On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:25:53 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130601110702.5d603e929e42ccf1c3d93348@fidem turbare.com...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:56:02 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:30:12 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530210207.2e2ce1f09f91fd87b05e8ef2@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 19:34:18 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
I wasn't advocating complete Marxism, therefore your
assumption that I "didn't study enough history" lacks
credible justification.
Is "a little Marxism" like being "a littel bit pregnant" ?
No.
Actually, it is
There is no such animal in EITHER case
Both are binary conditions
Either you are pregnant or not
Eitehr you are a marxist or not
Not quite correct.
Most of the hard-left political parties in Europe have now
accepted that they can only ever achieve their Marxist
paradise through democratic means.
What you really mean to say, is that they are playing the
"democratic means" game until they can have enouhg power to do the
rest in standard Marxist ways
[snip - bifurcated fallacious ad hominem attack]
That's not how I understood Alex' comment. He merely pointed out
how some Marxist ideals are being achieved in a democratic manner.
This differs markedly from classical Marxism.
Actually it doesn't, since Classical marxism is quite open to ANY
means to achieve the end
That's an interesting point.
Other groupings use Marxism as the basis for trying to
introduce specific policies -- for instance on the economy
or in labour law -- without pushing for out-and-out Marxism.
So you admit that the hard-liners have realized that one path will
not succeed, and that having decided to try a different path, they
are less marxist for it, even though the end objective is the
same ??
[snip - fallacious ad hominem attack]
No, rather that Marxist ideals provided [at least] some inspiration
or influence in the development of political policy.
History also shows that "a little marxism" also has a
tendency to grow bigger over time.
How it grows depends primarily on the leadership. If they
desire a greater amount of control, then oppression will be
retrofitted into the social evolution. If they are more loyal
to their followers, then the social evolution will head in a
very different direction.
Wrong again
Marxists accept the notion that they know better than anyone
else what is good for the "masses", It follows that marxists
will try to impose their beliefs by justifying it that it's for
the good of all
OK, but we can say pretty much the same about any ideology,
up to and including capitalism and democracy.
Capitalism is NOT an ideology.
Democracy also not an ideology
Both of these are, in fact, ideologies. Not in the same sense as a
religion is, of course, but they do qualify as ideologies
none-the-less.
Ideology: A system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the
basis of economic or political policy: "the ideology of
republicanism."
Source: http://www.google.com/search?q=define+ideology
How many countries have we in the West actively meddled with,
sometimes to the point of illegal regime change or outright
invasion, because we are convinced that we know better than
the natives that our ways are correct?
Go ahead and answer your rhetorical question
I'm willing to be that I can show you to be wrong on all counts
Why wait? Are you not willing to do that now?
Democracy, on the other
hand, tends to be less effective as the size of the populace
grows. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other,
rather that the ideologies are just better-suited to certain
environments.
Funny how Democracies have not only scaled better but also have
survived better
Why do youthink that is ?
Survival isn't a good argument since modern democracies are
barely a century old. In historical terms, we're very much
youngsters.
When compared to all flavors of Marxist implementations which are
ALL younger than the (modern) democracies you try to disparage,
your argument fails abyssally.for being moot.
The ONLY thing the marxists systems have CONSISTENTLY achieved
were a litanny of horrendous results
1) MASSIVE abuses of civil and human rights
2) MASSIVE democides
3) MASSIVE ecological disasters
The scale is not even comparable when compared to Modern
Democracies Particularly when you consider how occurrences in
those democraices were addressed and resolved
Democracy isn't over yet. Like Marxism, it comes with a great
measure of intent, and seeing democracy through to completion will
make for a more even-handed comparison down-the-road. Comparing
the results of one system with the intent of another leans toward
being a false dichotomy fallacy.
Democracy is not going to be over for quite a while
Marxism has been shown a failure for the reasosn stated above
So far, under democratic regimes, there have been:
1. Some abuses of civil and human rights (e.g., Rodney King beating)
2. Some democides (e.g., elimination of the middle class in the USA)
3. Massive ecological disasters (e.g., Exxon oil spill, FEMA problems)
The problem isn't the ideology so much as it is the people who are in
power who allow these problems to occur.
The fact that communism scales very effectively to larger populaces
than democracy does should be taken into consideration as well when
comparing these two ideologies.
The only thing that communism has "scaled well" a
1) abuses of civil and human rights
2) democides
3) ecological disasters
Otherwise all of them were complete failures that kept their
populations in poverty during and after their collapse.
Although I prefer living in a democratic/parliamentary system,
primarily because I'm familiar with it, I don't view communism as being
solely bad, for it has many qualities to offer as well. A few that
come to mind immediately a
1. the consistency within the ruling class so that larger projects can
be completed instead of getting shut down by a competing political
party that gets elected in the next term (e.g., the Three-Gorges Damb
in China that replaced a large number of coal-burning power production
facilities, which, if attempted in North America, most likely would
have been abandoned by a competing political party intent on doing
everything possible to discredit their competitors).
2. elimination of class divisions in society has a lot of merit, even
though it also isn't a perfect solution; under capitalism, which solves
some problems, there are other challenges that create a whole different
set of problems that communism can protect its citizens from.
3. the various problems you highlight are not exclusive to communism,
and are primarily a result of the decisions made by those who hold the
power; in India, which is often touted as the world's largest democracy,
there remains the Caste system which imposes class-based slavery on the
"untouchable" class that people are born into, which amounts to the
serious systematic violation of human rights based on a particular
arbitrary demographic that is reminiscent or racism
If you believe that democracy is the only solution, then you're kidding
yourself because the actions of those with power is incidental to the
political ideology that is used to impose restrictions on a populace.
Do I favour democracy? Of course, but not as a solution to the
problems that were observed during the runtimes of communist regimes,
rather because the system is fascinating because it adds depth to the
social psychological aspects of society when implemented in tandem with
constitutional protections for freedom (of thought, expression, etc.).
--
Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice. ... It is a religion that
celebrates a single human sacrifice as if it were effective."
-- Sam Harris