Was Gene Roddenberry a Marxist/Socialist? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15037079
Presvias wrote:I'm not a communist, but yours is a misleading claim isn't it?

IMO communism is worse than socialism, and socialism is even worse than capitalism, but I agree it is somewhat misleading.
And if you are going to do that, why not add up the casualties inflicted by the entire Axis powers and subsequent hanger-on fascist govt?

That's closer to being accurate.. but still a wholly pointless discussion.

If you want to be a real arsehole, you could say capitalism has killed more people than all of those other ideologies (communism, fascism) combined. I'd never bother of course, because the whole idea is fully absurd.

I don't think it is so absurd. I did a calculation that showed capitalism killed far more people than socialism and communism, but only because far more people have lived under capitalism, and for far longer. No socialist society has lasted for more than about 75 years. Socialism kills people at an average rate of about 0.2% of the population per year, mostly in immense debacles like the Great Leap Forward and the collectivization of agriculture in the USSR. Capitalism only kills them at about 0.05% per year, 1/4 of the rate of socialism, but does it very consistently year after year. Capitalism's murder rate has also been falling as capitalist societies have become wealthier and more democratic. For example, in pre-democratic India, capitalism killed about 0.1% of the population per year, mostly in large famines, but that rate is now steadier and much lower.
#15037181
Truth To Power wrote:IMO communism is worse than socialism, and socialism is even worse than capitalism, but I agree it is somewhat misleading.

Socialism is an economic system. "Communism" is a scientific political process that uses socialist economics.
No socialist society has lasted for more than about 75 years.

That is because the majority of the people in socialist countries were not socialist. A socialist country cannot exist unless if the people are socialists. If the people are not socialist, they will abuse the socialist economy, blaming socialism instead of their non socialist acts because they lack real consciousness.
Socialism kills people at an average rate of about 0.2% of the population per year

This world wide percentage statistic includes the criminals being executed in the Soviet Union, and the accidental famine in China that had nothing to do with socialism. Pol Pot mismanaged Cambodia's socialist economy. However, mismanagement also exists in capitalism, fascism, and in feudalism.
mostly in immense debacles like the Great Leap Forward and the collectivization of agriculture in the USSR. Capitalism only kills them at about 0.05% per year, 1/4 of the rate of socialism, but does it very consistently year after year.

Most socialist countries did not have "massive executions" or "massive genocides." The DDR, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia are some examples. Neutral states that are politically closer to socialism from the west like Sweden, which was neutral between the Soviet Union and the United States, was one of the most peaceful states to ever exist. Usually when people get killed, it IS their fault! Because if it was not, then much more "innocent" people would get killed.
Capitalism's murder rate has also been falling as capitalist societies have become wealthier and more democratic.

Incorrect. Criminal murder rates are slightly decreasing because of the technological forensic sciences that are available for law enforcement to track, and investigate criminals.
For example, in pre-democratic India, capitalism killed about 0.1% of the population per year, mostly in large famines, but that rate is now steadier and much lower.

Famines caused by mismanagement and ignorance.
#15038021
SSDR wrote:Socialism is an economic system. "Communism" is a scientific political process that uses socialist economics.

Get a better dictionary.
That is because the majority of the people in socialist countries were not socialist. A socialist country cannot exist unless if the people are socialists. If the people are not socialist, they will abuse the socialist economy, blaming socialism instead of their non socialist acts because they lack real consciousness.

Garbage. The fact that socialism is incompatible with people's biological nature is not the people's fault, it is socialism's fault.
This world wide percentage statistic includes the criminals being executed in the Soviet Union, and the accidental famine in China that had nothing to do with socialism.

The famines in Mao's China were directly caused by socialism.
Pol Pot mismanaged Cambodia's socialist economy.

Just as all socialist leaders have mismanaged their socialist economies, because socialism is inherently mismanagement.
However, mismanagement also exists in capitalism, fascism, and in feudalism.

True.
Most socialist countries did not have "massive executions" or "massive genocides."

But they all had massive failures.
The DDR, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia are some examples.

Sure. just as many capitalist countries don't kill very many of their citizens. I'm talking about the averages.
Neutral states that are politically closer to socialism from the west like Sweden, which was neutral between the Soviet Union and the United States, was one of the most peaceful states to ever exist.

Sweden was and is capitalist, not socialist.
Usually when people get killed, it IS their fault!

No.
Because if it was not, then much more "innocent" people would get killed.

That is an absurd non sequitur.
Incorrect.

No. It is objectively correct.
Criminal murder rates are slightly decreasing because of the technological forensic sciences that are available for law enforcement to track, and investigate criminals.

That's a red herring. I'm talking about the people killed by the economic system, not criminals.
Famines caused by mismanagement and ignorance.

And capitalism.
#15038086
Patrickov wrote:I think you better define both "famine" and "capitalism", and then provide some proof to link the two up, and finally how the System you favour doesn't.

Famine is a widespread temporary lack of food severe enough to cause death. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production: land and producer goods. Capitalism causes famine because the landless must pay landowners full market value for permission to produce food to eat, and when growing conditions are unexpectedly unfavorable, they can't produce enough food to both feed themselves and their families and meet the landowner's extortion demands. The landowner will then deprive them of the opportunity to produce food to feed themselves, starving them to death.

I propose a different system called, "justice," which would ensure that every resident citizen had free, secure, exclusive tenure on enough of the available advantageous land of their choice to have access to economic opportunity without having to support parasites. Those who wanted to deprive others of more than their equal share of the advantageous land would make just compensation to the community of those whom they deprived of it. This revenue would pay for the desirable public services and infrastructure that make the land valuable. Under the "justice" system, everyone would get to keep what they earn, and no one would get something for nothing.
#15038189
Truth To Power wrote:Garbage. The fact that socialism is incompatible with people's biological nature is not the people's fault, it is socialism's fault.

Humans do not have a fixed biological human nature, thus making your statement irrelevant.
The famines in Mao's China were directly caused by socialism.

Incorrect. It was due to incorrect farming tactics and the Chinese people not being socialist. According to online English Wikipedia:

"The social pressure imposed on the citizens in terms of farming and business, which the government controlled, led to state instability."

The citizens of China were not socialist, they forbid the Chinese state to coordinate their farming properly. Many Chinese people lacked real consciousness. An example of this is that the people support slavery, but the state does not. The state motivates the populace to work without supporting slavery. The populace needs slavery to motivate them to work. The state is against slavery however. Since the populace is not under slavery to motivate them to work, and they need that to motivate them to work because that is how they raise and condition each other due to the states that existed before the current example conditioned them from ever having real consciousness, they will not work. And rather blaming themselves for choosing not to work because they need slavery to motivate them to work because they lack real consciousness, they blame the anti slavery state.
Just as all socialist leaders have mismanaged their socialist economies, because socialism is inherently mismanagement.

Some of the coordination within many socialist states did have mismanagement, which is self destructive. But that does not mean that socialist economics by definition is "mismanagement" because that cannot exist. It is like claiming that Objectivism is mismanagement. Anything you do not support economically does not mean it is "mismanagement."
But they all had massive failures.

This is due to the majority of the people within former socialist countries not being socialist, and abusing the socialist system. If many people are not socialist, they will abuse the socialist system and blame socialism instead of themselves because they do not realize that their non socialist actions are destructive to a socialist economy because they lack real consciousness. Here are some examples of non socialist actions that are destructive to or within a socialist economy:

- Labour slackation
- Excessive waste of resources
- Misusage of produced wealth
- Abuse of state wealth such as private shops only accessible to state workers, military officers, and families to higher ranked state workers (this happened mostly in the Soviet Union)
- Destruction of industrial material such as factory parts, delivery trucks, or machines, and blaming "socialism" instead of workers' personal actions and excessive mistakes
- Anti feminist men who are bossy, abusive, and controlling - preventing workers from desiring to work with each other without social abuse, Or the needs of hierarchies
- Anti feminist women who encourage men to be extremely masculine, socially competitive, which alienates men socially - By not allowing themselves to express their emotions, mental conditions, or social trauma without being ridiculed by anti feminists (Men making fun of them and losing respect, women not wanting to be with them thus making men feel alienated - Men need feminism more than many people think)
- People who promote the oppressive family institution by needing that to motivate them to work, and conditioning their children to need the oppressive family institution to motivate them to work by:

- Shaming them for not going to stressful weddings or funerals
- Threats of excessive domestic abuse, verbal abuse, psychological abuse for not contributing to the family institution
- Teaching children that going against the family institution is "evil," or "satanic" propaganda, and using religion to make that look bad in many psychological manners
Sure. just as many capitalist countries don't kill very many of their citizens. I'm talking about the averages.

The definitions of "averages" you are using are the capitalist, or anti socialist stereotypes of socialist nations. The only major socialist countries that had high genocides were the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia. Anti socialists use those nations as pro capitalist propaganda to prevent the masses from gaining real consciousness - Preventing their targets from supporting economic socialism.
Sweden was and is capitalist, not socialist.

Correct. However, Sweden is politically closer to socialism in some scientific ways than most other western nations, Especially the United States (Very capitalist nation).
No.

Yes. If people fail a socialist economy, THE PEOPLE failed the socialist economy. The socialist economy did not fail them. Regardless of economics or politics, people need to work and be educated to get the talents and skills they need to do certain occupations that humans want or need to survive and be happy, such as doctors, engineers, or construction workers. In socialist economies, the PEOPLE FAILED socialism because they were not socialists because they lacked real consciousness. I already explained how they lacked real consciousness earlier in this post.
That's a red herring. I'm talking about the people killed by the economic system, not criminals.

The majority of the people who were killed by the states that had socialist economies like the Soviet Union ARE criminals.
#15038236
Truth To Power wrote:Famine is a widespread temporary lack of food severe enough to cause death. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production: land and producer goods. Capitalism causes famine because the landless must pay landowners full market value for permission to produce food to eat, and when growing conditions are unexpectedly unfavorable, they can't produce enough food to both feed themselves and their families and meet the landowner's extortion demands. The landowner will then deprive them of the opportunity to produce food to feed themselves, starving them to death.


This is pure speculation. In reality big corps own as much production as possible, keep the poor fed but also keep them poor in the process. Starving the poor leads to unrest, and is not essentially the interest of capitalists. Suggesting such, I am afraid, implies some kind of sadism deep in your mind.
#15038313
There are 2 definitions of socialism, the old and the new.

The Right talks about the old version, and ignores the meaning the world has been using for longer than they've been alive.


All it means now is robust social programs. Take Denmark as an example, the country doesn't own the means of production. But it does have strong social programs.

Lying liars, and the lies they tell.

The reality is that all economies are mixed, a blend of public and private.
#15038417
Patrickov wrote:This is pure speculation.

You misspelled "indisputable fact."
In reality big corps own as much production as possible, keep the poor fed but also keep them poor in the process.

Big corps couldn't care less if people are fed, as long as they can take what they produce. Google "I G Farben" and start reading.
Starving the poor leads to unrest, and is not essentially the interest of capitalists.

They never intend it to get out of hand, just as a parasite never intends to kill its host. They just don't care enough to put political stability above their own narrow financial interests. If history teaches us anything, it is that the privileged prefer to perish in blood and flame, and to watch their children slaughtered before their eyes, rather than peacefully relinquish even the smallest portion of their unjust advantages.
Suggesting such, I am afraid, implies some kind of sadism deep in your mind.

You misspelled, "realism."
#15038421
late wrote:There are 2 definitions of socialism, the old and the new.

No, the precise and the vague.
All it means now is robust social programs.

Then what word do we use to denote collective ownership of the means of production?
Take Denmark as an example, the country doesn't own the means of production. But it does have strong social programs.

So it is capitalist, with a modern, democratically accountable government.
Lying liars, and the lies they tell.

Indeed....
The reality is that all economies are mixed, a blend of public and private.

And....?
#15038427
SSDR wrote:Humans do not have a fixed biological human nature, thus making your statement irrelevant.

They do. Google "University of Minnesota Twins Study" and start reading.
Incorrect. It was due to incorrect farming tactics and the Chinese people not being socialist.

No, it was caused by implementing socialism.
The citizens of China were not socialist, they forbid the Chinese state to coordinate their farming properly.

Garbage. The socialist state exercised absolute control over them.
Many Chinese people lacked real consciousness.

You mean they weren't delusional socialist know-nothings.
An example of this is that the people support slavery, but the state does not. The state motivates the populace to work without supporting slavery. The populace needs slavery to motivate them to work. The state is against slavery however. Since the populace is not under slavery to motivate them to work, and they need that to motivate them to work because that is how they raise and condition each other due to the states that existed before the current example conditioned them from ever having real consciousness, they will not work. And rather blaming themselves for choosing not to work because they need slavery to motivate them to work because they lack real consciousness, they blame the anti slavery state.

That is an absurd and delusional load of ahistorical nonsense.
Some of the coordination within many socialist states did have mismanagement, which is self destructive. But that does not mean that socialist economics by definition is "mismanagement" because that cannot exist.

It can and does. There are no counter-examples.
It is like claiming that Objectivism is mismanagement.

Nope. Objectivism is not a system of ownership. Socialism is.
Anything you do not support economically does not mean it is "mismanagement."

<yawn>
This is due to the majority of the people within former socialist countries not being socialist,

I.e., being rational and informed human beings, and not naked mole rats.
#15038429
Truth To Power wrote:IMO communism is worse than socialism, and socialism is even worse than capitalism, but I agree it is somewhat misleading.

I don't think it is so absurd. I did a calculation that showed capitalism killed far more people than socialism and communism, but only because far more people have lived under capitalism, and for far longer. No socialist society has lasted for more than about 75 years. Socialism kills people at an average rate of about 0.2% of the population per year, mostly in immense debacles like the Great Leap Forward and the collectivization of agriculture in the USSR. Capitalism only kills them at about 0.05% per year, 1/4 of the rate of socialism, but does it very consistently year after year. Capitalism's murder rate has also been falling as capitalist societies have become wealthier and more democratic. For example, in pre-democratic India, capitalism killed about 0.1% of the population per year, mostly in large famines, but that rate is now steadier and much lower.


Lol is this a joke?

Good luck comparing the per capita death rates from 1900 to 2000.

I think you'll find that WWI slightly skews the results against capitalism but whatever. Let's not even mention the phenomenol death rates in Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, NI, Tsarist Eussia, Bangladesh, Greek military juntas, cypriot war, pontic greek genocide, armenian genocide, , India/Pakistan...all the rest of Africa, all the rest of Asia, 'capitalist' latin america under the likes of Batista, Pinochet, that Nicaraguan twat in the 30s, Peron, and on and on... and then you've got Australasia, oh and China pre Communism, Japan pre fascism; then you've got the genocide of the native 'muricans if you want to go right back pre 1900..

I insincerely wish you the best of luck proving your contention! :excited:

PS: 'Naked mole rats' may well be a compliment coming from some.. ;)
#15038463
Truth To Power wrote:
And?



And what, you never made a point, and much of what you did say was silly.

For example, usage determines meaning with words. IOW, the new meaning is the relevant one. And using the old one is just a dumb ass dodge.
#15038630
Presvias wrote:Lol is this a joke?

Just an intellectual exercise to give an idea of the effects of economic arrangements.
I think you'll find that WWI slightly skews the results against capitalism but whatever. Let's not even mention the phenomenol death rates in Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, NI, Tsarist Eussia, Bangladesh, Greek military juntas, cypriot war, pontic greek genocide, armenian genocide, , India/Pakistan...all the rest of Africa, all the rest of Asia, 'capitalist' latin america under the likes of Batista, Pinochet, that Nicaraguan twat in the 30s, Peron, and on and on... and then you've got Australasia, oh and China pre Communism, Japan pre fascism; then you've got the genocide of the native 'muricans if you want to go right back pre 1900..

I only counted peacetime deaths from poverty, disease and starvation that could reasonably be attributed to the economic system.
#15038633
late wrote:And what, you never made a point, and much of what you did say was silly.

So you are aware that you cannot actually dispute any of the points I made with facts or logic. Check.
For example, usage determines meaning with words.

Which is why we have dictionaries. I suggest you consult one.
IOW, the new meaning is the relevant one.

Nope. Only if it was the only usage -- a claim for which you have presented, and will present, no evidence. Many words have more than one sense; some have dozens. Socialism is such a word. Those who use it to talk about an economic system are not using it as you claim.
And using the old one is just a dumb ass dodge.

<yawn> I repeat: which word would one use to denote collective ownership of the means of production?
#15038660
Truth To Power wrote:


Which is why we have dictionaries. I suggest you consult one.

Nope. Only if it was the only usage -- a claim for which you have presented, and will present, no evidence. Many words have more than one sense; some have dozens. Socialism is such a word. Those who use it to talk about an economic system are not using it as you claim.

I repeat: which word would one use to denote collective ownership of the means of production?



Dictionary companies spend a lot of time keeping track of how usage is changing definitions. Btw, I have several dictionaries, I used to collect them.

Again, for your entire, life, and longer, socialism has meant robust social programs.

Which means you are using the old definition to hide from the obvious.
#15038681
late wrote:Dictionary companies spend a lot of time keeping track of how usage is changing definitions. Btw, I have several dictionaries, I used to collect them.

Well, maybe you should consider cracking one...
Again, for your entire, life, and longer, socialism has meant robust social programs.

But not as the word's principal usage, which according to my dictionary is still collective ownership of the means of production (natural resources and producer goods).
Which means you are using the old definition to hide from the obvious.

GARBAGE. Collective ownership of the means of production is still the most common usage. Please consult your three most recently published dictionaries and tell us what the first listed senses of socialism are.
#15038685
Truth To Power wrote:
Well, maybe you should consider cracking one...

But not as the word's principal usage, which according to my dictionary is still collective ownership of the means of production (natural resources and producer goods).

GARBAGE. Collective ownership of the means of production is still the most common usage. Please consult your three most recently published dictionaries and tell us what the first listed senses of socialism are.



"Using world-class technology, our dictionary programmes constantly monitor the use of language so that our experts can identify and record the changes taking place. The result is dictionaries which give a window on to how language is used today." Oxford dictionary.
https://languages.oup.com/our-story/cre ... ctionaries

I have a 3 volume library dicitionary, Webster collegiate, a dictionary of philosophy, of scientific terms and theories, of historical terms, of synonyms, of misused words, and some others stored away. Before the internet being knowledgeable was work.

Common usage, for a very long time, defines socialist as places like Denmark with robust social programs. Places where the state owns everything are called communist. And your schtick is trying to pretend the old definition is relevant when none of the current socialist countries own everything. What you have there is a linguistic scam.
#15038690
late wrote:"Using world-class technology, our dictionary programmes constantly monitor the use of language so that our experts can identify and record the changes taking place. The result is dictionaries which give a window on to how language is used today." Oxford dictionary.
https://languages.oup.com/our-story/cre ... ctionaries

Please quote the first listed definition of socialism in the OED. Thank you.
Common usage, for a very long time, defines socialist as places like Denmark with robust social programs.

Please identify and quote the dictionaries that list that sense first, indicating it is the most common usage.
Places where the state owns everything are called communist.

There are no such states, not even close, and the means of production is not "everything." You are being disingenuous.
And your schtick is trying to pretend the old definition is relevant when none of the current socialist countries own everything.

See above. Collective ownership of more than half of natural resources and producer goods would qualify a society as socialist. Only a ninny would insist on unscientific nonsense like zero tolerance.
What you have there is a linguistic scam.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
EU-BREXIT

That's a good thing how? I'm not arguing that it[…]

As I've pointed out before, even artificial int[…]

There was nothing wrong with his call. I'v[…]

Germany is not serious about defence and won't[…]