Fucking Chinese Commies!

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:


No thanks. I would not want to live in a system such as that you propose.

Euh???
What made you think I'm pro anarchism?
Read my link.

And no,
The political outcom of anarchism is not
anarchy.
It's the same as for Marxism.

[Refalm]

quote:Laukev7: No thanks. I would not want to live in a system such as that you propose.

I would. It sounds more appealing than Capitalism or Communism.

[Laukev7]

quote:Originally posted by insomnia:


Euh???
What made you think I'm pro anarchism?
Read my link.

And no,
The political outcom of anarchism is not
anarchy.
It's the same as for Marxism.

Mea culpa. I had already taken a quick look at the website, but never had time to closely examine it, and I doubt I will be free until my summer break. Would you please give me a short summary of what it's about, if you don't mind?

[Xeen]

lol..and again this thread went in a completely different direction that it was meant to.

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:


Mea culpa. I had already taken a quick look at the website, but never had time to closely examine it, and I doubt I will be free until my summer break. Would you please give me a short summary of what it's about, if you don't mind?

http://www.wpb.be/doc/doc.htm

or shorter:

http://www.wpb.be/what/what.htm

We also have:
*a free medical organisation(Geneeskunde voor het volk)
*a free lawyers organisation.
*a free and honest trade organisation (Oxfam/Wereldwinkels)
...

We don't have:
*enough votes  :rolleyes:  .

[ April 22, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]

[Laukev7]

This looks very communist to me. And sorry to say, but having skimmed through a few articles has made me very skeptical. I find their rhetoric extremistic, unrealistic, sensationalist and absolute, as if all forms of capitalism were identical and evil, and the only alternative were communism. I see a lot of propaganda in their discourses, and I hope you understand that this makes me wary of any political party, whether left or right winger.

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
This looks very communist to me.

It is.

 

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
And sorry to say, but having skimmed through a few articles has made me very skeptical. I find their rhetoric extremistic, unrealistic, sensationalist and absolute,

Could you give an example?

 

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
as if all forms of capitalism were identical and evil, and the only alternative were communism.

I share that opinion.

 
 

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
I see a lot of propaganda in their discourses, and I hope you understand that this makes me wary of any political party, whether left or right winger.

I don't see why...
You should see it as a political movement and not a party.
(Like I said: it's global and it needs to be global)
I don't mind any opinions thow.
I'm glad you took the time to read it.


   

[ April 22, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]

[Laukev7]

quote: It is.

That's what I thought you were proposing. Why did you think I took you for an anarchist?

   

quote: Could you give an example?

Le capitalisme est un syst

[insomnia]

quote:
I have read parts of that article, and while I definitely agree that multinationals are preying on the Third World, I haven't seen anything that actually proves that capitalism itself is the problem. Maybe some of the problems come from, say, government policy, or racism, or geographical disadvantage? They denounce 'savage capitalism' (which I like to call 'corporatism' and do not condone), but how about the less radical forms of capitalism? How about Adam Smith capitalism?

Capitalism doesn't work.
For the West to be rich, other continents need to be poor.
If Africa whould really stand up, Europe and America whould have to pay.
We keep them poor to maintain capitalism.

   

quote:La direction du PS au service du capitalisme sauvage

Again, they are denouncing social democracy, based on their gripes against the Belgian Socialist Party. Quebec is social democratic (correction: was, thanks to Chare$t), yet we don't have an embargo against Cuba, for example. Those two examples are what we call the straw man fallcy.

This is more personal.
The PS(or SPa) call themself 'socialistic', but don't act like that. They're more a populist party.
(They're pink, not red)

   

quote:What I mean by absolute is that they assume that communism is the *only* solution. How about all the other movements? How about libertarianism, anarchism, socialism? Or, for that matter, 'real' capitalism? How about Quebec-style social democracy? Also, what makes them think that communism will solve all the problems they describe? I know they're a political movement, but they give no point of reference.

Socialism is communism.
Today we wrongly use the term 'socialism' for 'revisionism'.
Anarchism is a more agrressive flavour.
They all have their roots in socialism(=communism).
I don't really know what libertarianism is about.

I can't know for sure that it will work, but I do know capitalism doesn't.

   

quote:One of the double standards that strikes me is the way they accuse 'capitalism' (ie. USA, Germany, Japan) of being imperialistic (I've seen that word no less than 16 times in two of their articles!), yet how could they ignore USSR's war against Aghanistan and all the East European puppet states? As for the few rich people exploiting the people, how about the elitism in the CPSU, the deep corruption of the USSR government? Just as they point out at US policies to denounce capitalism, I could just as well point at Soviet Union and dismiss communism as a totalitarian system.

 
The USSR doesn't exist anymore.
Lots of what went wrong was a result of the "Who has biggest gun joke between the USSR and the USA.
I also don't consider the former USSR as pure Marxism.
   

 

quote:This is what I consider an extreme. Even capitalism isn't global today, so how could communism ever become global? Everyone would need to conform to a narrow set of worldviews, and I doubt this could be done short of brainwashing the whole world. Would you really want that? Isn't that one of the reasons many dislike the current system in the first place?

If it's not global, you'll get two economic systems who don't match(Like Cuba vs USA.)

     

[ April 23, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]

[Laukev7]

quote: Capitalism doesn't work.
For the West to be rich, other continents need to be poor.
If Africa whould really stand up, Europe and America whould have to pay.
We keep them poor to maintain capitalism.

Perhaps, but is this necessarily inherent to capitalism? Africa was poor and exploited by the West even before the rise of capitalism as we know today. Capitalism certainly aggravated, but might not be the actual cause of the disparities we see today. Capitalism might have worked if everyone had started equal.

 

quote: I also don't consider the former USSR as pure Marxism.
 

But one could argue that American corporatism is not pure capitalism, either.

 

quote: If it's not global, you'll get two economic systems who don't match(Like Cuba vs USA.)

I certainly agree that communism would need to global in order to work, but would everyone want to live under a communist system? I don't think so.

What I don't like about communism is that just like in American corporatism, it is the few who take advantage of the many. In corporatism, a few rich people exploit their subordinates, but the same problem is present in communism where  parasites can take advantage of other people's work without redeeming society. And since no one can improve his social status, there is even less incentive to be more productive.

What I would advocate would be a different political system, where everyone starts equal, but can improve his social status. Inheritence would no longer exist, and the money of the defuncts would instead be redistributed equally to all the newborns. That way, capitalism could work, self-improvement would still be possible, and people would be redeemed in function of their contributions and their abilities, rather than the wealth of their parents. It would also keep the economic dynasties from perpetuating themselves, and allow everyone to compete on the same level.

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:


I certainly agree that communism would need to global in order to work, but would everyone want to live under a communist system? I don't think so.

What I don't like about communism is that just like in American corporatism, it is the few who take advantage of the many. In corporatism, a few rich people exploit their subordinates, but the same problem is present in communism where  parasites can take advantage of other people's work without redeeming society. And since no one can improve his social status, there is even less incentive to be more productive.

What I would advocate would be a different political system, where everyone starts equal, but can improve his social status. Inheritence would no longer exist, and the money of the defuncts would instead be redistributed equally to all the newborns. That way, capitalism could work, self-improvement would still be possible, and people would be redeemed in function of their contributions and their abilities, rather than the wealth of their parents. It would also keep the economic dynasties from perpetuating themselves, and allow everyone to compete on the same level.

I want the same thing (and more).
Every socialistic based system wants this.

Communism works in stages. (Das Kapital)
(I admit most examples get stuck in the second stage...)
We all want a perfect economical system.
If this can be done in an other way..., that's all good.
Only the result(Utopia) counts.

IMO: Capitalism will always create problems.
Since their's no medication against greed, capitalism is doomed to fail.