RE: Communism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Caius -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 6:40:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Hell, when Reagan shut down the California University sociology programs in 1970, forcing many Ph.D candidates to switch to criminology etc. what do think he was trying to stifle?  Berets?



LOL.  I'm as amused by your wording as I am disturbed by your implication that this wasn't a questionable action. 

Ah Reagan, you rascally neocon, we hardly knew ye.  And then ye hardly knew ye.  Which proabably made it easier to sleep at night.  But now you are gone, though surely someday there will be a deeply conflicted Republican working on cloning you.  Stem Reagan in '32! (the first year that any American will even think about voting a republican back into the oval office again, if they have any sense to them).




slaveboyforyou -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 6:40:27 PM)

quote:

Ah, the hyper-response.
 
I edited my post to remove the comment about your education, slaveboyforyou.  It was not appropriate and I'm sorry you saw it.
 
Seems to me, when called upon to defend your position, you depart from the rules of Logic and rely on bias, but that's JMO.
 
Once again, it seems to me that if you are up to debating and defending your position regarding CEO's, you'd be willing to 'put your money where your mouth is', but if you're too shy to post an Op, it's okay.
 
candystripper


I'm not a Vulcan.  Everyone has biases, and I won't apologize for mine.  I didn't just decide that communism was bad from watching "Red Dawn" as a kid.  I actually have read most of the things that Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao wrote.  I am very familiar with the history of communist regimes around the world. 

My position about CEO's is not worthy of another thread.  It's not that important to me.  I know that most corporations don't have CEO's that inherited the title from their families.  I don't need to start a thread about it.  It would be boring.  LOL, are you calling me a chicken?  It sure seems that way. 




Alumbrado -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 6:44:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Hell, when Reagan shut down the California University sociology programs in 1970, forcing many Ph.D candidates to switch to criminology etc. what do think he was trying to stifle?  Berets?



LOL.  I'm as amused by your wording as I am disturbed by your implication that this wasn't a questionable action. 

Ah Reagan, you rascally neocon, we hardly knew ye.  And then ye hardly knew ye.  Which proabably made it easier to sleep at night.  But now you are gone, though surely someday there will be a deeply conflicted Republican working on cloning you.  Stem Reagan in '32! (the first year that any american will even think about voting a republican back into the oval office again, if they have any sense to them>



You might want to work on your reading skills...neither your interpretation of my text or thoughts is correct. 




Caius -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 6:47:22 PM)

Well, only the first sentence was written with regard to you.   But in any account, good to hear it.

Thanks for the cognitive study linked in you signature, btw. Looks like a good read and it references a couple of fMRI studies I'd like to see.

Edited to add: I see where the trouble lay now.  I was actually being sincere when I said I was amused (by the sarcastic berret comment to be specific).  Rather ironic, given the subject matter of the article I just commented on, wouldn't you say?  




slaveboyforyou -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 6:48:01 PM)

quote:

As a sociology major I assure you we never studied philosophy of any kind; to do that we stepped outside our major and took Philo classes.


Did you go to college in the Phillipines?  I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that you never studied Marxist theory in a sociology course.  I sure don't believe that you studied sociology without learning any philosophy. 




Alumbrado -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 6:55:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: candystripper


Let's asume Regan did shut down a whole department at a state university.  Since you didn't provide any link to a newspaper article about this event, I can only assume.
 
Maybe Regan just wanted to prevent more unemployable graduates from emerging from the university with huge student loan debt burdens.
 
As a sociology major I assure you we never studied philosophy of any kind; to do that we stepped outside our major and took Philo classes.
 
Why do you believe Communism is entilted to 'minor due' in a Philo 101 class?  What would you rather have students concentrate on?  Existentialism?
 
candystripper
 
P.S.  Can we end the ad hominum attack style posts and leave room for Caius and stella as wel as others to continue posting their valuable POVs?


So you are a sociology major who has never heard of Marxist ( or its descendants radical. critical, feminist) criminology theory, and never studied them or any philosophy in sociology classes?

A college student in the 60s/very early 70s who never heard of Governor Reagan's stifling actions against campuses?

And a lawyer who claimed that protective orders were available for harrassing people you didn't like?


And pointing out errors is now 'ad hominem attacks' from someone who engaged in actual ad homs and then deleted them?


And now you want us to take your bait that somehow, Marxism isn't being taught in philosophy classes 'any more'?




Alumbrado -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 7:08:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caius

Well, only the first sentence was written with regard to you.   But in any account, good to hear it.

Thanks for the cognitive study linked in you signature, btw. Looks like a good read and it references a couple of fMRI studies I'd like to see.

Edited to add: I see where the trouble lay now.  I was actually being sincere when I said I was amused (by the sarcastic berret comment to be specific).  Rather ironic, given the subject matter of the article I just commented on, wouldn't you say?  



Tres ironique... but I still don't see how you thought I approved of the action. 




Alumbrado -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 8:38:01 PM)

Well dammmmm... and I was actually hoping for a moment here that this thread might result in an edifying discourse on Marxist theory, either from the Chiricos political economy perspective I referenced, or some other cogent perspective....
Maybe Thorsten Sellin?  Durkheim?  Foucault?     Anyone...?         Bueller?

Ah well....




meatcleaver -> RE: Communism (7/1/2008 5:15:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

Karl Marx never worked a day in his life.  He leeched off of other people; most notably his friend Fredrich Engles.  Marx's family lived in poverty, and three of his seven children never survived to adulthood.  He was a lazy, fat member of the very bourgeois he railed against in his writings.  The poverty of his own family didn't compel him to join the ranks of the working class, but it didn't stop him from spending the little money he had on luxuries.  He was a hypocrite of the worst kind. 

Communism is an unworkable idea that operates in opposition to human nature.  The only way it can be implemented is through force, and we saw how that worked out in the 20th Century.  Twenty-million plus dead in the Soviet Union under Stalin, probably close to 50 million dead during the Chinese famine, two-million plus murdered by the Khmer Rouge, and on and on. 




You can say that about just any intellectual you care to mention from Archimedes to the present. Currently most intellectuals are paid for by the tax payer or by educational establishments where most money comes from the state of benefactors, one could say they leech from them. I think you will find that Frederick Engels probably wouldn't say Marx leeched off him since he encouraged Marx in his writings.

Stalinism and Chineese communism and the Khmer Rouge have about as much to do with communism as Hitler had to do with christianity. Since Marx was a philosopher, it is nothing to do with him should someone claim to follow his ideas since he has no control over them just as Jesus has no control of idiot christian fundementalists or Mohammad has no control over idiot mulim fundementalists. However much of European social welfare and unversal healthcare is based on the thinking of Marx and Engels and much more. It is not about ideology because Marx wasn't an ideologist, it is about considering his ideas and applying them practically and that has to do with the people applying his ideas and not Marx himself.

As Marx said 'I am not a Marxist', simply because he was a thinker and he never stopped thinking.  However one has to view his writings and communist manifesto with the backdrop of rampant laisez faire capitalism going unchecked. People dying in European cities in pandemic numbers due to hunger, desease, long hours, poor sanitation, no health and safety, due to rampant profiteering, corruption and outright theft by the rich and politically powerful. The average life span of a workingclass male in an industrial society was around 30. That is the background revolutions are made of and in which communist ideas were formulated.

One shouldn't forget, contemporary western European societies are capitalist-socialist/communist hybrids, to a lesser extent, even the USA is.




meatcleaver -> RE: Communism (7/1/2008 5:18:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Real communism hasn`t been tried yet.

The soviets,China,and the few other`s have/had more of the dictator model.


The idea behind the Bolsheviks was that dictatorship was needed until the correct systems were place and the revolution was complete. Then the dictatorship will yield to a democracy.

The problem is that it never progresses. The dictatorship finds a way to create one crisis after another to justify it's grasp on power.


Just what did the Bolsheviks have to do with communism?

About as much as the founding fathers had to do with freedom, NONE!




meatcleaver -> RE: Communism (7/1/2008 5:35:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

I like Reagan, so thank you.  Cuba started getting aid from the Soviets almost immediately.  Castro came to power in 1959, and the Soviets started sending aid in 1962.  The Soviets increased that aid in 1968 when Castro endorsed their invasion of Czechoslavakia.  The aid didn't stop until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.  I don't call that a "long time."  Cuba has endured our embargo because no one else observes it.  It barely survives now, and the economy is slowly moving forward toward capitalism.  The accomplishments it's made in education and medical care have come at the expense of other things.  The loss of freedom of speech, freedom of movement, and free enterprise are pretty tidy sums to give for a free education and free medical care. 


Castro was none ideological when he came to power. You will find that it was US embargo, sanctions and general bullying that drove Cuba into the Soviet camp. The US just couldn't stand having their nose snubbed nor could they stand the idea that wealth should be taken from their corrupt rich supporters and given to the poor.

As Msdison pointed out, the American constitution was to protect the oppulent rich from the poor majority. That explains America's continuing ideology and motivation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

Vietnam moved away from that policy rather quickly in the 80's.  My position is hardly amibiguous.  You are the one that claimed communism works.  Either it does work, or it doesn't.  Striking a balance is not in the Marxism playbook.  If you believe that, you need to read what Marx wrote.  


Vietnam was a colonial war and not a war over political ideologies.




cloudboy -> RE: Communism (7/1/2008 5:47:23 AM)

You need to read THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, which proved rather prescient about how Capitalism would be reformed (instead of overthrown.) When you get to the parts on historical determinism (Pt. III) and your eyes begin to glaze over, you can stop reading --- because that's mostly crap.

Marx was arguably wrong about a few things: a) that history is progressive; 2) that the proletariat was a revolutionary class; 3) that class struggles inevitably lead to revolution as opposed to compromise.

Marx was right in his central assumption that if political-economic systems don't serve their constituents fairly and justly --- changes are inevitable. What changes did he predict: public education, progressive income taxes, curbs on inheritances, a centralized banking system, the rise of mechanized agriculture.

Neither the USSR or China proved to be models Marx envisioned --- because neither of those proved to be a dictatorship of the proletariat (workers). Rather, the USSR and China were simply 20th Century style autocracies with inefficient bureaucracies and strict, paranoid ideologies. Workers there held little control over anything, and if they sought control and influence over their enterprises they were ironically accused of being "capitalist."




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125