From what I understand, there's early socialism as expressed by Marx and Hegel. Applied early socialism was Communism, which took various forms like the Bolsheviks and their Soviet Union (which was and eventually morphed into various forms of autocracy or anacracy). Autocracy would be one guy largely in power, like Stalin. Anacracy would be an elite which holds the reins of political power (like Cambodia 1993-2012). (see Polity Index IV). Note: the opposite of autocracy would be democracy.
So, socialism is this proposed economic system, and Communism was the political application of that economic system. For the Chinese, Mao and others re-interpretted Marx's writings to "un-Westernize" it, so that it made "sense" in their culture. Then the Chinese had "Communism" as they applied it. In other words, "Communism" isn't this one object or meaning.
good information. But generally speaking, anyone who invokes Marx is fair game to be called a Communist or at least have commie sympathies. As you pointed out I am aware young people get confused and are brand new to the world and all that and might think Communism rocks, but those aren't the fad commie's we are talking about.
Waht's he smoking? It ain't tobacco. And Roosevelt was a socialist piece of crap. one of our worst leaders ever. Executive order 6102, anybody?
He's just your average stoner college student with all the answers for the real world who will lecture his parents about how things need to be . Don't know about yall, but all I heard was this guys professors bulllshit being zombied. West didn't even say Wilson founded the progressive movement.
pmchugh wrote:Good to hear your wisdom once more, oh wise elder. Lemme guess, you smoked pot in college too?
This isn't about me or pot. If this guy wants to be taken seriously, he should not be so eager (stupid) to feel cool and show off smoking pot inbetween his burnt out and boot-licked cow-towing goose-stepping professor induced philosophic brain farts.
From what I understand, there's early socialism as expressed by Marx and Hegel. Applied early socialism was Communism, which took various forms like the Bolsheviks and their Soviet Union (which was and eventually morphed into various forms of autocracy or anacracy). Autocracy would be one guy largely in power, like Stalin. Anacracy would be an elite which holds the reins of political power (like Cambodia 1993-2012). (see Polity Index IV). Note: the opposite of autocracy would be democracy.
So, socialism is this proposed economic system, and Communism was the political application of that economic system. For the Chinese, Mao and others re-interpretted Marx's writings to "un-Westernize" it, so that it made "sense" in their culture. Then the Chinese had "Communism" as they applied it. In other words, "Communism" isn't this one object or meaning.
Holly shit, thank you. I was about to have a aneurism due to all the historical and political science abuse going on in this thread. I will be lazy and let you deal with the nonsense.
Phatscotty wrote: good information. But generally speaking, anyone who invokes Marx is fair game to be called a Communist or at least have commie sympathies. As you pointed out I am aware young people get confused and are brand new to the world and all that and might think Communism rocks, but those aren't the fad commie's we are talking about.
I disagree because it depends on why they "invoked Marx" and what Marxism means to them.
This is what Marxism means to me, concerning "back in the day" and currently:
Like I said, Communism is the application of early socialism--the kind of socialism which Marx/Hegel proposed in their Manifesto. Over time, adherents of Marxism have (1) strayed away from his appeal to the state for implementing positive social change and have sought substitutes like positive social change through community-based means, e.g. volunteer work, social awareness organizations, co-ops, etc. They view this substitute as promoting "politics" within the community and without formal governance.
Or, (2) others somewhat strayed from Marx yet still appeal to the state in implementing changes along less "socialist" means, e.g. anti-discrimination laws, antitrust law, more public education, and vague notions like "equal opportunity," etc.
(2) is "less socialist" because it is not like early socialism, which advocated for the state ownership over the means of production yet allowed people to retain personal property--but not land, businesses, etc. "Less socialism" is more about state control over the means of production, via regulation and certain legislation.
There's the issue of control rights and ownership rights. Depending on the magnitude of control that the government exerts over your property, your ownership rights could be only in name, i.e. you own it, but you can't choose how to use it.
(3) is the group which is "more" socialist in the sense that they advocate for the state de facto ownership over certain means of production, while the private sector has de jure ownership. In other words, non-government individuals and group can own hospitals and insurance companies, but given the high degree of control rights that the government enjoys, they have little control over "their" means of production.
US Progressives tend to be either (2) or (3), which can be construed as being "Communist," but that would be an inaccurate label since Communism refers to applied early socialism, which is the state ownership over the means of (nearly all) production. To me, calling them "socialists" is accurate enough, but remember, that term can be misleading because it depends on whether they're early Marxist, or (1), (2), or (3). (Calling them "socialist" is probably similar to the term "social democrats.")
Baron Von PWN wrote: Holly shit, thank you. I was about to have a aneurism due to all the historical and political science abuse going on in this thread. I will be lazy and let you deal with the nonsense.
Or don't you mean, "I will be more efficient with my time by outsourcing this task to you"??? =D
Phatscotty wrote:If we can just agree that Marxism is Marxism, half of this would not be necessary.
But language isn't that simple. It's interpreted subjectively and by many individuals, and their interaction leads to outcomes of a generally accepted term and/or of a term that is only accepted in certain groups, and blah blah blah. This post of mine tries to explain the meaning of Marxism as related to this thread.
Baron Von PWN wrote: Holly shit, thank you. I was about to have a aneurism due to all the historical and political science abuse going on in this thread. I will be lazy and let you deal with the nonsense.
Or don't you mean, "I will be more efficient with my time by outsourcing this task to you"??? =D
More, the opportunity cost of talking to scotty is too high.
pmchugh wrote:Good to hear your wisdom once more, oh wise elder. Lemme guess, you smoked pot in college too?
This isn't about me or pot. If this guy wants to be taken seriously, he should not be so eager (stupid) to feel cool and show off smoking pot inbetween his burnt out and boot-licked cow-towing goose-stepping professor induced philosophic brain farts.
I was only kiddin ya scotty.
2009-08-12 03:35:31 - Squirrels Hat: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! 2009-08-12 03:44:25 - Mr. Squirrel: Do you think my hat will attack me?
Phatscotty wrote:If we can just agree that Marxism is Marxism, half of this would not be necessary.
But language isn't that simple. It's interpreted subjectively and by many individuals, and their interaction leads to outcomes of a generally accepted term and/or of a term that is only accepted in certain groups, and blah blah blah. This post of mine tries to explain the meaning of Marxism as related to this thread.
1-10, how warm would you say Obama is to Marx and his ideas and theories. 1-10, how warm would you say Obama is to Adam Smith and his ideas and theories.
ITT thread, BBS mistakes Hegel for Engels, compounds them into Marx, then misunderstands all of the above's theories, and says that "progressives" are communists. Top class economic theory.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Another intelligent Progressive response to West...
Someone has to ask Allen West, Republican candidate for Congress: “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
While he might deny party membership, he would have difficulty disputing that his 22-years Army stint was living the Marxist dream.
West – the retired Army lietuenant colonel running the second time for Congress in U. S. House District 22 – never had to spend a day worrying about corporate bankruptcy, competition, layoffs or a bounced paycheck. Housing, healthcare and food were taken care of by the government.
I am not suggesting the Army should be any other way or that risking your life does not justify this economic security.
What I am saying is that West is hypocritical to question national health insurance, while having taken advantage of a VA healthcare system where everything is owned by the government and everyone works for the government.
It’s absurd to claim to be a spokesman for free enterprise when you choose a professional career of living off the government teat and are now trying to get another “gummint job.
West is a hypocrite.
Risking your life serving your country in the military is "living off the government teat"?????
I'm telling you guys, they are losing their minds. It's going to be a crazy, CRAZY Summer. Fasten your seatbelts gang! It's gonna be a repeat of the Progressive 30's.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
You'd have thought they'd be more subtle infiltrating US politics than all becoming congressman and joining the same caucus. No wonder they flew under the radar of Homeland Security.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
It seems to me Mr. West is playing a somewhat intellectually dishonest game here. He is taking a political ideology/bent which has evolved from Marx's political theories, and calling it communism.
Which from a strictly political scientific perspective while dodgy could be argued. However he is making this link with, in my opinion, full knowledge that the general public will make the association with the Communist dictatorships of the 20th century. "oh my god 80 members of congress are basically Stalin!"
Progressives or democratic socialists as they would be called anywhere else. Are not the traditional picture of communists. Their aims may be similar in an extremely broad way, but their means are extremely different as well as how they wish to achieve those aims.
1. The Marxist view of history is such that the mode of production dictates social class structure.
2. Marx notes that the natural flow of history took the world out of the feudal age and into capitalism.* Therefore, he supported the development of capitalism (the rather unrestrained variety we saw in the Industrial Age) in countries which had not yet left the Feudal Age (like Germany).
3. Capitalism, according to Marx, has 2 classes: bourgeois and proletariat. The capitalist system for various reasons would concentrate power into fewer and fewer capitalist hands until there were so few that the proletariat revolution would occur.
4. This revolution will lead us to socialism, where the old mode of production is destroyed and replaced by a new one. Marx lists several specific changes that socialism will bring.
5. This new society will be of a single class. "When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class." Since there are no class antagonisms, there is no political power, and eventually the state withers away.
*Classical economists saw 3 classes: laborer, capitalist and landlord, who all were at constant struggle for power. The switch to capitalism was marked by a vast decrease in the power of landlords, leaving us only two classes.
Where I believe BBS makes the mistake in is confusing what Marx would call petty-bourgeois socialism and conservative socialism (the examples he listed in his (1) group and non-revolutionary varieties such as Fabian socialism, social democracy etc) assomething that developed afterwards, when it is something Marx dedicates an entire section to in the Manifesto itself.
Last edited by GreecePwns on Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Baron Von PWN wrote:It seems to me Mr. West is playing a somewhat intellectually dishonest game here. He is taking a political ideology/bent which has evolved from Marx's political theories, and calling it communism.
Which from a strictly political scientific perspective while dodgy could be argued. However he is making this link with, in my opinion, full knowledge that the general public will make the association with the Communist dictatorships of the 20th century. "oh my god 80 members of congress are basically Stalin!"
Progressives or democratic socialists as they would be called anywhere else. Are not the traditional picture of communists. Their aims may be similar in an extremely broad way, but their means are extremely different as well as how they wish to achieve those aims.
Well, how about we examine the actual positions of the progressive party and compare it to the 10 point plan of the Communist Manifesto.
Baron Von PWN wrote:It seems to me Mr. West is playing a somewhat intellectually dishonest game here. He is taking a political ideology/bent which has evolved from Marx's political theories, and calling it communism.
Which from a strictly political scientific perspective while dodgy could be argued. However he is making this link with, in my opinion, full knowledge that the general public will make the association with the Communist dictatorships of the 20th century. "oh my god 80 members of congress are basically Stalin!"
Progressives or democratic socialists as they would be called anywhere else. Are not the traditional picture of communists. Their aims may be similar in an extremely broad way, but their means are extremely different as well as how they wish to achieve those aims.
Most economic views nowadays evolve from Marx. They also evolve from other theorists, but it's not as if a single set of views evolved from Marx. An economist who hasn't read Marx is a bad economist. Especially if they haven't read him for purely ideological reasons.
Also, progressives outside of the US would be considered conservatives in most of the world. I'm not kidding you on this, just travel around.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Phatscotty, I'll give you progressive taxes, public transport/communications, and public education for everyone as definite similarities. The others are a complete stretch, except for maybe a single public bank.
Again, the progressives wanted to do this through nonviolent, democratic means (hence the name democratic socialists), which would put them at odds with Marx.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
. Don't know about yall, but all I heard was this guys professors bulllshit being zombied. West didn't even say Wilson founded the progressive movement.
