Was Gene Roddenberry a Marxist/Socialist? - Page 7 - 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.
#15042567
Truth To Power wrote:That's chattel slavery; there are other forms of slavery such as penal slavery in which people are forced to work but are not property. There are also forms of slavery that are not de jure, such as forcible sex work.

Owning someone does not require fatal force.
So that definition is inaccurate.

Anyone can say that about any definition or source. This is an useless statement. Your definition is inaccurate.
False. If we look at how the word is actually used, it is clear that the definition you cite is wrong.

This is an emotional tantrum. There is no political logic here. One can say that the definitions you cite are wrong.
Forced to work. Not just work. FORCED marriage. Not just marriage.

GET IT??

Some forms or types of slavery have force involved. But not every single example or type of slavery is forced.
Bondage implies force.

Debt Bondage is different than physical bondage. Two different terms that use one same word.

How can you have an useful discussion if you don't know the difference between "words" and "definitions?" Here is an example:

There are multiple definitions of "love." All have the same four letter word, but have different definitions.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love
#15043144
SSDR wrote:Owning someone does not require fatal force.

What stops them from leaving?

Anyone can say that about any definition or source. This is an useless statement. Your definition is inaccurate.

This is an emotional tantrum. There is no political logic here. One can say that the definitions you cite are wrong.

Some forms or types of slavery have force involved. But not every single example or type of slavery is forced.

<yawn> Wrong.

<nonsense snipped>
#15043172
Truth To Power wrote:What stops them from leaving?

What prevents non forced slaves from running away is faith.

Faith coming from organized religions like Catholicism or Islam.

Some non forced slaves were conditioned (raised and taught subconsciously via manipulation) to believe that they need their slave owners to motivate them to work. This is similar to how some people believe that money buys love. And they would believe that because their parents taught them that money buys love by buying them things and lying to them that "that is love." They would teach them that so their children won't run away. If the parents are abusive, they would just buy their children stuff to buy their forgiveness, and their children would forgive them because they lack real consciousness.
#15045372
Truth To Power wrote:
The characteristics and relative merits of different economic systems.



NK has a dictator. Russian and China have autocrats that dominate a state bureaucracy. They are anti-social, literally.

One of the problems with this sort of discussion is that the word lacks meaning. Or, you could say, that it has so many different meanings that using it results in the opposite of communication.
#15045376
Agent Steel wrote:Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek and I believe he was trying to show people that a socialist world is possible. Star Trek seemed to promote ideas such as tolerance, diversity, equality, and environmentalism - typical marxist ideas. With scientific technology we could create food replicators to eliminate scarcity of resources.

If a star trek universe were possible, would you be for it? And is my impression accurate, that this would be the ideal result of a socialist philosophy?


Obviously capitalism culminates in socialism. But, not because left wingers are correct. Don't get me wrong, the analysis of Marx regarding the flaws of capitalism is correct and hence extremely attractive to many. The diagnosis of Marx is correct, but the treatment or prescription has not worked. Socialism needs capital and socialists have never shown to be able to create wealth.

However, you are correct: technology and redundant wealth will sooner or later lead to a society where everything is abundant and free for all. But, this happens because of technology and excess wealth. We already see vestiges of this. Note how in developed western capitalist nations it is possible to be poor but at the same time obese, have housing, get an stipend from the government, and not have to work. This was not available to the poor in the 19th century.

The key is technology and redundant wealth. And capitalism will be needed to reach a state of redundant wealth. Once that state is reached then it will be socialism. Socialism without wealth does not work.
#15045492
SSDR wrote:What prevents non forced slaves from running away is faith.

Faith coming from organized religions like Catholicism or Islam.

Some non forced slaves were conditioned (raised and taught subconsciously via manipulation) to believe that they need their slave owners to motivate them to work. This is similar to how some people believe that money buys love. And they would believe that because their parents taught them that money buys love by buying them things and lying to them that "that is love." They would teach them that so their children won't run away. If the parents are abusive, they would just buy their children stuff to buy their forgiveness, and their children would forgive them because they lack real consciousness.

IOW, they are "forced" because their beliefs differ from yours. Sorry, champ, but that's not force.
#15045494
late wrote:NK has a dictator.

Which is normal under socialism.
Russian and China have autocrats that dominate a state bureaucracy. They are anti-social, literally.

Russia was socialist until 1990, then rapidly turned capitalist. China was socialist until the late 1970s, then gradually became geoist.
One of the problems with this sort of discussion is that the word lacks meaning.

No, the problem is that dishonest people use words incorrectly to deceive their readers.
Or, you could say, that it has so many different meanings that using it results in the opposite of communication.

That's why we have dictionary definitions, and honest people are careful to stick to one sense of a word.
#15045529
Truth To Power wrote:
That's why we have dictionary definitions, and honest people are careful to stick to one sense of a word.



It's common for a word to have different meanings, esp. in an academic setting where multiple disciplines commonly use words in different ways.

IOW, the dictionary isn't going to help you.

"There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition..."

IOW, you need to be quite specific in what you mean, which you don't want to do. You need that ambiguity.

"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management..."

Problem is, state owned is not the same as worker owned, or one of the more complicated distributed ownerships plans. This shows up in the lack of worker participation in management in Soviet Russia, or any time at all in China.

Which is part of the reason I don't think socialism, the way Marx envisioned it, has ever been the way a nation has handled it's affairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
#15045594
Truth To Power wrote:IOW, they are "forced" because their beliefs differ from yours. Sorry, champ, but that's not force.

Socialism is not a "belief." Socialism is an economic system that people support. Their false conscious beliefs keep them enslaved. Their beliefs are enslaving them by manipulating them to think that money buys love.
Which is normal under socialism.

I would rather live in a "socialist dictatorship" then be free under private capitalist owners that can traffick me, and blackmail me to lose my job/home if I do not contribute to false conscious values via smiling, acting fake, promoting religious and "positive" attitudes, etc.
No, the problem is that dishonest people use words incorrectly to deceive their readers.

You are an example.
That's why we have dictionary definitions, and honest people are careful to stick to one sense of a word.

Not like yourself.
#15045734
late wrote:It's common for a word to have different meanings, esp. in an academic setting where multiple disciplines commonly use words in different ways.

Yes, these are called the "senses" of a word, and most dictionaries list them in order of frequency of use.
IOW, the dictionary isn't going to help you.

Sure it is, if you are honest and know how to use it.
"There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition..."

True. But it is an equivocation fallacy to use a word in more than one sense while pretending it is one sense.
IOW, you need to be quite specific in what you mean, which you don't want to do. You need that ambiguity.

No, that is the opposite of the truth. I am probably the only person you have ever encountered who is very vigilant in both avoiding and identifying equivocation fallacies.
"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management..."

The last part is an extraneous addition to the core definition: collective ownership of the means of production. In essence, it is a way for socialists to evade responsibility for socialism's consistent failures.
Problem is, state owned is not the same as worker owned, or one of the more complicated distributed ownerships plans. This shows up in the lack of worker participation in management in Soviet Russia, or any time at all in China.

State ownership is a form of collective ownership as opposed to private ownership, and is therefore socialism, not capitalism. Calling state ownership "state capitalism" is a just way for socialists to blame capitalism for socialism's failures.
Which is part of the reason I don't think socialism, the way Marx envisioned it, has ever been the way a nation has handled it's affairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Nor will it ever be, because it's completely impractical.
#15045739
Truth To Power wrote:
Nor will it ever be, because it's completely impractical.



Marx envisioned a bottom up process. What you are talking about is always top down.

I have visited both a Communist and Fascist country. Which makes me think the more bottom up a political process is, the better.
#15045960
Truth To Power wrote:
Yes, well, Marx was an ignoramus.

Oh, really? Which fascist country was that? Switzerland? Canada? Norway? Singapore? Luxembourg?



Not really, he was one of a number of economists, like Adam Smith, that wanted to fix what was a horrible problem at that time.

Any country where the power is concentrated in the hands of the few.
#15046755
late wrote:Not really, he was one of a number of economists, like Adam Smith, that wanted to fix what was a horrible problem at that time.

No. Smith and the other classical economists were aware of the fact that the factory owner contributes the factory to the production process, but the landowner does not contribute the land. Marx erased that fact from economics by conflating land with producer goods as "the means of production."
Any country where the power is concentrated in the hands of the few.

Silliness. By that "logic," all countries are fascist.
#15046769
Truth To Power wrote:
1) No. Smith...

2) Silliness. By that "logic," all countries are fascist.



1) Adam Smith wrote that society had to deal with the damage done by the "creative destruction" of capitalism.

2) That's a better point than you realise.

Freedom is a continuum. There wasn't much in Soviet countries, or Fascist countries. However, things can get better, as they did when the kid refused to take dad's job as dictator in Spain.

You would better understand what a lot of that era's economists have in common, if you knew more of the early history of capitalism in Britain.
#15047227
late wrote:1) Adam Smith wrote that society had to deal with the damage done by the "creative destruction" of capitalism.

That was Schumpeter.
2) That's a better point than you realise.

No it isn't. It's a better one than you realize.
You would better understand what a lot of that era's economists have in common, if you knew more of the early history of capitalism in Britain.

<yawn> Non-contribution noted. You would perhaps understand a little economics if you knew more about how to use words accurately and honestly.
#15047231
Truth To Power wrote:
1) That was Schumpeter.

2) No it isn't. It's a better one than you realize.

3) Non-contribution noted. You would perhaps understand a little economics if you knew more about how to use words accurately and honestly.



1) Yes, Schunpeter coined the phrase creative destruction, however that doesn't change what Adam Smith wrote.

2) Ahh, we're regressing to grade school. How about a round of rubber and glue.

3) Non-responsive reply counselor. Let me make this simpler for you. Karl Marx was hardly the only economist, of that era, that wanted to do something about the horrors of early capitalism.
#15047247
late wrote:1) Yes, Schunpeter coined the phrase creative destruction, however that doesn't change what Adam Smith wrote.

What do you incorrectly imagine Smith wrote?
Karl Marx was hardly the only economist, of that era, that wanted to do something about the horrors of early capitalism.

Indeed. But the others were all too honest and intelligent to conflate land with producer goods as "the means of production." It was that error, gleefully adopted by the neoclassicals, that created the modern two-falsehood structure of economics: false socialist theory and false capitalist theory.
#15047280
Truth To Power wrote:
Indeed. But the others were all too honest and intelligent to conflate land with producer goods as "the means of production." It was that error, gleefully adopted by the neoclassicals, that created the modern two-falsehood structure of economics: false socialist theory and false capitalist theory.



While no one has figured out how to pull off marx's idea, I'm not sure it's impossible.

Old theories occupy an odd space in science. While we don't use them, they are part of how we got where we are today.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

@jimjam then decided to invoke Godwin's law and c[…]

UK votes for Boris...

He planned to tax those with income of 80K pounds[…]

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/120308864780280[…]

I believe that stuffing social justice priorities[…]