Economic Outlooks...

[CB Shin]

I was just wondering whether people or not have an economical preference... Just curious.

I myself am Marxist-Socialist (living in the U.S. >_>) and while I despise Capitalism and the seperation of class (Bourgeois/Petty Bourgeois/Proletariat), I have no choice but to live here and conform... While I realize I would probably rather live here, in the most advanced country in the world, then some backwater Communist country, I have observed many flaws that need fixing, corruption that must be stopped in the Upper Class, methods such as "Cooking the Books" which occured not that long ago. If you do happen to be a devoted Capitalist and would like to object to anything I've said thus far, please, I am open for debate as long as it does not turn too hostile. If you are, however, confused about this subject and would like to learn more, visit [URL=http://www.newyouth.com/]http://www.newyouth.com/[/URL] ...

Note: While I am of the Petty Bourgeois (Middle Class), I am completely for the Intellectual Proletariat. Also, I am NOT communist, or rather "Stalinist", because when we hear the word "communist", we are in reality, thinking of Stalinists...

[Manic Webb]

I remember when I first started reading about socialism, I thought it didn't sound too bad. Then I realized that socialism is something that works better on paper than in practice. It operates under the assumption that the Proletariat couldn't possibly be more oppressive than the Bourgeois, which I don't agree with. I also have a problem with the State controlling all privately owned land, and seizing the inheritance of a family member.

Any group that has ever tried to attain true socialism has only eurpted into communism, which really just screws over the very people they're supposed to be supporting. Marx had some pretty good ideas for creating a socio-economic paradise, but I've yet to see it play out that way in real life.

Capitalism, however flawed it may be, has worked... more or less

[CB Shin]

:laugh: You have no idea how many times I've heard that response. Although your points are very valid (as I'd suspect), there are a few elements missing. Through such hard work and dedication, even a country such as Russia would have succeeded in its initial goals, had it not been for a few important events.
1. The deaths of V.I. Lenin and many other loyal communists.
2. Trotsky's failure to obtain leadership after Lenin's passing.
3. Stalin becomes leader of the Bolshevik party.
4. The Bolshevik party turns into a tyrannical bureacracy over time, as everything comes around full circle when the Tsars were in control (nothing changes).

Had point #2 been avoided and Leon Trotsky become leader, one can be sure that Russia would reach its goal of a Social-Democracy. Trotsky was a true, loyal, and virtuous communist, who was one of the last uncorrupt Bolsheviks. It's funny how many people know the names of such evil communists who have came into power, such as Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, ect. when there were so many others who were just and on the correct path. People such as the before-mentioned Trotsky, or Rosa Luxemburg, a Socialist who was part of the German Communist Party. It has been said that had she lived on, WWII would have never occured, sparing millions of people's lives. Unfortunately, she was tragically killed by reactionary Freikorps in 1919. Trotsky was wounded in Mexico by an assassin sent by the Russian NKVD and died a day later... The point is this, only by mischance and fate had so many corrupt systems sprung up, far from the original teachings of Marx and Engels. The ultimate goal will always be the elimination of class struggle and the insertion of a Social-Democracy. In the words of Lenin, "If everyone's a Bureaucrat, then no one's a bureacrat." That is the ultimate goal, where so many others have strayed from and themselves turned into a seperation of class. These days, however, things are looking up. Explore the website in my last post to see what I'm talking about and to answerany further questions, as it will do a much better job of explaining these concepts as I can...

[Juke Box Hero]

I am willing to debate you on the Socialist/Capitalist argument on any point and at any level, I put Alex Keaton to shame in the capitalist department.

I encourage you to throw out some talking points, because basically all you have said is that you are for the intellectual proletariat. I'd like to take this to the realm of the philosophical, rather than the historical. One note: I have nothing against you personally, and wish our discussion to be purely for the sport of intellectual stimulation.


Three questions for you to start us off:

1. Do you believe in the inherent goodness of man?
2. What is more important, the individual, or the greater good?
3. Do you dismiss private property as intrinsically corrupt, a thing merely intent on the destruction/enslavement of the common man? If so, why?

[CB Shin]

I will try to answer all three of your questions as bluntly as possible...

1. Inherent Goodness? I don't typically believe in such a thing... I believe one can be either corrupt or virtuous based on one's personal experiences, therefore, it can be said that one's morals are derived from his/her surroundings... For example, we can take a human characteristic such as humility to define a person. We often find that the individual who suffers humility is more virtuous, because that individual is more knowledgeable of people's feelings and thoughts in general.

2. Individuality or The Greater Good? Both are very important, because every individual is essential in "obtaining" the Greater Good. However, if somebody's personal thoughts contradict the ideals of the Greater Good, then it is unacceptable. Keep in mind, I'm not discouraging personal thought, but the needs of all outweighs the needs of the individual.

3. The principle of Private Property is no worse than Government owned property under a corrupt system, however under a purely Marxist government where everyone essentially is the government, I find it unneccesary for anyone to have privately owned property as it only serves as a barrier for the unity of thought between people. For example, under a Socialist society where Private Property is allowed, lets say somebody owns an enormous house through some means, while somebody else who works just as hard is living in much less suitable shelter. The first individual may look down on the second, and the second may become resentful or jealous of the first, whereas both should be comrades...

In turn, I have three questions for you now.

1. What are the major flaws of Socialism or Marxism in your perspective?
2. Do you believe if we run the course of Capitalism in the U.S., it will sooner or later evolve on the path to economic perfection (if that can be at all counted as a goal)?
3. What are your ideas on Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution.