|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 3, 2023 11:42:40 GMT
Is it a racist slur when Prince Harry is referred to as a ginger wanker? Is it a racist slur when a vegetarian is referred to as a pale-faced herbivore? No. It's a reference to anemia not race. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 3, 2023 11:43:49 GMT
You can call Russia and China whatever you like. If you describe them as Marxist classless societies you would be wrong, though. Those countries have at least two classes: the rulers and the ruled. They were communist . The fact they they didn’t become the wet dream leftie utopia( they NEVER do) seems to have passed the lefties by. Every excuse but no recognition that Communism ultimately doesn’t work. I don't know many lefties who give two fucks about Russia. It was an abomination. It was as far removed from a Marxist state as it's possible to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 3, 2023 11:46:49 GMT
The difference between an opinion that a person is corrupt and a social theory that he must be. Don't you see class struggle in the populist position that the people should take control away from the elite? It absolutely beggars belief that you don't. The idea that 'the people' take control is the unworkable formula you described earlier. I hate to be presumptuous, but it seems to me like you are missing a piece of the jigsaw here. Power exists, elites exist and 'capitalism' is a set of rules that will (should) moderate such power so that it is used to raise civilisation rather than the converse. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 3, 2023 11:49:14 GMT
They were communist . The fact they they didn’t become the wet dream leftie utopia( they NEVER do) seems to have passed the lefties by. Every excuse but no recognition that Communism ultimately doesn’t work. I don't know many lefties who give two fucks about Russia. It was an abomination. It was as far removed from a Marxist state as it's possible to be. No worse that China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Cuba. Lefties are in denial that Communism doesn’t work so they use the circular argument that if it was ‘ real’ Communism then it would of worked and the reason why it has never worked us because it was not real Communism. A kind of ‘ No true Scotsman’ fallacy but even more transparently stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 3, 2023 13:14:49 GMT
Well that is not really true, many workers 'earn' far less than non workers. So in reality nothing changes except those that work will be taxed more and the central planners will adopt the trappings of an elite. What? Surplus is redistributed under Marxism. Everyone gets what they need for a comfortable, long, and healthy life. There won't be people with two or three homes, while others have no home at all, if that's what you mean. Then who decides a surplus? Central planners deciding a surplus in one area may get it entirely wrong. Does democratic Communism mean you have a voice to correct 'injustice' or is the final arbiter the central planners. I arguably have a 'surplus' but only becasue we spend very little and ensure that our lives can be led with little cost. So does my 'surplus' become government property or do I get to buy a shed at the seaside if that is my wish or am I banned from doing things not in the interest of the people. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 3, 2023 16:44:50 GMT
Well that is not really true, many workers 'earn' far less than non workers. So in reality nothing changes except those that work will be taxed more and the central planners will adopt the trappings of an elite. What? Surplus is redistributed under Marxism. Everyone gets what they need for a comfortable, long, and healthy life. There won't be people with two or three homes, while others have no home at all, if that's what you mean. Sorry - burst out laughing at the idea that there would be a surplus of anything except hunger under Marxism..  |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 3, 2023 16:51:30 GMT
What? Surplus is redistributed under Marxism. Everyone gets what they need for a comfortable, long, and healthy life. There won't be people with two or three homes, while others have no home at all, if that's what you mean. Sorry - burst out laughing at the idea that there would be a surplus of anything except hunger under Marxism.. You really can't think of a single instance where British people died of hunger in their millions under early capitalism? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 3, 2023 16:52:17 GMT
I don't know many lefties who give two fucks about Russia. It was an abomination. It was as far removed from a Marxist state as it's possible to be. No worse that China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Cuba. Yep, early 'communism' and early capitalism were shit. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 3, 2023 16:55:22 GMT
What? Surplus is redistributed under Marxism. Everyone gets what they need for a comfortable, long, and healthy life. There won't be people with two or three homes, while others have no home at all, if that's what you mean. Then who decides a surplus? Central planners deciding a surplus in one area may get it entirely wrong. Does democratic Communism mean you have a voice to correct 'injustice' or is the final arbiter the central planners. I arguably have a 'surplus' but only becasue we spend very little and ensure that our lives can be led with little cost. So does my 'surplus' become government property or do I get to buy a shed at the seaside if that is my wish or am I banned from doing things not in the interest of the people. The Marxist state is populist. The people decide what a syurplus is. As pointed out, Marxism envisaged that communism would only work in an advanced industrial society. There was little or no surplus in Russia, where the Russian farmers produced barely enough to provide for themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 3, 2023 16:58:06 GMT
No worse that China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Cuba. Yep, early 'communism' and early capitalism were shit. Communism is shit. There are no examples of successful Communism. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 3, 2023 16:59:09 GMT
Don't you see class struggle in the populist position that the people should take control away from the elite? It absolutely beggars belief that you don't. The idea that 'the people' take control is the unworkable formula you described earlier. I hate to be presumptuous, but it seems to me like you are missing a piece of the jigsaw here. Power exists, elites exist and 'capitalism' is a set of rules that will (should) moderate such power so that it is used to raise civilisation rather than the converse. We don't need to agree on this. Either you see that there is a socialist trajectory or you don't. I can't fathom how anyone could deny the continuing progress in workers' rights, but it would appear to be the case that some do. That's okay. Nobody needs to acknowledge it in order for it to be a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 3, 2023 17:01:05 GMT
Then who decides a surplus? Central planners deciding a surplus in one area may get it entirely wrong. Does democratic Communism mean you have a voice to correct 'injustice' or is the final arbiter the central planners. I arguably have a 'surplus' but only becasue we spend very little and ensure that our lives can be led with little cost. So does my 'surplus' become government property or do I get to buy a shed at the seaside if that is my wish or am I banned from doing things not in the interest of the people. The Marxist state is populist. The people decide what a syurplus is. As pointed out, Marxism envisaged that communism would only work in an advanced industrial society. There was little or no surplus in Russia, where the Russian farmers produced barely enough to provide for themselves. Kulaks we’re doing OK until the Communists killed them. Yeah Marx envisaged communism working in a society that was doing fine without Communism. ffs😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 3, 2023 17:02:06 GMT
Yep, early 'communism' and early capitalism were shit. Communism is shit. There are no examples of successful Communism. LOL! Show me examples of successful capitalism after 70 years. When did the capitalist era begin? Was it around 1770? So, 70 years after that would be 1840. Compare and contrast living and working conditions in the UK in 1840 with living and working conditions in Russia after 70 years. Go on. Compare the conditions of the average Brit in 1840 with the conditions of the average Russian in 1977. As awful as what happened in Russia was, their 'communism' did more for the average person after 70 years than capitalism did for the average person after 70 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 3, 2023 17:05:20 GMT
The Marxist state is populist. The people decide what a syurplus is. As pointed out, Marxism envisaged that communism would only work in an advanced industrial society. There was little or no surplus in Russia, where the Russian farmers produced barely enough to provide for themselves. Kulaks we’re doing OK until the Communists killed them. Yeah Marx envisaged communism working in a society that was doing fine without Communism. ffs😂 And how about those killed by capitalism? How about the millions of people who died of starvation all around the world because food prices were kept artificially high by capitalism? What about the millions of people who died of starvation in the UK? What about turning millions of Chinese people into drug addicts? Imperialist wars fought for markets? Thousands of people hanged for minor offenses against property? What about the widespread prostitution in the UK? The slums, whole families living in a single room, or worse still, separated in workhouses? Explain how early capitalism was any more humane than early communism. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 3, 2023 17:25:40 GMT
The idea that 'the people' take control is the unworkable formula you described earlier. I hate to be presumptuous, but it seems to me like you are missing a piece of the jigsaw here. Power exists, elites exist and 'capitalism' is a set of rules that will (should) moderate such power so that it is used to raise civilisation rather than the converse. We don't need to agree on this. Either you see that there is a socialist trajectory or you don't. I can't fathom how anyone could deny the continuing progress in workers' rights, but it would appear to be the case that some do. That's okay. Nobody needs to acknowledge it in order for it to be a fact. We have only had a short conversation, but that's the second time you appear to have replaced what I'm saying with something else entirely. Silly stuff. |
|
