Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 5, 2003, 08:48 pm

Failure to create a working model is generally a good hint that it will not function as designed...at least in my profession..

RebelWithanAK · Sep 5, 2003, 08:51 pm

I repeat, maybe if we stopped "intervening" on the behalf of countries that are too far to the left to our liking...

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 5, 2003, 08:59 pm

Er, exactly where was that done? And how do you define left?

Geoff332 · Sep 5, 2003, 09:01 pm

I've not posted anything about the communist model of society (Marx's critique of capitalism is quite different from the communist framework that he suggested would supplant capitalism, although it quite obviously builds on that critique). Given that you are self-professed as being "not an authority on communism" and neither myself nor anyone else has actually posted a coherent synopsis of what constitutes communism, I have no idea where you are getting the 'breakdown' of communism from. I have no intention of raising a critique of the communist model before I outline the major features of that model. That would be unwise.

For the record, as much as we have not seen an ideal communist state, we have we seen neither an ideal capitalist state nor the communist revolution as proposed by Marx. The major revolutions have occurred in states that were better described as feudal rather than communist, the revolutions stemed from different causes and were of a different nature.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 5, 2003, 09:04 pm

I stick by my theory that perfect governments are impossible. If humanity were capable of perfect government he would not need government at all.

Geoff332 · Sep 5, 2003, 09:14 pm

No, but she would.

I've never suggested the elimination of the state -- no-one but the most deluded idealist would suggest that you do not need a state under either the capitalist or communist model. At the state level, what changes is the role the state plays in the society not the fact of their existence.

I think you are confusing the state (Government), the society and the economic system. They are all inter-related, but not the same thing.

I'm still unsure where I've failed "to see the area where communism breaks down". Can you elaborate on that?

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 5, 2003, 09:30 pm

That is one problem with the seperation, the nature of mans imperfection is that he cannot seperate the state, society, and the economy. Power does exist, and has no means of travel or to get doled out evenly, except by force and cunning. But in those cases it goes to those with force and/or cunning, why do you think those people would then give it up?

That is where Comunism breaks down...

RebelWithanAK · Sep 5, 2003, 09:33 pm

Greatwyrm:

American advisors working for Chiang Kai Shek; US support for Greek neo-fascists against the communist party in 1949, the creation of KYP. 1953: US troops against Phillipino Huks, the instatement of Ferdinand Marcos; the CIA-organized coup of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala. JFK's Alliance for Progress and the Bay of Pigs in 1961 - not to mention the embargo. The US military suppresses the revolution of leftist Juan Bosch in 1966 after turning the other cheek at the coup which ousted him in 1963. US forces oust leftist Cheddi Jagan in 1964 from Guyana, and US funds help the coup against socialist Joao Goulart in Brazil. Then there's the CIA's $10 billion smear campaign against Salvador Allende in 1964 and 1970. The military coup of Augusto Pinochet in 1973 with US-trained officers. US-funded Contras' terrorist war in Nicaragua after leftist Sandinistas take over the country from dictatorship in 1978. The US invasion of Grenada in 1983 to oust leftist Maurice Bishop.

Then there's the Vietnam War, Panama's Noriega, El Salvador and Haiti. Get it?

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 5, 2003, 09:38 pm

To the best of my knowlege these are all authoritorian regimes, for Communism to emerge the regime must be both leftist and anti-authoritorian, does it not?

RebelWithanAK · Sep 5, 2003, 09:40 pm

Your knowledge must be a bit rusty, Greatwyrm - most of those were democratically elected leaders. But the results after the US-led "interventions" were -to a country- repressive military dictatorships, and the ones the US "lost" were and are still plagued with US-trained proxy soldiers. Get me?

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 5, 2003, 10:13 pm

You appear to assume that I consider Democracy an anti-authoritorian system which it is not. But I will conceed your point on the basis that I am more trained in concepts than paticulars, and lack the time to study every paticular you bring up.

But why is its' America's job to help create the role model for Communism?

BTW: Why are you ending your posts with such phrases as "get it", or "get me", does your ego require that you speak as if to a child, or do you suffer from an inferiority complex that demands you treat others as inferiors? As an egoist I am merely amused, but I am curious.

RebelWithanAK · Sep 5, 2003, 10:18 pm

I concede I was being rather condescending with "get it" but I argue that it was because I saw condescension in "Er, exactly where was that done?," as if you were to deny the existence of the results of America's foreign affairs in the last 60 years. Simply put, America has to work towards allowing Communism to exist by not working against it.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 5, 2003, 10:22 pm

Why does America have to do that?

RebelWithanAK · Sep 5, 2003, 10:27 pm

For the purpose of this argument, it means that you don't have a untampered example of a socialist state. For the purpose of politics, it's simply inhumanitarian to force countries into repressive dictatorships for the sole purpose of being economically friendly to the US.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 5, 2003, 10:38 pm

But the rest of the world grips everytime America tries the high ground approach, so the best next thing is to go for stability...dictatorships are very stable, so we get gripped at less often. (lol) Not the route I would follow, but I understand it.

RebelWithanAK · Sep 5, 2003, 10:45 pm

Well, the world didn't gripe when we went into Kosovo - we even had the UN's blessing. It's just that we can't have the moral highground when we depose democratically elected leaders in favor of repressive dictators. Hell, Saddam's a fine example. As a British-installed strongman turned American arm against Iran's nationalist oil policies, his country was "stable," but certainly not commendable. It's not as if there isn't plenty of reason to gripe.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 5, 2003, 10:53 pm

If you only supply negative reinforcement regardless of the result you will eventually be ignored, it takes longer for a group of countries, but it will happen.

Well, we are not making points of great import, so I am going to catch up on my most missed hobby, reading what I want to. I got two midterms this week so tonight may be all the time I can devote to it. Oh well, I am the idiot that decided to cram a BS into two years. (lol) 66% done(sigh).

G. Adams · Sep 6, 2003, 09:14 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by fedfem@Sep 5 2003, 07:11 AM
I would argue that civilization began with communism. Evidence suggests that patriarchal tribes using violence and genocide prevailed, thus history as we know it. The next 25 yrs will shed more light on whether communism is a viable model. Although Marx and Engel's model of communism essentially erradicates religion, I believe that is one of the factors that has caused modern attempts to fail. That would probably be better for another thread.

Damned comp going down means I have two pages to catch up and reply on.

Evidence suggesting a patriarchy and violence being the prevelant forces in early human history supports my view of extreme right wing. The violence of establishing an order to a group creates a dominant being, most often a male, and all are subserviant to him. This is along with the structured hiearchy underneath in order to maintain that control. This is almost a dream for fascists who wish to establish an order based on power and strength.

G. Adams · Sep 6, 2003, 09:18 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 5 2003, 08:48 PM
Failure to create a working model is generally a good hint that it will not function as designed...at least in my profession..

We have also failed to create a 'working' model of capitalism, that provides all of the so called benefits of capitalism. The examples of the US, EU or Japan are not possible, since we are part of a global system. And if we look at the world, capitalism is most definately failing.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 7, 2003, 01:01 am

Even if that is true it is a better system than a still-born...

Sep 5, 2003, 08:51 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	I repeat, maybe if we stopped "intervening" on the behalf of countries that are too far to the left to our liking... . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 5, 2003, 09:33 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Greatwyrm: American advisors working for Chiang Kai Shek; US support for Greek neo-fascists against the communist party in 1949, the creation of KYP. 1953: US troops against Phillipino Huks, the instatement of Ferdinand Marcos; the CIA-organized coup of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala. JFK's Alliance for Progress and the Bay of Pigs in 1961 - not to mention the embargo. The US military suppresses the revolution of leftist Juan Bosch in 1966 after turning the other cheek at the coup which ousted him in 1963. US forces oust leftist Cheddi Jagan in 1964 from Guyana, and US funds help the coup against socialist Joao Goulart in Brazil. Then there's the CIA's $10 billion smear campaign against Salvador Allende in 1964 and 1970. The military coup of Augusto Pinochet in 1973 with US-trained officers. US-funded Contras' terrorist war in Nicaragua after leftist Sandinistas take over the country from dictatorship in 1978. The US invasion of Grenada in 1983 to oust leftist Maurice Bishop. Then there's the Vietnam War, Panama's Noriega, El Salvador and Haiti. Get it? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 5, 2003, 09:40 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Your knowledge must be a bit rusty, Greatwyrm - most of those were democratically elected leaders. But the results after the US-led "interventions" were -to a country- repressive military dictatorships, and the ones the US "lost" were and are still plagued with US-trained proxy soldiers. Get me? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 5, 2003, 10:18 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	I concede I was being rather condescending with "get it" but I argue that it was because I saw condescension in "Er, exactly where was that done?," as if you were to deny the existence of the results of America's foreign affairs in the last 60 years. Simply put, America has to work towards allowing Communism to exist by not working against it. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 5, 2003, 10:27 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	For the purpose of this argument, it means that you don't have a untampered example of a socialist state. For the purpose of politics, it's simply inhumanitarian to force countries into repressive dictatorships for the sole purpose of being economically friendly to the US. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 5, 2003, 08:48 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Failure to create a working model is generally a good hint that it will not function as designed...at least in my profession..

Sep 5, 2003, 08:59 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Er, exactly where was that done? And how do you define left?

Sep 5, 2003, 09:01 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	I've not posted anything about the communist model of society (Marx's critique of capitalism is quite different from the communist framework that he suggested would supplant capitalism, although it quite obviously builds on that critique). Given that you are self-professed as being "not an authority on communism" and neither myself nor anyone else has actually posted a coherent synopsis of what constitutes communism, I have no idea where you are getting the 'breakdown' of communism from. I have no intention of raising a critique of the communist model before I outline the major features of that model. That would be unwise. For the record, as much as we have not seen an ideal communist state, we have we seen neither an ideal capitalist state nor the communist revolution as proposed by Marx. The major revolutions have occurred in states that were better described as feudal rather than communist, the revolutions stemed from different causes and were of a different nature.

Sep 5, 2003, 09:04 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	I stick by my theory that perfect governments are impossible. If humanity were capable of perfect government he would not need government at all.

Sep 5, 2003, 09:14 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	No, but she would. I've never suggested the elimination of the state -- no-one but the most deluded idealist would suggest that you do not need a state under either the capitalist or communist model. At the state level, what changes is the role the state plays in the society not the fact of their existence. I think you are confusing the state (Government), the society and the economic system. They are all inter-related, but not the same thing. I'm still unsure where I've failed "to see the area where communism breaks down". Can you elaborate on that?

Sep 5, 2003, 09:30 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	That is one problem with the seperation, the nature of mans imperfection is that he cannot seperate the state, society, and the economy. Power does exist, and has no means of travel or to get doled out evenly, except by force and cunning. But in those cases it goes to those with force and/or cunning, why do you think those people would then give it up? That is where Comunism breaks down...

Sep 5, 2003, 09:38 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	To the best of my knowlege these are all authoritorian regimes, for Communism to emerge the regime must be both leftist and anti-authoritorian, does it not?

Sep 5, 2003, 10:13 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	You appear to assume that I consider Democracy an anti-authoritorian system which it is not. But I will conceed your point on the basis that I am more trained in concepts than paticulars, and lack the time to study every paticular you bring up. But why is its' America's job to help create the role model for Communism? BTW: Why are you ending your posts with such phrases as "get it", or "get me", does your ego require that you speak as if to a child, or do you suffer from an inferiority complex that demands you treat others as inferiors? As an egoist I am merely amused, but I am curious.

Sep 5, 2003, 10:22 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Why does America have to do that?

Sep 5, 2003, 10:38 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	But the rest of the world grips everytime America tries the high ground approach, so the best next thing is to go for stability...dictatorships are very stable, so we get gripped at less often. (lol) Not the route I would follow, but I understand it.

Sep 5, 2003, 10:45 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Well, the world didn't gripe when we went into Kosovo - we even had the UN's blessing. It's just that we can't have the moral highground when we depose democratically elected leaders in favor of repressive dictators. Hell, Saddam's a fine example. As a British-installed strongman turned American arm against Iran's nationalist oil policies, his country was "stable," but certainly not commendable. It's not as if there isn't plenty of reason to gripe. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 5, 2003, 10:53 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	If you only supply negative reinforcement regardless of the result you will eventually be ignored, it takes longer for a group of countries, but it will happen. Well, we are not making points of great import, so I am going to catch up on my most missed hobby, reading what I want to. I got two midterms this week so tonight may be all the time I can devote to it. Oh well, I am the idiot that decided to cram a BS into two years. (lol) 66% done(sigh).

Sep 7, 2003, 01:01 am	#40 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Even if that is true it is a better system than a still-born...