Marxism/communism/socialism

[hobbes]

my gripe is that you shouldn't spruke for agendas that you do not comprehend

Originally posted by echidna@1 November 2003 - 08:01
castro like many heads of state has probably infringed on the ideals of human rights
for a cat in a giant joseph stalin shaped house you sure like chucking rocks around

Ok, what sort of proverb amalgam is this? Surely I am missing some reference or inside joke here. (This has the potential to be my new signature, unless, of course, the mods receive too many complaints.)

I will take the liberty of adding a ".", after "human rights", but I'm still left a little baffled by that final line.

Will be back to check on this later, I'm going outside to inspect the shape of MY house.

"spruke" was not found in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

Keep on sprukin'--Well, I cannot find the word in any dictionary, but it appears that our man on the street down-under has heard it. It appears to be equivalent to "hawking"-to offer for sale by calling out in the street.

Must have been an English word that visited Australia and liked it so much it never came back.

[Biggles]

I shall watch with interest also.

I confess I was curious as to the exact nature of the verb "spruke" but I didn't like to ask.



I do feel that interesting though Noname's signature is, it has distracted somewhat from the the question Skweeky originally posed.

A discussion regarding the nature and aims of Socialism, Communism and Marxism (and perhaps in the UK's case, Fabianism), may be more to the point.

Incidently, I think Nonames's avatar signature is good. Although bleak, Stalin's observation is correct and we should always bear it in mind least we forget. The other signature reveals more about Stalin than any actual observation of the human condition and consequently is less valuable in my opinion. Rather than T52s Noname, you should check out some of the Stalinist era propaganda art. They raised the poster depicting harvest time and ship building to an absolute art form - much more evocative of the period.

[blackhatknight]

Originally posted by Will_518@1 November 2003 - 17:16
You draw a circle? But there is quite a difference between extreme left wing and extreme right wing.

This is your opinion and a good one at that please note my opinion is that there is no difference one can be so far right wing (capitalist and democractic to the point there is one is argueable, or lack for a better work soviegin leader) or so far left wing they end in dictatorship (the poeple's choice is so emboided by one set of pople and eventually one person), which is the same end result (in my opinion)

[noname12]

Originally posted by Biggles@1 November 2003 - 22:38
I shall watch with interest also.

I confess I was curious as to the exact nature of the verb "spruke" but I didn't like to ask.

 

I do feel that interesting though Noname's signature is, it has distracted somewhat from the the question Skweeky originally posed.

A discussion regarding the nature and aims of Socialism, Communism and Marxism (and perhaps in the UK's case, Fabianism), may be more to the point.

Incidently, I think Nonames's avatar signature is good. Although bleak, Stalin's observation is correct and we should always bear it in mind least we forget. The other signature reveals more about Stalin than any actual observation of the human condition and consequently is less valuable in my opinion. Rather than T52s Noname, you should check out some of the Stalinist era propaganda art. They raised the poster depicting harvest time and ship building to an absolute art form - much more evocative of the period.

I must answer though I tried to resist, thank you biggles for taking a lighter tone with me

For those who do know me, they would understand my intentions of both the avatar and sig and bouth quotes underneath them. Every one has there oen intentions but also I might add that those who do know me would know that it is not made for contreversy nor harm nor attention but a little smart ass'ness.

But I might add some Soviet posters instead of tanks.

Thank you.

[MediaSlayer]

Originally posted by hobbes@1 November 2003 - 21:05

my gripe is that you shouldn't spruke for agendas that you do not comprehend

Keep on sprukin'

@blackhatknight-f.y.i. if you look back to my very first post in this thread, you will see i'm not really participating in an intellectual discussion of communism/marxism/socialism, although some haven't noticed that yet(judging by the replies). I don't feel like arguing, so I'm just posting jokes or what not.

@hobbes-1st rule of debate(according to echidna)-when in doubt, overwhelm your opponent and end your speech with a one liner that contains a word they won't recognize.

[Skweeky]

the thing is....

I do know something about history, and I find a picture of Stalin quite offensive, even when it's meant ironically. I'm not going to ask someone to change his sig though, everyone to their own I say

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by MediaSlayer@2 November 2003 - 14:35
@hobbes-1st rule of debate(according to echidna)-when in doubt, overwhelm your opponent and end your speech with a one liner that contains a word they won't recognize.

My father was a "spruker". He worked the east end of London in the 50's.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, Del Boy (Only Fools and Horses) was a spruker.

[j2k4]

Sorry to have arrived here so late, but I brought my 2 cents, so here it is:

Communism is not worth discussing, as it's success relies on some naive and misbegotten perception of the inherent "goodness" of man, i.e. "All men are consumed by altruistic thoughts". Nothing could be further from the truth.

The rise and fall of the U.S.S.R. should tell us all we need to know about that.

Socialism is a threat, as it constitutes a "half-measure", which apologists for Communism deem harmless: It is "Communism-Lite".

Socialism derives it's viability (that is to say, in the non-theoretical, real-world sense) from it's habit of attacking three basic social institutions: Religion, the Family, and private property.

Religion, because it offers a rival authority to the State.

The Family, because it means a rival loyalty to the State.

Private property, because it means material independence from the State.

Socialism, and it's big brother, Communism, brook neither rivals nor independence.

[noname12]

Originally posted by j2k4@2 November 2003 - 21:00
Sorry to have arrived here so late, but I brought my 2 cents, so here it is:

Communism is not worth discussing, as it's success relies on some naive and misbegotten perception of the inherent "goodness" of man, i.e. "All men are consumed by altruistic thoughts". Nothing could be further from the truth.

The rise and fall of the U.S.S.R. should tell us all we need to know about that.

Socialism is a threat, as it constitutes a "half-measure", which apologists for Communism deem harmless: It is "Communism-Lite".

Socialism derives it's viability (that is to say, in the non-theoretical, real-world sense) from it's habit of attacking three basic social institutions: Religion, the Family, and private property.

Religion, because it offers a rival authority to the State.

The Family, because it means a rival loyalty to the State.

Private property, because it means material independence from the State.

Socialism, and it's big brother, Communism, brook neither rivals nor independence.

The Fall of the USSR actually has nothing to do with Communism it self, more to do with the stalin reigiem.

The actually reason of the banning of religion came when Carl Marx first pointed out that the christian authority was failing and could no longer sustain power, He also did come to the conclusion that the world in it current state was not ready to accept a view which was full on religious or that which was different to christianity.

He did however come with an idea that would both give a certain amount of control and reliability. As I said he did indeed suggest communism but a Student of his said there was no reasonable way of implimenting it and that Socialism is the best route and easier for the people to swallow.

Communism in it self can be worked if it was done by trotski's idea,s of slowly introducing it... thats the way all radical changes and ideas have been accepted through first adding suger with the medicine then giving the real bitter stuff.

If communism was implimented fully to its origin then there is no reason to believe it wouldnt be succesful and as for it not worthy of debate as it is such a big part of our history, longer then WWII it is more then worthy of discussion, debate and study.

But the argument is not my sig nor the implimentation, let us make a new thread about those, one for morality and sigs in internet life ( ) and one for implementation of the Communism theory. For now the argument is the similarities, I move that some one makes a second version to this cutting out all my useless drivle and just add the appropriate remarks of this arguement.

Edit: Sig has been changed... I wonder who's going to complain next

[Rat Faced]

Socialism derives it's viability (that is to say, in the non-theoretical, real-world sense) from it's habit of attacking three basic social institutions: Religion, the Family, and private property.

You are talking about Communism here, im sure. Not Socialism.

Socialism was 1st tried as part of a Religious belief, and the movement in general doesnt attack any Religion, whereas Communism (State Capitalism) does.

The only way that you can say the "Family" is attacked, is that the well off have to contribute more towards those that cannot manage...well, they are families too. So some upper Middle Class family cant quite manage to send their Kids to University, so that some other Kids can eat. Oh, hang on....they can, as they would also be helped by the State, unless they want to get into a "Named" University and join the "Old School Tie" Brigade. Again, Communism (State Capitalism) appears to encourage what you are saying.

Private Property? Well, my father bought his council house at a discount from a Socialist Council, under a Socialist Government. That appears to be encouraging private property, not discouraging it. Of course under Communism (State Capitalism) the State owns all property...

(Before all the UK lot start saying "Right to Buy" was brought in by Thatcher... This was pre Thatcher, under a Labour Government..... "Right to Buy" was brought in to regulate what was already happening all over the country. It was the Tory councils, in general, that werent allowing people to buy their council houses prior to the RTB regulations)


I think this is another "Symantics" argument.

What the USA have called Communism, isnt. Its State Capitalism. The USSR ceased being a "Socialist State" in 1929. China, i cant ever remember being "Socialist".

As has been said again and again on this thread...... no true communist/marxist state has ever existed, and although the intent was to create "Socialist" states, the Communist States didnt do this.

.....however many European States have been, and still are "Socialist".

They have things like universal free Health Care, Education, and better unemployment benefits and retirement benefits than the USA, and most pay less overall taxation to achieve this.

What was your argument again?

The Fall of the USSR actually has nothing to do with Communism it self, more to do with the stalin reigiem.

Erm....this is so obviously crap, that there is no need to comment.

Considering how long ago the Stalin regime was, when the USSR "Fell" 90% of the population werent even alive when he was around...