"Democracy" derail from "My new toy" thread...

[Blind groper]

Marxism is a political system, in which the means of production are owned by the proletariat, and run purely for the benefit of that proletariat. Marxism is antagonistic to capitalism, and absorbs private enterprise into state run operations. Marxism is an absolute. You do not get a 'half Marxist' state. However, it is not uncommon for a nation to start out Marxist and devolve into an autocracy.

Socialism as practised by almost all western nations (including the USA) is simply the use of tax money to support those who are in need. It is not a political system, and it may be hosted by a government that is democratic, left wing, right wing, or even a dictatorship. It also operates side by side with capitalism, permitting private enterprise to be run by private individuals and corporations, and run for personal profit. Socialism is not an absolute, and various governments will operate with differing levels of socialism.

The two are quite different.

[pErvinalia]

But, but.. MARX!!1ONE!

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

...Marx himself said so. This means you're wrong....

Seth has clearly decided that Marx is an infallible source...

Interesting...

Well, hardly, but he is the wellspring of Marxism, so what he says is certainly authoritative as to what Marxism is and calls for.

[Seth]

Marxism is a political system, in which the means of production are owned by the proletariat, and run purely for the benefit of that proletariat. Marxism is antagonistic to capitalism, and absorbs private enterprise into state run operations. Marxism is an absolute. You do not get a 'half Marxist' state. However, it is not uncommon for a nation to start out Marxist and devolve into an autocracy.

Socialism as practised by almost all western nations (including the USA) is simply the use of tax money to support those who are in need. It is not a political system, and it may be hosted by a government that is democratic, left wing, right wing, or even a dictatorship. It also operates side by side with capitalism, permitting private enterprise to be run by private individuals and corporations, and run for personal profit. Socialism is not an absolute, and various governments will operate with differing levels of socialism.

The two are quite different.

Yes, they are different, but as Marx stated, socialism is just a way-station on the path to communism. It's how you get the proletariat used to being dictated to and enslaved...little by little, through the Death of a Thousand Cuts method.

The first thing that's necessary is to set up class warfare between the bourgeoisie merchant class and the proles.

Next is to demonize capitalism and wealth as "unfair" to the un-wealthy in order to exacerbate the class warfare mindset.

Then, little by little as the proles swing towards Marxism because spending OPM is always an attractive option so you can get free stuff, the government becomes saturated with Marxists intent on creating the shadow government and erecting the framework upon which socialism will be build, one brick at a time until one day socialism is in full swing and a Communist demagogue comes along and tips the balance towards communism, a la Hugo Chavez (may he die a horrible and agonizing death).

But the essence of Marxism, and socialism, and communism is that the individual is not free to make personal choices about the allocation of his labor, bur rather the individual doesn't exist and the worker is but a tool of the collective to be assigned, used and thrown away at the whims and caprices of the Marxist elite.

Once you go down the road of collectivism, even one single step, the moment that you disrespect the sovereign right of each individual to dispose of his labor and goods according to HIS best judgement and you assign the redistribution of wealth to the collective, through government, you are on an inexorable path to destruction, privation, death and anarchy. It's as inevitable as entropy.

The key difference between Marxism (in all it's stages) and Libertarianism is quite simply that Libertarians ask permission and honor voluntary participation and commitment to the necessary charity, altruism and rational self interest that makes societies function property and cares for the disabled and infirm.

Somebody over at another place used to bail on the discussion about the ethics of socialism versus Libertarianism by asserting that it was "unfair" and "demeaning" to make people who are in need ask for assistance politely and it's oppressive and humiliating to expect them to be grateful and respectful of the sacrifice of others on their behalf. In other words, that fuckwit thought that it was the dependent class's absolute and unquestioned right to DEMAND that others labor and sacrifice on their behalf, and that if the productive class objected to doing so, the dependent class was justified in simply taking what they wanted from the productive class in order to create "fairness" in society. Of course he meant "fairness" in the interests of the dependent class alone, and didn't give a flying fuck about fairness to the productive class and their willingness to labor.

And that's the very essence of Marxism, socialism and communism in a nutshell.

[MrJonno]

The first thing that's necessary is to set up class warfare between the bourgeoisie merchant class and the proles.

Next is to demonize capitalism and wealth as "unfair" to the un-wealthy in order to exacerbate the class warfare mindset.

Once you eliminate religion from the equation people vote on economic interest, what else is there to vote on?.

People generally don't vote on obscure political philosophy or moral arguments they vote on what is in their best interest, whether you call it economic interest or class its basically the same thing. The rich vote for right wing parties, the poor for left wing ones and the middle classes for whoever will keep them that way which is somewhat sensible.

[Blind groper]

And that's the very essence of Marxism, socialism and communism in a nutshell.

With the teeny tiny problem that the description is 100% wrong.

Socialism is almost as old as Marxism. My country has been socialist for 100 years, and is still a democracy. In fact, it is, by international survey, the least corrupt country on this planet. Socialist democracies are everywhere throughout the western world and the more advanced nations of Asia. Not one single one has moved to Marxism and communism. Not one. Which makes the description Seth put up patently wrong. Wrong by actual data, not wrong by subjective opinion.

On the other hand, how many Marxist and communist states have moved toward capitalism and even full blown democracies? A lot.

[Ian]

Don't interfere with good old-fashioned paranoia and slippery-slope logic.

[klr]

Set(h) theory:

In one set: Seth
In the other: Dirty Marxists Commies

... can we have a Venn diagram for that?

[Seth]

And that's the very essence of Marxism, socialism and communism in a nutshell.

With the teeny tiny problem that the description is 100% wrong.

Except it's not.

Socialism is almost as old as Marxism. My country has been socialist for 100 years, and is still a democracy. In fact, it is, by international survey, the least corrupt country on this planet. Socialist democracies are everywhere throughout the western world and the more advanced nations of Asia. Not one single one has moved to Marxism and communism. Not one.

Wait for it....

Which makes the description Seth put up patently wrong. Wrong by actual data, not wrong by subjective opinion.

Not really. It takes time for all the OPM to run out, but we're seeing it happening all over Europe right now. We saw it in Venezuela a few years ago. When the OPM runs out, and the proletariat is denied that which social democracy has promised it, eventually a demagogue will arise and lead the nation straight to hell using the Marxist dialectic as it's marching orders. Just ask Chavez how that works.

On the other hand, how many Marxist and communist states have moved toward capitalism and even full blown democracies? A lot.

Er, yes, even China is succumbing to Capitalism, which merely goes to prove that socialism is a failure.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Er, yes, even China is succumbing to Capitalism, which merely goes to prove that socialism is a failure.

No, it proves that communism is a failure.

It also disproves your slippery slope arguments, or at least shows that the slide is actually from inefficient fully state-run economies to some form of free enterprise, not the dreaded curse of creeping socialism...

Marx and Mao are troubled in their sleep, and dreaming of "the dreaded curse of creeping capitalism"

[pErvinalia]

Seth wrote:

Er, yes, even China is succumbing to Capitalism, which merely goes to prove that socialism is a failure.

No, it proves that communism is a failure.

It also disproves your slippery slope arguments, or at least shows that the slide is actually from inefficient fully state-run economies to some form of free enterprise, not the dreaded curse of creeping socialism...

Logic like this will have no effect on him, Jim. He's become so self-contradicting over the years, that I don't think there's any chance of ever hearing anything of logical consistency out of him. And it's been increasing in frequency lately, which is why I pretty much don't debate him any more. It's hard to believe that someone is actually that inconsistent. And while I've spoken out before against the notion that Seth is a troll (despite the fact that he self-proclaims it), it's getting harder and harder to hold that position.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Er, yes, even China is succumbing to Capitalism, which merely goes to prove that socialism is a failure.

No, it proves that communism is a failure.

Socialism is just baby communism, as Marx said.

It also disproves your slippery slope arguments, or at least shows that the slide is actually from inefficient fully state-run economies to some form of free enterprise, not the dreaded curse of creeping socialism...

Only if the failed socialist society is not taken that final step to communism by a demagogue. It is true that capitalism is overthrowing both communism and socialism, which shows how ineffective both are. Problem is that in the meantime, billions of people suffer under despotism and corruption as the OPM is sucked out of the economy, and when the socialist system collapses there is chaos, disorder, privation, death, starvation and all manner of ills from the obviously ill-fated meddling with a socioeconomic system that is so obviously unworkable that it beggars the imagination that anyone thinks for a moment it can ever work.

Socialists are the most ignorant of the ignorant, which is why Marx called them "useful idiots." Idiots indeed, championing a system that does them almost no good at all while it sucks the very life out of the economy and puts it into the pockets of the Marxist elite, who, after sucking the life out of the economy, take their ill-gotten gains and bail out before the anarchy sets in.

Marx and Mao are troubled in their sleep, and dreaming of "the dreaded curse of creeping capitalism"

As well they should be. Spinning in their graves in fact. That's because capitalism is the ONLY economic system that actually works, and each and every time the totalitarian central control and planning of Marxism slips, capitalism blooms in the chinks of the Marxist wall of economic denial. And once the roots of capitalism take hold, they can eventually splinter the weak foundation of Marxism and free people from economic and social bondage.

But it's better just to execute Marxism in all its iterations in the cradle, before it gains any power, because that way much misery and death can be avoided entirely.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Er, yes, even China is succumbing to Capitalism, which merely goes to prove that socialism is a failure.

No, it proves that communism is a failure.

It also disproves your slippery slope arguments, or at least shows that the slide is actually from inefficient fully state-run economies to some form of free enterprise, not the dreaded curse of creeping socialism...

Logic like this will have no effect on him, Jim. He's become so self-contradicting over the years, that I don't think there's any chance of ever hearing anything of logical consistency out of him. And it's been increasing in frequency lately, which is why I pretty much don't debate him any more. It's hard to believe that someone is actually that inconsistent. And while I've spoken out before against the notion that Seth is a troll (despite the fact that he self-proclaims it), it's getting harder and harder to hold that position.

Go fuck yourself, rEv. You're a troll just as much as I am, but you're not nearly as good at it as I am, and your arguments are extremely weak, so you have to resort to ad hom rather than confronting the debate. You've been doing the same thing for years, evading the debate and derailing it into personal invective because you're too fucking stupid to formulate a rational argument.

[Coito ergo sum]

as witness that treacherous little shit blair took us into an unwanted, unwinnable war in iraq despite the overwhelming objections of the people.

Errr... the war in Iraq was won, handily.

[Coito ergo sum]

Marxism is a political system, in which the means of production are owned by the proletariat,

correct, which states quite explicitly why Marxism is ludicrous. The "proletariat" is not an entity or group that is capable of "owning" the entire means of production of a community or country. That's like saying "everyone in Cobb County owns all the land in Cobb County." Obviously, if you suggest that "everyone" owns the land, then it's the same as nobody owning it. It's meaningless. The proletariat owning the means of production just means that whatever "state" exists is what will own the means of production. And, that means that the means of production is operated and regulated by majority vote or by elected representatives, which means that said political process will be what determines how much grain is grown, how many cows are raised, and how many carrots are grown and how much milk and juice is produced, and how many cars are produced, not based on whether there are customers or demand, but based on politics. That doesn't work.

and run purely for the benefit of that proletariat. Marxism is antagonistic to capitalism, and absorbs private enterprise into state run operations. Marxism is an absolute. You do not get a 'half Marxist' state. However, it is not uncommon for a nation to start out Marxist and devolve into an autocracy.

Socialism as practised by almost all western nations (including the USA) is simply the use of tax money to support those who are in need.

That isn't what socialism is. Marxism is a kind of socialism. It's when the means of production is controlled collectively. Welfare programs are not "socialist," necessarily. Having a government which taxes and spends is not "socialism" per se, even if it is spending on the less fortunate.