Teach me Communism

[The Question]

That's exactly what Anarchy is. Calling it an ideology is like saying Atheism is a religion, yes, but it's the best word for what you are describing.

Look, any political system is an ideology. If anarchy wasn't an ideology, there would be no means by which to quantify and label it -- but there is, which makes it an ideology. Here's the dictionary definitions:

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Now the last one actually defies the first two. Why? Because an absence of authority in a group of human beings requires a concerted effort on the part of the individuals involved. Coordinated effort directly contradicts the principle of anarchy.

 

[MessengerX]

What about a compromise, like the tribal system? A chieftain for 20 or so people.

 

[The Question]

Can you see that working in an international economy?

 

[MessengerX]

In order for there to be an international economy, people need to be organised. A nation itself is organised along some sort of ideological lines.

If an international economy must exist, then what would be the 'best' ideology for them to coexist and thrive with?

 

[The Question]

In order for there to be an international economy, people need to be organised. A nation itself is organised along some sort of ideological lines.

Yes, it is.

If an international economy must exist, then what would be the 'best' ideology for them to coexist and thrive with?

Ahhh. Now we're getting somewhere! Once you leave behind the fantasy of a 'perfect' ideology, you free yourself to deal with the reality of a best ideology. Of course, it's not a question of whether or not an international economy must exist -- the fact is that one does exist. We deal in reality here. IMO, the best one is the one we have in the U.S. -- tempered capitalism.

 

[MessengerX]

Ahhh. Now we're getting somewhere! Once you leave behind the fantasy of a 'perfect' ideology, you free yourself to deal with the reality of a best ideology. Of course, it's not a question of whether or not an international economy must exist -- the fact is that one does exist. We deal in reality here. IMO, the best one is the one we have in the U.S. -- tempered capitalism.

But Communism isn't just economic. Capitalism is an economic system, and even though it might be the best, the U.S. seems to be suffering from a lot of ailments.

 

[The Question]

But Communism isn't just economic.

You're right, it's not -- interestingly, though, Communist social theory is the only part of the sales pitch that remotely matches the reality of its practice, which is to say it presages the violence, suffering, oppression and death necessary to keep a nation's populace imprisoned in a Communist economic system.

Capitalism is an economic system, and even though it might be the best, the U.S. seems to be suffering from a lot of ailments.

Yet not as many ailments as any other system. Again, you're still looking for an impossible 'perfect' when only 'best' can be achieved.

 

[WordInterrupted]

However, "free market" is not an ideology -- Capitalism is the ideology you're thinking of

Yet more pointless semantic quibbling. Either term is appropriate.

and it's one which attempts, again, to apply the general theory to large groups when it enters practice.

That's certainly true. When you said that all ideologies treated people as "collective beings," I thought you meant that all ideologies are collectivist.

 

[MessengerX]

You're right, it's not -- interestingly, though, Communist social theory is the only part of the sales pitch that remotely matches the reality of its practice, which is to say it presages the violence, suffering, oppression and death necessary to keep a nation's populace imprisoned in a Communist economic system.

Is it like this in all Communist states? China seems to fit the model of the oppressive state. What about Cuba?

And what if it was global? If global Communist states didn't fight each other like the Sino-Soviet split, wouldn't they be able to use comparative advantage for the benefit of all?

Yet not as many ailments as any other system. Again, you're still looking for an impossible 'perfect' when only 'best' can be achieved.

I'm not. There are other nations which are into Capitalism, but didn't get bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's a strawman, I know, but wouldn't a social ideology complement the economic ideology of capitalism?

 

[The Question]

That's certainly true. When you said that all ideologies treated people as "collective beings," I thought you meant that all ideologies are collectivist.

Which only shows that you need more practice at thinking.

 

[The Question]

Is it like this in all Communist states? China seems to fit the model of the oppressive state. What about Cuba?

And what if it was global? If global Communist states didn't fight each other like the Sino-Soviet split, wouldn't they be able to use comparative advantage for the benefit of all?


I'm not. There are other nations which are into Capitalism, but didn't get bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's a strawman, I know, but wouldn't a social ideology complement the economic ideology of capitalism?

It did, which is why we're still involved in Iraq despite not having plundered all their resources in order to resell them elsewhere.

 

[MessengerX]

It did, which is why we're still involved in Iraq despite not having plundered all their resources in order to resell them elsewhere.

What about the lucrative contracts given to companies belonging to members of the Bush administration? What about the pipeline that was supposed to be constructed going to Haifa?

 

[The Question]

Is it like this in all Communist states? China seems to fit the model of the oppressive state. What about Cuba?

Cuba is an oppressive state, or haven't you noticed that people have to escape if they want to leave it?

And what if it was global? If global Communist states didn't fight each other like the Sino-Soviet split, wouldn't they be able to use comparative advantage for the benefit of all?

You still don't understand -- there is no way to benefit all, because by trying to benefit all it is necessary to disadvantage each.

I'm not. There are other nations which are into Capitalism, but didn't get bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Which leaves Capitalism still as the 'best' ideology, doesn't it?

 

[MessengerX]

You still don't understand -- there is no way to benefit all, because by trying to benefit all it is necessary to disadvantage each.

A very small percentage of the population has access to enourmous resources. I wouldn't mind putting them at a disadvantage.

Which leaves Capitalism still as the 'best' ideology, doesn't it?

How? It didn't prevent the war in Iraq.

It's only an economic policy.

 

[Sarek]

Shut the fuck up MX.

 

[MessengerX]

No spamming in the Bazaar, Sarek.

 

[Sarek]

Not spam. Rather, a request based on your posts.

Now shut the fuck up MX.

 

[MessengerX]

I'll take your request under advisement. Now stop spamming.

 

[Sarek]

Now shut up.

 

[MessengerX]

I'll take your request under advisement. Now stop spamming.