Shuyung, as Arathain pointed out, you haven't actually made a statement, but danced around the issue and made more questions all while trying to look smart.
State what your point is, and I'll respond, but I'm not playing the Socratic Method game.
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:49 pm Posts: 3455 Location: St. Louis, MO
It is my contention that you, Arathain, and you, Aizle, have no conception of what constitutes communism. It is further my contention that neither of you can then identify to any extent to which the US, either as a whole or diverse segments, historically or currently, may or may not be communist. I also contend that the reason you are so opposed to questions and seek to classify them as "games" and tricks is because you are unused to critical thought. In addition, I contend that I have 5 bucks that says you won't, in fact, respond to any of these contentions except this last one where you'll claim insult.
It is my contention that you, Arathain, and you, Aizle, have no conception of what constitutes communism. It is further my contention that neither of you can then identify to any extent to which the US, either as a whole or diverse segments, historically or currently, may or may not be communist.
Oh, I think I could, but I'd have to think about that one for a bit. However, since the sum total of my involvement in this was:
"Wait, are you suggesting we were, at one time, a communist country????"
I have thus far focused on trying to dicern an answer to my question.
Now, regarding your inquiries, I must say I find them... odd. You state that it is your contention that I don't know what constitutes communism, and that I can not identify blah blah blah. I find it curious that you come to these conclusions when I have in fact not said anything regarding communism at all, with the exception of asking you to clarify your statement. So, I must ask, on what do you base your contentions?
Quote:
I also contend that the reason you are so opposed to questions and seek to classify them as "games" and tricks is because you are unused to critical thought. In addition, I contend that I have 5 bucks that says you won't, in fact, respond to any of these contentions except this last one where you'll claim insult.
I also find it curious that you make such a contention. To suggest that I am unused to critical thought requires a significant knowledge of my personal capabilities, which you do not possess. I must therefore conclude that this is merely a smokescreen for a certain heightened hostility that you possess for some reason.
Considering our interaction in this thread has been limited to me asking for clarification for one of your statements, I must ponder whether there is a certain unhealthy level of sensitivity for being questioned.
In addition, I contend that I have 5 bucks that says you won't, in fact, respond to any of these contentions except this last one where you'll claim insult.
Will you attempt to collect your winnings through PayPal?
_________________ Buckle your pants or they might fall down.
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:49 pm Posts: 3455 Location: St. Louis, MO
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Oh, I think I could, but I'd have to think about that one for a bit.
Take all the time you need. Please. Read things from all sorts of people. I implore you. It would be almost singular if you would do that.
Quote:
"Wait, are you suggesting we were, at one time, a communist country????"
I have thus far focused on trying to dicern an answer to my question.
That's a meaningless question, and you don't even know why. Which leads into the next bit.
Quote:
Now, regarding your inquiries, I must say I find them... odd. You state that it is your contention that I don't know what constitutes communism, and that I can not identify blah blah blah. I find it curious that you come to these conclusions when I have in fact not said anything regarding communism at all, with the exception of asking you to clarify your statement. So, I must ask, on what do you base your contentions?
The meaningless question you posed.
Quote:
I also find it curious that you make such a contention. To suggest that I am unused to critical thought requires a significant knowledge of my personal capabilities, which you do not possess. I must therefore conclude that this is merely a smokescreen for a certain heightened hostility that you possess for some reason.
I have read (at current count) 1912 of your posts on this incarnation of the glade, and some number of them on previous incarnations. In all of those posts, I have not observed an impressive capacity for it. If you would like to make the argument that you have merely been refusing to display a capacity for critical thought in all that time, go right ahead.
Quote:
Considering our interaction in this thread has been limited to me asking for clarification for one of your statements, I must ponder whether there is a certain unhealthy level of sensitivity for being questioned.
I can assure you there is, and it's not on my part.
I have read (at current count) 1912 of your posts on this incarnation of the glade, and some number of them on previous incarnations. In all of those posts, I have not observed an impressive capacity for it. If you would like to make the argument that you have merely been refusing to display a capacity for critical thought in all that time, go right ahead.
I find it telling that certain individuals on the internet jump to these types of arguments. I'm not sure the motivation, but I suspect it ranges from frustration that an individual is not responding as requested, to a schoolyard-like response to being challenged. If you cannot engage the individual on-topic, then there is a tendency to engage in these behaviors.
At a minimum it speaks to an emotional investment in the discussion, for which, on a message board, I don't particularly see the point.
shuyung wrote:
Take all the time you need. Please. Read things from all sorts of people. I implore you. It would be almost singular if you would do that.
Meh. Ok. Consider this a favor. Why a favor? Because, again, I've made no arguments or statements related to communism in this thread, other than asking you to clarify your statement. Because it matters so much to you, and you've asked so nicely...
shuyung wrote:
Can either of you identify [edited to remove off-topic emotional tirade] the markers leading to communism from capitalism?
First, I'd say it depends on the government type. But in a system such as ours, I'd suggest we'd have to 1) develop a political party(ies) that is(are) fairly insulated from the public and/or irresponsive to political fallout. 2) people would need to be hungry. 3) the gap between rich and poor should be substantial, such that political leaders could blame the rich for the population's problems. 4) entitlements would need to be fully ingrained in society, and 5) there would need to be serious unrest. Finally, I believe there would need to be a crisis to start the ball rolling.
I also think that labor unions would need to be strong, such that the political leaders on that side would have to have strong support. Not totally sold on this, however.
Those are the conditions I would expect to be in place before our system transitioned to communism.
Every single person has the capacity for critical thought, provided they already know the information very well or spend lots of time doing research. It's just not my thing. There's really no way to win at arguing politics/science/etc. unless you are qualified in the subject to a good extent. It's like arguing about a computer game that you've barely played.
Every single person has the capacity for critical thought, provided they already know the information very well or spend lots of time doing research. It's just not my thing.
LOL, fair enough.
Quote:
There's really no way to win at arguing politics/science/etc. unless you are qualified in the subject to a good extent. It's like arguing about a computer game that you've barely played.
Debating/discussing topics I'm not particularly familiar with, but are interesting, is a lot of fun, and you can learn a ton.
When it's fun. As soon as someone's trying to "win" or gets all emotional, it's no longer fun.
By "win" I mean provide insightful and relevant information so that hopefully there's nothing left to debate. There's lots of things that may seem right to say, but if you knew enough information you'd know they were just plain wrong and dumb to defend.
It is my contention that you, Arathain, and you, Aizle, have no conception of what constitutes communism. It is further my contention that neither of you can then identify to any extent to which the US, either as a whole or diverse segments, historically or currently, may or may not be communist. I also contend that the reason you are so opposed to questions and seek to classify them as "games" and tricks is because you are unused to critical thought. In addition, I contend that I have 5 bucks that says you won't, in fact, respond to any of these contentions except this last one where you'll claim insult.
Fine. I'll play your childish game.
Let's start with some definitions. Wikipedia is convenient, so we'll use that.
Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate.[1]
In Marxist theory, communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely-associated individuals.[2][3]
The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly used interchangeably with socialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the way to communism. Leninists revised this theory by introducing the notion of a vanguard party to lead the proletarian revolution and to hold all political power after the revolution in a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism. Some communists, such as council communists and non-Marxist libertarian communists and anarcho-communists, oppose the idea of a vanguard party and transition stage and advocate for the construction of full communism to begin immediately upon the abolition of capitalism.
In the modern lexicon of what many sociologists and political commentators refer to as the "political mainstream", communism is often used to refer to the policies of states run by Communist parties, regardless of the practical content of the actual economic system they may preside over. Examples of this include the policies of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam where the economic system incorporates "doi moi", the People's Republic of China where the economic system incorporates "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics", and the economic system of the Soviet Union which was described as "State capitalist" by Vladimir Lenin.[4]
So from a practical level the key data points are:
- classless and stateless society - common ownership of property - free access to goods - no private property
There are certainly other flavors of communism that add icing, but those points are the cake.
Now, as to the existence of communism in the US, there certainly have been various elements over the years that have been communist. There are the various communist parties that run for elections, I'm sure several communist groups that live in the US doing their own thing, as well as specific individuals who extoll the virtues of communism. However, I'm not aware of any major movement that has had even a large minority support that really supported the above 4 key points. If indeed you think there have been, please enlighten me. So based on the fact that any communist elements in the country have been marginal at best or manufactured at worst (McCarthyism) I content that the US has never been a communist country.
Now kindly actually make some statements that are germain to the conversation, instead of diversionary and combative. If you believe that I don't understand communism, tell me why and give examples to back up your claims. Otherwise, **** off.
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:49 pm Posts: 3455 Location: St. Louis, MO
Now that I've got the two of you to the point where you are willing to actually consider communism and what you know about it, we can continue.
What is communism? There is its theory, of course, either culminating or kicked off, depending on your perspective, with the Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, just at (roughly) the end of the First Industrial Revolution and the beginning of the Second Industrial Revolution. Then there is its allegedly attempted practice, with a number of states claiming to giving it a go and the two largest purported practitioners of course being the USSR and the PRC. I suspect that when you think of communism, being children of the Cold War era, you think of the Soviet Union, right? And that when you, for instance, make claims that the US is not communist or is actively anti-communist, or ask whether the US is or has been a communist state, what you are really claiming is that the US is not the USSR and is anti-USSR, or what you are really asking is if the US is or has been functionally similar to the USSR. Have I gone very far off the mark, here?
But if we use the USSR and the PRC as measuring sticks, and identify the tenets of ideal communism that they met in order to earn their classification as communist countries, we can compare the US against them and decide if in fact the US may or may not be equally as deserving of the classification of communist, and also whether the US is or is not deserving of the tag anti-communist.
Speaking for myself, I'm not really interested in "we" comparing the US to whatever yardstick you want to use for communism.
I'm interested in YOU doing that comparison to back up your apparent opinion that the US has been or is now a communist country or moving in that direction.
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:49 pm Posts: 3455 Location: St. Louis, MO
I'm not the one who made the original assertion regarding the communist leanings of the US. The onus isn't on me. So far as I can tell, the entirety of your familiarity with the theory of communism comes from a single Wikipedia article, even though multiple English translations for the Communist Manifesto (for starters) are easily found online. As to the practice of communism, I couldn't even begin to tell your familiarity with it, as you have exhibited none. You have claimed knowledge of communism, and you have claimed certain orientations for the US based on your claimed knowledge. I challenged those claims. Now, either we've both got cards and can lay them out, or one of us is bluffing with a handful of napkins. But since I called you, you need to show 'em or muck. So far, you have paraphrased part of a Wikipedia article, and claimed ignorance of anything further. Meanwhile, previously in the thread, I have provided evidence (both for and against) of communist leanings in the US, I have alluded to the difference between theory and practice of communism (as does your Wikipedia article), and identified a problematic potential conflation.
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:40 pm Posts: 2289 Location: Bat Country
Lex Luthor wrote:
It's like arguing about a computer game that you've barely played.
Doesn't stop people from doing it...
_________________ "...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Now that I've got the two of you to the point where you are willing to actually consider communism and what you know about it, we can continue.
What is communism? There is its theory, of course, either culminating or kicked off, depending on your perspective, with the Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, just at (roughly) the end of the First Industrial Revolution and the beginning of the Second Industrial Revolution. Then there is its allegedly attempted practice, with a number of states claiming to giving it a go and the two largest purported practitioners of course being the USSR and the PRC. I suspect that when you think of communism, being children of the Cold War era, you think of the Soviet Union, right? And that when you, for instance, make claims that the US is not communist or is actively anti-communist, or ask whether the US is or has been a communist state, what you are really claiming is that the US is not the USSR and is anti-USSR, or what you are really asking is if the US is or has been functionally similar to the USSR. Have I gone very far off the mark, here?
But if we use the USSR and the PRC as measuring sticks, and identify the tenets of ideal communism that they met in order to earn their classification as communist countries, we can compare the US against them and decide if in fact the US may or may not be equally as deserving of the classification of communist, and also whether the US is or is not deserving of the tag anti-communist.
So get on it. Make your comparison. I answered your question, now make your point.
I'd also like to point out that your post above is in no way dependent on the answer I gave you, or in any way furthers the conversation from the basis of my response. Thus, as I expected, my response to your question was a waste of time.
I'm not the one who made the original assertion regarding the communist leanings of the US. The onus isn't on me. So far as I can tell, the entirety of your familiarity with the theory of communism comes from a single Wikipedia article, even though multiple English translations for the Communist Manifesto (for starters) are easily found online. As to the practice of communism, I couldn't even begin to tell your familiarity with it, as you have exhibited none. You have claimed knowledge of communism, and you have claimed certain orientations for the US based on your claimed knowledge. I challenged those claims. Now, either we've both got cards and can lay them out, or one of us is bluffing with a handful of napkins. But since I called you, you need to show 'em or muck. So far, you have paraphrased part of a Wikipedia article, and claimed ignorance of anything further. Meanwhile, previously in the thread, I have provided evidence (both for and against) of communist leanings in the US, I have alluded to the difference between theory and practice of communism (as does your Wikipedia article), and identified a problematic potential conflation.
Yeah, ok. I'm tired of this symatic game. I'm done, since you're apparently incapable of actually stating your own position.
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
Cop out of what? I made no point about communism, asked him a question, he never answered, he instead asked me questions, I told him I wasn't interesed, answered his question anyway, posed a few of my own, he ignored my response, and did not answer my questions. Instead, he asks more questions about a topic he's failed to make a point about.
Exactly in what way am I cop-ing out? Should I just sit here and respond to his emotional tirades and questions on a topic I did not engage him (initially, anyway, that ship has unfortunately sailed) indefinitely? At what point do I get to demand a response from him, and / or satisfy him and, now, you enough to the point where I can leave a conversation I did not start, did not want to engage in, and do not care about without "cop-ing out? Is there a rule of thumb for the number of posts I must respond to before I can tell him to respond to mine?
To phrase this a different way, what's my motivation for continuing to engage in a one-way conversation? There's no point I'm trying to defend, there's no related point I'm trying to make, he's entirely too emotional about this topic, and he hasn't shown me respect enough to engage in a two-way dialogue, much less even engage me politely. So I ask you, Rynar - what level of effort on my part is justified? What do I get out of it?
Shuyung hasn't displayed any emotion about this topic at all, Arathain. You're casting stones you don't possess to throw.
I explained above how I came to that conclusion. There's no logical reason for such a hostile response to being asked a question. So it makes sense to me that it must be an emotional response. I certainly could be wrong, I don't know him that well - it's the only explanation that makes sense to me.
And that is not "throwing a stone". There is nothing wrong, per se, with getting emotional. You just need to make sure it doesn't cloud your judgement. Otherwise, you get yourself out of line and find yourself apologizing later.
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:49 pm Posts: 3455 Location: St. Louis, MO
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Cop out of what? I made no point about communism, asked him a question, he never answered, he instead asked me questions, I told him I wasn't interesed, answered his question anyway, posed a few of my own, he ignored my response, and did not answer my questions. Instead, he asks more questions about a topic he's failed to make a point about.
Exactly in what way am I cop-ing out? Should I just sit here and respond to his emotional tirades and questions on a topic I did not engage him (initially, anyway, that ship has unfortunately sailed) indefinitely? At what point do I get to demand a response from him, and / or satisfy him and, now, you enough to the point where I can leave a conversation I did not start, did not want to engage in, and do not care about without "cop-ing out? Is there a rule of thumb for the number of posts I must respond to before I can tell him to respond to mine?
To phrase this a different way, what's my motivation for continuing to engage in a one-way conversation? There's no point I'm trying to defend, there's no related point I'm trying to make, he's entirely too emotional about this topic, and he hasn't shown me respect enough to engage in a two-way dialogue, much less even engage me politely. So I ask you, Rynar - what level of effort on my part is justified? What do I get out of it?
To start with, I have answered to your question. You have admitted you believed it to be a yes or no question. Unfortunately, you're wrong.
Your accusations of emotional content are far off base. I have certainly been rude and insulting, but I have no emotional stake in this conversation at all. Anything you think you see to the contrary is a figment of your imagination. You'll note, I hope, that in this entire interaction, I am the one who did not see a need to inject profanity.
Now, if your entire purpose in this engagement was to procure a yes or no answer to your question of "Wait, are you suggesting we were, at one time, a communist country????", then you have to narrow down what question you are attempting to ask. Let's take a few potentials. "Wait, are you suggesting we were, at one time, fulfilling the ideals of communist theory????" No. No country yet in the modern era has managed it. "Wait, are you suggesting we were, at one time, just like Russia????" This itself isn't altogether a yes or no question. However, to address one facet, merely from a governmental-overwatch standpoint, no. "Wait, are you suggesting we were, at one time, past the inflection point where we could be classified communist????" Ah, now there's the rub. This is the part that Aizle dismisses as "semantics" and refuses to have any dealings with. This is where we have to agree on terms.
Consider this, an excerpt from the 1888 English translation of the Communist Manifest:
Spoiler:
We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
After reading it, and then re-reading your attempted identification of transition markers, do you revise your posited markers, or not? If so, on what grounds? If not, on what grounds? Does the 160 year difference in time and the fact that we are embroiled in the Information Revolution as opposed to the Industrial Revolution necessitate modifications to the original? If so, what and why? If not, why not?
I hope that I have conveyed just how complex a topic this truly is, and that dealing in generalities and "common knowledge" is folly.
Cop out of what? I made no point about communism, asked him a question, he never answered, he instead asked me questions, I told him I wasn't interesed, answered his question anyway, posed a few of my own, he ignored my response, and did not answer my questions. Instead, he asks more questions about a topic he's failed to make a point about.
Exactly in what way am I cop-ing out? Should I just sit here and respond to his emotional tirades and questions on a topic I did not engage him (initially, anyway, that ship has unfortunately sailed) indefinitely? At what point do I get to demand a response from him, and / or satisfy him and, now, you enough to the point where I can leave a conversation I did not start, did not want to engage in, and do not care about without "cop-ing out? Is there a rule of thumb for the number of posts I must respond to before I can tell him to respond to mine?
To phrase this a different way, what's my motivation for continuing to engage in a one-way conversation? There's no point I'm trying to defend, there's no related point I'm trying to make, he's entirely too emotional about this topic, and he hasn't shown me respect enough to engage in a two-way dialogue, much less even engage me politely. So I ask you, Rynar - what level of effort on my part is justified? What do I get out of it?
To start with, I have answered to your question. You have admitted you believed it to be a yes or no question. Unfortunately, you're wrong.
Your accusations of emotional content are far off base. I have certainly been rude and insulting, but I have no emotional stake in this conversation at all. Anything you think you see to the contrary is a figment of your imagination. You'll note, I hope, that in this entire interaction, I am the one who did not see a need to inject profanity.
Now, if your entire purpose in this engagement was to procure a yes or no answer to your question of "Wait, are you suggesting we were, at one time, a communist country????", then you have to narrow down what question you are attempting to ask. Let's take a few potentials. "Wait, are you suggesting we were, at one time, fulfilling the ideals of communist theory????" No. No country yet in the modern era has managed it. "Wait, are you suggesting we were, at one time, just like Russia????" This itself isn't altogether a yes or no question. However, to address one facet, merely from a governmental-overwatch standpoint, no. "Wait, are you suggesting we were, at one time, past the inflection point where we could be classified communist????" Ah, now there's the rub. This is the part that Aizle dismisses as "semantics" and refuses to have any dealings with. This is where we have to agree on terms.
Consider this, an excerpt from the 1888 English translation of the Communist Manifest:
Spoiler:
We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
After reading it, and then re-reading your attempted identification of transition markers, do you revise your posited markers, or not? If so, on what grounds? If not, on what grounds? Does the 160 year difference in time and the fact that we are embroiled in the Information Revolution as opposed to the Industrial Revolution necessitate modifications to the original? If so, what and why? If not, why not?
I hope that I have conveyed just how complex a topic this truly is, and that dealing in generalities and "common knowledge" is folly.
First, let me say thank you for finally addressing my initial question, and another thank you for actually addressing my response to your question.
Next, let me say that there was no "spoon feeding" involved in your clarification above. And let me suggest to you that had you simply clarified initially, politely, as you have done here, you could have saved us a lot of time. By jumping initially to insults, rudeness, and IMO an emotional-based response, you neither furthered the conversation nor accomplished anything at all. Your subsequent responses, suggesting you've read 1900 posts with no evidence of "critical thought", etc. are not only obvious nonsense, but are written with the sole purpose of simply pissing me off. I have to question the point of trying to piss off some anonymous guy on the internet. In short, play nice, be respectful, and you'll have an easier time dealing with people.
Now, back to the point. What you are saying about the question not being that simple makes sense, and I agree, since "communism" is not black and white. However, I would argue that this is, in general trite and obvious.
I've read your excerpt, and no - I don't feel it necessary to change my markers. I believe these will be in place prior to any significant swing to communism. There are certainly other that are applicable, I make no claim that my list is comprehensive.
Now... I've addressed your questions, you've addressed mine. I must reiterate what I've said in this post, and several times throughout this thread. This topic is uninteresting, obvious, and not generally thought-provoking. I respect that it may be interesting to you, but alas, I'm not feeling it. It is my hope that I can extricate myself without causing you further grief.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
