Marxism/communism/socialism Take 2

[noname12]

Ok The other one got so messy and confussing I TRIED to catch all the relevant arguements and skipped the irrelevant ones. If I have missed something important please point it out as I am biased and may have left out somethings due to its offencive content :lol:


Skweeky -
Well, a quite interesting discussion started in the lounge about these topics.

My view:

Yes, Marx can be seen as father of all communism, but it was never his intention to create communism. There is a huge difference between marxism and communism. One can say that the idea of Marx put into practice can be called communism. The idea was good.....what people made of it isn't. Communism is most certainly NOT socialism. Those two things get mixed up very often, but are in reality quite different. Communism is about absolute equality, which doesn't work because there are always people who want more and have the means to get more. Socialism is about equality too, agreed, but not in the same way ; socialism says that the people who are most capable of leading a nation( for example) should do everything to make it as good as possible for everyone, they should live for the people so to speak.


mrcall1969 -
I totally agree...Socialism is more linked to Marxism than Communism..
Communism can work in theory..but in practice it's human nature for one person to want more and others suffer because of that. Socialism is quite different.


noname12 -
Hmmmm... interesting point, but in communism Equality goes as far as living some have over done it others belittled it.

Communism in its essence is Socialism with as you say more for the common man.
The socialist Views is of Islamic origin which if you look at it is indeed almost what communism is, equality for all, people live the same and have the same stuff and none are excluded due to there social class.

The main bulk of of it all is the fact that all facilities are public and shared by all those deemed as nationals of the state, you cannot purchase a better life you all have the same education the same hospital care the same protection.

As for the Marx I need to look into that a little bit more as I am not 100% on that particular subject.

But as for Socialism and Communism, they are in essence one and the same, with a few extra's either side.

And Marx is seen as the Father of Communism but I believe that later people saw Lenin to be the father.

A small note though in Lenins will he stated that Stalin should not have power for his psycotic tendancies.


mrcall1969 -
That's all very well but....Communism is very different to Socialism, true, they're on the same side of the political fence, but thats where the similarities end.
In an ideal world Communism is a great idea, but it just doesn't work, Socialism on the other hand is being proved to work throughout the world, except for perhaps here in Britain, where the ruling Socialist party are edging further and further to the right of centre of the spectrum.


Skweeky -
No, Marx is the creator of the idea, not of what other people made of it.
In a communist regime everyone should be equal, but they are not because people need leaders. Those leaders tell others how to live and in this world, in this reality, such a regime can only survive with very very low standards and there is no one who wants to live like that. In the Sovjet Union a very small percentage of the population had most of the money while the biggest part was starving or freezing to death out on the street, and that's when it's almost the same as fascism (ty m  ).
Socialism accepts the idea that there should be leaders and offers people the choice to choose their own leaders. Everyone is given the same things, yes, but only the most necessary things. It is allowed to get more if you work harder, which is normal. That's why communism doesn't work. Some people don't work, other people work very hard but they all get the same thing, which isn't much. Socialism says that everyone has the RIGHT to have his basic needs satisfied, when someone wants more he/she has to work for it


noname12 in answer to mrcall1969 -
QUOTE (mrcall1969 @ 31 October 2003 - 21:37)
That's all very well but....Communism is very different to Socialism, true, they're on the same side of the political fence, but thats where the similarities end.
In an ideal world Communism is a great idea, but it just doesn't work, Socialism on the other hand is being proved to work throughout the world, except for perhaps here in Britain, where the ruling Socialist party are edging further and further to the right of centre of the spectrum. 


Thats the thing though, Both are not true to the exact words, if both where true then you would be hard pressed to find differences.

People played with those two ideas and now it is distorted into something that is no longer recognized by the Original ideals that where set in place.

In the true sence of both words they should be very similiar, but we cannot control those who wish to change them and have the power to.


noname12 in answer to sweeky -
QUOTE (Skweeky @ 31 October 2003 - 21:42)
No, Marx is the creator of the idea, not of what other people made of it.
In a communist regime everyone should be equal, but they are not because people need leaders. Those leaders tell others how to live and in this world, in this reality, such a regime can only survive with very very low standards and there is no one who wants to live like that. In the Sovjet Union a very small percentage of the population had most of the money while the biggest part was starving or freezing to death out on the street, and that's when it's almost the same as fascism (ty m  ).
Socialism accepts the idea that there should be leaders and offers people the choice to choose their own leaders. Everyone is given the same things, yes, but only the most necessary things. It is allowed to get more if you work harder, which is normal. That's why communism doesn't work. Some people don't work, other people work very hard but they all get the same thing, which isn't much. Socialism says that everyone has the RIGHT to have his basic needs satisfied, when someone wants more he/she has to work for it 


If it was implimented to the truth, every one would be given sufficient funds, equality is not ment by the size of house but the quality in which you live.

Rich people ate while poor people starved, it was aiming to stop such things. To purchase things and so on that is upto the individual not the state.

It comes down to the implimentation of it and the person doing the implimentation.


Skweeky -
Are you saying communism was aimed at stopping people from starving?

Tsaristic (sp?) Russia created a huge problem, and there was a lot of poverty, all Lenin did was look at the problem, saw the genious of it and manipulated the system to his own advantage....THAT is communism. You are confusing two different things


noname12 in answer to skweeky -
QUOTE (Skweeky @ 31 October 2003 - 21:56)
Are you saying communism was aimed at stopping people from starving?

Tsaristic (sp?) Russia created a huge problem, and there was a lot of poverty, all Lenin did was look at the problem, saw the genious of it and manipulated the system to his own advantage....THAT is communism. You are confusing two different things 


Trotski saw the advantage, Lenin saw the advantage, these minds where aiming to use the resources of Russia to benifit all.
The communists aim was just that for all to benifit from the rewards of mother russia.

You cannot blaim the failing of it on the idea, but you can blame it on the man.

Biggles -
The idea that resources could be held for a common good is not new. I think Acts chapter 4 verses 32-35 are relevant here.  I simply throw it in as an indication that the idea of a simple communism has old historical roots. Well ok .. I am being a tad contentious, sorry. 

Marx took the whole thing much further and suggested, using a form of Hegelian dialectical materialism, that such a society would be the inevitable result of dynamic interaction between interested parties. That is, feudalism gave way to the power of the merchants because ultimately the feudal Lords became reliant on the wealth created by the urban merchants. In turn, the urban merchants could function better with free labour and all the tensions that would bring etc., etc.,

Whilst certain elements of the process are self evident there was perhaps an overly simplistic assumption that the end result would be a utopian workers paradise. One could, with the advantage of hindsight, argue that there could many loops and dynamic interactions before any such state is reached. In a sense Trotsky could see this and said sod it lets foster revolution everywhere and nip it all in the bud. Stalin, on the other hand, was quite happy shooting those he was convinced were trying to usurp power at home.

Lenin was somewhere between the two with the added gift of actually inspiring devotion (rather than fear) in those who heard him deliver his message. Quite where Russia and the revolution would have gone had he lived is anyone's guess.


Skweeky -
Trotski and Lenin saw the advantages of MARXISM and turned it into COMMUNISM by putting the idea into practice.

I do not blame the idea, I already said Marxism isn't a bad idea. You're not being consistent in your arguments.


noname12 -
The essence of communism is socialism. socialism is the essence of a political system created 1400 years ago. both have been distorted in a way.

Trotski and Lenin saw the advantages, they had a mathmatical mind, money, resources = strength and power (from what I have read) Stalin pops in makes it pretty much a Police state and ruins every thing.


Skweeky -
no no no

MARXISM is the essence of SOCIALISM

The essence of COMMUNISM is FASCISM....

Communism is not the same thing as marxism


noname12 -
My research shows that socialism is actually the Islamic political system put in place by non other then Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) him self.

A few hundred years later, things where made, then communism pops up.

Communism is aimed at equality, same as the original socialism.

Communism allows all service to be available to all men, again Socialism.

Communism does not base quality of life on riches, each man can have what is available to the next, same as socialism.


chalice answering to Skweeky -
That does beg the question, though, Skweeky...
Why would Marx And Engels put their names to The Communist Manifesto?


biggles -
The big problem, as I see it, is the concept, which Trotsky exemplified, that change can only be achieved through revolution. As someone pointed out a long time ago, "the trouble with revolutions is that the people who like shooting people get to the top".

Organic change in which people vote with their feet for a more equitable system is I guess what Skweeky is refering to as Socialism. I have some sympathy with this position.

nonanme 12 - I spoke to a friend of mine who is a expert in this field and I must say I am rather wrong in this case.

Communism - Everything is state run, everything is given out equally to all, there is no room to fall back but no room to move forward.

Socialism - The bulk is state run but there is room for free enterprise, you can move forward but no one falls behind.

Islamic Politics - Socialism but with a religious emphasis.

Not that much difference.


noname12 -
Carl Marx - Thinker, came up the the communist Idea, so he is the father. Student of Marx said that Communism is not Implementable, Socialism is a better route.
Theories of Marx being a Fraud released, accusations of him trying to further jewish economic beliefs rose.

Trotski - Fellow communist, His ideals was that communism had to be introduced in steps, first socialism then Communism. When communism gained more power he was ousted and he fled to America.

Lenin - Shared the idea's of Trotski but could not wait and pushed for the Communist state to be implimented as he saw it as the natural Evolution of polotics.

noname12 -
Trotski - He saw the plight of the Russian people under the tzar, after needlessly going into the 1st world war and the suffering of people and the huge gap between the ruling class and the working class, he felt something needed to be done. He and Lenin saw the natural step forward is Communism to bring stability and prosperaty to the Provinces. There idea was the utilize Russia's rich resources for the State which inturn will give power back to the people. The power of russia was in its economy.

Lenin - shared the same views.

[noname12]

I almost forgot to add something... this marxism.... because it is here it does not mean Karl Marx created it :lol: A very interesting quote from the man himself...

"I am not a Marxsist."

I still firmly believe that Marx is the father. And I still believe in what I wrote above...

I do not wish to argue the implimentation just the similarities of them all, and believe it or not I am not a biggot, I do wish to learn something new.

I will research this subject more, give me 2 - 4 days and I will have a summary prepared.... Oh and clocker once I have finished this summary you will finally understand what it is that I do :lol:

Thank you for your patience.

[noname12]

Marx and his colleague Friedrich Engels issued the Manifest der kommunistischen Partei (Communist Manifesto) (1848) in the explicit hope of precipitating social revolution. This work describes the class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie, distinguishes communism from other socialist movements, proposes a list of specific social reforms, and urges all workers to unite in revolution against existing regimes. (You may wish to compare this prophetic document with the later exposition of similar principles in Lenin's State and Revolution (1919).)



Arriving in Paris of the end of 1843, Marx rapidly make contact with organized groups of émigré German workers and with various sects of French socialists. He also edited the short-lived Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher which was intended to bridge French socialism and the German radical Hegelians. During his first few months in Paris, Marx became a communist and set down his views in a series of writings known as the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844), which remained unpublished until the 1930s. In the Manuscripts, Marx outlined a humanist conception of communism, influenced by the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach and based on a contrast between the alienated nature of labor under capitalism and a communist society in which human beings freely developed their nature in cooperative production. It was also in Paris that Marx developed his lifelong partnership with Friedrich Engels (1820-1895).



Marx was expelled from Paris at the end of 1844 and with Engels, moved to Brussels where he remained for the next three years, visiting England where Engels' family had cottons spinning interests in Manchester. While in Brussels Marx devoted himself to an intensive study of history and elaborated what came to be known as the materialist conception of history. This he developed in a manuscript (published posthumously as The German Ideology), of which the basic thesis was that "the nature of individuals depends on the material conditions determining their production." Marx traced the history of the various modes of production and predicted the collapse of the present one -- industrial capitalism -- and its replacement by communism.



At the same time Marx was composing The German Ideology, he also wrote a polemic (The Poverty of Philosophy) against the idealistic socialism of P. J. Proudhon (1809-1865). He also joined the Communist League. This was an organization of German émigré workers with its center in London of which Marx and Engels became the major theoreticians. At a conference of the League in London at the end of 1847 Marx and Engels were commissioned to write a succinct declaration of their position. Scarcely was The Communist Manifesto published than the 1848 wave of revolutions broke out in Europe.



Marxist Origins of Communism, I

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other "brave words" of our bourgeoisie about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.
Manifesto of the Communist Party

Even the most cursory student of Communism is familiar with the seminal role of Karl Marx in the development of Communist ideology. The practical results of Communist revolutions have been so dreadful that Marx scholars have been at pains to point out the numerous doctrinal points on which Communist revolutionaries came to deviate from the teachings of Marx. Yet on an important collection of fundamental issues, the profound influence of Marx on Communist theory and practice is easy to detect.

[noname12]

Early Forms and Theories
    Communism as a theory of government and social reform may be said, in a limited sense, to have begun with the ancient Greek idea of the Golden Age, a concept of a world of communal bliss and harmony without the institution of private property. Plato, in his Republic, outlined a society with communal holding of property; his concept of a hierarchical social system including slavery has by some been called “aristocratic communism.”

    The Neoplatonists revived the idea of common property, which was also strong in some religious groups such as the Jewish Essenes and certain early Christian communities. These opponents of private property held that property holding was evil and irreligious and that God had created the world for the use of all humanity. The first of these ideas was particularly strong among Manichaean and Gnostic heretics, such as the Cathari, but these concepts were also found in some orthodox Christian groups (e.g., the Franciscans).

    The manorial system of the Middle Ages included common cultivation of the fields and communal use of the village commons, which might be vigorously defended against the lord. It was partly to uphold these common rights, threatened by early agrarian capitalism, that the participants in the Peasants' Revolt (1381) in England and the insurgents of the Peasants' War in 16th-century Germany advocated common ownership of land and of the means of production.

    In the 16th and 17th cent. such intellectual works as Sir Thomas More's Utopia proposed forms of communal property ownership in reaction to what the authors felt was the selfishness and depredation of growing economic individualism. In addition, some religious groups of the early modern period advocated forms of communism, just as had certain of the early Christians. The Anabaptists under Thomas Münzer were the real upholders of communism in the Peasants' War, and they were savagely punished for their beliefs. This same mixture of religious enthusiasm and economic reform was shown in 17th-century England by the tiny sect of the Diggers , who actually sought to put their theories into practice on common land.

First Responses to Capitalism
    Capitalism, reinforced by the Industrial Revolution , which began in the 18th cent., brought about the conditions that gave rise to modern communism. Wages, hours, and factory conditions for the new industrial class were appalling, and protest grew. Although the French Revolution ended without satisfying radical demands for economic egalitarianism, the voice of François Babeuf was strongly raised against economic inequality and the power of private property. For his class consciousness and his will to revolution he has been considered the first modern communist. Although he was guillotined, his movement (Babouvism) lived on, and the organization of his secret revolutionary society on the “cell” system was to be developed later as a means of militant revolution.

    In the early 19th cent. ardent opponents of industrial society created a wide variety of protest theories. Already what is generally known as utopian communism had been well launched by the comte de Saint-Simon . In this era a number of advocates gathered followers, founded small cults, and attempted to launch communistic settlements , particularly in the United States. Most notable among such men were Robert Owen , Étienne Cabet , and Charles Fourier . Pierre Joseph Proudhon , although he did not adopt the principle of common ownership, exercised great influence by his attacks on the evils of private property.

    A host of critics and idealistic revolutionists arose in Germany, but more important was the survival or revival of Babouvism in secret French and Italian revolutionary societies, intent on overthrowing the established governments and on setting up a new, propertyless society. It was among them that the terms communism and socialism were first used. They were used vaguely and more or less interchangeably, although there was a tendency to use the term socialist to denote those who merely stressed a strong state as the owner of all means of production, and the term communist for those who stressed the abolition of all private property (except immediate personal goods). Among the chief leaders of such revolutionary groups were the Frenchmen Louis Blanc and (far more radical) Louis Auguste Blanqui , both of whom played important roles in the February Revolution of 1848.

The Communist Manifesto
    The year 1848 was also marked by the appearance of The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels , the primary exposition of the socioeconomic doctrine that came to be known as Marxism . It postulated the inevitability of a communist society, which would result when economic forces (the determinants of history) caused the class war; in this struggle the exploited industrial proletariat would overthrow the capitalists and establish the new classless order of social ownership. Marxian theories and programs soon came to dominate left-wing thought. Although the German group (founded in 1847) for which The Communist Manifesto was written was called the Communist League, the Marxist movement went forward under the name of socialism ; its 19th-century history is treated in the article under that heading and under Socialist parties , in European history.

Marx Socialism below... Apparently :


general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods. Because of the collective nature of socialism, it is to be contrasted to the doctrine of the sanctity of private property that characterizes capitalism . Where capitalism stresses competition and profit, socialism calls for cooperation and social service.    In a broader sense, the term socialism is often used loosely to describe economic theories ranging from those that hold that only certain public utilities and natural resources should be owned by the state to those holding that the state should assume responsibility for all economic planning and direction. In the past 150 years there have been innumerable differing socialist programs. For this reason socialism as a doctrine is ill defined, although its main purpose, the establishment of cooperation in place of competition remains fixed.

[MagicNakor]

It's common practice to quote your sources when you lift text from others.

:ninja:

[noname12]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@3 November 2003 - 06:00
It's common practice to quote your sources when you lift text from others.

:ninja:
I was planing on doing that once I am finished.

[noname12]

The following is a way to classify the types and forms of government, along with simple definitions and distinctions for those types and forms, as far as how they relate to the relationship between the rights and property (sovereignty) of the citizens as compared to one another, and as compared to the government:



Centralized
Adhesioned
Confederated
Associated
Polarized

1
2
3
4
5

Communism
Socialism
Libertarianism
Democracy
Anarchy

Types:

Centralized; A type of government whereby the sovereignty of the parties to the union is totally in the control of the government.

Adhesioned; A type of government whereby the sovereignty of the parties of the union is mostly in the control of the government.

Confederated; A type of government whereby the sovereignty of the government is totally in the control of the parties to the union.

Associated; A type of government whereby the sovereignty of the government is mostly in the control of the parties to the union.

Polarized; A type of government whereby the sovereignty of the parties to the union and the government is shared or divided equally, or a type of null government where the sovereignty of all parties is unable to be determined, and is maintained by force. 

Forms:

Communism; A form of government which is structured in a manner whereby no party entity may possess and enjoy any sovereignty that is not specifically authorized by the government.

Socialism; A form of government which is structured in a manner whereby no party entity may possess and enjoy any sovereignty that is specifically forbidden by the government.

Libertarianism; A form of government which is structured in a manner whereby all party entities possess and enjoy full sovereignty, as long as the expression of that sovereignty does not conflict with the sovereignty of any other party, or that afforded to the government.

Democracy; A form of government which is structured in a manner whereby any party entity may possess and enjoy any sovereignty, as long as it is either authorized or not forbidden by agreement of the majority of the parties.
Anarchy; A form of null government whereby all entities possess and enjoy whatever sovereignty they can maintain by force, regardless of the harm it causes to the sovereignty of other entities.

Anarchy; A form of null government whereby all entities possess and enjoy whatever sovereignty they can maintain by force, regardless of the harm it causes to the sovereignty of other entities.

[noname12]

Ok due to a certain comment, heres the sources so far:

http://www.universalway.org/governments.html
The list of governments and what they are, this is for the post above.

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html
This is to the expulsion from paris and so on post.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/c...ofCommunism.asp (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/communism_OriginsofCommunism.asp)
this is the second Origins of communism post. You will also find the link to definition of Socialism there.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/b...um/marframe.htm (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/marframe.htm)
this is to the first Origins of Communism, I post.

http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/marx.htm
this "Marx and his colleague Friedrich Engels issued the Manifest der kommunistischen Partei" quote.

[noname12]

Nice and straight forward:

communism

communism, fundamentally, a system of social organization in which property (especially real property and the means of production) is held in common. Thus, the ejido system of the indigenous people of Mexico and the property-and-work system of the Inca were both communist, although the former was a matter of more or less independent communities cultivating their own lands in common and the latter a type of community organization within a highly organized empire.

In modern usage, the term Communism (written with a capital C) is applied to the movement that aims to overthrow the capitalist order by revolutionary means and to establish a classless society in which all goods will be socially owned. The theories of the movement come from Karl Marx, as modified by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, leader of the successful Communist revolution in Russia. Communism, in this sense, is to be distinguished from socialism, which (as the term is commonly understood) seeks similar ends but by evolution rather than revolution.


http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0813068.html

[noname12]

system of political and economic organization in which property is owned by the state or community and all citizens share in the common wealth, more or less according to their need.

Many small communist communities have existed at one time or another, most of them on a religious basis, generally under the inspiration of a literal interpretation of Scripture. …

Thats an Interesting one found at :
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=127631

Many interesting reading in the links below it.

I think thays enough for today.

Enjoy.

[sparsely]

just because I've always enjoyed this little thing:


"World Ideologies Explained by Reference to Cows"

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a
barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The
government gives you a glass of milk.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: Your cows are cared for by former chicken farmers. You
have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers.
The government gives you as much milk and eggs the rules say you should need.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of
them, and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM: You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors
bicker about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need." Meanwhile,
no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You take care of them but the government
takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the
black market.

PERESTROIKA: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia
takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the
"free" market.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbor decides who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell
you who gets the milk.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can
feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it
takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then
it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

CAPITALISM: You don't have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows
because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral.

PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price, or
your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica
lessons.

OLYMPICS-ISM: You have two cows, one American, one Chinese. With the help of
trilling violins and state-of-the-art montage photography, John Tesh narrates the
moving tale of how the American cow overcame the agony of growing up in a suburb
with divorced parents, then mentions in passing that the Chinese cow was beaten
every day by a tyrannical farmer and saw its parents butchered before its eyes.
The American cow wins the competition, severely spraining an udder in a gritty
performance, and gets a multi-million-dollar contract to endorse Wheaties. The
Chinese cow is led out of the arena and shot by Chinese government officials
though no one ever hears about it. McDonald's buys the meat and serves it hot and
fast at its Beijing restaurant.

LIMBAUGHISM: You used to have two cows. They may be dead; you don't know, because
you can't smell them through the stench rising off your unwashed, 1,500-pound
bulk. It's been six years since you could fit into the shower. You blame the
entire situation on an evil government conspiracy, and click the remote to
another talk show.

X-FILES-ISM: Your two cows turn out to be the government. They milk YOU. You are
saved by two generic bimbos, a female and a male with blow-dried hair, after (1)
a car chase, involving UFOs, (2) a gunfight, and (3) a seance. The aliens get the
advertising revenue after the Nielsens rise

[Will_518]

i like the last two gov types the best.

[sirbluey]

Marxism Capitalism Communism Bushism Blairism, you can have all the ISM`s you want, but it all boils down to one ISM..................
ELITEism
The elite rule the masses (peasants) and always have, it dosn`t matter what ism is in power there is the elite at the top, even right down to your local council, and your local club, there is always a group who force their way to the top.So it dosn,t matter if you want Marxism or Communism, no one will ever be equal, there are those who are born to rule and do anything to stay there, eg. Stalin, Hitler, Bush, QE11.
Murder, assassination, suicided, character assassination, so no matter what type of government you wake up to, you can be rest assured eliteism is in power.
To quote an old saying, we are all created equal, it`s just some are more equal than others.

[ilw]

I agree slightly with Sirbluey, its along the lines of the theory expressed in '1984' and I thought the theory was quite an interesting portrayal of social dynamics. From what i remember the idea is that there are always three types of people separated according to power (probably the best measure), money or whatever
The small upper class who's struggle is to stay at the top of the pile
The medium sized middle class who are unhappy with the situation, struggle to rise to the elite and foment rebellion among the middle and bottom class
The huge bottom class who are permanently struggling to rise either by slow progression up through the classes or a short sharp rebellion
There is constant but slow flow of people between each of the classes, but occasionally the bottom class becomes sufficiently unhapppy that it is possible for the middle class to cause a rebellion, removing the upper class. The upper class to some extent then becomes the middle class, the middle class rises to the upper class and the bottom class barely changes. The process then starts over again. In '1984' the key for those in power is absolute control over the middle class and strong repression of the bottom class. Without the middle class, a repressed bottom class is incapable of starting rebellion.
Obviously its explained much better in the book, but thats the rough concept that i took away from it and to a certain extent i think its quite a nice description.

[noname12]

Originally posted by sirbluey@6 November 2003 - 11:20
Marxism Capitalism Communism Bushism Blairism, you can have all the ISM`s you want, but it all boils down to one ISM..................
ELITEism
The elite rule the masses (peasants) and always have, it dosn`t matter what ism is in power there is the elite at the top, even right down to your local council, and your local club, there is always a group who force their way to the top.So it dosn,t matter if you want Marxism or Communism, no one will ever be equal, there are those who are born to rule and do anything to stay there, eg. Stalin, Hitler, Bush, QE11.
Murder, assassination, suicided, character assassination, so no matter what type of government you wake up to, you can be rest assured eliteism is in power.
To quote an old saying, we are all created equal, it`s just some are more equal than others.
My friend, this I do agree with, but the person is not in question it is the system... No system can live with out its leader and the leader will always be elite and will always have that little bit more then the rest this is the natural order of politics :lol:

But what is in question is the system and how it is similiar to the other 2, you are correct that all systems share this one thing, but Socialism and Communism has more similiarities considering from the definitions I have read so far, both are derived from one thing and both are to achieve the same thing.

But in all fairness no system of rule or government can survive without the elite at the top, but what I believe Communism tries to achieve is a equal system for all, that of education, medical care, protection and work. How you live although is controlled to some extent is still to some level left in the hands of the individual, you just cannot purchase private schooling or private care because the best of all things is put into the public system.

[sirbluey]

I was brought up in the era of "reds under your beds", these days I couldn,t care less, as long as they clean up the mess when they leave....lol.
Communism in its purest form is ideal, even a utopean state of existing, but unfortunatly it will never exist, in my opinion due to human greed. That is why capitalism is flourishing and taking over the communism states, even the last bastion of communism,China, is succoming to greed.
Capitalism , or at least the nameless few who control it are taking over the political systems of the world and I feel there last great battle is in the middle east, once the middle east is in the hands of the capitalists, three quarters of it is already, then capitalism has won.Won what?..the ism battle. B)

[noname12]

Originally posted by sirbluey@7 November 2003 - 09:50
I was brought up in the era of "reds under your beds", these days I couldn,t care less, as long as they clean up the mess when they leave....lol.
Communism in its purest form is ideal, even a utopean state of existing, but unfortunatly it will never exist, in my opinion due to human greed. That is why capitalism is flourishing and taking over the communism states, even the last bastion of communism,China, is succoming to greed.
Capitalism , or at least the nameless few who control it are taking over the political systems of the world and I feel there last great battle is in the middle east, once the middle east is in the hands of the capitalists, three quarters of it is already, then capitalism has won.Won what?..the ism battle. B)
Karl marx saw that capitalism cannot be sustained. Lenin saw the natural order of evolution in politics was Communism and all uprisings and religions where the product of Oppression, if the world continues as it does either a new religion will be formed or the theories of Karl Marx will be put into practice.

The greed of humanity will always remain regardless of what system is put in place.
But regardless even the most greedy of men at some point will realise that to remain within an oppressive system will do the one thing that he wishes to avoid which is harm to his self and will bring about a change.

People will soon be and are ready to accept a new system, and sooner or later a new system will be put in place, wether it be Communism or a religious idea, I cannot really tell but for 40 years it will exist until a new capitalism is formed under a new banner and the world will go back to how it has been since its birth :lol:

History shows us how a system based on oppression and classes never continues, it always falls after a maximum of 500 years in term unless its a special case.

But I wonder if one can answer a question.... do we see the similarities of Socialism and Communism now and the origins of both?

[Loke the Lurker]

My friend, this I do agree with, but the person is not in question it is the system... No system can live with out its leader and the leader will always be elite and will always have that little bit more then the rest this is the natural order of politics

Is it possible that this is a typical modernist "myth", or a typical modernist interpretation?

Why are you so sure that there always is a hierarchical rule in society?

I think of Emile Durkheim when you write like this. He wrote of two organizational principles of society - organic and mechanic solidarity.

The principle is simple. In primitive agrarian society everybody is quite able to manage his live autonomous from the rest of society., i.e. nobody was really dependent of others to survive or to work.

But in the modern industrial world specialization and professionalization made everybody interdependent of each other. For the electrician to be able to work somebody have to supply tools, material, electricity etc. He is, in other word, trading his special skills with others in a intricate system that makes everybody dependent of each other.

Durkheim observed that religion functioned as the most importent force keeping primitive society together. And this is what he is actually most known for among sociologists of religion. But the question is if the modern late/post-modern society really need something like that to bind it together. Isn't the interdependence enough? And if so, it should also mean that the interdependent relations among the people in the different societies would make a hierarchical rule impossible, or at least extremely difficult.

True or false????

By the way, see the movie the cube. In it the possibillity of a conspiracy vs. autonomic organizational rule is illustrated/discussed.

:zorro:

[noname12]

Originally posted by Loke the Lurker@8 November 2003 - 17:33
Is it possible that this is a typical modernist "myth", or a typical modernist interpretation?

Why are you so sure that there always is a hierarchical rule in society?

I think of Emile Durkheim when you write like this. He wrote of two organizational principles of society - organic and mechanic solidarity.

The principle is simple. In primitive agrarian society everybody is quite able to manage his live autonomous from the rest of society., i.e. nobody was really dependent of others to survive or to work.

But in the modern industrial world specialization and professionalization made everybody interdependent of each other. For the electrician to be able to work somebody have to supply tools, material, electricity etc. He is, in other word, trading his special skills with others in a intricate system that makes everybody dependent of each other.

Durkheim observed that religion functioned as the most importent force keeping primitive society together. And this is what he is actually most known for among sociologists of religion. But the question is if the modern late/post-modern society really need something like that to bind it together. Isn't the interdependence enough? And if so, it should also mean that the interdependent relations among the people in the different societies would make a hierarchical rule impossible, or at least extremely difficult.

True or false????

By the way, see the movie the cube. In it the possibillity of a conspiracy vs. autonomic organizational rule is illustrated/discussed.

:zorro:
No man can learn everything and for that we will always be dependant on something and some one, I would rather put my life in the hands of a government then a person who works for his own greed.

[Loke the Lurker]

Another interesting aspect this discussion highlights is the obvious common human tendency to create heroes or portal figures.

Take psychoanalysis for instance. Everybody knows Freud is its father and that he discovered the subconsiousness... But few people know that Freud actually to large degree synthetizised the teachings of i.e. his own teachers. One can actually argue that Freud was a product of a long intellectual development and that it is there fore quite wrong to picture his work as the work of a single hardworking genius.

As I see it the same can be said of Marx. The "sectarian" need to discredit other socialist teachings right from the beginning shows us that the other socialist traditions was actually very strong and that they probably had a long history in the western society.

I think it was one of the last years Nobel Price winners from Japan who talked a lot about something similar. As I recall it he claimed that his achievement was not so special because if he had not discovered what he did, someone else would have done it shortly after anyhow. He saw discoveries etc. as larger social processes. He said that the same actually can be said of the great discoveries of i.e. Einstein or Newton.

But the Japanese Nobel Price winner also gave one example of a human field in which this principle is not valid. The filed, according to him, is music. His example of this is Mozart. He claimed that, unlike the great scientists, if Mozart had not lived there is nothing to indicate someone would have written the same music instead of Mozart.

My point with this is, to paraphrase Marx himself, Marxism (and its offsprings) is a natural product of history. Not the result of a single man. (But this does not mean that I subscribe to the deterministically flawed Marxism itself).


;)

[Loke the Lurker]

No man can learn everything and for that we will always be dependant on something and some one, I would rather put my life in the hands of a government then a person who works for his own greed.

I'm sorry. I do not want to be provocative but I really do not understand your reply.

What has it to do with my post?????

Explain or leave me in confusion.......

[Loke the Lurker]

My research shows that socialism is actually the Islamic political system put in place by non other then Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) him self.


I think noname12 have to explain this more clearly.

What do you base this on?

Why Islam and not the rest of the abrahamic tradition (judaism and christianity). It is much older than Islam and it is also enriched by preaching of social equality.


:blink:

[noname12]

Originally posted by Loke the Lurker@8 November 2003 - 18:36

My research shows that socialism is actually the Islamic political system put in place by non other then Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) him self.


I think noname12 have to explain this more clearly.

What do you base this on?

Why Islam and not the rest of the abrahamic tradition (judaism and christianity). It is much older than Islam and it is also enriched by preaching of social equality.


:blink:
If you look lower down somewhere, I did infact say jewish AND Islam and my comments are that Islam was the first to fully introduce a socialist system and make it work very nicely with out any conditions.

[noname12]

Originally posted by Loke the Lurker@8 November 2003 - 18:36
Why Islam and not the rest of the abrahamic tradition (judaism and christianity). It is much older than Islam and it is also enriched by preaching of social equality.


:blink:
Oh here we go another moron with some anti-Islam crap.

You have a problem with Islam? Go talk to a brick wall and don't bring it here, I can bring up to many reasons why Islam is too good for you but lets leave that to another thread not one about communism and STICK TO THE GOD DAMNED TOPIC.

[Loke the Lurker]

Oh here we go another moron with some anti-Islam crap.

You have a problem with Islam? Go talk to a brick wall and don't bring it here, I can bring up to many reasons why Islam is too good for you but lets leave that to another thread not one about communism and STICK TO THE GOD DAMNED TOPIC.
:huh: :huh: :huh:

I dont know what you are talking about?!?

I havn't said anything bad about Islam. I am not a religious person, but I actualy find Islam quite sympathetic.

The problem that I wanted to point at is that some form of egalitarian ideals is not at al uncommon among religions. Especially not the "world religions". The natural question is therefor why point at just one tradition, and especially so clearly point at Islam which is the yungest of the Abrahamic tradition.

And to be perfectly clear, I am interessted of religion and I was geniounly qurious how you would argue for your point.

By the way, you have not answered my question about the nature of power in the late/post-modern society.

I think that the Marxist discourse is quite typical for the early modern line of thought. Therefor it is natural, for the participants of the discourse, to think of hegemonical and hierarcical power structures. But is it really fair to Marx to apply his analysis on our contemporary society when he acctually developed his analytical tools for a different society in a another age?


;)

[noname12]

:"> :">
Sorry about the Islam thing.... I guess I am to sensative

And I will answer a Little later... give me about half hour or something cause I imagine I will write a long reply :)

[Loke the Lurker]

Oh here we go another moron with some anti-Islam crap.

Oohh, and please don't call me a moron again. It is my wifes job to do that!

:rolleyes:

[noname12]

Originally posted by Loke the Lurker@9 November 2003 - 00:39

Oh here we go another moron with some anti-Islam crap.

Oohh, and please don't call me a moron again. It is my wifes job to do that!

:rolleyes:
:lol: Look up I did say sorry... I kinda thought you was one of Those typical "Islam is for terrorist" posters (you know who you are)

[noname12]

I am sorry for the late reply... technical difficulties... this is the answer I tried to put in a while back.



The problem that I wanted to point at is that some form of egalitarian ideals is not at al uncommon among religions. Especially not the "world religions". The natural question is therefor why point at just one tradition, and especially so clearly point at Islam which is the yungest of the Abrahamic tradition.


Ok this one first, Look at the Islamic state setup by the Prophet, to my understanding it was the first to perfectly setup a socialist kind of way that was sustained and was accepted by all. But I did say that the Origins of socialism used now can be more clearly taken from the Jewish belief rather then the Islamic one as it is closer to the Ideals of the Jewish state then the Islamic one, where Islam gives 50% to materialism and 50% to spiritualism, basically has a more Religious side to it.



By the way, you have not answered my question about the nature of power in the late/post-modern society.

I did not see that Question I will read up and see it again.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by noname12@9 November 2003 - 10:41
I kinda thought you was one of Those typical "Islam is for terrorist" posters (you know who you are)
Ah, but do you?

I still don't get your point about Islam being the first socialist system, I see no proof of that in any Islamic society today.



:)

[Loke the Lurker]

Ok this one first, Look at the Islamic state setup by the Prophet, to my understanding it was the first to perfectly setup a socialist kind of way that was sustained and was accepted by all.

Yes, but it was actually in-group solidarity. This form of solidarity is not at al unusual among tribes, villages, and social groups like that. How ever, I do admit that this form of solidarity is more unusual in larger social contexts. But, as you most certainly know, Muhammad used the pre-existing tribal structure in the early days. Therefore It might not be so strange to observe a typical in-group - or tribal like - type of solidarity in the beginning of the Muslim tradition.

[/QUOTE]But I did say that the Origins of socialism used now can be more clearly taken from the Jewish belief rather then the Islamic one as it is closer to the Ideals of the Jewish state then the Islamic one, where Islam gives 50% to materialism and 50% to spiritualism, basically has a more Religious side to it. [QUOTE]

I see your point, and I have to admit that the error is mine. I missed that part. But I do not intend to surrender that easily. :D

Instead I would like to point out the family resemblance in the abrahamic tradition. The in-group loyalty is characteristic, not only for islam, but also for the whole tradition. Take for instance Judaism, as you have pointed out they have several beautiful egalitarian principles, and I think it is reasonable to argue that they was/is most widely implemented in smaller social contexts. Prime examples of this would be contemporary hasedian sects and the smaller communities of the ancient world.

The pattern is obvious; first of all, the implementation of egalitarian ideals seems to be typical of young religious communities. Secondly, the implementation also seems to correlate with small social groups. Thirdly, the egalitarian credo is almost always only applied to the own social group.

Now when we have isolated the characteristics of the phenomena, we must ask ourselves, can we find this anywhere else? I, personally, believe so. I believe that this tradition can be traced in many religions, and interestingly enough, also in the common constructions of smaller social groups.

We also have to ask ourselves the question whether this type of idea/ideal is born out of a specific geographical and historical context, or if it is quite natural reaction on similar social circumstances. I, for my self, believe in the similarities of all humankind...

The question of origin is however difficult. We have almost certainly reduced this complex phenomenon when we discussed. Therefore a lot more could certainly be said about this interesting topic.

However, if I do not go to lunch now my wife will slowly roast me over a fire tonight.

Hope this stimulating discussion keeps on and that other people join in again....
:P