Let me take a more specific approach...

[CB Shin]

Good, your less hostile this time :laugh: First off, because of your arguement, I will take back "ambition as a weakness", though I still agree with Marx's plans. Very good point that I overlooked was the person of whom the ambition belongs to. I am glad you say you're an open-minded person. I too will listen as well as talk. Since you are an extreme anti-communist, because you have the experience to, and I respect that, let me start off by saying I won't try to sway you from your fondness of capitilists. I will, however, express my ideas so that I do not look like a total fool. I believe that Socialists and Marxists differenciates between communists. While Marx never kept a specific theory on his philosophies of economics and government, communists spread the doctrines even further. Even though they acknowledge Marx, does not mean that Marx would be proud of them. Marx is dead, he can't change the results of his work, which is communism, though his original intentions were amiable. The Industrial Revolution was the start of Capitilism, as I'm sure you know, but it had the same potential of a giant failure as Marx's philosophies. You must understand that during the Industrial Revolution, people were very unhappy, and they were also impoverished, while the owners of the factories bathed greedily in their wealth. It was a time when raw ambition engulfed countries and took advantage of the poor. If you think about it, communism has the same principle as the time of the Industrial Revolution. You make me sound like a terrorist who takes advantage of America, yet hates it at the same time. I'm here to tell you I'm not. While I agree with old fashioned Socialism and Marxism more, I am able to see both sides of the arguement. I agree with them because I believe the saying "Cooperation over Competition" would make a better country, even though some may argue it is impossible.

[DeathBug]

Why most cooperation go over competition? You say that as though they're mutually exclusive. I can work with others while still wanting to be the best member of the team. Granted, that drive could become malicious, but so can most drives. The drive for personal recognition is the most potent of all motivating factors; it would be foolish to assume that it's merely a selfish character flaw.

History has shown, repeatedly, that communism doesn't work. In every circumstance it's been introduced to, it has failed to produce what was promised, and only worsened the lives of those who live under it.

You've heard the saying that one of the definitions of insanity is constantly doing the ame thing, yet expecting different results? There's a reason for that logic. Communism [b]always ends up producing the same results[/b]. The first time, you can write it off as a corruption of the sytem. Heck, even the second and third times it fails.

How many times does communism have to fail for you to say, "Okay, the problem isn't just with the people; it's with the system itself"?

[b]Communism always fails for a reason; the system itself is inherantly flawed. It will never work.[/b]

[CB Shin]

As I said before Deathbug, Communism drastically stretches the doctrine of Marx's philosophies, so therefore is irrelevant to what I'm talking about. I suppose that personal advancement is the most common motivation, but there are always others. What about unity and benifitting the country? In both Marx and Socialist's principles of thinking, as the county prospers, so too does the people who live in it. Of course that's not without it's downsides, yet you said that from every strength comes a weakness. You must admit right now that America's economy is pretty down, yet some people are either not or barely affected by this plunge, or once again, they simply don't care. Some people who live in America claim no loyalty whatsoever, not even caring who their leader is *Cough (BUSH)*. I believe that there has never ever been a country with raw Marx ideals, so you cannot actually say that Marxist countries, in which there are none, are destined to fail no matter what. Socialist Countries have been proven to work however, and some have even developed into capitilist countries.

[Guest Zhuge_Liang]

well im finally here cb. and in my opinion marxism woul be good but the pride and greed of man wil aways lead us away from what any form of govn could acheave (yes i spell bad)all of us want to be taken care of and noe of us like bein told what to do

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]As I said before Deathbug, Communism drastically stretches the doctrine of Marx's philosophies, so therefore is irrelevant to what I'm talking about.[/B][/QUOTE]

How is it irrelevant? Marx [b]wrote the Communist Mannifesto![/b]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] I suppose that personal advancement is the most common motivation, but there are always others. What about unity and benifitting the country?[/B][/QUOTE]

If I'm a Doctor, and I'm striving to be the best damn doctor ever, I fail to see how the Community doesn't prosper by having someone so dedicated to the medical profession.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]In both Marx and Socialist's principles of thinking, as the county prospers, so too does the people who live in it.[/B][/QUOTE]

Well, I'm sorry, but Marx had squirrels living in his head. The man was a durn idjit.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Of course that's not without it's downsides, yet you said that from every strength comes a weakness.[/B][/QUOTE]

No, I didn't; I said that every strong quality has the possibility to be put to malicious ends.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]You must admit right now that America's economy is pretty down,[/B][/QUOTE]

No, I mustn't. America's economy is down compared to a few years ago, when we had [b]unprecented economic prosperity[/b]. Now we're away from that, but I'd hardly call it "pretty down". The american people have a short memory.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]yet some people are either not or barely affected by this plunge, or once again, they simply don't care. [/B][/QUOTE]

How would it be a bad thing that a goodd real of people aren't affected by a sagging economy? Sounds like a victory to me, that the quality of life isn't so precariously balanced on the razor's edge of international economics.

And again, we're only down compared to one of the most prosperous decades in history. It's not exactly time to strap the chilluns in the wagon with Ma & Pa Joad and head to California.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Some people who live in America claim no loyalty whatsoever, not even caring who their leader is *Cough (BUSH)*. [/B][/QUOTE]

So? There've always been ignorant and apathetic people in every country on Earth. What's your point?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]I believe that there has never ever been a country with raw Marx ideals,[/B][/QUOTE]

Because "raw Marx ideals" are unattainable, and would require the entire population of the country to alter some of the mosat basic human character traits. It ain't gonna' happen.

You want to see "raw Marx ideals"? Watch Star Trek: First Contact. Pay attention to the Borg.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] so you cannot actually say that Marxist countries, in which there are none, are destined to fail no matter what.[/B][/QUOTE]

Watch me.

[b]Marxist countries are destined to fail, no matter what. History teaches us that Marx's ideals don't work.[/b]

You're arguing semantics. "Oh, those weren't really Marxist governments". Then, tell me, what would a Marxist government be like?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] Socialist Countries have been proven to work however, and some have even developed into capitilist countries. [/B][/QUOTE]

So....Socialist countries worked because they abandoned Marx's principles and became capitalist countries?

That doesn't exactly prove your argument, which was hanging by a thread to begin with.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Zhuge_Liang [/i]
[B] in my opinion marxism woul be good but the pride and greed of man wil aways lead us away from what any form of govn could acheave [/B][/QUOTE]

Then your opinion is wrong. How many times does it have to fail in its myrid forms before you get the picture? [b]Marxism doesn't work[/b], and if a simple grasp of history doesn't tell you that, you are either in denile or incredibly ignorant.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Zhuge_Liang [/i]
[B]all of us want to be taken care of and noe of us like bein told what to do[/B][/QUOTE]

**** that. I never, ever want to be taken care of, especially not by some Big Sister nanny-state. Maybe you have no will or ambition of your own, but I do. I will take care of myself, despite social leeches like yourself.

Oh, and guess what? According to communist theory, you're supposed to do all you can for the good of the commune. If you're a good carpenter, you've got to go out and be a good carpenter no matter what, because it's your duty to the Commune.

Do you happen to be the best carpenter ever? Tough beans; you're still getting the same wage as the newbie who can barely hammer a nail. Sucks, don't it?

You want to know about Marx? Marx couldn't even adhere to his own ideals. He was ousted by the government for his ideas, and spent most of his life in poverty.

He could have been a kind of martyr, I suppose, if it weren't for the fact that he had a large family. His family suffered through poverty because of his ideals.

What kind of selfish man would but his "ideals" above the well-being of his wife and children? He wasn't to be admired, and his ideas aren't to be adhered to. He was a cretin, and his ideas were laughable.

Ironically, had he been a true communist, he would have put aside his [b]pride and ambition[/b] and silenced his own ideals for the good of his family. He was a selfish and idiotic hypocrite.

And, just for jollies, and to finally put this argument to rest, let's all turn to the Communist Mannifest, written by Marx himself. Under Section II-Proletarians and Communists, Marx listed ten steps that nations at the time would have to follow to be "up to code" with his ideals.

Remember, this was wriiten by Karl Marx himself. ^__^

[b]1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. [/b]

Hey, remember your appartment? It's the government's , now. Remember that building you lease? It's the government's. Remember that nice two story home with the white picket fence that you worked all your life to obtain for your family? Oh yeah, you know that's the government's now.

State-sponsered theft sure is fun, isn't it. ^__^

[b]2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. [/b]

Wow, not original to Marx.

So in addition to having my property confiscated, I get to pay a heavy tax? Happy day!

[b]3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.[/b]

Because when we're through pillaging the living, the Marxist government can always steal from the dead. Kiss Mom's old china good bye.

[b]4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.[/b]

"Welcome to America! Now give us everything you own, or get your arse back on the boat!"

Noticing a trend here? Whole lotta' stealing going on.

[b]5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.[/b]

All your bases...I mean, banks, belong to us!

Amazing; I'm going to give all my money into the care of the same government that stole my house, my inheritance and my wages! Yeah, next I'll pay a burglar to guard my house!

Your "free enterprise" has no place here!

[b]6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.[/b]

Can you hear me now? Good, because the Marxist government just took control of a huge hunk of the free market, and caused thousands of layoffs.

Yet more state sponsered theft.

[b]7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. [/b]

In addition to stealing from the people, the Marxist government will expand their own facilities, meaning more profits for them.

Marxist governments: the only game in town! At least we see he's vaguely concerned with the enviornment.

[b]8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. [/b]

So, now that we've stolen everything you have, we'd like to force you to work for us, only to have your meager income heavily taxed and have no hope of advancement in the future!

What was it Z_L said about not wanting to do what we don't want to...?

[b]9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. [/b]

Yay! Forced relocation! Loss of cultural identity and heritage! Wh00t!! I suppose it won't be so bad when the government already stole your house.

What's "equal distrubution" mean? It means you get exactly the same as the person next to you, no matter how much harder you work. Have fun!

[b]10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. [/b]

Wow, free education and child labor laws, the only decent things he had in the whole list.

Wait, we have those now....

Didja' catch that last part? We've already decided we want the children to work in the industry, and we're training them accordingly! they have absolutly no choice in their own future!

Just a reminder, those ten bullets were written [b]by Marx himself[/b].

Do you understand now what a horrible system communism is? It's disgusting. It has no place in a civilized society.

If you stil don't see how inane Marx's ideals were, there's no hope for you.

[Ben]

Egad! Where to begin....?

[B][QUOTE]The Industrial Revolution was the start of Capitilism, as I'm sure you know, but it had the same potential of a giant failure as Marx's philosophies.[/QUOTE][/B]

Only it did [I]not[/I] fail. It turned out to be one of the most beneficial events in history.

[B][QUOTE]You must understand that during the Industrial Revolution, people were very unhappy, and they were also impoverished, while the owners of the factories bathed greedily in their wealth. It was a time when raw ambition engulfed countries and took advantage of the poor.[/QUOTE][/B]

Yup...uh-huh...sounds an awful lot like what happened in communist countries....


[B][QUOTE]If you think about it, communism has the same principle as the time of the Industrial Revolution.[/QUOTE][/B]

No, it doesn't. It only had the same short-term [B]result[/B], only not short-term. The poverty and oppression continued until the communist governments were overthrown, and in some places even further.

[B][QUOTE]I am able to see both sides of the arguement.[/QUOTE][/B]

Then why do you ask so many darned questions?

[B][QUOTE]I agree with them because I believe the saying "Cooperation over Competition" would make a better country, even though some may argue it is impossible.[/QUOTE][/B]

Beliefs are all well and good, but do you have anything to back it with? Even the Catholic Church can get [B]facts[/B], good solid evidence, to back their beliefs. What have you got?

People only argue its impossibility because of the repeated attempts at it that have [B]failed.[/B]


One last thing before I stop.

What is the point of this? Just [B]what[/B] are you trying to prove? If you can come up with a coherant response, please do so so that the rest of us can tear it into itty bitty pieces.

[CB Shin]

I was trying to prove that Marx and Engel's ideals were beyond reasonable, even if all of their philosophies were old-fashioned. I simply strive for a more efficient type of system, and I know that you believe this is as far as we're going to get. My point's been made and it was perfectly valid, I support the philosophies of Marx, Engels and Socialist-Marxism. Unfortunately, it's either too late for another try because of the fear of another example of a Communism/dictatorship, or that people haven't learned to work together in complete harmony for a greater cause. I'm sure that statement will spark up another arguement...

[wrist cutter]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]or that people haven't learned to work together in complete harmony for a greater cause. I'm sure that statement will spark up another arguement... [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't know how anyone could debate that. Anyone who thinks people want to work together in harmony for a greater cause is way too optimistic and living in some fantasy world.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]I was trying to prove that Marx and Engel's ideals were beyond reasonable, even if all of their philosophies were old-fashioned.[/B][/QUOTE]

What are these "reasonable philosophies" that you're speaking of? Where are they? I can give you portions of the Communist Mannifesto written by Marx himself and tell you why they're stupid; what, exactly, was reasonable?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] I simply strive for a more efficient type of system,[/B][/QUOTE]

Join the club.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]and I know that you believe this is as far as we're going to get.[/B][/QUOTE]

No; however, I believe we're closer now than we've ever been. Marxism would be an ideological step backwards into oblivion.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]My point's been made and it was perfectly valid, I support the philosophies of Marx, Engels and Socialist-Marxism.[/B][/QUOTE]

That's not a point; that's a statement. I already know you believe in them for some ungodly reason; you said as much. Why, exactly, do you? You haven't made any point.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] Unfortunately, it's either too late for another try because of the fear of another example of a Communism/dictatorship, [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, I wonder why communism would ever give us a reason to fear that? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] or that people haven't learned to work together in complete harmony for a greater cause. [/B][/QUOTE]

"Complete harmony"? Who wants that? Harmony is the antithesis of progression. The moment we enter Utopia is the moment we're extinct.

Maybe the problem arises from the fact that what you consider to be a greater cause differs from what other, more well-informed people believe to be a greater cause. Loss of self never seemed to be a great cause to me.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]I'm sure that statement will spark up another arguement... [/B][/QUOTE]

You say that as though the last one had ended.

[Baron Samedi]

Frankly, I havn't read the last one and a half pages. It seems to descend into a morass of conflicting views, over little importance. So, I shall just state my views on this.

I studied Fascism, Communism and Marx this past year. I am in year 9, but taking... 'top' classes. I would wager that a lot of kids I know wouldn't have any idea who Marx was. I found it really interesting though. Thats just me.

I think that you're terribly stuck up for saying that anybody who doesn't know about Marx isn't intelligent enough. What would you know? That was a horrendous line.

Communism and Fascism are at opposite ends of the Left/Right scale. But the truth is, they have many qualities in common. Which is why a Pournelles axis is the best way to view political groups.

Here I quote from the site "Some years ago I set out to replace the old model with one that made more sense. I studied a number of political philosophies and tried to see what underlying concepts separated them from their political enemies. Eventually I came up with two variables. I didn't then and don't now suggest these two are all there is to political theory. I'm certain there are other important ones. But my two have this property: they map every major political philosophy and movement onto one unique place.

The two I chose are "Attitude toward the State," and "Attitude toward planned social progress".

The first is easy to understand: what think you of government? Is it an object of idolatry, a positive good, necessary evil, or unmitigated evil? Obviously that forms a spectrum, with various anarchists at the left end and reactionary monarchists at the right. The American political parties tend to fall toward the middle.

Note also that both Communists and Fascists are out at the right-hand end of the line; while American Conservatism and US Welfare Liberalism are in about the same place, somewhere to the right of center, definitely "statists." (One should not let modern anti-bureaucratic rhetoric fool you into thinking the US Conservative has really become anti-statist; he may want to dismantle a good part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, but he would strengthen the police and army.) The ideological libertarian is of course left of center, some all the way over to the left with the anarchists.

That variable works; but it doesn't pull all the political theories each into a unique place. They overlap. Which means we need another variable.

"Attitude toward planned social progress" can be translated "rationalism"; it is the belief that society has "problems," and these can be "solved"; we can take arms against a sea of troubles.

Once again we can order the major political philosophies. Fascism is irrationalist; it says so in its theoretical treatises. It appeals to "the greatness of the nation" or to the volk, and also to the fuhrer-prinzip, i.e., hero worship.

Call that end (irrationalism) the "bottom" of the spectrum and place the continuum at right angles to the previous "statism" variable. Call the "top" the attitude that all social problems have findable solutions. Obviously Communism belongs there. Not far below it you find a number of American Welfare Liberals: the sort of people who say that crime is caused by poverty, and thus when we end poverty we'll end crime. Now note that the top end of the scale, extreme rationalism, may not mark a very rational position: "knowing" that all human problems can be "solved" by rational actions is an act of faith akin to the anarchist's belief that if we can just chop away the government, man truly free will no longer have problems. Obviously I think both top and bottom positions are whacky; but then one mark of Conservatism has always been distrust of highly rationalist schemes. Burke advocated that we draw "from the general bank of the ages, because he suspected that any particular person or generation has a rather small stock of reason; thus where the radical argues "we don't understand the purpose of this social custom; let's dismantle it," the conservative says "since we don't understand it, we'd better leave it alone."

Anyway, those are my two axes; and using them does tend to explain some political anomalies. For example: why are there two kinds of "liberal" who hate each other? But the answer is simple enough. Both are pretty thorough-going rationalists, but whereas the XIXth Century Liberal had a profound distrust of the State, the modern variety wants to use the State to Do Good for all mankind. Carry both rationalism and statism out a bit further (go northeast on our diagram) and you get to socialism, which, carried to its extreme, becomes communism. Similarly, the Conservative position leads through various shades of reaction to irrational statism, i.e., one of the varieties of fascism.

On the anti-statist end of the scale we can see the same tendency: extreme anti-rationalism ends with the Bakunin type of anarchist, who blows things up and destroys for the sake of destruction; the utterly rationalist anti-statist, on the other hand, persuades himself that somehow there are natural rights which everyone ought to recognize, and if only the state would get out of the way we'd all live in harmony; the sort of person who thinks the police no better than a band of brigands, but doesn't think that in the absence of the police, brigands would be smart enough to band together. "

Here is a picture of the Axis itself.

It is a very apt model. Fascism and Communism have similar faculties, but also different ones.

Now down to Marx. What do you want to know about him? What is there to say? His [i]Communisto Manifesto[/i] has a lot of good points. His theories are very good. But the crossover from Paper to reality was harsh. It wasn't the same. The Bourgeoisise still ended up in control. The proletariat and the petite bourgeoisie were set against each other. Industrial world condemned it. it didn't work, because of humans. And their urge to succeed.

What is there to say? The leaders of Communism destroyed what could have been a great movement, and was a great ideal.

[CB Shin]

Baron, if you would have read the last page, you'd of found out I apologized and took that back. That's why it helps to be well-informed :D Deathbug, you keep mentioning The Communist Mannifesto as my ultimate weakness, as if Marx and Engels had never wrote another work in their life and of course, you only state out the weaknesses, never the strength. What about "Das Kapital" or "The German Ideology" which shows Marx's philosophy on government, known as Dialectical Materialism? Marxism was a scientific form of government, a theory and a philosophy, that has never truly been tested. You must simply take another approach. The philosophy is simply the struggle of classes. You don't have to give up your individuality for that, it's simply another way of thinking. You speak of Marxism and International socialism as if it were the 8th hell of the world, but it's just another way of thinking. I believe there shouldn't be a conflict of classes, because the classes themselves form seperate "nations". Alright, I'll take it one step at a time. So far, every statement I made has provoked another counterattack from Deathbug. What's your idea on seperation of classes? After all, it is the whole premise for sharing a countries income, where as capitilists base their ideas on a free market of competition, in which the inpoverished cannot even participate in. On a side note, I am glad that Baron Samedi somewhat agrees with me, though I don't understand how anarchists got into this...

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Baron, if you would have read the last page, you'd of found out I apologized and took that back. That's why it helps to be well-informed :D[/B][/QUOTE]

Looking at his post, I'd say Baron's very well-informed.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] Deathbug, you keep mentioning The Communist Mannifesto as my ultimate weakness,[/B][/QUOTE]

No, that would be reality.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] as if Marx and Engels had never wrote another work in their life[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't care what else Marx wrote. He wrote the Mannifesto. Anything that came from the same mind as the Mannifesto is just as much garbage as the Mannifesto itself.

Besides, it's still the same man writing; it's merely a variation on the same theme, a theme that was flawed to begin with.

Unless, of couyrse, he wrote a full retraction of an apology for the Crap-ifesto that I never heard about.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] and of course, you only state out the weaknesses, never the strength. [/B][/QUOTE]

I've yet to see the strengths. The whole document is a weakness.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]What about "Das Kapital" or "The German Ideology" which shows Marx's philosophy on government, known as Dialectical Materialism? [/B][/QUOTE]

"Das Kapital" was just a more detailed explanation of the Communist philosiphy. Marx says the same thing over and over: Capitalist bad, worker, good, from each by ability, to each by need. Why are you wasting our time with the same material?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] Marxism was a scientific form of government,[/B][/QUOTE]

"Scientific?" How so? How more so that capitalism?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] a theory and a philosophy, that has never truly been tested.[/B][/QUOTE]

Except in Russia, Cuba, China, North Korea, Eastern Europe....


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]You must simply take another approach.[/B][/QUOTE]

What other approach? An approach as different as the ones taken by Castro and stalin? Their approaches sure seemed different enough to be. Same results.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]The philosophy is simply the struggle of classes. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's not a "philosophy", that's a condition. you might as well say "The philosophy is simply one of raining."


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]You don't have to give up your individuality for that,[/B][/QUOTE]

For Communism? Yes, you do. You must think not of yourself, but only of the rest of the commune. The rest of the commune thinks not of themselves, but only of the rest of the commune.

There can be no personal goals, ideas or aspirations, or the system won't work. You merely have a continous system of human drones thinking only of the commune, and, as a result, not thinking at all.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] it's simply another way of thinking. [/B][/QUOTE]

Except that if you're thinking at all, you'll realize that Marxism/Communism/Whatever the hell you want to call it-ism is a disgusting system that goes against every way of thinking we've come to accept. [b]It's just bad.[/b] I can't put it any more simply than that.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]You speak of Marxism and International socialism as if it were the 8th hell of the world,[/B][/QUOTE]

6th, after Scooby-Doo reruns and Titanic.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] but it's just another way of thinking.[/B][/QUOTE]

A way of thinking that is [b]wrong[/b]. How many times must it fail for you to see that? How many times must it be explained for you to understand? How many more people have to suffer and die because of it until you finally get a ****ing clue?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] I believe there shouldn't be a conflict of classes,[/B][/QUOTE]

Niether do I. However, at the current time, there will be. As the standard of living rises all across this nation (America), the conflict lessens considerably.

You know that most of the impoverished of America live like kings compared to the average citizens of North Korea or Cuba?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] because the classes themselves form seperate "nations". [/B][/QUOTE]

No, they don't. Every member of a class wants to jump up to the class above them. If the system works, they should be able to if they put in the effort. If they can't, thats' a failure of the sytem.

I'll admit that the system has many failures, but on the whole, it's working. Richest average poplulance in the world, and all that.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Alright, I'll take it one step at a time.[/B][/QUOTE]

Good, because I was getting confused. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]So far, every statement I made has provoked another counterattack from Deathbug.[/B][/QUOTE]

It's nice to be noticed.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] What's your idea on seperation of classes?[/B][/QUOTE]

*Ahem*

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathBug [/i]
[B]Every member of a class wants to jump up to the class above them. If the system works, they should be able to if they put in the effort. If they can't, thats' a failure of the sytem.

I'll admit that the system has many failures, but on the whole, it's working. Richest average poplulance in the world, and all that.[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]After all, it is the whole premise for sharing a countries income,[/B][/QUOTE]

What's the antecedant to "it"? "Seperation of classes"? That makes no sense.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin[/i]
[B]where as capitilists base their ideas on a free market of competition,[/B][/QUOTE]

Freedom=good, in case you hadn't figured that out. Also, competition= progress.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]in which the inpoverished cannot even participate in.[/B][/QUOTE]

Wait, who says they can't? That's a forgone conclusion on your part. You assume that it is impossible for someone to start with nothing and end up with something.

In communism, you start with nothing, or something, but you can [b]never achieve economic advancement[/b]. If you're poor, you'll always be poor, because no one "needs" to be rich, and you therefore would never advance.

We don't practice "pure" capitalism anymore, and we haven't for a long time. In theory, right now, we have altered the system so that anybody can advance through the economic ranks and eventually earn riches via hard work and innovation.

Sadly, in practice, that doesn't always happen; in fact, it hardly does. tHat is a flaw in the system that needs correcting. However, it is still better than communism, where the poor will always be poor, without even the slightest hope of advancement.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]On a side note, I am glad that Baron Samedi somewhat agrees with me, [/B][/QUOTE]

I suppose, statistically, that someone had to.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]though I don't understand how anarchists got into this... [/B][/QUOTE]

Anarchist>Communist

[CB Shin]

My god...every sentence makes up another statement from you. Some even being a part of the sentence. I'm getting tired just reading your post, your arguement is always the same, while I have proven different facts. Your being very narrow-minded from this, though I'm not surprised. Here's to sum it all up. I DON'T AGREE WITH COMMUNISM, I ACCEPT THE PHILOSOPHIES OF MARX AND ENGELS.

[Bio]

[font=arial]...Yes, we can dream. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Karl Marx's theories would work in a very small nation... Like a town where everyone knows everyone. This is because, regardless of the theoratical "order", communism can only be described as chaos.

CB Shin, as you have said, you believe only in the philisophical ideas of Karl Marx, but I don't think DeathBug is telling you off for that. He's basically trying to 'bring you down to earth'.

And now, my stance:

Of course, equality is what an ideal governing system would have, but I believe that Marx's ideas of equality are an extreme. He was trying to rid whatever country uses the system of poverty, but like DeathBug has said, it would be rather depressing. No matter what you did, you would never be able to make yourself more comfortable. You would be like a mindless drone, as DeathBug has said, save you would be aware of your drone status.[/font]

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]My god...every sentence makes up another statement from you. Some even being a part of the sentence. I'm getting tired just reading your post, your arguement is always the same, while I have proven different facts. Your being very narrow-minded from this, though I'm not surprised. Here's to sum it all up. I DON'T AGREE WITH COMMUNISM, I ACCEPT THE PHILOSOPHIES OF MARX AND ENGELS. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]I think you should be honored that you are being respected enough to warrant someone's time and energy. DeathBug is quoting each of your points, in an attempt to provide a rebuttal.

He's not calling you names and he doesn't seem to be directly insulting you. He's just trying to answer your points with his own reasoning.

For you to sit there and call him "narrow-minded" and then say "though I'm not surprised"...to me, as an observer, that comes off as incredibly dismissive.

You yourself are behaving in a narrow minded fashion. You've basically ignored all of DeathBug's points and responded with what equates to "you're narrow minded, I'm not going to bother answering you, so I'll just restate my belief again because I'm lazy".

I think it's worth noting that if you're going to start a discussion like this -- and especially if you're going to insult people's intelligence early on (with your comments about not knowing who Karl Marx is), then you had better be prepared when people [i]do[/i] call you to task and question your beliefs.

It would be nice to actually see you respond to DeathBug's points in an intelligent way, so that you can answer his questions and provide examples that were previously missing. Somehow though, I'm not really expecting that you'll extend that courtesy to DeathBug.[/color]

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]My god...every sentence makes up another statement from you.[/B][/QUOTE]

Don't cha' feel special?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Some even being a part of the sentence. [/B][/QUOTE]

As opposed to...what? Responding to a half-page post with a jumbled, poorly-written paragraph?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]I'm getting tired just reading your post,[/B][/QUOTE]

Aw, you hurt my feelings. And I put all this effort typing them...


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] your arguement is always the same,[/B][/QUOTE]

[b]My[/b] argument is always the same? Look who's talking. You've never made a point, aside from demonstrating that you have an unreasonable devotion to communism. You've yet to tell why you believe what you do.

Marx is dead, and can't defend his moronic ideas. You're alive, and should defend yours instead of parroting his.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]while I have proven different facts.[/B][/QUOTE]

You've proven things? When did this happen?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] Your being very narrow-minded from this, though I'm not surprised.[/B][/QUOTE]

You're not surprised that someone could feel very strongly on an issue yet at the same time completely disagree with you on every point? Welcome to reality.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] Here's to sum it all up. I DON'T AGREE WITH COMMUNISM, I ACCEPT THE PHILOSOPHIES OF MARX AND ENGELS. [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh, Sweet-Merciful-Almighty-Jesus-Lord-Father-in-Heaven...

It's like you didn't even listen during my last post...or in history class...or when Momma said to stop sniffing glue...

Marxism and Communism are the same thing. Marx wrote the Communist Mannifesto. "Das Kapital" was a re-interation of Communist themes. You've yet to show how they differ at all.

Communism is evil, Marx was a moron, and you shouldn't breed. end of story.

[Bio]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B]Somehow though, I'm not really expecting that you'll extend that courtesy to DeathBug.[/B][/QUOTE]

[font=arial]Ah, sweet Irony. I love it so.

I agree completely with James' post. You have not been answering questions, or proving [b]anything[/b] besides that you agree with Marx's ideas. You probably won't do this after, regardless of what people like DeathBug are saying, if you haven't already angrily responded, which is what your are constantly accusing DeathBug of.

Marx was a dreamer, there are many of his kind. Some of their dreams become reality, others don't.[/font]

[CB Shin]

I've been sick for a while, so I haven't had time to post, but I won't back down now, looking like a coward, even if the site director has assaulted me down :laugh: Alright than, in an effort not to be lazy and to redeem myself, I'll try a more reasonable approach. First off, Marxism, in theory, is only an idea for the economy. In true politics, it is run by a dictator. The main leaders, like Stalin and Mao Zedong have complete control of every aspect of government, therefore, I believe that some philosophies of Marx differ from that of Communism. As I've stated before, communist dictators stretches the doctrine of the theories of Marx, because his theories were not totally clear. They've used communism as an economic base, poorly I might add. Here's why I believe that communism differs from Marxism. Marxism is about the abolishment of different classes, such as rich or poor. Present communists do not follow this rule, for the Communist Party are rich while their people are living in poverty. Now on to my own theory. The main weakness of a Marxism state of country is lack of motivation and ambition, correct? Well, as Deathbug said before, Capitilism has been altered before. I see no reason why Marxism cannot be the same, an alteration in its political base while retaining its economic ideals. Simply put, I agree with Marx's philosophy on the abolishment of classes, which does not mean sacrificing one's individuality.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]I won't back down now, looking like a coward, even if the site director has assaulted me down :laugh: [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]Assaulted you down? You may want to re-read your own comments to DeathBug. And my comments to you as well.

I believe that if you're going to have a debate on OtakuBoards, it's important to at least [i]try[/i] to be respectful of others -- it's not fair to so flatly accuse DeathBug of being single-minded, when he's taking great effort to respond to your points, each point at a time.

So, please, let's all remain as civil as possible. [/color]

[wrist cutter]

I recently found a quote, very relevant to this discussion:

"Here I sit, reading about socialism and communism. I am eating candy. It's incredibly good. Just before I finish eating all of it, I pause. I stop and think to myself that maybe it would be nice to share it with people. But dammit, it's just so good and I want to eat all of it. And that's the dilemma."

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] Alright than, in an effort not to be lazy and to redeem myself, I'll try a more reasonable approach. First off, Marxism, in theory, is only an idea for the economy.[/B][/QUOTE]
No; Marx's original ideas applied to the entire government, especialy considering the fact that you're basically giving the private sector to the government. Government has to be majorly involved no matter how you slice it.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]In true politics, it is run by a dictator. [/B][/QUOTE]

A Communist leader has to be a dictator by default, because he's breaking the most basic clause in the social contract: right to property. The idea that the government's most important role is to protect the property of the governed has been around since John Locke, in the...I wanna' say 1600's. Thomas Jefferson was a great admirer of Locke, and transposed that ideal into the Declaration of Independance.

In a communist government, the government has to take and redistribute all property in the name of class destruction. Therefore the right is violated.

The right to property was recognized by monarchies and other governments even before the right to life was. Even Machiavelli, who was (unfairly) remembered for his rather cutthroat ideas on politics, said that you could kill a man's father, but must never touch his inheritance. Right to property is a big deal, and communism violates it.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]The main leaders, like Stalin and Mao Zedong have complete control of every aspect of government, therefore, I believe that some philosophies of Marx differ from that of Communism. [/B][/QUOTE]

Okay, this right here is really, really frustrating. --; Marx wrote the communist Mannifesto, the basic foundation of communist parties. Marx's ideals [b]were[/b] communism. I don't know why you just can't admit that.

(Maybe, if you think communism is a bad thing, and Marx's ideas were almost entirely communist...he had bad ideas?! Gasp!)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]As I've stated before, communist dictators stretches the doctrine of the theories of Marx, because his theories were not totally clear. [/B][/QUOTE]

Marx wrote, I believe (but am not sure) at least three books (Das Kapital and another), and the Communist Mannifesto. His ideas were clear. They just sucked.

Communist dictators didn't become dictators until they were in power. They used Marx's ideas to sweet-talk the masses into recognizing their government as legitimate. (And military force to take care of those who wouldn't.) By the time the people realized how screwed they were, it was too late.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]They've used communism as an economic base, poorly I might add.[/B][/QUOTE]

No, communism is a command economy; they used it exactly as it was intended. In a command economy, the government makes all decisions and estimates regarding production. Most of the time, as you might imagine, they get it wrong, and economic chaos results.

You know what one of the Soviet Union's most annoying problem was? They kept running out of toilet paper.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Here's why I believe that communism differs from Marxism.[/B][/QUOTE]

They're the same thing; see earlier rant.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] Marxism is about the abolishment of different classes, such as rich or poor. [/B][/QUOTE]
So's Communism. (Gasp!)

Did it ever occurr to you that perhaps the reason some people get rich is because they work hard, save, and invest wisely? If I know that I'm never going to advance economically, you think Im' going to bust my arse at law school? No, I'm going to get a cashier's job at Best Buy and waste ther est of my life away.

If you take away the possibility of advancement, you take away any incentive to produce.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Present communists do not follow this rule, for the Communist Party are rich while their people are living in poverty.[/B][/QUOTE]
Let's examine that a minute. If you remove the dictators (which make up an incredibly small percent of the actual population), everyone is in poverty. But there are no classes. Everyone is at the same level of poverty.

Wouldn't that be Marxism, according to your statements?

And if you add the dictators back into the picture, then you've got all the wealth into a few peoples' hands; isn't that the result of unchecked capitalism?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] Now on to my own theory. The main weakness of a Marxism state of country is lack of motivation and ambition, correct? Well, as Deathbug said before, Capitilism has been altered before.[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, what I said was, the US and most other nations aren't true capitalists anymore.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] I see no reason why Marxism cannot be the same, an alteration in its political base while retaining its economic ideals. [/B][/QUOTE]

I do; politics and economics are intertwined. Remember what happened when the US didn't intervene in the economy? Concentration of wealth, and later depression.

The basis of communism can't be altered; it requires a strong government to "work", and I use the term loosely.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Simply put, I agree with Marx's philosophy on the abolishment of classes, which does not mean sacrificing one's individuality. [/B][/QUOTE]

Screw individuality; if you want the abolishment of classes, you [b]will[/b] get a dictator. Every time.

It's simple: classes are basically devided into "Who has the most stuff". To eliminate classes, everyone has to have the same amount of stuff, and no one can ever have more than anybody else.

Since there's only so much stuff availible at any given time (wealth can be created, but not on demand), you have to take everybody's stuff and divy it up among everybody.

Once you violate a person's right to property, you are a dictator.

Scenario: Oky, we're taking everyone's stuff for divvying; but there's someone who doesn't agree with this idea. They refuse to give their stuff up, for whatever reason. What do you do? Well, you can't very well leave them alone, because then they'd have more than everybody else, and therefore would be upper class.

You would have to use force with anyone who didn't agree with your ideals in any way, possibly lethal force.

You see how this doesn't work? But let's say that you get that ar; there are no classes, and everyone who disagrees with you has seen the light, in either sense of the phrase. Now what?

Well, everyone has to get back to work, but you can't exactly pay them, or at least not differently. So, to ensure no one saves their wages and thus has more than anyonee lse, we're going to pay you directly with resources. Food, clothing, etc. Everyone gets exactly the same no matter their ability or need, because to give any more to anyone would great a high class.

So, everyone stays exactly where they are with no hope of advancement for their entire life. And if you get more stuff, we either have to take it from you or kill you to maintain status quo.

Still sound like a good idea?[/color][/size][/font]

[Sicarius]

Deathbug, you say that with the abolishment of classes you'll get a dictaor, and that inorder you abolish classes everyone ends to have equal things. Yet in Kuwait there are no social classes ( to my knowlege) and every natural born Kuwaiti get money from the oil sales of the country, and yet they are not communist. So how can that be wrong? Do you feel individualism is wrong, like most american high schools public individualism is looked down upon, I see admin's every day yelling at people daily to strighten their hair, staple your pants legs they're too baggy. Public shools are more Dictatorship than anything else, but it is funded by a capitalist country. Do you still feel individualism is bad?

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Junyi [/i]
[B]Deathbug, you say that with the abolishment of classes you'll get a dictaor, and that inorder you abolish classes everyone ends to have equal things. Yet in Kuwait there are no social classes ( to my knowlege) and every natural born Kuwaiti get money from the oil sales of the country, and yet they are not communist. So how can that be wrong?
[/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=green]Here?s how.

This type of system, where the government supports the people by giving them what it thinks they need, is called socialism.

Socialism, according to [url]www.dictionary.com,[/url] is defined as:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

As you can see by reading this definition of socialism, it?s the halfway point. Socialism tries to walk the middle road between survival of the fittest and a, ?The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? society. Most countries have some socialist policies including the United States, Canada and Australia. In my opinion, a small amount of socialist programs should be acceptable. Things like limited unemployment checks, for instance, are needed. There are also some socialist policies that I haven?t made up my mind about, such as state sponsored health care. Finally, there are countries like Kuwait that practice a different form of socialism.

This small nation has more oil than it knows what to do with and, as a result, has accumulated hoards of money. It?s monthly stipulations to its people, while seeming like a great thing to a casual observer, is actually a bad thing. People really shouldn?t get money they don?t deserve, especially in large amounts. It leads to all kinds of social problems. This has been proven in the United States, where Native American casinos make vast fortunes. Each member of the Mohegan tribe, which owns the world class Mohegan Sun casino, gets paid a monthly stipulation of ten thousand dollars. I know many of these families that are in terrible shape because of it. Parents who don?t work, and send their spoiled children off to school only because it?s the law. These people will never have to work and have no desire to improve themselves. This had had a detrimental effect on my community, and I can only imagine what this would do to an entire country. Is that how you want the world to end up Junyi?[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Junyi [/i]
[B]Do you feel individualism is wrong, like most american high schools public individualism is looked down upon, I see admin's every day yelling at people daily to strighten their hair, staple your pants legs they're too baggy. Public shools are more Dictatorship than anything else, but it is funded by a capitalist country. Do you still feel individualism is bad? [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=green]Whoa, DeathBug seems to be in favor of capitalism and opposed to communism. This has very little to do with individualism in American public schools.

In any case, your comparison of public schools to dictatorships is completely ludicrous. In an American public school, which you are required to attend until you reach the age of 16 (Varies from state to state), your teachers and administrators cannot force you to wear something different on a whim. Public school dress codes are very lenient and anyone who violates their lax standards really needs serious help. I walk into school on an average day and see people dressed in all manner of inappropriate clothing. These people aren?t expressing their individualism; they?re disrupting the learning environment with their outrageous clothing. School is for education, not fashion.

Junyi, your argument is moot due to your misinterpretation of DeathBug?s opinion. I?m sure he supports individualism and this can be seen quite clearly in his posts.[/color]

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]Well, Bobba fett said what I intended to say, and probably said it better than I would have. Being told to pull up your pants ain't exactly the same as having your possession siezed at gunpoint, is it?

And dang it, pull up your darn pants and comb that hair![/color][/size][/font]

[CB Shin]

Deathbug, if you do some research on the internet, you will find that I am not the only one who thinks this. Even other capitilists have acknowledged Marx's theories. There was one major error I noticed in your post. If you do take away the dictators, as you said, then the wealth that sustained them would be distributed evenly among the people. There are many factors in a countries wealth that have not been accounted for in your posts other than government. Resources and trade are two big ones. If you have a resource rich country, like America, I'd think twice before saying that a Marxist government would fail right away. You also put it your post that Thomas Jefferson agreed with private ownership and while he did so, he also wanted government to take as little a part as it could in the economy, which therefore formed his democratic ideas. You've mentioned several times that he Marx wrote such "crap" as Das Kapital and The Communist Mannefisto. Simply saying "his ideas suck" is a very base arguement. You also say that the impoverished cannot advance in class because all the money is hoarded by the government. Doesn't that itself violate Marx's theory of "Abolishment of Class"? A change I could make to make it work more efficiently is everyone gets an equal income, yet has the right to private ownership. Let me explain. That change has something in common with capitilism. Careful managers of their money will lead to them eventually having great wealth, while someone foolish might end up homeless. You might be asking "Doesn't that go against Marx's main premise of Abolishment of Class". The answer is no because everyone is still sustained by an equal income. I also think that those who don't work shouldn't be paid anything. It's very difficult to imagine a country working together like that, but by getting rid of the lazy, so much the better. Here's the motivation for this, "You either work, or you starve". That might seem similar to America today, but the difference would be no charity organizations to support them. Why should the hard working spend their time helping the lazy when the lazy can't help themselves? It might sound cruel at first, but it is actually very fair if you think about it. That's just one way I think Marxism could be improved. Finally, Let me ask you this. Do you believe that his theories are so hopeless that they cannot be changed for the better without sacrificing his main premise? If your answer is no, I have another question. If by some miracle of god (as you would put it), it could be changed, what differences would you have made to his philosophies.

P.S. I hope I'm being civilized enough to meet OB standards.