• French Communist Party to drop hammer and sickle in controversial decision
    168 replies, posted
[QUOTE=laserguided;39531600]So?[/QUOTE] what makes you think communist states are somehow bastions of science when even the ideology itself is full of shit?
[QUOTE=smeismastger;39531606]I only mentioned current state of things and you are shoveling all this shit into my mouth already.[/QUOTE] Then elaborate on what you meant and what you would rather see. Would you take away options from people for the 'greater good' as you see it?
[QUOTE=smeismastger;39531611]What, you don't wish for the good of humanity?[/QUOTE] I am wishing for the good of humanity. Communism also does, but it doesn't work.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39531605]but they have increased in proportion doesn't matter they STILL increased[/QUOTE] it increasing doesn't matter if it doesn't increase proportionately. it's like saying it's a victory for feminism if women begin making an extra $1 per hour on average working, but men still had an increase of $2. it's fallacious to simply look at real wages to determine prosperity.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39531604]no it was a state capitalist country suppressing scientific findings.[/QUOTE] So Communism hasn't appeared in reality yet?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39531627]it increasing doesn't matter if it doesn't increase proportionately. it's like saying it's a victory for feminism if women begin making an extra $1 per hour on average working, but men still had an increase of $2. it's fallacious to simply look at real wages to determine prosperity.[/QUOTE] "it's fallacious to simply look at a specific measure of prosperity to determine prosperity" please read the article I linked you, sobotnik is right for once
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39531640]So Communism hasn't appeared in reality yet?[/QUOTE] sure it has, just not the ussr.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39531616]what makes you think communist states are somehow bastions of science [B]when even the ideology itself is full of shit?[/B][/QUOTE] Subjective.
[QUOTE=cccritical;39531650]"it's fallacious to simply look at a specific measure of prosperity to determine prosperity" please read the article I linked you, sobotnik is right for once[/QUOTE] no he's not. if the richest americans have a wage increase of 5% and the poorest have a wage increase of 1%, wages are still going down. it's fallacious to look at a fallacious measure or prosperity to determine actual prosperity.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39531627]it increasing doesn't matter if it doesn't increase proportionately. it's like saying it's a victory for feminism if women begin making an extra $1 per hour on average working, but men still had an increase of $2. it's fallacious to simply look at real wages to determine prosperity.[/QUOTE] so why is it a bad thing when wages and standards of living are increasing? [editline]9th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;39531652]sure it has, just not the ussr.[/QUOTE] such as where? [editline]9th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;39531655]Subjective.[/QUOTE] no, the methodology marx used was flawed historical determinism is psuedoscience
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39531677]so why is it a bad thing when wages and standards of living are increasing?[/quote] because the ruling class gets a bigger proportion of the wealth. it's unfair and it would benefit society to get rid of that ruling class. [quote]such as where?[/quote] communes around the world. marxism is a failed ideology for the most part, but that doesn't mean communism itself doesn't work, at least in small to moderate sized groups.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39531677]so why is it a bad thing when wages and standards of living are increasing? [editline]9th February 2013[/editline] such as where? [editline]9th February 2013[/editline] no, the methodology marx used was flawed historical determinism is psuedoscience[/QUOTE] And this still somehow disproves my thinking that science would do better under a communist system that supports its people better than the USSR?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39531714]because the ruling class gets a bigger proportion of the wealth. it's unfair and it would benefit society to get rid of that ruling class.[/quote] how would you prevent such a class from existing? [quote]communes around the world. marxism is a failed ideology for the most part, but that doesn't mean communism itself doesn't work, at least in small to moderate sized groups.[/QUOTE] in societies smaller than dunbars number [editline]9th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;39531719]And this still somehow disproves my thinking that science would do better under a communist system that supports its people better than the USSR?[/QUOTE] What?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39531737]how would you prevent such a class from existing? in societies smaller than dunbars number [editline]9th February 2013[/editline] What?[/QUOTE] I take it you can't read or have memory issues?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39531737]how would you prevent such a class from existing?[/quote] by redistribution of wealth as well as spreading political and economic power among more people. [quote]in societies smaller than dunbars number [/QUOTE] what's dunbars number and what evidence is there that it is a limit on the size of communist societies?
[QUOTE=laserguided;39531750]I take it you can't read or have memory issues?[/QUOTE] Your theory is untestable. It cannot be applied to reality.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39531765]Your theory is untestable. It cannot be applied to reality.[/QUOTE] Then why are you trying to prove it incorrect when you yourself admit it is untestable? I simply stated one of the benefits I think communism would have and you jumped on me trying to disprove it by saying the USSR had a social agenda.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39531756]by redistribution of wealth as well as spreading political and economic power among more people.[/quote] This is actually more difficult than you think. How would you prevent people from competing with one another? [quote]what's dunbars number and what evidence is there that it is a limit on the size of communist societies?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number[/url] [quote] Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 230, with a commonly used value of 150.[/quote] I.e stateless societies become more likely to create states the bigger they are.
I disagree with communism because they are jesus hating ruskies and gooks who do not understand that any nation not founded on the texts of the holy bible will not stand.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39531772]Then why are you trying to prove it incorrect when you yourself admit it is untestable? I simply stated one of the benefits I think communism would have and you jumped on me trying to disprove it by saying the USSR had a social agenda.[/QUOTE] So therefore it'll never happen in reality?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39531779]This is actually more difficult than you think. How would you prevent people from competing with one another?[/quote] i don't believe you necessarily need to. [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number[/url] I.e stateless societies become more likely to create states the bigger they are.[/QUOTE] rule and laws can exist without a traditional state.
[QUOTE=Falchion;39531787]I disagree with communism because they are jesus hating ruskies and gooks who do not understand that any nation not founded on the texts of the holy bible will not stand.[/QUOTE] I disagree with it because the methodology used is flawed, or theorists have otherwise been disproven. [editline]9th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;39531825]i don't believe you necessarily need to. rule and laws can exist without a traditional state.[/QUOTE] So how would you organize 7 billion humans?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39531818]So therefore it'll never happen in reality?[/QUOTE] If the people want it, it will come.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39531851]Strawman?[/QUOTE] Well no you concede that its an untestable theory. You can't really apply those to reality.
[QUOTE=cccritical;39531625]Then elaborate on what you meant and what you would rather see. Would you take away options from people for the 'greater good' as you see it?[/QUOTE] So a man who owns a very large piece of country is free to spread salt onto it ruining it for farming forever because "freedom"? I would totally take that option away for the greater good. I would do everything necessary to create Worker's utopia under Communistic government and prevent mankind falling into internal conflict ever again.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39531859]Well no you concede that its an untestable theory. You can't really apply those to reality.[/QUOTE] But you also can't disprove it with the fact that the USSR had a social agenda.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39531828] So how would you organize 7 billion humans?[/QUOTE] through decentralized organizational methods. a nested council system is interesting although i don't know how well you could apply it.
[QUOTE=smeismastger;39531865]So a man who owns a very large piece of country is free to spread salt onto it ruining it for farming forever because "freedom"? I would totally take that option away for the greater good. I would do everything necessary to create Worker's utopia under Communistic government and prevent mankind falling into internal conflict ever again.[/QUOTE]What makes you the ultimate determiner? What makes your values and practices greater than those of anyone else? What gives you as an individual the right to decide how others should act? How will you enforce these restrictions?
[QUOTE=smeismastger;39531865]So a man who owns a very large piece of country is free to spread salt onto it ruining it for farming forever because "freedom"?[/quote] He'd go bankrupt in the process and he would be hated by everyone. Also the amount of salt needed would be unfeasible. [quote]I would totally take that option away for the greater good. I would do everything necessary to create Worker's utopia under Communistic government and prevent mankind falling into internal conflict ever again.[/QUOTE] This experiment has been tried before. It failed. [editline]9th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;39531876]through decentralized organizational methods. a nested council system is interesting although i don't know how well you could apply it.[/QUOTE] Would people still make agreements about resource allocations?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39531885]He'd go bankrupt in the process and he would be hated by everyone. Also the amount of salt needed would be unfeasible. [/QUOTE] monsanto has taken evil policies that have made them hated, yet they still control most of our food. [editline]9th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;39531885] Would people still make agreements about resource allocations?[/QUOTE] yea.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.