I'm A Big Fat Commie!

[Iain]

not.

Communists believe in the abolition of private property. I do not.

Communists believe that proletarian revolution is the only possible progression from capitalism. I do not.

Communists believe in the absolute preeminence of the economic sphere in capitalist society. I do not

Communists believe in bourgeios revolution and the rise of the middle class. I do not

Communists believe in the immutability of class. I do not.

Communists believe there are only two truly active classes within society. I do not

Communists believe in the abolition of capital. I do not.

Communists believe in the abolition of the state. I do not.

Communists believe in the possibility of a classless society. I do not

Communists believe that enterprise is not truly of individual value, only social. I do not.

Communists believe in the abject falsity of the money-system. I do not.

Communists believe the state functions only as an ancilliary body of the bourgeoisie. I do not.

The next person who calls me a communist, neo-communist, or any other such garbage gets hit in the head with a copy of the Grundrisse.

There seems to be a trend to turf anyone who has read Marx and somewhat agreed with his statements, or even appreciates the eloquence of some of his writing, or even so much as shows a shred of admiration, respect, or sideways acknowlegement of what the man contributed to social dialogue into the same camp as a dyed in the wool bolshevik trapped in a St Petersburg steel mill in 1905. For the love of God, grow up. Not only has Marx contributed to right leaning philosophers of note (Weber, to name the most obvious -and frankly, the only one I can think of right now), but there are s great many other theorists who are grossly misrepresented by this crude pidgeon-holing of 'anyone who isn't a republican'.

What about psychoanalytic theory? Do you honestly expect me to believe that Freud, Frohm, Adorno, and such are neo-communists? Are you a loon? What about Nietsche? Commie as well? Foucault? Filthy Red? Is Weber also a commie because he worked with some Marxist concepts? If so, how much of right-wing theory is 'tainted' by communism? I'm making a general call for heads-out-of buttocks. Anyone else sick and friggin' tired of being called something they are not? This goes out to everyone, not just 'commies'. Anyone who feels their position has been unfairly pidgeon holed is free to give an account of why they are not what people say they are. Let people state what they believe before you toss them into the little niche you have carved out in your brain for people who disagree with you.

[Shitoryu Dude]

How about we call you a "anti-capitalist", or perhaps a "hyper-socialist" instead? :D

[Starkjudo]

Can I call you a crypto-fascist, just for the fun of it? :D

[Wounded Ronin]

Well, I would argue that the PRC and the USSR didn't really adopt Marxist theory in the first place. The USSR was simply a dictatorship with a big state apparatus, and the PRC had an agrarian ideological element that was not previously addressed by Marx.

So, the term "communist" or "marxist" is an amorphous one at best, given how freely people throw it around.

[Iron Chef]

You could stop driving automobiles or stop taking the bus and ride a bicycle more often. You can also try reducing your calorie intake.

I hope this helps.

[Iron Chef]

Capitalism and communism are opposite and equal evils that drive toward the same end. Both destroy free enterprise.

In communism there is no private ownership, all assets are owned by the state (i.e. all citizens) but controlled by a small select committee.

In capitalism there is no private ownership. Assets are owned by corporations, (i.e. numerous shareholders) but controlled by a small select committee (the board of directors).

All government is oppressive in its very nature. I believe the designers of the US representative republic knew this. The final check and balance is called Jury nullification. Legislatures can pass all the crap laws they want. The executive branch can strive to enforce them. The courts can uphold them but it takes 12 of your peers to convict you.

Sometimes the end justifies the means. Sometimes a child molester needs shot. Jury nullification takes this into consideration. Judges don't like this kind of thinking. When I was on Jury duty the Judge told us that our job was not to judge the law only the evidence. He is wrong we are our own final failsafe mechanism.

[Shitoryu Dude]

I think your definition of capitalism is all ****ed up. Correction, I KNOW it's all ****ed up. Try again.

:beer:

[Iron Chef]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
I think your definition of capitalism is all ****ed up. Correction, I KNOW it's all ****ed up. Try again.

:beer:

How? In what way? The number of industries that a small entrepreneur can over come the economies of scale put forth by modern capitalism is shrinking every day. The industry I work in big companies are buying the smaller companies soon there is only going to be one public company. One public held company vs one state held company? Let see, A public company will be ran much more efficiently but will ream consumers much more. Probably same same in the end. At least we all can privately own our own homes as long as we pay our annual protection monies to the state. This way the state bears no responsibility for upkeep on our homes. This is a good thing.

[Iain]

you can call me Janice if you like, just don't call me a commie!

I don't know if his definition of capitalism is necessarily untrue. Unrestrained capitalism -replete with monopolies, insider trading, fraud, and outright theft- would probably lead to something resembling an oligarchy. Of course, it would probably fail to replicate itself in short order, and collapse rather precipitously. A more apt apportionment of blame -rather than blaming capitalism and capitalists entirely- would be to blame the inability of the judicial system to uphold normal standards of conduct.

Harvs definition of capitalism comes embedded with an understanding that enterprise is held to certain standards of conduct, and that those standards are enforced impartially and objectively. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not the same as 'unrestrained' capitalism.

[Shitoryu Dude]

Unrestrained capitalism is anarchy - there have to be rules, but they need to kept to the minimum required to rein in criminal practices.

:beer:

[Iron Chef]

We have rules in place. After all Martha just got convicted for lying about insider trading and fraud charges that were dropped by procescuters. She will probably do a year in jail, for saving herself $50,000 in unrealized losses that she would have made back eventually once the FDA finally approved Imclone's experimental cancer treatment in February 2004.

What is funny is how Kenneth Lay can steal $80 million+ and cost investors $70 billion+ through fraudulent accounting practices and not have to do any jail time. ( So far.) Its good when you can write $350,000 checks to George Bush.

There are always going to be rules but the regulators don't have the resources or in some cases the smarts to counter the some corporations who use complex accounting systems to continually push the envelope. Rules are something everyone wants in place for their competitors.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Shitoryu Dude]

Won't argue that there are some serious and obvious flaws in the system. I'd like to see Ken Lay swinging from the end of a rope for example.

Martha's net worth went down several hundred million dollars after her little insider trading scam went public. A year in the federal pen is a bit light for my tastes - 10 to 15 is more like it.

:beer:

[Iain]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Won't argue that there are some serious and obvious flaws in the system. I'd like to see Ken Lay swinging from the end of a rope for example.


So we agree on something! Isn't that special. ;)