EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 69
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
This should make an interesting read for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle Nothing wrong with reading Marx but I would beg you to read other authors before settling your mind. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
your bit about rampant poverty is an irrelevant platitude and has nothing to do with it edit: no, I reject the homestead principle. What is not owned? We bought America with a genocide/aggressive war of conquest in the first place. What was there to homestead? | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On January 07 2013 14:12 sam!zdat wrote: I think those things belong to humanity and should be owned by humanity, and managed under a programme of responsible stewardship. your bit about rampant poverty is an irrelevant platitude and has nothing to do with it edit: no, I reject the homestead principle. What is not owned? We bought America with a genocide/aggressive war of conquest in the first place. What was there to homestead? An irrelevant platitude? Its actually just a plea for you to consider the possible consequences of the policies you advocate. Also, if no one owns the land, I doubt anyone will give a shit about it, calling in to question the likelihood of this "responsible stewardship" you speak of. Tax dollars are managed by people that approach them as belonging to everyone. They are not handling their own money. It is evident how poorly and carelessly our tax money is distributed, often to programs with zero empirical evidence of accomplishing what they were created to do. People are much more careful and responsible with their own money. I propose to you the same would be true with land and natural resources. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On January 07 2013 14:18 oneofthem wrote: there is a lot of ground to cover between marx and some sort of randian paradise. Do you just relegate those who use bigger words than you as being on one extreme or the other? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: to your above point, yes, our government is not run very well. Mass Media Democracy is a terrible political system. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On January 07 2013 14:27 sam!zdat wrote: I think he knows plenty of big words edit: to your above point, yes, our government is not run very well. Mass Media Democracy is a terrible political system. Perhaps he does, I just really don't like having assumptions being made about me. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 07 2013 13:59 sam!zdat wrote: That's what lawyers are for. Figure it out. Well, that's why I proposed those questions to you. I'm trying to figure it out. Because the devil is ALWAYS in the details. The problem with most communal systems is that they just end up being power struggles through political ends instead of economic ends. Who controls political power controls the goods, rather than who controls the economic power. It leads to corruption and abuse in government. At least economic power keeps it to simply income inequality. Have you noticed how the bigger government gets, teh more corporate involvement there is? You can't get corporations out of government until you get government out of resource management. It's a catch-22. On January 07 2013 14:27 sam!zdat wrote: Mass Media Democracy is a terrible political system. And communal property has been shown to be far worse. Just look at EVERY EXAMPLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
(edit: also, you have to consider the role of the U.S. actively trying to undermine communist countries in the cold war. When the world's Great Power has declared ideological warfare on you, that makes things a lot harder.) Yes, it's a hard problem. But ignoring the problem doesn't help. I just see people ignoring the problem and pretending everything's fine, when it clearly isn't. When you should stop listening to me is when I tell you I have an easy solution, not when I tell you it's a big problem and I don't know what to do. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 07 2013 14:31 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Perhaps he does, I just really don't like having assumptions being made about me. the assumption was made about your post, which implied that a contemporary marxist would like to see orthodox communism (i.e. absolute worker ownership), rather than any number of intermediate or off the scale solutions. one can make reasonable critiques of the current state of affairs from a marxist point of view, without advocating the exact same stuff marx did 150 years ago without the help of hindsight. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 07 2013 14:54 sam!zdat wrote: No, I think democracy is worse, just more insidious. When you are talking about Russia and China those are very different situations, and if you want to know why those things were disasters Marxist theory would be a good place to start. I don't think it's at all intellectually honest to point to those things and say "There Is No Alternative" (edit: also, you have to consider the role of the U.S. actively trying to undermine communist countries in the cold war. When the world's Great Power has declared ideological warfare on you, that makes things a lot harder.) Yes, it's a hard problem. But ignoring the problem doesn't help. I just see people ignoring the problem and pretending everything's fine, when it clearly isn't. When you should stop listening to me is when I tell you I have an easy solution, not when I tell you it's a big problem and I don't know what to do. First off, I never mentioned Russia (I presume you mean Soviets) or China. I also never threw out those Thatcher words. I completely think there are alternatives--just not communal property in the sense that you are describing it. The United States had little to do with Communist nations failing. Almost all of that was internal poor resource management. I don't think it's "ignored," just read a journal on government. There are lots of individuals proposing various ideas. I stopped listening to you when you cried "THIS IS THE WORST SYSTEM EVER", yet can't articulate a single system that is better in any aspect other than "fairness", regardless of the fact that every attempted adaptation of your preferred ideology attack path has proven to end in rampant poverty and corruption. It's not that Marx is a moron, it's just that despite 150+ years of it being around, nobody has proposed a way to implement those theories into government in a way that doesn't lead to collapse of a society. When you subscribe to those theories, the burden is on you to prove you have a legitimate point. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
I think the biggest problem we face today is curbing the ability of capital to flow across national boundaries. Nation-states cannot continue to be held hostage to the interests of international finance class in the way they currently are. On January 07 2013 15:01 BluePanther wrote: The United States had little to do with Communist nations failing. Almost all of that was internal poor resource management. Sure, well they were also trying to keep up military production to fight the cold war. But yeah I don't care to argue this point. I don't think you can do communism without information technology, so I wouldn't expect that to work. I stopped listening to you when you cried "THIS IS THE WORST SYSTEM EVER", This is just a slanderous mischaracterization of my views. I hold no such belief and have not claimed such. I just think it's time for another turn of the dialectic. Liberalism has accomplished many great things. It is now disastrously out of date. yet can't articulate a single system that is better in any aspect other than "fairness", regardless of the fact that every attempted adaptation of that theory has proven to end in rampant poverty and corruption. sigh. What theory? You insist on characterizing Marxism as a prescriptive political theory, despite having claimed to have read Marx, which would suggest that you would realize that this is not the case. I'm not a Leninist. Again: I'm allowed to critique something without providing a positive thesis. I don't know the answer. I wish I did. Our system is headed for catastrophe, however, if things keep on the way they are. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On January 07 2013 15:01 BluePanther wrote: it's just that despite 150+ years of it being around, nobody has proposed a way to implement those theories into government in a way that doesn't lead to collapse of a society. No country with the industrialized base called for as the precondition of communism in Marx's theory has ever tried it. edit: you do realize that Marx was quite impressed with capitalism, right? edit: Look, I believe in entrepreneurship and stuff. I don't believe in a command economy at all. What a ludicrous idea. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On January 07 2013 15:00 oneofthem wrote: the assumption was made about your post, which implied that a contemporary marxist would like to see orthodox communism (i.e. absolute worker ownership), rather than any number of intermediate or off the scale solutions. one can make reasonable critiques of the current state of affairs from a marxist point of view, without advocating the exact same stuff marx did 150 years ago without the help of hindsight. I implied no such thing. I was strictly addressing his desire for natural resources not to be privately owned. You keep making assumptions and making asses of us all. Your initial response to me was an unprovoked, passive aggressive, and thinly veiled ad hominem attack on both me, and an author you seem to want to keep people from reading by expressing how loony she is. I don't see why one can't make reasonable critiques of current affairs from a Randian point of view either, or countless other authors and thinkers. You're like a book burner, or have the same mentality of one. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 07 2013 15:09 sam!zdat wrote: it's not? anything that's not private is communal. If it's nationalized, that's communal.I don't know when I've advocated "communal property." I've advocated nationalization of certain resources. That's not the same thing by a long shot. I think the biggest problem we face today is curbing the ability of capital to flow across national boundaries. Nation-states cannot continue to be held hostage to the interests of international finance class in the way they currently are. I think you're just using buzzwords here. wtf is the "international finance class"? you mean the IMF? Sure, well they were also trying to keep up military production to fight the cold war. But yeah I don't care to argue this point. I don't think you can do communism without information technology, so I wouldn't expect that to work. I thought you weren't a communist? This is just a slanderous mischaracterization of my views. I hold no such belief and have not claimed such. I just think it's time for another turn of the dialectic. Liberalism has accomplished many great things. It is now disastrously out of date. That's fine, but you haven't explained how you think it should be done, or what benefit society would gain from such a switch. I like change as well, but I'm not going to advocate changing based on some internet posters "feelings" that it might be better. You have yet to articulate a SINGLE advantage to a SINGLE suggested change. sigh. What theory? You insist on characterizing Marxism as a prescriptive political theory, despite having claimed to have read Marx, which would suggest that you would realize that this is not the case. I'm not a Leninist. I'm allowed to critique something without providing a positive thesis. I don't know the answer. I wish I did. Our system is headed for catastrophe, however, if things keep on the way they are. You called yourself a marxist. I said marx was wrong in his ideas. You disagreed and I challenged you to show how that line of thinking leads to a political philosophy that works. You have not done this, you merely are quibbling over what "Marxism" is. I'm familiar with his line of thinking. I honestly don't think you are. Prove me wrong, with substance. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 07 2013 15:33 sam!zdat wrote: I'm tired of talking to you. You can win if you want. I'm not trying to "win". I want you to justify your point of view. You are mistaking my criticism of you as personal. One cannot change their viewpoint unless they engage in contentious debate. Me or you. I'm not going to see the "folly of my way" unless you can articulate what's wrong with it. Nor am I going to convince you that you are missing something unless I force you to critically examine your views. This is how society progresses... with discussion. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
| ||
