Can you ban for ideology? - General

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40198649][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism#Soviet_repressions[/url][/QUOTE] "Critics have argued that capitalist countries could be held responsible for a similar number of deaths. Noam Chomsky, for example, writes that Amartya Sen in the early 1980s estimated the excess of mortality in India over China due to the latter's "relatively equitable distribution of medical resources" at close to 4 million a year. Chomsky therefore argues that, "suppos[ing] we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers" to India, "the democratic capitalist 'experiment' has caused more deaths than in the entire history of... Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, and tens of millions more since, in India alone." again, if you want to say that nazi germany and the ussr are equatable, you have to look at capitalism as equatable to these ideologies as well.

[QUOTE=Iago;40198756][url]http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114760-The-Death-Tolls-of-Socialism-And-Capitalism[/url] I googled "deaths capitalism caused" and pressed im feeling lucky. I relized I picked a pretty shit source.[/QUOTE] You can't forget my favourite; the Freestate of Congo :v:

[QUOTE=Iago;40198756][url]http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114760-The-Death-Tolls-of-Socialism-And-Capitalism[/url] I googled "deaths capitalism caused" and pressed im feeling lucky. I relized I picked a pretty shit source.[/QUOTE] Capitalism has ironically led to warfare becoming less profitable and less likely to do. When goods do not cross borders, armies shall.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40198835]Capitalism has ironically led to warfare becoming less profitable and less likely to do. When goods do not cross borders, armies shall.[/QUOTE] these two paragraphs are not related. capitalism and free trade are not the same. many capitalists(most, actually) believe in protectionist or interventionist trade policy and many socialists believe in a free trade policy. the idea of land ownership and movement of goods across borders or societies is not something that is necessarily tied.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40198783]"Critics have argued that capitalist countries could be held responsible for a similar number of deaths. Noam Chomsky, for example, writes that Amartya Sen in the early 1980s estimated the excess of mortality in India over China due to the latter's "relatively equitable distribution of medical resources" at close to 4 million a year. Chomsky therefore argues that, "suppos[ing] we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers" to India, "the democratic capitalist 'experiment' has caused more deaths than in the entire history of... Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, and tens of millions more since, in India alone." again, if you want to say that nazi germany and the ussr are equatable, you have to look at capitalism as equatable to these ideologies as well.[/QUOTE] even if i trusted that figure (i seem to remember china in the early 80s being only slightly better than in the mao years, so getting accurate death rates from it is gonna be difficult) or chomsky (apologist/denialist for the cambodian genocide), it still does not take into account the number of lives created or saved by capitalism, nor the multiplicative factor we'd have to weigh in caused by the gigantic improvement in the [I]quality[/I] of life attributable to capitalism.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40199037]even if i trusted that figure (i seem to remember china in the early 80s being only slightly better than in the mao years, so getting accurate death rates from it is gonna be difficult) or chomsky (apologist/denialist for the cambodian genocide), it still does not take into account the number of lives created or saved by capitalism, nor the multiplicative factor we'd have to weigh in caused by the gigantic improvement in the [I]quality[/I] of life attributable to capitalism.[/QUOTE] so what about the number of lives saved by nazism or stalinism or maoism? how do you measure that in the first place?

[QUOTE=Miricx;40188359]Nazism would be good for the spoiled kids to get some manners. That's just my opinion..[/QUOTE] Yeah, join the hitler youth today! [/sarcasm]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40199056]so what about the number of lives saved by nazism or stalinism or maoism?[/quote] not that many [quote]how do you measure that in the first place?[/QUOTE] well i don't know exactly but if i had to do it i would perhaps start with looking at how increased personal wealth increases one's lifespan, or how (or whether? i actually don't know here) profit incentives encourage pharmaceutical companies to develop life-saving drugs, and so on. it's easier to measure how capitalism directly improves existing lives but as for measuring how it saves lives i don't really know. i'd imagine you could do some interesting statistical comparisons between say, east and west germany (kinda like a twins-reared-apart study) to see if you could extract something meaningful but other than that i don't really know

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40198928]these two paragraphs are not related. capitalism and free trade are not the same. many capitalists(most, actually) believe in protectionist or interventionist trade policy and many socialists believe in a free trade policy. the idea of land ownership and movement of goods across borders or societies is not something that is necessarily tied.[/QUOTE] I see capitalism as free trade, removal of subsidies/tariffs, and the state not intervening too much into the economy, whilst also preventing moneyed cabals trying to misuse the power of the state to favour one industry/group of persons over another.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40199187]not that many[/quote] china saved millions of lives through modernization and equitable distribution of healthcare while inequal distribution of healthcare continues to plague many capitalist nations(esp. the usa). [quote]well i don't know exactly but if i had to do it i would perhaps start with looking at how increased personal wealth increases one's lifespan, or how (or whether? i actually don't know here) profit incentives encourage pharmaceutical companies to develop life-saving drugs, and so on. it's easier to measure how capitalism directly improves existing lives but as for measuring how it saves lives i don't really know. i'd imagine you could do some interesting statistical comparisons between say, east and west germany (kinda like a twins-reared-apart study) to see if you could extract something meaningful but other than that i don't really know[/QUOTE] well if you don't know how to properly measure your own assertion i don't think it is incredibly useful for the discussion. would you say the lives saved through stalinism is equal to the lives saved through nazism? if you don't even know how to measure it, how can you say that these two ideologies have been applied with equal results? [QUOTE=Sobotnik;40199208]I see capitalism as free trade, removal of subsidies/tariffs, and the state not intervening too much into the economy, whilst also preventing moneyed cabals trying to misuse the power of the state to favour one industry/group of persons over another.[/QUOTE] that isn't capitalism. it doesn't matter if you see it that way or not. you are loading your own preconceived notions onto a word that doesn't necessarily imply any of that. "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of capital goods and most natural resources, with the creation of goods and services for profit." - wikipedia capitalism doesn't imply free trade, or imply removal of subsidies, it only implies that the means of production are owned privately instead of publicly or collectively. [editline]7th April 2013[/editline] also by trotskyist ideology, the ussr under stalin was capitalist. therefore, you could say that capitalism has caused a shitload of suffering anyways.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40199311]china saved millions of lives through modernization and equitable distribution of healthcare while inequal distribution of healthcare continues to plague many capitalist nations(esp. the usa).[/quote] usa has great healthcare what are you smoking i mean even for the pricetag [quote]well if you don't know how to properly measure your own assertion i don't think it is incredibly useful for the discussion. would you say the lives saved through stalinism is equal to the lives saved through nazism? if you don't even know how to measure it, how can you say that these two ideologies have been applied with equal results?[/quote] i dunno i'm not a statistician [editline]7th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;40199311]also by trotskyist ideology, the ussr under stalin was capitalist. therefore, you could say that capitalism has caused a shitload of suffering anyways.[/QUOTE] if trotsky said stalin's russia was capitalist then why do people take him seriously that has basically no correspondence with reality at all

"Your freedom ends when I disagree with what MIGHT be your opinion" -Starpluck's logic

oh and when people say capitalism they're usually not meaning the dictionary "means of production owned privately" definition, the "free market" prefix is usually implicit

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40199311] that isn't capitalism. it doesn't matter if you see it that way or not. you are loading your own preconceived notions onto a word that doesn't necessarily imply any of that. "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of capital goods and most natural resources, with the creation of goods and services for profit." - wikipedia capitalism doesn't imply free trade, or imply removal of subsidies, it only implies that the means of production are owned privately instead of publicly or collectively.[/QUOTE] Yes, I also think that private ownership should exist as well. Capitalism is usually thought of by most people as "mainstream economics".

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40199037]chomsky (apologist/denialist for the cambodian genocide)[/QUOTE] Have you ever read anything of Chomsky? Or even why people claim that? All he did was criticise a report on the Cambodian genocide, in which the original author actually agreed with him. "Noam Chomsky's corrections have caused me great distress. By pointing out serious errors in citation, he calls into question not only my respect for texts and the truth, but also the cause I was trying to defend. ... I fully understand the concerns of Noam Chomsky, whose honesty and sense of freedom I admire immensely, in criticizing, with his admirable sense of exactitude, the accusations directed at the Cambodian regime." - Jean Lacouture He's literally the worlds most important intellectual alive today.

Also there hasn't been a single instance of an economic system that underwent economic growth, possessing the minimum of private ownership. Even the USSR had limited forms of private ownership of resources and land. Private farms (making up about 2% of agricultural land) collectively produced a quarter of all food in Russia.

This thread is getting pretty off topic. Remember this is about members getting banned for having differant opinions then mods not capitalism and whatever.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40199361]usa has great healthcare what are you smoking i mean even for the pricetag[/quote] it's unequal and allows a lot of people to suffer needlessly. [quote]if trotsky said stalin's russia was capitalist then why do people take him seriously that has basically no correspondence with reality at all[/QUOTE] the argument is that in the ussr stalin or the communist party was the "only capitalist". that the state was the private owner and worked to create profit for itself. this is very capitalist. trotsky also didn't say it, it was an evolution of trotskyist ideology.

[QUOTE=Iago;40198756][url]http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114760-The-Death-Tolls-of-Socialism-And-Capitalism[/url] I googled "deaths capitalism caused" and pressed im feeling lucky. I relized I picked a pretty shit source.[/QUOTE] Also: [quote]What is important to understand is that fewer people suffered, by far, under the USSR than before revolution.[/quote] That is not reality.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40199472]the argument is that in the ussr stalin or the communist party was the "only capitalist". that the state was the private owner and worked to create profit for itself. this is very capitalist. trotsky also didn't say it, it was an evolution of trotskyist ideology.[/QUOTE] oh, like a sovcorp? seems reasonable enough

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40199382]oh and when people say capitalism they're usually not meaning the dictionary "means of production owned privately" definition, the "free market" prefix is usually implicit[/QUOTE] that's true, but it's important to understand what the terms mean when discussing them. i mean people bastardizing and corrupting words is the reason terms like libertarian-socialist or free-communist are generally considered oxymorons today in the usa. if we are simply going to load our own notions on top of words it becomes very hard to communicate ideas when someone else doesn't share the same associations. i don't think free trade and capitalism is necessarily linked, so sobotnik saying that capitalism prevents war through free trade isn't really valid to me because i believe in free trade without believing in capitalism. [editline]7th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;40199483]Also: That is not reality.[/QUOTE] it's a very vague assertion that can be true or not true depending on how you look at it. if you were a ukranian that quote would probably be incredibly disgusting.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40199511]if you were a ukranian that quote would probably be incredibly disgusting.[/QUOTE] what

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40199483]Also: That is not reality.[/QUOTE] I only posted that because you kept asking me to post my sources, you're the one who won't let an argument die once you been proven wrong. Capitalism caused deaths, doesn't matter that other ideology caused more deaths. People still die.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40199511]it's a very vague assertion that can be true or not true depending on how you look at it. if you were a ukranian that quote would probably be incredibly disgusting.[/QUOTE] The quote is patently false. Life in the late Russian Empire was much better than life in the USSR. At least one of them was reforming, moving towards a free-market economy, and introducing gradual political and social reforms. The revolutionaries in the civil war basically looked at the peasantry climbing the ladder to freedom, and kicked it away. [editline]7th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Iago;40199548]I only posted that because you kept asking me to post my sources, you're the one who won't let an argument die once you been proven wrong. Capitalism caused deaths, doesn't matter that other ideology caused more deaths. People still die.[/QUOTE] Except for the fact you firstly used incredibly asinine figures (at least half of which are physically impossible and invented), you then backpedaled to say "It killed a lot of people". What are the figures? Many ideologies are inherently disgusting in that they demand a strict adherence to a single line of thinking, with the assertion that everybody else is wrong. When implemented in reality, the experiments are such failures it's shocking to think they would have succeeded in hindsight.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40199539]what[/QUOTE] the ukranian famines caused a lot of death and certainly wasn't an improvement compared to before the revolution. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;40199568]The quote is patently false. Life in the late Russian Empire was much better than life in the USSR. At least one of them was reforming, moving towards a free-market economy, and introducing gradual political and social reforms. The revolutionaries in the civil war basically looked at the peasantry climbing the ladder to freedom, and kicked it away. [/QUOTE] sources? how did life get worse after the revolution excluding the shit like the famines and shit stalin did. what was worse about lenin's reign of the ussr, exactly?

Sobotnik I just want to discuss the injustice of another member's ban, not debate a non-existent argument.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40199607]the ukranian famines caused a lot of death and certainly wasn't an improvement compared to before the revolution.[/quote] well yeah that's exactly what sobot said - life under the commies was way worse compared to the czars

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40199607]how did life get worse after the revolution excluding the shit like the famines and shit stalin did.[/quote] Well, this is convenient. "How did it get worse minus a couple of examples"? [quote]what was worse about lenin's reign of the ussr, exactly?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism[/url] [quote]In the cities and surrounding countryside, the population experienced hardships as a result of the war. Peasants refused to co-operate in producing food. Workers began migrating from the cities to the countryside, where the chances to feed oneself were higher, thus further decreasing the possibility of in natural exchange of industrial goods for food and worsening the plight of the remaining urban population. Between 1918 and 1920, Petrograd lost 72% of its population, whilst Moscow lost 53%.[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Ganja_revolt[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_rebellion[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion[/url] I have several history books on this time (the peoples tradegy being one big one), some of which contain diaries. Frequent shortages of food, electrical lighting, water, fuel and staple goods was often the norm. Peasant rebellions and riots were also common, where anybody who had the suspicion of being a "boorhoozis", "German" or "Jewish" was more or less murdered. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy#Propaganda[/url] [quote]Universities purged thirty percent of students because they did not agree with communist principles. Schools lacked supplies. Community centers that were meant to run lectures, films, and meetings became run down without any participation.[17] While trying to build communist culture, the Bolsheviks also tried to destroy culture not explicitly supporting communism. Bolsheviks thought religion threatened communist ideology, so they used their propaganda organs to wage a war on religion. Komsomol members were taught to disrupt religious activities and celebrations. Agitprop, the propaganda machine, created an anti-religious group "League of the Godless". Agitprop organized debates between religious leaders and scientists. In Gomel province, a rumor spread that sacred scrolls discovered in a loaf of bread commanded the peasants not to sell grain to the Bolsheviks at 65 kopecks. Bolsheviks tried targeting church organization to undermine belief, but soon learned peasants did not need an institution to sustain practice. Churchgoers started youth religious organizations named Baptomol and Christomol. The Bolsheviks' attempt to quell religious thought further fuelled religious rebellion against the Bolsheviks.[18] The Bolsheviks tried more aggressive tactics to create support for the party by monitoring and purging dissenters. The GPU, the secret police, monitored and removed opposition and silenced alien ideas. The GPU targeted other political parties, dissidents within communists, priests, churches, intelligentsia, teachers, and specialists. As Lenin was dying, he directed Joseph Stalin on groups to remove, probably providing inspiration for Stalin's egregious purges.[19] The Mensheviks could not continue basic party practices because the Cheka, the precursor to the GPU, closely monitored them. From May to June 1923, the Cheka engaged in a massive onslaught, arresting hundreds of Mensheviks. Bolsheviks organized conferences in which Mensheviks had a chance to repent and swear loyalty to Bolsheviks to avoid punishment. The convicted Mensheviks were sent to forced labor camps.[18][/quote] I.e it got worse.

[QUOTE=Iago;40199652]Sobotnik I just want to discuss the injustice of another member's ban, not debate a non-existent argument.[/QUOTE] It wasn't injustice, and who cares? If the poster really gets that upset he could just make an alt or something and try not to get noticed.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40194101]"refuse" can be used to mean trash [url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Qhc-AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=volkerabfalle&source=bl&ots=6nOWAxfyPX&sig=irXqqYSzQxCS7joXpDUvmDoGTbI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_n9hUZ--G6XQ0QXl7YDoBQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=volkerabfalle&f=false]Here's his source:[/url][/QUOTE] imo thats a pretty flawed interpretation youd have to make a huge leap to say it refers to genocide i might be wrong my german is elementary at best but even in the context of marx and engels' writings that doesnt make a whole lot of sense