people die every year, that would mean 1/12 of the world dies every year!

To say the FPTP system is unfair is obvious, but the point of it is not to be fair. its to give the winning party a large majority and thus greater power to implement its manifesto! He never called capitalism the knight in shining armour. Sure its not perfect, but its far better than any socialist system.

Communism is socialism. Socialism isnt communism. So what. They both advocate the same basic principles, which are unworkable. This argument was never about the difference between socialism and communism!

And by the way, those countries which are ruined by capitalism, according to you, are not! Western nations give tens of billions of dollars to them in aid. In regards to the state of the african nations, you should be attacking imperialism which left them in that state, not capitalism, which is an entirely different thing.

Your whole argument seems to be based on people having no power and no decision. People have a vote. If they wanted communism or socialism, they would vote for it. they dont. Communism or socialism or whatever you want to call it, are based on the assumption that everyone will work equally hard, which is obviously not true! You cant believe that someone who works 1 day a week should be paid the same as someone who works 7 days a week??
0
quote
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#135
Report 12 years ago
#135
Communism is the extreme of socialism, its simple. An theThirdMan said:
"and thus aknowledged that a socialist system would need a dictator to achieve its initial aims." How is that incorrect? It agrees with what you said!
You said 500 million children die every year from starvation. that is incorrect. not even 500 million people die every year, that would mean 1/12 of the world dies every year!

To say the FPTP system is unfair is obvious, but the point of it is not to be fair. its to give the winning party a large majority and thus greater power to implement its manifesto! He never called capitalism the knight in shining armour. Sure its not perfect, but its far better than any socialist system.

Communism is socialism. Socialism isnt communism. So what. They both advocate the same basic principles, which are unworkable. This argument was never about the difference between socialism and communism!

And by the way, those countries which are ruined by capitalism, according to you, are not! Western nations give tens of billions of dollars to them in aid. In regards to the state of the african nations, you should be attacking imperialism which left them in that state, not capitalism, which is an entirely different thing.

Your whole argument seems to be based on people having no power and no decision. People have a vote. If they wanted communism or socialism, they would vote for it. they dont. Communism or socialism or whatever you want to call it, are based on the assumption that everyone will work equally hard, which is obviously not true! You cant believe that someone who works 1 day a week should be paid the same as someone who works 7 days a week??
0
quote
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#136
Report 12 years ago
#136
Communism is the extreme of socialism, its simple. An theThirdMan said:
"and thus aknowledged that a socialist system would need a dictator to achieve its initial aims." How is that incorrect? It agrees with what you said!
You said 500 million children die every year from starvation. that is incorrect. not even 500 million people die every year, that would mean 1/12 of the world dies every year!

To say the FPTP system is unfair is obvious, but the point of it is not to be fair. its to give the winning party a large majority and thus greater power to implement its manifesto! He never called capitalism the knight in shining armour. Sure its not perfect, but its far better than any socialist system.

Communism is socialism. Socialism isnt communism. So what. They both advocate the same basic principles, which are unworkable. This argument was never about the difference between socialism and communism!

And by the way, those countries which are ruined by capitalism, according to you, are not! Western nations give tens of billions of dollars to them in aid. In regards to the state of the african nations, you should be attacking imperialism which left them in that state, not capitalism, which is an entirely different thing.

Your whole argument seems to be based on people having no power and no decision. People have a vote. If they wanted communism or socialism, they would vote for it. they dont. Communism or socialism or whatever you want to call it, are based on the assumption that everyone will work equally hard, which is obviously not true! You cant believe that someone who works 1 day a week should be paid the same as someone who works 7 days a week??
0
quote
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#137
Report 12 years ago
#137
Wow, triple post!

Hopefully my final post here: Give me an example of a successful socialist system in place at the moment or which has been in place.
0
quote
reply
zxczxc
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#138
Report 12 years ago
#138
Thud, you're talking out of your arse. Grow up and get into the real world, and have some belief in the power of the individual. Marxism looks down upon the power of the individual, and I find that rather disheartening; individuals can better themselves in a capitalist society such as ours, and we do have the ability to make choices as to the way we live. Which, frankly, your views deny us.
0
quote
reply
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#139
Report 12 years ago
#139
(Original post by DanGrover)
Wow, triple post!

Hopefully my final post here: Give me an example of a successful socialist system in place at the moment or which has been in place.
exactly - there hasn't been one yet.

Though arguably Leninist Russia was relatively successful considering the conditions.

(Original post by zxczxc)
Thud, you're talking out of your arse. Grow up and get into the real world, and have some belief in the power of the individual. Marxism looks down upon the power of the individual, and I find that rather disheartening; individuals can better themselves in a capitalist society such as ours, and we do have the ability to make choices as to the way we live. Which, frankly, your views deny us.
*sigh*
0
quote
reply
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#140
Report 12 years ago
#140
(Original post by DanGrover)
Communism is the extreme of socialism, its simple. An theThirdMan said:
"and thus aknowledged that a socialist system would need a dictator to achieve its initial aims." How is that incorrect? It agrees with what you said!
a dictator and dictatorship of the proletariat are very different things.

I'm still waiting for the non-existent Marx quote though....


(Original post by DanGrover)
Communism is socialism. Socialism isnt communism. So what. They both advocate the same basic principles, which are unworkable. This argument was never about the difference between socialism and communism!
no it's not.

communism is only possible after socialism, but socialism doesn't always lead to communism. Socialism has a state, communism doesn't. They are not the same thing.

(Original post by DanGrover)
And by the way, those countries which are ruined by capitalism, according to you, are not! Western nations give tens of billions of dollars to them in aid. In regards to the state of the african nations, you should be attacking imperialism which left them in that state, not capitalism, which is an entirely different thing.
Capitalism embraces imperialism.

and what do the billions of dollars aid do? jack ****. If the west really wanted to help they could, fact is though, it's better for western consumers if cappies keep part of the world poor in order to make their goods.

(Original post by DanGrover)
Your whole argument seems to be based on people having no power and no decision. People have a vote. If they wanted communism or socialism, they would vote for it. they dont. Communism or socialism or whatever you want to call it, are based on the assumption that everyone will work equally hard, which is obviously not true! You cant believe that someone who works 1 day a week should be paid the same as someone who works 7 days a week??
People will work to the best of their ability and they will receive what they need in return, simple really.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (50)
27.32%
No (133)
72.68%

Watched Threads

View All