If you could be born into any country/culture

[Lur]

Much more so than anything else.

Ahem, source.

Source? Look at the world, there's your source!

[Tenebrarum]

Much more so than anything else.

Ahem, source.

Source? Look at the world, there's your source!

The same source would show you that, capitalism that's allowed to evolve is, sadly, the best system we have so far.

In the long run, it doesn't matter if Spain has a 20% unemployment rate. Life in countries wrecked by communism in the past and the present is still more dehumanising. You get beat down by the police when you go out there and protest, but please know that somewhere in the world, people don't even dare thinking about protesting. Their liberty is taken away right in their mind.

[Lur]

Cool.

All these outsourced enslaved workforce surely agrees with you.

You're free... if you have the money. And you don't. MWAHAHA! Hey, don't complain, it's the best system we have so far!

"El miedo en EEUU a la economia China ha desplomado la bolsa japonesa que ha lastrado a la europea". What a nice system they have. They can even patent genes and speculate with them. They can even control entire countries against democrazy. Surely great.

[Tenebrarum]

Cool.

All these outsourced enslaved workforce surely agrees with you.

Do come to a country where people have it worse. It doesn't have to be far away. You can go to Russia. I hope that would change your sympathy for communism. Look at what it left behind.

[Lur]

I'm not going to be content with crap because of that.

[Tenebrarum]

I'm not saying you should be content with the capitalist system in your country. Just please, please don't look for an alternative in Karl Marx, or any other thinker that ideology has puked up. That's just trading an evil for a worse one.

[Lur]

I don't look at Karl Marx as an alternative. I look at Karl Marx as a good analysis of what's going on, which is hardly evil in itself. I look for alternatives in technology, culture and history.

I mean, Marx's analysis still pretty much fits with almost everything, but where change is concerned, he's from the 19th century and this is 2013.

I believe you when you say things over there in Vietnam suck. Just no need of freaking out everytime I too get mad at the world

[mōdgethanc]

Karl Marx is directly responsible for more human suffering than almost any other figure in history.

The same source would show you that, capitalism that's allowed to evolve is, sadly, the best system we have so far.

Why is it sad? I've never quite understood: What exactly is so devious and evil about wanting to make a profit? Everyone wants money; that's why they work. For people who can't work, we have the welfare state.

All these outsourced enslaved workforce surely agrees with you.

You might want to look up the definition of the word "enslaved" in the dictionary before you start spouting your mouth off. You might to also try asking what those poor enslaved outsourced workers think of the jobs they have that are way better than anything else in their crappy economies. Anti-globalism is motivated by a desire to keep jobs for rich countries, thereby denying the same opportunities to poor ones. Talk about greed!

You're free... if you have the money. And you don't. MWAHAHA! Hey, don't complain, it's the best system we have so far!

Your cartoon villain caricature of capitalists isn't convincing. I'm poor as hell by Canadian standards and still freer than 95% of the world's population. Check your privilege, Luke.

[Lur]

figure in history.

The same source would show you that, capitalism that's allowed to evolve is, sadly, the best system we have so far.

Why is it sad? I've never quite understood: What exactly is so devious and evil about wanting to make a profit?

Depends on what exactly you do. There lies the nucleus of the whole thing.

Your cartoon villain caricature of capitalists isn't convincing.

Because it's... a caricature. What's your point?

Karl Marx is directly responsible for more human suffering than almost any other

And the ones that caused a lot of suffering in this place to the point of genocide were the ones who were convinced of that. Supported by all kinds of people: Nazi Germany, the USA, fascist Italy, the UK, and basically everybody in the capitalist world who never gave a fuck about our people.

I can probably find a few figures in history responsible of more bloodshed. Jesus Christ and the Roman emperor who made Christianism official come to mind, applying your logic.

[mōdgethanc]

Depends on what exactly you do. There lies the nucleus of the whole thing.

I'm gonna say underpaying your workers and flouting safety laws is outweighed by mass starvation and political democide.

Because it's... a caricature. What's your point?

That it's not convincing me that you're right, which is what I said.

And the ones that caused a lot of suffering in this place to the point of genocide were the ones who were convinced of that. Supported by all kinds of people: Nazi Germany, the USA, fascist Italy, the UK, and basically everybody in the capitalist world who never gave a fuck about our people.

The worst right-wing dictatorships during the Cold War still paled in comparison to the USSR, Cambodia and China. Franco killed what, thousands of people? Those countries slaughtered millions of their own citizens, and for what? A utopian pipe dream that somehow never materialized?

I can probably find a few figures in history responsible of more bloodshed. Jesus Christ and the Roman emperor who made Christianism official come to mind, applying your logic.

And this lets communism off the hook how?

[linguoboy]

I mean, Marx's analysis still pretty much fits with almost everything, but where change is concerned, he's from the 19th century and this is 2013.

Marx' analysis wasn't even accurate the year it was published. He was wrong about the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, which in turns undermines the labour theory of value upon which much of his argument rests.

[Lur]

Depends on what exactly you do. There lies the nucleus of the whole thing.

I'm gonna say underpaying your workers and flouting safety laws is outweighed by mass starvation and political democide.

We all know that kind of crap only ever happened in countries with communist regimes

And the ones that caused a lot of suffering in this place to the point of genocide were the ones who were convinced of that. Supported by all kinds of people: Nazi Germany, the USA, fascist Italy, the UK, and basically everybody in the capitalist world who never gave a fuck about our people.

The worst right-wing dictatorships during the Cold War still paled in comparison to the USSR, Cambodia and China. Franco killed what, thousands of people? Those countries slaughtered millions of their own citizens, and for what? A utopian pipe dream that somehow never materialized?

I'm sure Marx left a lot of instructions to do that stuff!

I can probably find a few figures in history responsible of more bloodshed. Jesus Christ and the Roman emperor who made Christianism official come to mind, applying your logic.

And this lets communism off the hook how?

It doesn't. It just shows your emotional appeal to hyperbole in that sentence.

I mean, Marx's analysis still pretty much fits with almost everything, but where change is concerned, he's from the 19th century and this is 2013.

Marx' analysis wasn't even accurate the year it was published. He was wrong about the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, which in turns undermines the labour theory of value upon which much of his argument rests.

That just means the theory gets updated.

I would like to read some modern up to date analysis of capitalism, with examples and everything. Reading Marx makes me go zzzz.

Look, I don't want to defend these totalitarian regimes, because I don't like them. All I want to say is that you're being overly close minded and paranoid, and that paranoia has given us a lot of pain. From Islamic terrorism to Adolf Hitler. So lets be careful with that, shall we?

[linguoboy]

I mean, Marx's analysis still pretty much fits with almost everything, but where change is concerned, he's from the 19th century and this is 2013.

Marx' analysis wasn't even accurate the year it was published. He was wrong about the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, which in turns undermines the labour theory of value upon which much of his argument rests.

That just means the theory gets updated.

We're not talking about some finer details but about one of the basic pillars of his argument. You don't "update" a theory in a case like that; you go in search of a new hypothesis.

I would like to read some modern up to date analysis of capitalism, with examples and everything. Reading Marx makes me go zzzz.

If you can't read Marx' analysis without falling asleep, how can you possibly justify asserting that it "still pretty much fits with almost everything"? That's no better than someone saying that the Bible has answers to any and all questions of morality when they themselves haven't actually read it.

All I want to say is that you're being overly close minded

In what way? I'm willing to wager he's read more of Marx' actual thought than you have yourself.

[Lur]

You don't "update" a theory in a case like that; you go in search of a new hypothesis.

That's what I mean. What is the new hypothesis?

I would like to read some modern up to date analysis of capitalism, with examples and everything. Reading Marx makes me go zzzz.

If you can't read Marx' analysis without falling asleep, how can you possibly justify asserting that it "still pretty much fits with almost everything"? That's no better than someone saying that the Bible has answers to any and all questions of morality when they themselves haven't actually read it.

I have read some of it, by Marx and about Marx. I was just quite bored by it. It's just not the kind of thing I normally read to pass the time.

All I want to say is that you're being overly close minded

In what way? I'm willing to wager he's read more of Marx' actual thought than you have yourself.

Me too. But I have read too many people who say the exact same things just because they've been told to say them. I shouldn't make such conclusions about people, though.

[linguoboy]

You don't "update" a theory in a case like that; you go in search of a new hypothesis.

That's what I mean. What is the new hypothesis?

That depends who you listen to, doesn't it? I haven't yet seen a Marxian economic theory that I consider generally valid, but then there are hundreds at this point and I've only sampled a few.

But I have read too many people who say the exact same things just because they've been told to say them. I shouldn't make such conclusions about people, though.

Given what I've seen from modgie hithertoo, I'm inclined to trust that he's actually done the reading and isn't simply parroting what he's heard elsewhere. But that's still an assumption on my part and could be totally off base.

[mōdgethanc]

Erm, I'd say communism is just as nasty.

If by "just as " you mean "much, much worse".

I know you might say there was never a true communist society (in form of a nation). The same could be said for capitalism as far as I am aware.

No True Scotsman arguments are dumb. The Soviets thought (or pretended to think) they were building True Communism®. The Nazis thought they were purifying the Aryan race. Does the ends really justify the means?

True communism and true capitalism are both really shitty to me anyways.

Doesn't mean one can't be vastly shittier than the other.

Ahem, source.

R.J. Rummel has done quite a lot of work on political killings and according to him, no, communism is far more murderous than capitalism. You'll see people who try to lump in capitalism with the age of imperialism but that doesn't really work since imperialism was mercantilist and not capitalist in the modern, industrial sense.

How comes Nazism and fascism are universally detested and communism still has fans? How?? If Western communists want that murderous ideology to manifest so much, they can come live here and give me their place in the ruthless old capitalist world.

Because most people in Western countries never experienced communism for themselves, but they have firsthand experience with capitalism, and as we know the grass is always greener (redder?) on the other side. The USSR being one of the Allies against Nazi Germany probably has something to do with it too.

Also, it's just so damn cool and rebellious to be radical and counter-cultural, you know? It's not at all cool to be a capitalist; it just makes you look stuffy and boring at best, or a heartless bastard at worst.

Because they aren't equivalent.

Right. Communism is better than fascism because it killed millions of people in the name of goals you agree with while fascism didn't. That makes it so much more palatable.

I dunno, depends. Is capitalism an ideology? I find it very murderous. Much more so than anything else.

Oh really? Is that why ~50 million Chinese people starved to death during the Great Chinese Famine? Did an equivalent or greater number of Americans starve during the Great Depression?

We all know that kind of crap only ever happened in countries with communist regimes

I already admitted that it didn't. However, I said it was much, much worse in them, and the facts are in my favour there.

I'm sure Marx left a lot of instructions to do that stuff!

Not exactly, but in the Communist Manifesto he outlined his program for centralizing all ownership in the hands of the state and suppressing all opposition by force. Really, what the fuck did he think was going to happen? That the Party was going to play nice and be paradigms of moral virtue just because they weren't the evil bourgeoisie?

Look, I don't want to defend these totalitarian regimes, because I don't like them. All I want to say is that you're being overly close minded and paranoid, and that paranoia has given us a lot of pain. From Islamic terrorism to Adolf Hitler. So lets be careful with that, shall we?

Why am I paranoid and close-minded to criticize an ideology that left only misery and death in its wake? I find it disturbing that there are people who still defend communism just as much as I find it disturbing that there are still people who defend scientific racism. You're being an apologist for mass murder for no good reason.

In what way? I'm willing to wager he's read more of Marx' actual thought than you have yourself.

Given what I've seen from modgie hithertoo, I'm inclined to trust that he's actually done the reading and isn't simply parroting what he's heard elsewhere. But that's still an assumption on my part and could be totally off base.

As a matter of fact, I was very into the history of communism at one point, particularly the USSR, and I read enough Marx to know that he's stultifyingly boring as well as wrong about pretty much everything we know about economics.

Marx' analysis wasn't even accurate the year it was published. He was wrong about the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, which in turns undermines the labour theory of value upon which much of his argument rests.

Not only that, but the central idea behind command economies - state planning and control - was argued to be impossible as early as the 1920s during the great debate over the economic calculation problem. I hate to say it, but the Austrians won that one soundly, proving a stopped clock really is right twice a day.

[Lur]

You're being an apologist for mass murder for no good reason.

Eh, no.

[mōdgethanc]

Look, I don't want to defend these totalitarian regimes, because I don't like them.

Yet that's exactly what you're doing by trying to downplay the ideological contributions of Marx to them and playing up the unsavory aspects of capitalism. I don't see how any sane, level-headed person can honestly think capitalism has a worse track record, even if you lump it in with fascism, which I am not.

[Lur]

I don't see how any sane, level-headed person can honestly think capitalism has a worse track record, even if you lump it in with fascism, which I am not.

Neither do I.

I think capitalism is a socioeconomical arrangement, one that exists as a simple reaction to certain technological, societal and cultural conditions without many having a particular say on it, and so is communism, one that doesn't besides certain hunter gatherer populations and maybe other specific Neolithic societies. Meanwhile I think facisms and totalitarianims as political arrangements. That's what I meant when I said I didn't see them as equivalent. And this is my particular personal answer to Tenembraum's original question.

I do see these view cross each other because wealthy individuals have a shitload of political power and freedom compared to everybody else under capitalism, so it's not as clear cut.

But I know this all happens due to my use of the word communism for that. Whether that use is wrong or not I don't know. If that use is wrong, then I need a new word and I don't have to answe to Tenembraum because he wouldn't be talking about me.

I am aware there's a cultural and historical bias affecting some things I've said, because here there's a series of ideas that a strongly interrelated. But inside that, I wasn't being brainless, and inside that I wasn't exactly the one on the group advocating for mass murder.

[Sol Invictus]

Yay revisionism!

If you're arguing the USSR wasn't poor and oppressive, you're the one engaging in revisionism. Sorry.

Oh, someone cry me a river.

Well, you could presently go to North Korea and admire communism in action

How comes Nazism and fascism are universally detested and communism still has fans? How?? If Western communists want that murderous ideology to manifest so much, they can come live here and give me their place in the ruthless old capitalist world.

Communism was major ideology much more recently and perhaps the fact that it existed so long made people accept it more. Plus it is possible that Western European version of it is more reasonable.

Karl Marx is directly responsible for more human suffering than almost any other figure in history.

Marx's ideas actually seem pretty normal from what I've heard and considering time when he lived. He was a philosopher, not a dictator who enacted an actual policy. you might as well consider Nietche responsible for the Holocaust



Considering though - I never even looked in this thread before, because I never wanted to be part of other culture (okay, well for some time in childhood when I didn't understand much, Native Americans seemed to be appealing). I have contemplated being born in a different time though. Experiencing USSR falling apart seems cool from today's standpoint, but I've realized I certainly don't wish I was adult at the time. Prehistorical times would be nice. On the other hand having time machine might be better than being born there