|
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. |
there's no theory about how to run an economy, marxian political economy is a critique of capitalism. we have to figure out how to build a new order on our own, marxism just describes the problem. which is a real problem. you ignore the problem by saying, "well this kid sam hasn't figured out everything, so therefore there's no problem, because problems only exist when 25 year olds on the internet can explain complete solutions to them"
I've told you this many times before, but you don't listen to what I say. and you wonder why I insult you
|
On January 14 2014 06:36 sam!zdat wrote:
there's no theory about how to run an economy, marxian political economy is a critique of capitalism. we have to figure out how to build a new order on our own, marxism just describes the problem. which is a real problem. you ignore the problem by saying, "well this kid sam hasn't figured out everything, so therefore there's no problem, because problems only exist when 25 year olds on the internet can explain complete solutions to them"
I've told you this many times before, but you don't listen to what I say. and you wonder why I insult you
But no one is arguing that everything is perfect. Your critique isn't adding anything that isn't already there.
|
my opinion is somewhat stronger than "things are less than perfect."
anyway, I'm not going to get into this again. I truly think that you are a very stupid person and not worth talking to.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
United States43580 Posts
On January 14 2014 06:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 06:18 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:52 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:43 corumjhaelen wrote:
[quote]
Like when ? You know, I've (honestly) tried to engage with Marxists / Communists on this thread and others before and it keeps boiling down to the same thing - some nice theoretical ideas that have no substance. At the end of the day, to me, that looks too much like communism in Russia or China or some of the wacky-taffy policies going on in Venezuela today. So you've not actually heard "this time it's different" before and seen it shown to be wrong? You just believe that it won't be different and want to now use that belief as evidence that it's the same? People say "this time it's different" all the time, only for it to turn out the same. The burden of proof is on the guy saying that this time it'll be different. If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar. This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? If they said "we'll do it without the xenophobia, the invading Poland, the persecution of minorities and the creation of a dictatorship" then I wouldn't go "well, I heard you say it and all sounds are lies". Now maybe some of those things are intrinsically linked to national socialism but the traits of Stalinism are not intrinsically linked to communism, indeed they generally predate communist rule. I'm just talking off-the-cuff here, but it seems to me that inherent to any communist regime is a need to disregard the rule of law (the "revolution") so as to effect communist policy on the rubble of the previous system. How else do you get a communist redistribution of wealth and power without trampling the rights of those at the top (and the middle, and pretty much everyone else to one degree or another, but I digress...)? I know that it's rather cute to say that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," but there is no communism without the wielding of that absolute power that stretches beyond the confines of traditional law. The inherent danger there is obvious.
We already have redistribution of wealth and large parts of the economy controlled by the state. Even the most hardcore capitalists generally concede that some parts of the economy, such as defence spending, need to be nationalised. Likewise political and social groups that hold subversive views are banned throughout the western world. These things alone do not a Stalinist state make.
Obviously if they start talking about gulags then it's time to turn against them but your reason for doing so is not because they said they were different which means they aren't different but because they're saying they're the same.
|
I think we would do this thread a huge favour if we'd stop the ideological battles and discuss practical political stuff instead.
|
It should also be pointed out that even things like the Federal Reserve are a form of wealth redistribution. That rabbit hole goes much deeper than the transfer payments conservatives love to complain about.
|
On January 14 2014 07:01 Nyxisto wrote:
I think we would do this thread a huge favour if we'd stop the ideological battles and discuss practical political stuff instead.
That's an ideological statement. You can't escape it, sorry.
|
On January 14 2014 07:01 Nyxisto wrote:
I think we would do this thread a huge favour if we'd stop the ideological battles and discuss practical political stuff instead.
No, Americans really need to learn how to engage ideology and actually learn what the words mean. There is nothing more goddamn frustrating when I say something like "economic liberalism" or "liberal democracy" or the word liberalism in general and people seem to associate it with "big government" for example. Also, people such as xDaunt could learn what the world socialism means.
And as a quick disclaimer, when I say the study of ideology, I do not mean obscure continental thinkers such as Zizek or Althusser.
Here is political ideology for dummies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies
|
On January 14 2014 06:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:18 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:52 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
You know, I've (honestly) tried to engage with Marxists / Communists on this thread and others before and it keeps boiling down to the same thing - some nice theoretical ideas that have no substance. At the end of the day, to me, that looks too much like communism in Russia or China or some of the wacky-taffy policies going on in Venezuela today. So you've not actually heard "this time it's different" before and seen it shown to be wrong? You just believe that it won't be different and want to now use that belief as evidence that it's the same? People say "this time it's different" all the time, only for it to turn out the same. The burden of proof is on the guy saying that this time it'll be different. If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar. This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? If they said "we'll do it without the xenophobia, the invading Poland, the persecution of minorities and the creation of a dictatorship" then I wouldn't go "well, I heard you say it and all sounds are lies". Now maybe some of those things are intrinsically linked to national socialism but the traits of Stalinism are not intrinsically linked to communism, indeed they generally predate communist rule. I'm just talking off-the-cuff here, but it seems to me that inherent to any communist regime is a need to disregard the rule of law (the "revolution") so as to effect communist policy on the rubble of the previous system. How else do you get a communist redistribution of wealth and power without trampling the rights of those at the top (and the middle, and pretty much everyone else to one degree or another, but I digress...)? I know that it's rather cute to say that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," but there is no communism without the wielding of that absolute power that stretches beyond the confines of traditional law. The inherent danger there is obvious. We already have redistribution of wealth and large parts of the economy controlled by the state. Even the most hardcore capitalists generally concede that some parts of the economy, such as defence spending, need to be nationalised. Likewise political and social groups that hold subversive views are banned throughout the western world. These things alone do not a Stalinist state make. Obviously if they start talking about gulags then it's time to turn against them but your reason for doing so is not because they said they were different which means they aren't different but because they're saying they're the same.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is. It is a given under any social contract theory that individuals cede some degree of sovereignty to the state. What you're describing isn't communism by any definition. As Sam (or any other Marxist) would say, what you're describing are the concessions that a capitalist system makes to prop itself up and delay the inevitable.
|
On January 14 2014 07:07 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 07:01 Nyxisto wrote:
I think we would do this thread a huge favour if we'd stop the ideological battles and discuss practical political stuff instead. No, Americans really need to learn how to engage ideology and actually learn what the words mean. There is nothing more goddamn frustrating when I say something like "economic liberalism" or "liberal democracy" or the word liberalism in general and people seem to associate it with "big government" for example. Also, people such as xDaunt could learn what the world socialism means. And as a quick disclaimer, when I say the study of ideology, I do not mean obscure continental thinkers such as Zizek or Althusser. Here is political ideology for dummies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies
Where exactly did I say that I was talking about "socialism," smart guy?
|
On January 14 2014 05:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 05:43 corumjhaelen wrote:On January 14 2014 05:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:39 corumjhaelen wrote:On January 14 2014 05:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:29 corumjhaelen wrote:On January 14 2014 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:15 corumjhaelen wrote:On January 14 2014 05:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 04:50 corumjhaelen wrote:
[quote]
Can I guess you're "open-mindness" doesn't extent to everyone ? It is a bit ironic, but yes, I have a hard time being tolerant to the intolerant. And I'm sure you're very well-versed in the fascinating arcanes of European extreme left to say that. Intolerant was in reference to Golden Dawn. Regardless, it's a politics thread so yeah I'm absolutely going to disagree with opposing political views here. It's kind of what this thread is for. And my open-mindedness was in reference to communists, who apparently are the same anyway, horrible dodge. Also you said voting for them didn't make sense, a little stronger than merely disagreeing. I think communism has historically been about as good for humanity as fascism. So if you want to convince me that voting communist is a good idea, good luck. Communism = stalinism, yeah I know. "This time is different" = heard it before. Like when ? Possibly heard it here. ![[image loading]](http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01678/posters_1678527c.jpg)
The irony of that is amazing. Preying on the fearful and naive, you say?
|
On January 14 2014 07:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 07:07 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:01 Nyxisto wrote:
I think we would do this thread a huge favour if we'd stop the ideological battles and discuss practical political stuff instead. No, Americans really need to learn how to engage ideology and actually learn what the words mean. There is nothing more goddamn frustrating when I say something like "economic liberalism" or "liberal democracy" or the word liberalism in general and people seem to associate it with "big government" for example. Also, people such as xDaunt could learn what the world socialism means. And as a quick disclaimer, when I say the study of ideology, I do not mean obscure continental thinkers such as Zizek or Althusser. Here is political ideology for dummies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies Where exactly did I say that I was talking about "socialism," smart guy?
On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:52 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:43 corumjhaelen wrote:On January 14 2014 05:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:39 corumjhaelen wrote:
[quote]
Communism = stalinism, yeah I know. "This time is different" = heard it before. Like when ? You know, I've (honestly) tried to engage with Marxists / Communists on this thread and others before and it keeps boiling down to the same thing - some nice theoretical ideas that have no substance. At the end of the day, to me, that looks too much like communism in Russia or China or some of the wacky-taffy policies going on in Venezuela today. So you've not actually heard "this time it's different" before and seen it shown to be wrong? You just believe that it won't be different and want to now use that belief as evidence that it's the same? People say "this time it's different" all the time, only for it to turn out the same. The burden of proof is on the guy saying that this time it'll be different. If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar. This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then?
That example just shows a clear lack of understanding about ideology in general assuming you were not being facetious.
|
On January 14 2014 07:34 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 07:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:07 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:01 Nyxisto wrote:
I think we would do this thread a huge favour if we'd stop the ideological battles and discuss practical political stuff instead. No, Americans really need to learn how to engage ideology and actually learn what the words mean. There is nothing more goddamn frustrating when I say something like "economic liberalism" or "liberal democracy" or the word liberalism in general and people seem to associate it with "big government" for example. Also, people such as xDaunt could learn what the world socialism means. And as a quick disclaimer, when I say the study of ideology, I do not mean obscure continental thinkers such as Zizek or Althusser. Here is political ideology for dummies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies Where exactly did I say that I was talking about "socialism," smart guy? Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:52 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:43 corumjhaelen wrote:On January 14 2014 05:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
"This time is different" = heard it before. Like when ? You know, I've (honestly) tried to engage with Marxists / Communists on this thread and others before and it keeps boiling down to the same thing - some nice theoretical ideas that have no substance. At the end of the day, to me, that looks too much like communism in Russia or China or some of the wacky-taffy policies going on in Venezuela today. So you've not actually heard "this time it's different" before and seen it shown to be wrong? You just believe that it won't be different and want to now use that belief as evidence that it's the same? People say "this time it's different" all the time, only for it to turn out the same. The burden of proof is on the guy saying that this time it'll be different. If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar. This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? That example just shows a clear lack of understanding about ideology in general assuming you were not being facetious.
Do you even fucking know what "National Socialism" is? Does the term "Nazi" ring a bell?
Seriously, get your shit together before you flame someone --- much less flame someone twice.
|
On January 14 2014 07:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 07:34 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:07 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:01 Nyxisto wrote:
I think we would do this thread a huge favour if we'd stop the ideological battles and discuss practical political stuff instead. No, Americans really need to learn how to engage ideology and actually learn what the words mean. There is nothing more goddamn frustrating when I say something like "economic liberalism" or "liberal democracy" or the word liberalism in general and people seem to associate it with "big government" for example. Also, people such as xDaunt could learn what the world socialism means. And as a quick disclaimer, when I say the study of ideology, I do not mean obscure continental thinkers such as Zizek or Althusser. Here is political ideology for dummies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies Where exactly did I say that I was talking about "socialism," smart guy? On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:52 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:43 corumjhaelen wrote:
[quote]
Like when ? You know, I've (honestly) tried to engage with Marxists / Communists on this thread and others before and it keeps boiling down to the same thing - some nice theoretical ideas that have no substance. At the end of the day, to me, that looks too much like communism in Russia or China or some of the wacky-taffy policies going on in Venezuela today. So you've not actually heard "this time it's different" before and seen it shown to be wrong? You just believe that it won't be different and want to now use that belief as evidence that it's the same? People say "this time it's different" all the time, only for it to turn out the same. The burden of proof is on the guy saying that this time it'll be different. If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar. This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? That example just shows a clear lack of understanding about ideology in general assuming you were not being facetious. Do you even fucking know what "National Socialism" is? Does the term "Nazi" ring a bell? Seriously, get your shit together before you flame someone --- much less flame someone twice.
You're pretty much proving his point here. "Nazism" is as related to socialism as Chinese Totalitarianism is to a republic of the people.
|
On January 14 2014 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:34 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:07 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:01 Nyxisto wrote:
I think we would do this thread a huge favour if we'd stop the ideological battles and discuss practical political stuff instead. No, Americans really need to learn how to engage ideology and actually learn what the words mean. There is nothing more goddamn frustrating when I say something like "economic liberalism" or "liberal democracy" or the word liberalism in general and people seem to associate it with "big government" for example. Also, people such as xDaunt could learn what the world socialism means. And as a quick disclaimer, when I say the study of ideology, I do not mean obscure continental thinkers such as Zizek or Althusser. Here is political ideology for dummies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies Where exactly did I say that I was talking about "socialism," smart guy? On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:52 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
You know, I've (honestly) tried to engage with Marxists / Communists on this thread and others before and it keeps boiling down to the same thing - some nice theoretical ideas that have no substance. At the end of the day, to me, that looks too much like communism in Russia or China or some of the wacky-taffy policies going on in Venezuela today. So you've not actually heard "this time it's different" before and seen it shown to be wrong? You just believe that it won't be different and want to now use that belief as evidence that it's the same? People say "this time it's different" all the time, only for it to turn out the same. The burden of proof is on the guy saying that this time it'll be different. If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar. This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? That example just shows a clear lack of understanding about ideology in general assuming you were not being facetious. Do you even fucking know what "National Socialism" is? Does the term "Nazi" ring a bell? Seriously, get your shit together before you flame someone --- much less flame someone twice. You're pretty much proving his point here. "Nazism" is as related to socialism as Chinese Totalitarianism is to a republic of the people.
Please, just stop. You're as clueless as he is.
Here's a big hint everyone: Kwark knew exactly what my point was and responded accordingly. Clearly the rest of you are missing something.
EDIT
On January 14 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:34 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:07 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:01 Nyxisto wrote:
I think we would do this thread a huge favour if we'd stop the ideological battles and discuss practical political stuff instead. No, Americans really need to learn how to engage ideology and actually learn what the words mean. There is nothing more goddamn frustrating when I say something like "economic liberalism" or "liberal democracy" or the word liberalism in general and people seem to associate it with "big government" for example. Also, people such as xDaunt could learn what the world socialism means. And as a quick disclaimer, when I say the study of ideology, I do not mean obscure continental thinkers such as Zizek or Althusser. Here is political ideology for dummies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies Where exactly did I say that I was talking about "socialism," smart guy? On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:52 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
So you've not actually heard "this time it's different" before and seen it shown to be wrong? You just believe that it won't be different and want to now use that belief as evidence that it's the same? People say "this time it's different" all the time, only for it to turn out the same. The burden of proof is on the guy saying that this time it'll be different. If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar. This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? That example just shows a clear lack of understanding about ideology in general assuming you were not being facetious. Do you even fucking know what "National Socialism" is? Does the term "Nazi" ring a bell? Seriously, get your shit together before you flame someone --- much less flame someone twice. You're pretty much proving his point here. "Nazism" is as related to socialism as Chinese Totalitarianism is to a republic of the people. Not to defend xDaunt here but this is a misunderstanding and xDaunt is right. He was talking about the Nazis as a standalone example of a group you wouldn't give another chance, not because he thinks socialists are Nazis (I hope). xDaunt is basically saying "if you know who the Nazis are it should be abundantly obvious that I didn't mean socialism when I said National Socialism", as far as I can tell.
|
United States43580 Posts
On January 14 2014 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:34 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:07 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:01 Nyxisto wrote:
I think we would do this thread a huge favour if we'd stop the ideological battles and discuss practical political stuff instead. No, Americans really need to learn how to engage ideology and actually learn what the words mean. There is nothing more goddamn frustrating when I say something like "economic liberalism" or "liberal democracy" or the word liberalism in general and people seem to associate it with "big government" for example. Also, people such as xDaunt could learn what the world socialism means. And as a quick disclaimer, when I say the study of ideology, I do not mean obscure continental thinkers such as Zizek or Althusser. Here is political ideology for dummies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies Where exactly did I say that I was talking about "socialism," smart guy? On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:52 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
You know, I've (honestly) tried to engage with Marxists / Communists on this thread and others before and it keeps boiling down to the same thing - some nice theoretical ideas that have no substance. At the end of the day, to me, that looks too much like communism in Russia or China or some of the wacky-taffy policies going on in Venezuela today. So you've not actually heard "this time it's different" before and seen it shown to be wrong? You just believe that it won't be different and want to now use that belief as evidence that it's the same? People say "this time it's different" all the time, only for it to turn out the same. The burden of proof is on the guy saying that this time it'll be different. If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar. This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? That example just shows a clear lack of understanding about ideology in general assuming you were not being facetious. Do you even fucking know what "National Socialism" is? Does the term "Nazi" ring a bell? Seriously, get your shit together before you flame someone --- much less flame someone twice. You're pretty much proving his point here. "Nazism" is as related to socialism as Chinese Totalitarianism is to a republic of the people.
Not to defend xDaunt here but this is a misunderstanding and xDaunt is right. He was talking about the Nazis as a standalone example of a group you wouldn't give another chance, not because he thinks socialists are Nazis (I hope). xDaunt is basically saying "if you know who the Nazis are it should be abundantly obvious that I didn't mean socialism when I said National Socialism", as far as I can tell.
|
On January 14 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:34 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:07 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:01 Nyxisto wrote:
I think we would do this thread a huge favour if we'd stop the ideological battles and discuss practical political stuff instead. No, Americans really need to learn how to engage ideology and actually learn what the words mean. There is nothing more goddamn frustrating when I say something like "economic liberalism" or "liberal democracy" or the word liberalism in general and people seem to associate it with "big government" for example. Also, people such as xDaunt could learn what the world socialism means. And as a quick disclaimer, when I say the study of ideology, I do not mean obscure continental thinkers such as Zizek or Althusser. Here is political ideology for dummies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies Where exactly did I say that I was talking about "socialism," smart guy? On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:52 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
So you've not actually heard "this time it's different" before and seen it shown to be wrong? You just believe that it won't be different and want to now use that belief as evidence that it's the same? People say "this time it's different" all the time, only for it to turn out the same. The burden of proof is on the guy saying that this time it'll be different. If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar. This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? That example just shows a clear lack of understanding about ideology in general assuming you were not being facetious. Do you even fucking know what "National Socialism" is? Does the term "Nazi" ring a bell? Seriously, get your shit together before you flame someone --- much less flame someone twice. You're pretty much proving his point here. "Nazism" is as related to socialism as Chinese Totalitarianism is to a republic of the people. Not to defend xDaunt here but this is a misunderstanding and xDaunt is right. He was talking about the Nazis as a standalone example of a group you wouldn't give another chance, not because he thinks socialists are Nazis (I hope). xDaunt is basically saying "if you know who the Nazis are it should be abundantly obvious that I didn't mean socialism when I said National Socialism", as far as I can tell.
Well, when the entire discussion line was about how Communism is not directly Stalinism, saying "National Socialism obviously means Nazism" is pretty much repeating the problem.
Which, again, kinda proves Shiragaku's point, that having a political ideological discussion is incredibly irritating when people latch onto "buzzwords" and immediately jump to the "popular" representations of that word (whether its applicable or not).
|
On January 14 2014 06:47 sam!zdat wrote:
my opinion is somewhat stronger than "things are less than perfect."
anyway, I'm not going to get into this again. I truly think that you are a very stupid person and not worth talking to.
User was temp banned for this post.
You are adorable lol.
You can't even save Jonny or Kwark (i.e: convince them that they are wrong) and you still think that you gonna change the world and solve the capitalism "problem" lol.
The world is full of Kwarkies and Jonnies dear Sam !
This is not 1917 Russia lol, people aren't as dumb nowadays and you just hate Jonny because he is not stupid and desperate enough to fall for your little tricks.
You need to lie better 
|
On January 14 2014 08:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:34 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:07 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:01 Nyxisto wrote:
I think we would do this thread a huge favour if we'd stop the ideological battles and discuss practical political stuff instead. No, Americans really need to learn how to engage ideology and actually learn what the words mean. There is nothing more goddamn frustrating when I say something like "economic liberalism" or "liberal democracy" or the word liberalism in general and people seem to associate it with "big government" for example. Also, people such as xDaunt could learn what the world socialism means. And as a quick disclaimer, when I say the study of ideology, I do not mean obscure continental thinkers such as Zizek or Althusser. Here is political ideology for dummies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies Where exactly did I say that I was talking about "socialism," smart guy? On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
People say "this time it's different" all the time, only for it to turn out the same. The burden of proof is on the guy saying that this time it'll be different. If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar. This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? That example just shows a clear lack of understanding about ideology in general assuming you were not being facetious. Do you even fucking know what "National Socialism" is? Does the term "Nazi" ring a bell? Seriously, get your shit together before you flame someone --- much less flame someone twice. You're pretty much proving his point here. "Nazism" is as related to socialism as Chinese Totalitarianism is to a republic of the people. Not to defend xDaunt here but this is a misunderstanding and xDaunt is right. He was talking about the Nazis as a standalone example of a group you wouldn't give another chance, not because he thinks socialists are Nazis (I hope). xDaunt is basically saying "if you know who the Nazis are it should be abundantly obvious that I didn't mean socialism when I said National Socialism", as far as I can tell. Well, when the entire discussion line was about how Communism is not directly Stalinism, saying "National Socialism obviously means Nazism" is pretty much repeating the problem. Which, again, kinda proves Shiragaku's point, that having a political ideological discussion is incredibly irritating when people latch onto "buzzwords" and immediately jump to the "popular" representations of that word (whether its applicable or not).
But doesn't National Socialism actually mean Nazism? Or am I missing something...
|
United States43580 Posts
On January 14 2014 08:30 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 08:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:34 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:07 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:01 Nyxisto wrote:
I think we would do this thread a huge favour if we'd stop the ideological battles and discuss practical political stuff instead. No, Americans really need to learn how to engage ideology and actually learn what the words mean. There is nothing more goddamn frustrating when I say something like "economic liberalism" or "liberal democracy" or the word liberalism in general and people seem to associate it with "big government" for example. Also, people such as xDaunt could learn what the world socialism means. And as a quick disclaimer, when I say the study of ideology, I do not mean obscure continental thinkers such as Zizek or Althusser. Here is political ideology for dummies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies Where exactly did I say that I was talking about "socialism," smart guy? On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar.
This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? That example just shows a clear lack of understanding about ideology in general assuming you were not being facetious. Do you even fucking know what "National Socialism" is? Does the term "Nazi" ring a bell? Seriously, get your shit together before you flame someone --- much less flame someone twice. You're pretty much proving his point here. "Nazism" is as related to socialism as Chinese Totalitarianism is to a republic of the people. Not to defend xDaunt here but this is a misunderstanding and xDaunt is right. He was talking about the Nazis as a standalone example of a group you wouldn't give another chance, not because he thinks socialists are Nazis (I hope). xDaunt is basically saying "if you know who the Nazis are it should be abundantly obvious that I didn't mean socialism when I said National Socialism", as far as I can tell. Well, when the entire discussion line was about how Communism is not directly Stalinism, saying "National Socialism obviously means Nazism" is pretty much repeating the problem. Which, again, kinda proves Shiragaku's point, that having a political ideological discussion is incredibly irritating when people latch onto "buzzwords" and immediately jump to the "popular" representations of that word (whether its applicable or not). But doesn't National Socialism actually mean Nazism? Or am I missing something...
You are not, Nazi is indeed an abbreviation of National Socialism. Nobody is suggesting that socialism in general is in any way incriminated by the Nazi's use of the word here, the people attacking that stance will find it undefended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
