[vegas]

Ho hum...Indeed...

If a religion is as its believers does, then what have the RECENT bloody history of communism taught us about Marxists ? Is tit-for-tat what communists did when they slaughtered over one hundred million under their rule ? They were trying to catch up with yesteryear's capitalists ? So now instead of learning the lessons of history, Marxists engages the tu quoque defense.

[The Immortal Goon]

Not in the least.

The body count you bring up comes from famine, for the most part. Which is fair, so long as you also consider the transition from feudalism to capitalism—which has a far, far, higher body count than communism.

I'm not in a "tu quoque defense," I'm pointing out that the historiography that you're using is flawed, and thus the logic.

If communism is bad because of the Holodomor and the Great Leap forward—then why isn't capitalism bad for its far more numerous and far more deadly famines?

It's only because you live in a capitalist economy and accept that as normal while any problems with any kind of deviation is inherently flawed. But this isn't true.

And so far as, "What about recently," I'll point to every conflict in the world happening right now.

This comes down to the boring but constant argument that Marxists—who use a form of historical analysis—haven't been absolutely perfect when in charge. To point out that capitalism hasn't been is to be a heretic in the religious doctrines of the capitalist regime. We are asked to believe that capitalism works, even when it does not. If everybody just believes harder, then maybe the material world will change we are told.

It is an absurdity that we live in every day.

But Marxists are materialists, and we will take the material world in to account, even when the zealots of capitalism demand we pray harder.

[vegas]

If you give someone a choice between being a communist or a capitalist, odds are very good that he will chose to be a capitalist. Like I said earlier, the only successful Marxist society to date is the monastery, which includes the nunnery. So now all you have to do is show us a country that is inhabited by voluntary Marxists and that is as successful as capitalist countries in terms of wealth generation, technology, the arts, etc.

[Cromwell]

If you give someone a choice between being a communist or a capitalist, odds are very good that he will chose to be a capitalist. Like I said earlier, the only successful Marxist society to date is the monastery, which includes the nunnery. So now all you have to do is show us a country that is inhabited by voluntary Marxists and that is as successful as capitalist countries in terms of wealth generation, technology, the arts, etc.

...and that, my friends, is what we call "moving the goalposts".

In fact, this response is so utterly baffling to me that I don't even know where to begin.

You appear to have bent the term "Marxist" so far out of shape so as to render it meaningless. Pray tell, how is "the monastery" an example of a "successful Marxist society"?

[fuser]

I am not sure what kind of reply you are expecting Cromwell after that baffling post.

But now as we are on the subject of choice, yeah let's ask someone whether they would live in Belgian Congo/British India or Soviet Union. Just saying that other people can play this stupid game too.

[noemon]

Sanitation have direct effects on all, so yes, there should be governmental involvement in that.

Your entire lecture on the government controlling aspects of your life does not apply to sanitation?

Public health is a public matter just like sanitation because it directly effects everyone as well. An infected person with some deadly disease will infect everyone if not properly treated.

But if someone persists in abusing his body with poor diet and/or substance abuse over the decades, why is that my burden to contribute parts of my resources to heal such persons ? If I refuse to help, then I am an 'evil' person while the abuser is the righteous victim of my callousness ? Sanitation is indeed public health, but a shot of Jim Beam with a double bacon cheeseburger and deep fried potatoes behind closed doors is not.

The slippery slope is your assumption about fat people or smokers being unproductive and non-contributing to society but all these are irrelevant.

The state has the duty due to its mandate to provide to everyone equality towards some basic rights and that is why everyone including fat people subsidise the courts and the legal system so that everyone(citizenry) is an equal member before the law, that is why everyone including fat people subsidise education, so that everyone including entitled thin people have access to basic education, that is why everyone subsidises the military & the police so that everyone has access to security.

The right to equality before the law(courts)
The right to security(police, military, fire brigade, coastguard)
The right to education(primary, secondary schools)

If you as a country/people choose to exclude the right to health from you list, well you know that is fine, it is your country after all, but as I said do not complain if you are called a tin-pot third-world country who cannot even afford to hospitalise its poor sick people.

[DrSteveBrule]

If you give someone a choice between being a communist or a capitalist, odds are very good that he will chose to be a capitalist. Like I said earlier, the only successful Marxist society to date is the monastery, which includes the nunnery. So now all you have to do is show us a country that is inhabited by voluntary Marxists and that is as successful as capitalist countries in terms of wealth generation, technology, the arts, etc.

I never knew that churches were Marxist, but I'll accept that premise for the sake of convenience.

Academia is the ideal location for Marxists to hide. It is not that difficult to figure out why. You have a captive audience whose minds are impressionable. You always have a credible threat over their heads: their grades. If it is a public university, you are supported by the taxpayers. If it is a private university, you can always engage in rhetoric and hyperbole to prove why you are worth the salary you demanded which lead to the high college education cost. You can always use the First Amendment shield to cover anything you say, even treasonous comments. In conversations, you can use vague language and allegories to evade difficult questions and if anyone dares to question you, there will always be a fawning claque willing to put themselves up as human shield to your questions. This is outside of the Science and Engineering depts, of course.

That premise is flawed in several ways.

1) Humanities professors tend to lean left, but being left wing does not instantly make a person a Marxist. The concept of socialism has precedes Marx and his works.

2) It is nonsensical to claim that science and engineering are the only non Marxist majors, if we assume that your premise is true. Business majors rarely deal with humanities courses that you claim to be the breeding ground of left wing indoctrination, and I doubt that music and art majors study politics in depth.

3) Your assumption stereotypes humanities professors as far left ideologues who will instantly fail anyone with a different political opinion. A significant margin of them are left leaning, but that does not mean that their politics allows them to fail anyone who believes differently. Most of my experiences in the good variety of social science and politics courses that I have taken were positive, even though my papers differed greatly from the mainstream leftist position.

[Vyth]

The body count you bring up comes from famine, for the most part. Which is fair, so long as you also consider the transition from feudalism to capitalism—which has a far, far, higher body count than communism.

I'm not in a "tu quoque defense," I'm pointing out that the historiography that you're using is flawed, and thus the logic.

If communism is bad because of the Holodomor and the Great Leap forward—then why isn't capitalism bad for its far more numerous and far more deadly famines?

Both communists and capitalists make equally one-sided use of the evidence to advance their respective political aims.
Capitalism and communism are different phases of the same disease; if the former, by the abolition of the feudal order, divorces private owneship from public responsiblity, the latter completes the destructive process, by divorcing public ownership from private responsibilities. Both are evil. Both rob us all of our rightful places in society. Both disrupt the natural order, by placing into positions of absolute power, those castes fitted to play subordinate rôles in the social hierarchy. When merchants and peasants are made into 'kings', they are tyrants; for kingship is not in their nature. Only kings should be kings; all else is slavery and oppression. The true king is the lion that guards over the lamb; capitalism and communism give us rats and snakes for kings, all the while telling the sheep that they rule themselves.

[Dystopian Darkness]

A better question is why we shouldn't choose a corporatist based economy that outstands both socialist and capitalist ones. Communism will fail as much as capitalism does. both are doomed for life.

[The Immortal Goon]

Fascism will fail because it's built on feelings instead of anything material. Saying, "There is no class conflict because your boss and you are both excited about our sweet racial honour!" Completely ignores the fact that there is a boss and a worker in the first place.

[Vyth]

Fascism will fail because it's built on feelings instead of anything material.

Lacking any foundation in reality, communism and fascism are destined for ruin. Both are built on shadows; the one mental, the other material. Much better is it to build a society on the foundation of truth, which is neither mental nor material, but stands in relation to both, as light to darkness.

Saying, "There is no class conflict because your boss and you are both excited about our sweet racial honour!" Completely ignores the fact that there is a boss and a worker in the first place.

To oppose the mere existence of class divisions is as ridiculous as hating triangles for having three sides instead of four. It is an exhibition of the bizarre psychology of egalitarianism, which is rooted in a deep-seated hostility to the very nature of reality. This existence is intrinsically hierarchical in structure and multiform in nature. There is ultimate union, but no uniformity. Divisions are spiritually transcended — not existentially negated. To abolish division would be to destroy existence.

The problem is not the existence of classes. Classes simply reflect universal human typologies. You cannot get rid of them any more than you can destroy squares and triangles. Modernity has disrupted social equilibrium by deviating from natural hierarchy. The class system being arbitrary and chaotic, class conflict is to be expected. The solution is not the abolition of class, but the reinstitution of true hierarchy.